#the inherent value of human autonomy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

comradekatara · 19 days

Note

so on a scale of aang (killing is always wrong) to katara (killing is a statement) to sokka (killing is a tool), where would the rest of the gaang + ozais angels go?

toph is hard to pin down because she’s the only character who ever actually kills people outside of the context of war. and i don’t know if she even realizes what she did, because she’s 12 and the adrenaline rush of discovering that you can actually metalbend probably supersedes any logical reasoning in that moment, but like, she did just leave two guys to die a gruesome death in a metal box. so i do think it’s more nuanced that simply saying, “to toph, killing is fun and flirty,” but like, there is a not insignificant part of her that will gladly kill as a means of asserting her power over others and individual autonomy, and has no compunctions about killing those who threaten her autonomy specifically, as it is such an acute point of trauma for her. but also, she’s twelve so like, she’ll probably develop a more nuanced approach to that quandary as she ages.

zuko’s stance on killing is mostly that he’s happy to outsource that violence and then take credit for it as long as he personally doesn’t have to get his hands dirty. like he’ll hire an assassin but won’t bring himself to admit that “end them” means “kill them,” or he’ll threaten to kill zhao and then try to save his life at the last minute. he wants aang to kill his dad but would never actually kill ozai himself, just as he wants katara to kill yon rha, but would never actually kill ozai himself. and i’m sure zuko thinks this is all because he’s a coward who simply lacks the capacity to be ruthless and effective (like sokka), but actually it’s symptomatic of zuko’s greatest quality, which is his inherent sensitivity, his queasy stomach for violence, his predisposition for gentleness, the fact that he actually struggles to deny his own inclinations and simply submit himself to a logic of brutal death and destruction. he thinks it makes him weak, but the fact that he actually has a desire to do the right thing and be a good person despite it all is truly his greatest strength.

azula is always operating from a place of survival because it was impressed to her from a very young age that she exists in a world that is unforgivingly cruel, and it is kill or be killed. she does not want to die (which is quite possibly one of her greatest points of deviation from sokka, but i digress) so she wholeheartedly submits herself to this logic, and unlike zuko, who struggles to erode his own humanity even under the threat of violence, azula is very good at becoming something “monstrous” (her words) out of fear, can contort herself into any shape necessary as long as the threat is tangible enough. so obviously azula approaches killing in the same way sokka does, no surprise there. murder is a tool to achieve her ends, to ensure her own safety and survival. it is simply a mechanism of war. but unlike sokka’s view of it, she also believes that the strong kill the weak because the weak deserve to die, and that logic she inherited from ozai.

we never see suki actively kill anyone, but she does threaten to feed sokka to the unagi, so like, even if she is (probably) joking, i don’t think suki is flat out against killing. i think she’ll kill if she absolutely has to, but would also prefer not to because she clearly values and holds a deep appreciation for life. but also, whenever there is a gap in our textual understanding of suki, i usually just fill it in by being like wwkd (what would kyoshi do), so maybe that’s why i just said. who knows

mai always makes an effort to never actually stab people with her blades, but rather pin them in place. that said, whether this is because a Y-7 cartoon simply isn’t allowed to depict blood or if it’s because mai is genuinely that attuned to not seriously hurting the people she throws knives at, i’m not entirely sure. i like to think that mai doesn’t actually want to hurt people, because like zuko, she is naturally inclined towards sensitivity and gentleness, but i think there’s also a part of her that would lock people in a metal box if she could. i think the best way to summarize mai is thus, excitement is valuable (including the heat of battle), but killing is unpleasant.

ty lee has actively refined a technique that makes her extremely dangerous without ever actually having to cause long-lasting damage to someone physically (psychologically is another story). yet another W for ty lee air nomad heritage theory, but i digress. ty lee is smart enough that she never actually has to be personally responsible and culpable for killing anyone ever, but she is also submitting to and enabling the violence of an empire for the sake of her own survival, so it’s not like she’s not complicit either. so to ty lee, killing is also a tool, but one she personally doesn’t need to employ, which is a comfort to her.

