I wrote a long essay and I was downvoted for it. We need to stop downvoting just because some of us don't like these views. I am ready to hear things, but passive-aggressive ways of telling me this are not okay.
Posted Jul 16, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC
Your essay was just a "not my comrade" sort of rant. If you want dialogue, then starting with diatribes probably isn't the way to go.
And doing this back to me is better because...?
"...doing this back..."? Has anyone disowned you as an anarchist or comrade? Maybe one person in the other thread, who was unsatisfied with your obvious disregard for anyone who might need "civilization" to survive. Me, I'm just pointing out that jumping from a few downvotes on your article to loose talk about "a severe problem with civ-apologism" is probably not going to get you either upvotes or dialogue.
I see civ-apologism as reactionary, that's the thing...
The problem is that you apparently see "civ-apologism" anywhere that your rather ill-formed ideas are not coddled. The issues that you would presumably like to raise are serious, and probably deserve better than your rant, or this rant about the poor reception of your other rant.
I do not spend my time caring what someone wants to do in this civilisation. If they take industrially made medicine, watch TV, and eat fast food, my struggle is not with them.
Presumably if people use the internet, your struggle is also not with them. Or is TV bad and the 'net somehow not? What you've posted is aggressive, uncaring and probably hypocritical crap -- and then sour grapes because all the people you have disowned don't love you for it. What the f*ck did you expect?
Nice try, FBI/DGR.
Nice username.
The anarchist movement has a severe problem with welcoming people who would embrace mass genocide with open arms.
That's what I'm saying. Civilization wages war on the uncivilized.
It's hard out there for a primmo.
But I will never be remorseful.
Honestly, this shit doesn't even make sense. In what sense is it "shortsighted" for an individual to object to someone wanting them to die, or just not caring if they die, since the world is apparently here for the rocks, but not for the people? This isn't ecology that you're promoting, but just a projection of your particular preferences about what "the world" is "here for."
The world isn't here for anything. It simply is. This is taking the projection of human values onto actually existing nature to something of an absurd height.
That's what I said next. It's not like humans are the only beings that value nature.
If there were to be a global pandemic, nobody would be angry at me for saying that many of us will die. Why is it somehow different when I say the same thing about the collapse?
Did I say I was angry? I said you don't make any damn sense.
Many other "anarchists" are angry at me. It's not "personal preference". It's looking at the world and seeing how it works.
The way I see it, anti-civ folks want a society that is "free" of technology and high population densities. A collapse is a necessary prerequisite for this and for all your statements about not wanting the collapse, you all don't seem particularly keen on finding possible paths to prevent it. The existence of blogs with names like "Pray For Calamity" don't help.
Because the collapse isn't coming, but you wish it was.
The collapse is right here, right now. The sixth mass extinction has started. Two hundred species are wiped out every day.
I'm actually a bit skeptical that we're experiencing a sixth mass extinction. But, in any event, a mass extinction event could be a multi-thousand year event, can still be addressed, and is not the same as industrial collapse. I should clarify, though, I don't think collapse or human extinction is impossible, I think it is less likely than many anarchists believe.
Which doesn't get to the main point, which is that you are rooting for the collapse:
That's where the accusations of genocidal intent come from. The part where you say you would hasten the deaths of billions of people if you could.
If there were to be the fabled revolution that many anarchists preach about, millions would probably die. You don't hear anarchists talking about that much though.
If you're scared of mass change, why call yourself an anarchist?
Because it's edgy? I just really don't see how many anarchists can pine for a revolution that will kill millions, and then chastise collapse because it will kill millions