I dont think gamers know what they want.

Is it really silencing dissent to point out monogamy is more complex than your strawman? It’s hardly a call out to do so. I think it is worth mentioning that merely being the mirror image of dominant structures can not only end up supporting them, but developing those structures. That isn’t “not all men” or whatever, it’s just respect for the dialectic. It’s not 2016 anymore.

IMO There are too many performative non-Christians that are happy just making “owning the conservatives” their identity and it shows in the static discourses. This is a problem in addressing systemic issues because any attempt at actually putting vitality into the discourse beyond dunking on idiots instead of responding to the dynamics of the world is dismissed as some kind of reactionary regression or an accusation.

My life and health fell apart and autism explains it better than a thing else after other explanations were ruled out by doctors. Then I took a diagnostic test and felt more comfortable assuming autism explained it. I was actually shocked by the results and how high I scored.

Technically not confirmed ™. Never been assessed by a pro though pros have said I am divergent or whatever back before I suspected, and frankly I don’t have the time or resources to spend on doctor visits and I just don’t actually believe a doctor assessment will actually improve my life. I’ll just be more resentful that my personal failures are inevitable if doctors agree. Also I feel like I would just get worse, and become more reliant on people and that makes me feel incredibly guilty

social media

eat shit and die

Against Mongols. But it is also incredibly chuavanist in general toward all tribal people.

This is just racism

oof… looks like the posterchild for bad faith debatebros

they’re pretty flexible on the methods part just because it’s nice to do anything for a change

Yes but it is not just new people it is also seasoned organizers. In my union, for example, which is full of anarchist types, I think it is problematic that when difficulties arise, we are effectively led into just blowing off anxiety and frustration instead of thinking through how our adversaries are challenging us. Action is prioritized over strategy and even though leadership always says they just follow what union members want, it is always the loudest (and most anxious) people calling the shots while everyone else just tries to maintain solidarity and goes along with it. Maybe I am just too cynical tho idk.

I think an example of what is being addressed is found in occupy wall street. The movement had presented itself as self-led, or leaderless, yet it had de facto leaders, particularly David Graeber. In name it was pure democracy but in form it was a shadow leadership choosing its direction. The vanguard approach may or may not be beyond reproach, but it attempts to admit the natural reality of a vanguard which seems to arise regardless. Some people are skilled, persuasive, knowledgeable, and have the time to perform tasks for an organization and these people will either be recognized and put in leadership roles, or will find themselves there haphazardly and further, they may be rejected due to anti-authoritarian dogmatism. The trick is, of course, maintaining a continuity with the people the group is serving, not necessarily determining how decisions are or aren’t made.

In my own experience with self-proclaimed anarchists, for example in a small-time prisoner advocacy group, the same problem arises. No one can take responsibility for certain tasks because of a risk for creating a chain of command and thus my partner and I were blocked from taking on roles because roles were seen as problematic by the rest of the group. Of course, the group failed, and I left.

I find that this is partially the result of anarchism as it is usually known and practiced in my community but also, and perhaps more importantly, it is a result of reaction to neoliberalism. Our age of neoliberalism has led to an increase of powerlessness and blatantly corrupt liberal “democracy.” People want to combat this by feeling as though everyone has a say and everyone has power. It is the ultimate legitimacy to claim as much. This is achieved, at times, by rejecting anything that even seems “top down.” In effect, the organization strategy is usurped by dogma for the purposes of what you might call “owning the authoritarians” in what might be a kind of ideological virtue signaling. I don’t usually like the term “populism” but when merely harnessing reactions to neoliberalism, “populism” is usually the result, not democracy, and not socialism.

I will also add that IMO, the most interesting and effective “anarchist” or anti-authoritarian strategies are most effective for survival - expropriation attempts, food sovereignty, squatting on abandoned land etc., but not as effective at consequentially shifting power.

We need to learn how to survive in the society of states that are dominated by capitalist relations and disciplined by markets controlled by colonial powers, but we must also figure out how to address these power structures. IMO ML actually steps up to the plate in this regard by seeking to usurp the state and rediscipline it towards the people. I don’t think it’s ideal because no solution can be perfect and certainly states (especially peripheral and semi peripheral states under the yoke of imperialism) are subjected to many pitfalls which can potentially erode continuity between the state and the people, or can fall into liberal fallacies, or outside meddling influences, but still, we must do more than reject authoritarianism ™ to address the problem of the society of states.

Yeah you can always just write down the bots shitty answer

Did you go to tell people feeding queer people to dogs isn’t an issue?

It is not nearly that simple. Some of the Yanomami are miners themselves but the paternal narative does not mention this just as there is no mention of free prior informed consent. This is how it plays out all over the world. Environmentalism and rights based approaches are used to destroy sovereignty and facilitate land grabs with paternalistic justifications. “Oops we destroyed your family and culture! How terrible! I guess you must submit to capitalist market relations, oh well, now get to mining gold for corporations for subsistence wages and enjoy having zero control over your life and watching the forest die. It’s your right!”

He is a major figure for BRICS and was there at the founding. Not sure if he was entirely his idea or not but he deserves a lot of credit for its creation and resurgence.

I am not Brazilian but I am quite skeptical of Lula myself. He thinks he can rapidly increase agricultural production without any deforestation. He wants his cake and to eat it too if you ask me.

Also he is basically militarizing the forest. Armed federal agents are carrying out operations on Indigenous lands, ostensibly to “help” Tribes against squatter and artison miners, but with no indication of respect for sovereignty. It makes me wildly nervous. They have their justifications and that is all they need. They don’t couch it in genocidal rhetoric but what is the difference at the end at of the day? I’m not sure there is a government on earth I trust to stop the tribe killings.

Especially when everyone either must worship the market or is directly threatened by it.

I tell you what though, I usually keep it to myself because there might be some international benifit to his policy but honestly there is a lot of bleak shit that signals to me it’s all very status quo. I can’t help but ask what kind of word this will build.

Let me get back to you on this because there is a lot to say and I am woefully busy. But this is something I would like to at least attempt to elaborate on with the attention it deserves.

One racist joke.

In short (because the idiosyncrasies of traditional land practices vary among communities and is hardly my expertise), for pastoralists, how cattle are managed effects the health of the land. Pastoralists know how the land reacts to different practices because they have thousands of years of experience with their ancestral lands. An example of this may be that some grasses will die if the grow too tall, some landscapes thrive by being periodically trampled by cattle and wildlife. When problems arise they have ways of determining what to do through informal institutions. Basically, the culture and the land co-evolve together so one will effect the other in a feedback loop.

When outside forces seek to integrate these communities with things like ecotourism it can slowly disrupt those relationships. And it is for little gain as the jobs are poverty jobs. Further, tourists unfortunately routinely feel they have a more authentic experience when they occasionally see poor Indigenous people, or hear about their struggle, but don’t want to see their cattle or lifeways being practiced because it challenges the “pristine” aesthetic they are hoping to consume. Another example is how forest peoples have ways of determining how to do controlled burns and other things that keep the forest healthy. The disruptions of the practices is well documented in North America and is why catestrophic wildfires are common now.

If you want to know more you will need to look at specific communities and possibly learn some new language to understand properly. Not all practices are known to academics. Some are withheld or protected by certain families because of the danger of appropriation, especially information about plants because corps will patent the genetics.

Yeah I was green in 2016 and even tho it’s hardly perfect I don’t regret it at all. Haven’t done it since, I think I voted PSL in 2020. Ive had people tell me the only way to make thrid parties viable is to vote blue. My brain felt like scrambled eggs after that one.

Instead they have spent the last few years sueing to keep the green party off of ballots lol