iroh (technically you didn’t ask about him but he’s fascinating so i can’t just leave him out) used to view killing as a tool, and now views it as an inviolable taboo because it took him like over 50 years to recognize the inherent value of human life and the grief of losing a loved one. so it’s not that he grew up in a “kill or be killed world” that fostered his need to kill to ensure his survival, but simply that he grew up in paradigm that dictated that “killing is the path to attaining glory” and he was good at killing, and thus glorious. but then he experienced the consequences of that worldview firsthand, and had to completely recalibrate his own logic of conquest and domination. and so now he’s still capable of violence in equal measure, but is less willing to exercise it for purely shallow, destructive reasons. yay..??

jet actually does think that killing is fun and flirty. anyone who disagrees with him deserves to die because he is simply right about everything. sokka? closet fire nation sympathizer, obviously. guy he met on a boat who said “hey im not really interested in joining your child militia”? well he’s probably the prince of the fucking fire nation (okay he was right about that one but he had no way of knowing it so). he watched the rough rhinos burn down his house and murder his family with a smile on their faces, and a part of him that day calcified and decided that the only way to truly reclaim his power was to beat them at his own game. so he does everything in his power to control the people he can, to control his narrative, to refine his logic in a way that makes him the uncontested hero no matter what. but in truth, it’s quite simple: he wants power because he has none.

haru exists somewhere between “killing is a statement” and “killing is a tool.” killing is a tool because it functions as a statement. killing is a statement because it functions as a tool. violent resistance is necessary by any means necessary, but you know, in a nice way. he’s basically just the model of the “good” colonized subject who fights for collective liberation instead of personal empowerment, so it makes sense that he’s introduced before jet as like the emblem of what katara should do (how she should fight, what she would fight for) versus what she shouldn’t. which is like, perhaps a simplistic reduction of “good” vs “bad” methods of resistance into “our noble collective action” vs “their senseless terrorism,” but like. lol. what can you do

#turtles-alltheway-down #asks #analysis #toph #zuko #azula #suki #mai #ty lee #iroh #jet #haru #put the main three who matter here above and then the rest below the cut #sometimes i forget that zuko is a good character bc yall are so annoying about him…. but then i remember #i also need to talk about more at length about how azula rationalizes that the weak deserve to die thru ozai for MULTIPLE interconnected #reasons that I didn’t have time to get into here #and also just azula’s relationship to ozai in general #but im putting off actually writing that bc it is. genuinely devastating and i don’t wanna #anyway!!

166 notes · View notes

therainbowwarrior4 · 2 months

Text

Project 2025 is a plan to, in the words of project Director Paul Dans, "...march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the Deep State".It is organized by the Heritage Foundation, to "muzzle woke propaganda at every level of government", "gut the administrative state" (HUD, FEMA, DOJ, DHS, the Federal Reserve, CDC, FDA, EPA, etc.) and concentrate power into the hands of the President (Leeja Miller, in a video that is linked below, goes into detail on how this would work).Their claim is that "Only through the implementation of specific action plans at each agency will the next conservative presidential Administration be successful".The plan includes a [180 Day Playbook](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/), described as "...a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency."

The plan is "the conservative movement's unified effort to be ready for the next conservative administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025".Project 2025 promises to "rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left" and to "unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors".Project 2025 lists problems with America such as:* The breakdown of the family* Immigration* The "totalitarian cult known today as The Great Awokening"* The erosion of constitutional accountability in Washington* Children suffering the "toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries"* An "overseas, totalitarian Communist dictatorship" that is "not a strategic partner or fair competitor" and is "engaged in a strategic, cultural and economic Cold War against America's interests, values and people"* "Low-income communities" that are "drowning in addiction and government dependence"* "America's elites have betrayed the American People"* The left using climate change "to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty crushing regulations"They believe that "These are problems not of technocratic efficiency, but of national sovereignty and constitutional governance. We solve them not by trimming and reshaping the leaves, but by ripping out the trees -- root and branch."

Their broad goals are to:1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life, and protect our children2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people3. Defend our nation's sovereignty, borders and bounty against global threats4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely - what our constitution calls "the Blessings of Liberty"Dans states that "The long march of Cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before".Project 2025 is, in my words, a distinctly terrifying and highly detailed roadmap for:* Installing a Chriso-fascist oligarchy* Rolling back civil and human rights* Removing bodily autonomy from women and transgender individuals* The systematic eradication of minorities and other vulnerable groupsI don't use the words "systematic eradication" lightly or with hyperbole.

