I posted this to Mastodon a while back, but I’m realizing I should probably drop this here too.
You do not gain positions of power by being a good person. I wish we as a society would finally get this trough our thick fucking skull.
Yup. People don’t like to think about that because it would invalidate their chosen candidate.
Epstein class of political operators and oligarchs cannot exist in a consentual world, so how could they possibly understand the concept of consent when it comes to children? For them, everyone is an object through which they express their power. Consent is a function of agency, and objects can’t have agency. So they can’t possibly comprehend the existence consent or understand how it works.
Of course they can, they just don’t care. The same way (You) can understand an animal is not an object while simultaneously abusing your power over them and causing them to be put in camps, gas chambers and other slaughterhouses. Because (You) don’t care.
The quote says that [abusive billionaires] can’t exist in a consensual world. That is, billionaires can only exist in a system where they are given tools of coercion. So you’re either saying that objectifying animals is not coercive, or that billionaires could exist without coercion. Your language indicates that you don’t agree with the former, but there’s nothing in your message that contradicts the later.
I can’t parse what you’re saying.
I was just frustrated with this depiction of the magical billionaire that just can’t change. Of course they can change. Give them a reason to.
Billionaire is a role. That’s different from a specific person. People can change. Roles, like this, cannot change. The role of billionaire is not something that can exist in a consensual world because the role of billionaire can only manifestat through coercion.
intewesting thought. thanks for sharing :3
i think the often cited “opposition to hierarchy, domination, and (illegitimate) authority” is very much the negative phrasing of “maximising consent”. after all, what are these things if not the taking away of peoples ability to decide on the matters that affect them; the forcing onto people the will of others?
i think both the positive as well as the negative phrasing still miss out on other values i would consider crutial to anarchism, like the equality of all values being applied to all and the solidarity of community, cooperation, and shared struggle, but i suppose going into all of that might be a bit much for minimal definition (if the purpose of the definition is to be minimal)
This is a good read, thanks for posting. The parallels between that island and the way the world is currently governed is terrifying.
Keep up the good work
thanks! :)
Excellent read, i’m definitively gonna steal this way of explaining things, it really helps make things clear when talking about opposition to hierarchy. Huge thanks for sharing it <3
(Also, i noticed a tiny error, there seems to be a sentence missing or a forgotten “the” at the end of the paragraph
Fascists are often pedophiles because fascists care about power and pedophilia is also about power. Tech monopolists are often fascists because they care about power, and technology is a way to build power and control people. The)Thank you. Added to my fix list. Always appreciate editing support. :)
You’ve also got a small typo in Hakim Bey’s name by the way.
Oh, thank you!
OK, I think I’ve fixed everything. Thanks again for the heads up!