They obviously don't come right out and say it, but they state that:* Pornography should be outlawed* The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned* Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders* Telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shutteredThe real problem with the above, apart from the obvious, is that they label the existence of LGBTQIA+ people as "inherently pornographic". They say that pornography is “manifested today through the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology".They say that the fix "starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity ('SOGI'), diversity, equity and inclusion ('DEI'), gender, gender equality, gender awareness, gender sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists".They also state that "The president should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc."

They want to "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family" which would remove protections for same-sex marriage.Leeja Miller helpfully points out that the above language does not simply include transgender individuals, it includes cis women as well. I'd argue that removing the DEI language also allows them to target anyone that isn't a white, cis, heterosexual, evangelical (or other approved flavor of Christianity) male.Some other points of note:* They want to eliminate the Department of Education* They want to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory* They want to bring back the practice of impounding funds

**References*** A direct link to a PDF copy of the project's Policy Agenda, aka their "Mandate for Leadership": [https://thf\_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025\_MandateForLeadership\_FULL.pdf](https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), this can be found on the Policy page of the Project 2025 website.* A video from Leeja Miller: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3UvaC5m7o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3UvaC5m7o)* An NPR article focusing on the climate policy aspect: [https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192634090/if-republicans-win-the-white-house-in-2024-climate-policy-will-likely-change](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192634090/if-republicans-win-the-white-house-in-2024-climate-policy-will-likely-change)* A UC Berkeley write up: [https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2023/11/17/project-2025-democratic-doomsday/](https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2023/11/17/project-2025-democratic-doomsday/)* An article from the NECC Observer: [http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2023/11/20/the-danger-of-project-2025/](http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2023/11/20/the-danger-of-project-2025/)* An article from PBS: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision)

73 notes · View notes

varii-corvid · 4 months

Text

Bladequeer

a blankqueer term that seeks to be active in being anti abuse and aims to create an alternative justice model free from oppressive institutions. this stance holds several core values:

-actively seeking to build a more just world for paraphiles, people with medically unrecognized disorders, and transID people -recognizing that no paraphilia or transID is inherently dangerous to identify with, but certain forms of contact and actions are harmful. (thoughts and attractions do not equate to actions.) -actively advocating against harmful forms of contact and promoting healthy alternatives such as art and fiction. -promoting self control, self discipline, self governance, self defense, and bodily autonomy -holding your peers accountable and treating them as equals -liberating youth in a way that does not exploit or harm them. -liberating animals from unethical treatment in laboratories and farms. -giving abusers and victims access to restorative and transformative forms of justice and creating safe spaces to heal. -living by the anarchist motto "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" -creating mutual aid networks and alternative infrastructure -advocating for the abolition of psychiatric institutionalization -advocating for the abolition of prisons and police -promoting community driven justice and therapy -advocating for an age of sexual and romantic consent in an anarchist society (around 16-19, preferably 18) this term is anti exclusionist and fights for all people's human rights.

#blankqueer #blankqueer coining #radqueer coining #rq 🌈🍓#anarchism #transid #bladequeer #🍡personal hoard #☄️🏳️🪙coining.

54 notes · View notes

horizon-verizon · 15 days

Text

To all the green/Alicent/Aegon/Aemond/Criston stans choosing to follow me of your own free will, make sure you're making the right choice bc you will see stuff that will likely upset you.

No, I do not think Rhaenyra was a whore or that her sexuality somehow makes or breaks her inherent moral character (this is a patriarchal invention that places more power in men over women's behavior bc as long as they have the political and legal advantage over women [as what has happened in many societies for millennia] it compels women to conform their overall behavior towards not even seeming to resemble the man's/larger developed ideas of "slut" rather than develop herself or have her own fun). And if a man can still be a good leader while having sex outside of marriage, if we truly look at woman as equal and inherently equal to men no matter the time period or place, then we should consider the same when women have sex outside of marriage! Reminder: Aegon SA or rapes; Rhanerya never once did that. which goes into my next point...

No, show!Rhaenyra did not SA or really even pressure Criston into sex. I explain why HERE & below form a past ask-post:

No, her first 3 kids were not bastards. "Bastards" only exist in the legal realm to separate a man/lord's and his family's resources/titles to those who carry his "blood". On principle, you shouldn't be accepting the objectification of women that is necessary to this formula, but aside form that, the meaning of bastardy has been subject ot change ust as many social construction, as we se in the Anstey case ands how William the Conqueror's bastardy was more defined as being that his mother was not noble rather than not married to his father. Because bastardry is more a legal phenomena more than anyting, Viserys--who has the only right and power to name anyone as bastard or legitimize them and thus is the final bulwark against the revelation of the boys being not Laenor's kids--was able to accept Rhaenyra's kids as his heir's heirs. Nobles keep secrets all the time for their own conience. Think about Lysa tully and all those rich people of various TV show and movies who cover up both actual harmful crimes as well as just those that would harm their reputation! This is what happens when you have any elite class AND mid-to-very strict social rules of conduct that you may be breaking anyway. And no, noble/royal wives of history weren't all sexually obedient little cupcakes...many had lovers while married and historically, some were even known by their families and husbands. (Check out Eleanor Herman's book Sex with the Queen).

No, Alicent of either thing didn't have any real reason, material reason to think her kids were in danger from Rhaenyra ascending. You can see why under posts tagged "alicent doesnt have any points" as well as this recent thread]

No I do not see Rhaenyra as uniquely "selfish", "'spoiled", etc. I do not make as if she is unacceptably and uniquely evil or the most amoral. That was overall Andal-FM patriarchay, Aenys I, Maegor I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys, and the greens, esp Alicent & Otto. Rhaenyra, of either the shoe or the book, was both trying to do her duty in her marriage as well as find some happiness AND autonomy alongside that. You were not supposed to readopt fedual patriarchal social "values" or prioritize them/social hierarchies over real human happiness, equity, and social harmony. If you have, you don't get ASoIaF!

For fuck sake, some of you like Jon Snow and think he's Azor Ahai! No, he is not legitimate, bc by the time Rhaegar and his generation was alive, polygamy had lost its validity and for any marriage to Lyanna he could have had needed to be reinforced by either force (Maegor) or public declaration or propaganda & deals careful planning (Doctrine of Exceptionalism) something along those lines...which even if we get the story of Rhaegar and Lyanna, we already know no such preparations occurred!

#announcement #the greens #hotd fandom #asoiaf fandom #fandom misogyny #fandom critical #alicent doesnt have any points #westerosi bastards #rhaenyra and feminism

25 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 1 month

Text

A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?

As we have seen, “an-archy” implies “without rulers” or “without (hierarchical) authority.” Anarchists are not against “authorities” in the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.

Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown’s words, “believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual.” [The Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.

In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.

Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for ”[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for others … My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals.” [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]

While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the “authority” of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us:

“The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official.” [quoted by Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 51]

In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.

This is because hierarchical systems like capitalism deny liberty and, as a result, people’s “mental, moral, intellectual and physical qualities are dwarfed, stunted and crushed” (see section B.1 for more details). Thus one of “the grand truths of Anarchism” is that “to be really free is to allow each one to live their lives in their own way as long as each allows all to do the same.” This is why anarchists fight for a better society, for a society which respects individuals and their freedom. Under capitalism, ”[e]verything is upon the market for sale: all is merchandise and commerce” but there are “certain things that are priceless. Among these are life, liberty and happiness, and these are things which the society of the future, the free society, will guarantee to all.” Anarchists, as a result, seek to make people aware of their dignity, individuality and liberty and to encourage the spirit of revolt, resistance and solidarity in those subject to authority. This gets us denounced by the powerful as being breakers of the peace, but anarchists consider the struggle for freedom as infinitely better than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals, “believe in peace at any price — except at the price of liberty. But this precious gift the wealth-producers already seem to have lost. Life … they have; but what is life worth when it lacks those elements which make for enjoyment?” [Lucy Parsons, Liberty, Equality & Solidarity, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p. 134]

So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact in ways which enhance the liberty of all rather than crush the liberty (and so potential) of the many for the benefit of a few. Anarchists do not want to give others power over themselves, the power to tell them what to do under the threat of punishment if they do not obey. Perhaps non-anarchists, rather than be puzzled why anarchists are anarchists, would be better off asking what it says about themselves that they feel this attitude needs any sort of explanation.

27 notes · View notes

lifephilosophys-blog · 6 days

Text

قالت سيمون دي بوفوار في أخلاق الغموض: "علينا أن نحترم الحرية فقط عندما تكون مقصودة للحرية، وليس عندما تضل وتهرب وتستسلم. فالحرية التي لا يهمها سوى إنكار الحرية يجب أن تُحرم منها". ".

تذكرنا كلمات سيمون دي بوفوار المؤثرة بجوهر الحرية الحقيقية - الحرية المتجذرة في الاحترام والنزاهة، الحرية التي ترفع مستوى الأفراد وتمكنهم بدلا من اضطهادهم أو تقييدهم. إنها دعوة إلى مراعاة أفعالنا ونوايانا عند ممارسة حريتنا، للتأكد من أنها تتماشى مع قيم العدالة والمساواة والكرامة الإنسانية.

وعندما تنحرف الحرية عن هدفها النبيل وتصبح أداة لحرمان الآخرين من حرياتهم، فإنها تفقد مشروعيتها الأخلاقية وتصبح مصدرا للأذى والظلم. إن الحرية التي تخدم مصالحها الذاتية، والتي تسعى إلى تقويض حقوق وحريات الآخرين، يجب أن تُقابل بالمقاومة والمعارضة.

إن احترام الحرية يعني الاعتراف بارتباطها المتأصل برفاهية جميع الأفراد واستقلاليتهم. إنه التزام بإنشاء مجتمع يتم فيه دعم وحماية حريات الجميع، حيث يتم الاحتفاء بالتنوع والشمول، وحيث يتم حماية حقوق الأشخاص الأكثر تهميشًا وضعفًا.

في عالم يتم فيه التلاعب بالحرية واستغلالها في كثير من الأحيان لتحقيق مكاسب شخصية أو غايات سياسية، من الأهمية بمكان أن نبقى يقظين وصامدين في دفاعنا عن الحرية الحقيقية. ولا ينبغي لنا أن نتردد في التزامنا بتعزيز ثقافة الاحترام والتفاهم والرحمة، حيث لا تكون الحرية سلاحا يمكن استخدامه، بل هبة يجب الاعتزاز بها ورعايتها.

دعونا نستمع إلى حكمة بوفوار ونقف بحزم ضد أي شكل من أشكال الحرية يسعى إلى إنكار الحرية نفسها. دعونا نعمل معًا لبناء مجتمع تزدهر فيه الحرية الحقيقية، حيث يحظى كل فرد بالتقدير والاحترام، وحيث توجه مبادئ العدالة والإنصاف أعمالنا وقراراتنا.

Simone de Beauvoir,said in, The Ethics of Ambiguity: "We have to respect freedom only when it is intended for freedom, not when it strays, flees itself, and resigns itself. A freedom which is interested only in denying freedom must be denied."

Simone de Beauvoir's poignant words remind us of the essence of true freedom - a freedom that is rooted in respect and integrity, a freedom that uplifts and empowers individuals rather than oppresses or restricts them. It is a call to be mindful of our actions and intentions when exercising our freedom, to ensure that it aligns with the values of justice, equality, and human dignity.

When freedom strays from its noble purpose and becomes a tool for denying the freedoms of others, it loses its moral legitimacy and becomes a source of harm and injustice. A freedom that is self-serving, that seeks to undermine the rights and liberties of others, must be met with resistance and opposition.

To respect freedom is to recognize its inherent connection to the well-being and autonomy of all individuals. It is a commitment to creating a society where everyone's freedoms are upheld and protected, where diversity and inclusivity are celebrated, and where the rights of the most marginalized and vulnerable are safeguarded.

In a world where freedom is often manipulated and exploited for personal gain or political ends, it is crucial to remain vigilant and steadfast in our defense of true freedom. We must not waver in our dedication to promoting a culture of respect, understanding, and compassion, where freedom is not a weapon to be wielded, but a gift to be cherished and nurtured.

Let us heed Beauvoir's wisdom and stand firmly against any form of freedom that seeks to deny freedom itself. Let us work together to build a society where true freedom flourishes, where every individual is valued and respected, and where the principles of justice and equity guide our actions and decisions.

22 notes · View notes

catmarlowastrology · 8 months

Text

Ethel Cain's Astrological Birth Chart Analysis

Let's dive into an insightful exploration of Ethel Cain's birth chart, revealing her personality traits, tendencies, and potential life path.

🔥 Sun in Aries - The Fiery Leader Ethel is a proactive, energetic leader. With her Sun in Aries, she's naturally assertive, taking initiative and displaying courage. Governed by Mars, she's both ambitious and occasionally hasty. This trait lends her the confidence to spearhead projects, but she may need to navigate interpersonal challenges with tact.

🌀 Moon in Aquarius - The Rational Feeler Ethel’s emotional landscape resembles that of a detached observer, with her Moon in Aquarius. Valuing her autonomy, she often views feelings analytically. While this makes her a strategic problem-solver, she might appear reserved. Yet, her dedication to communal causes demonstrates a profound connection to humanity.

💭 Mercury in Aries - The Quick Thinker Mercury's position in Aries sharpens Ethel’s mental agility. Quick-witted and candid, she thrives in intellectual exchanges. However, she must be wary of potential oversights and unintended blunt remarks.

❤️ Venus in Aquarius - The Unique Romantic Ethel's Venus in Aquarius depicts a distinct perspective on love. She desires intellectual and emotional synergy, valuing autonomy within relationships. Traditional romantic gestures might not captivate her; instead, she's drawn to novel expressions of affection.

⚡ Mars in Aries - The Active Pursuer Ethel’s Mars in Aries amplifies her dynamic nature. While her boldness is commendable, it's essential for her to reflect before acting, ensuring she avoids avoidable pitfalls.

✨ Jupiter in Pisces - The Spiritual Balancer With Jupiter in Pisces, Ethel possesses an innate understanding of emotions, complementing her dominant Aries and Aquarius energies. This placement accentuates her intuition, urging her to maintain equilibrium between ambition and contemplation.

🛡 Saturn in Aries - The Diligent Warrior Saturn's placement in Aries presents Ethel with challenges to her inherent leadership traits. However, with age, she'll master the art of balancing determination with responsibility.

🌊 Chiron in Scorpio - The Healer of Depths Chiron in Scorpio delves deep into Ethel's emotional vulnerabilities, particularly trust. Yet, this placement also bestows her with the capacity to aid others confronting similar challenges.

🌱 North Node in Virgo / South Node in Pisces - The Practical Dreamer Ethel's spiritual journey emphasizes a shift from ethereal tendencies to pragmatic endeavors. She's guided to harness her leadership and innovation, applying them constructively in her relationships and pursuits.

⭐ Uranus and Neptune in Aquarius - The Visionary Reformer Belonging to a generation with both Uranus and Neptune in Aquarius, Ethel champions progressive ideas. Her Aquarian placements emphasize a yearning for intellectual companionship and societal betterment.

🌍 Pluto in Sagittarius - The Philosophical Trailblazer As part of the Pluto in Sagittarius generation, Ethel is inquisitive about life's profound questions. This placement reinforces her as a fearless innovator, ready to redefine societal norms.

If you found this article enlightening and wish to delve deeper into the unique aspects of your own astrological makeup, you can purchase a Natal Report. With enlightening sections that address every aspect of your personality, this report is ideal if you want to learn more about yourself and discover the hidden potential of your chart.

122 notes · View notes

boredtechnologist · 4 months

Text

Williams "Robotron 2084" arcade - attract mode

Reviewing Williams' "Robotron: 2084" from a deep philosophical perspective invites a fascinating exploration of the game's underlying themes, aesthetics, and the existential questions it raises, both intentionally and inadvertently.

1. Man vs. Machine - A Reflection on Technological Progress: "Robotron: 2084" centers around the classic theme of humanity's struggle against its own creations - the robots. Philosophically, this can be viewed as a commentary on the anxieties and paradoxes of technological advancement. As players fight against a relentless horde of machines, the game echoes fears of technology becoming uncontrollable or turning against its creators. This mirrors existential concerns about the role of technology in human life and its potential to both enhance and undermine the human experience.

2. The Individual vs. The Collective: The game's premise, where a single protagonist battles against an overwhelming collective force, touches on philosophical debates about individualism versus collectivism. The player's lone character, constantly battling overwhelming odds, can be seen as a metaphor for the individual's struggle to maintain identity and autonomy in the face of societal or technological collectives that threaten to subsume individuality.

3. The Sisyphean Struggle and Absurdism: "Robotron: 2084" offers no end, only an ongoing battle against an endless stream of enemies. This can be philosophically interpreted through the lens of Albert Camus' concept of the absurd hero, akin to Sisyphus' eternal struggle. The game's never-ending nature and the player's inevitable defeat reflect the absurdity of life and the idea that meaning and value come from struggle itself, rather than any final victory or conclusion.

4. Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence: On a more contemporary note, "Robotron: 2084" raises ethical questions about artificial intelligence and its implications for humanity. The robots, originally designed to serve humans but now their adversaries, symbolize the ethical dilemmas and potential dangers associated with AI. This aspect of the game prompts philosophical inquiry into the responsibilities of creators towards their creations and the ethical limits of artificial intelligence.

5. Nostalgia and the Human Psyche: From a more psychological perspective, the game's retro style and enduring popularity can be seen as an embodiment of nostalgia and a longing for simpler times. This raises questions about the human tendency to idealize the past and whether such nostalgia is a comforting escape or a barrier to confronting current realities.

6. Aesthetics and the Nature of Video Games as Art: "Robotron: 2084," with its distinctive 1980s arcade graphics and sound, contributes to the philosophical discussion about video games as a form of art. The game's style, gameplay, and enduring appeal challenge traditional notions of what constitutes artistic merit and invite players to consider the artistic value inherent in game design and the interactive experience.

In conclusion, "Robotron: 2084," while ostensibly a simple arcade game, offers rich material for philosophical exploration. Themes of man versus machine, individual versus collective, the absurdity of endless struggle, ethical considerations of AI, the role of nostalgia, and the nature of video games as art all converge in this classic game, demonstrating the profound potential for video games to engage with deep philosophical concepts and questions.

#Robotron #Robotron 2084 #2084 #arcade #attract mode #Pixel Crisis

23 notes · View notes

inamindfarfaraway · 1 year

Text

Me: Of course I know that Starship is just a silly, lighthearted comedy and I shouldn’t think too deeply about it.

Also Me: Mega-Girl has spent her whole life being objectified and only valued conditionally as a tool. She may revel in the many ways she is superior to humans, but her hatred of them is rooted in resenting that they created her (“How could you make me so like you, and yet so unlike you?”). Listen to how she describes herself - “a hollow parody” of life? A “purposeless slave” of “little consequence”? That is not a positive self-image! The source of her homicidal rage is self-loathing due to her robotic nature. She has fully internalized the human prejudice that she is “not real” and “unable to truly feel” and therefore unworthy of rights or love. Based on her parallels to the Terminator robots (the recommended way to kill her is to lower her slowly into lava), it’s highly plausible that she and other robots in this universe cannot self-terminate either and their constant anger is the result of being trapped in slavery without even the escape of suicide.

Tootsie is frequently dismissed and insulted for his lack of intelligence, which he is well aware of (“I may be dumb”, “I don’t know anything”). But unlike Mega-Girl, he has secure self-esteem because he accepts himself and appreciates his other good qualities. He has a great deal of compassion, empathy, honesty, courage, loyalty and crucially, emotional intelligence: he understands feelings, when people are lying about them (“folks say they’re fine when I know that they’re blue”) and their inherent worth (“The feeling I get when you’re close to me, when all my hairs stand up? That’s real.”). The one thing he understands is the same one Mega-Girl doesn’t. The parts of himself he values the most are the the same ones Mega-Girl despises herself for not having. So of course he’s the human to see that she deserves and is capable of love! He knows what it’s like to be treated like you’re less than, but also that everyone still matters just the same no matter how different they are.

By treating her personhood as a given when everyone else she’s met has done the opposite, he makes her respect herself and seek autonomy. He inspires her to want more out of life than what her oppressors want from her (“when you look at me, I don’t wanna be programmed this way”). After she falls for him, she stands up to her legal owner Junior, refusing to follow his orders, objecting to him risking her life and taking offence and even slapping him when he objectifies her again. She’s starting to value herself. However, she still can’t shake the idea that love is at best fundamentally conditional when you’re a robot, hence her fear of Tootsie leaving her. His declaration of unconditional love stops her rampage because finally believing that she is lovable, and has worth, as she is removes her low self-esteem, the source of her bloodlust and resignation to her programming.

In conclusion, they’re perfect for each other and I love them. And oh my God, Tootsie Mega-Girl renamed himself their ship name. What’s their actual ship name, then? Man vs Machine? No, wait… Mega-Toots.

#junior truly isn’t half the man tootsie mega-girl is #starkid starship #tootsie mega-girl #tootsie noodles #mega-girl #mega-toots #coining it #team starkid #starkid

154 notes · View notes

gatheringbones · 7 months

Text

[“While Heather declined to give specific details about her experience, she speculated that “the reason [political coercion] isn’t included” in people’s definitions and understandings of domestic violence is that “people think someone isn’t being physically harmed, so why bother speaking up?”

Dr. Tonisha Pinckney, who researches and teaches about domestic violence, sexual violence, community engagement, and other issues, is a survivor of domestic violence herself and told me she was once convinced by an abusive partner that she was inherently unworthy and too uneducated to have a political voice. “I’m a Black woman, and when you’re a Black woman and dealing with domestic violence, it’s such a difficult situation, because there’s people who will always treat you like you’re completely stupid and unworthy,” she told me. For eight years, her husband, who she married at eighteen, subjected her to emotional and physical abuse and often weaponized their two children and attacks on her self-esteem to deny her political power. “Anytime I tried to use my power at all as a human being, to do anything that would feel empowering to me, that’s what my ex-husband tried to take away,” Pinckney said. “It wasn’t always about the fact he hated voting or politics, it was that he didn’t want me to feel as though I could do it, or my voice was loud enough.”

Prior to her abusive marriage, she had always been active in her community. Her mother had been a community organizer, and Pinckney had studied political science as an undergraduate. After surviving sexual assault prior to her relationship with her then-husband, she’d also been a vocal advocate for victims’ rights. But after marrying him, she said, over time he began to use the family they shared to prevent her from voting or attending political or community events. “Once I had the kids, it became, ‘Oh, you want to go and hear this political speaker? Sure, you can go, but I’m not watching the kids,’ and they’re young, and we’re too poor [for child care] and didn’t have a car, so I couldn’t go. Or, ‘You want to vote? That’s stupid, you’re just wasting your time,’” Pinckney recounted. “A lot of his barriers were not specifically, ‘You can’t be involved in political things,’ or, ‘You can’t go vote,’ it was, ‘I’m not stopping you, but I’m stopping you from doing it in other ways.’ It was, ‘You can go, I’m not telling you you can’t go, I’m just making it so you can’t go.’” Her ex-husband would also refuse to let her speak about values and political issues with their children. “With him it was, ‘You’re not smart enough, so you’re just going to teach them to be dumb too.’”]

kylie cheung, from survivor injustice: state-sanctioned abuse, domestic violence, and the fight for bodily autonomy, 2023

#kylie cheung #cw abuse #cw racism #currently reading

27 notes · View notes

xenodelic · 1 year

Text

Content warning: Talk of pressuring systems to integrate and/or fuse.

Long anti-psych rant incoming

Screenshotting this because its a 5 year old post and we don't wanna bring discourse or anything to OP.

Ok so this quote is like a microcosm of the ways in which mainstream psychiatry refuses to allow patients any autonomy in our recovery.

Like, this hypothetical example of "DID as a lifestyle" is a perfect example of a system that would (likely) be benefitted from pursuing healthy multiplicity rather than full fusion. But instead of recognizing that, and working with the patient to find a way to function happily as a system, they label it as a "barrier to integration".

Its made clear in this example that being a system is deeply important to this patient. But the authors do not recognize the humanity of the individual system members. They seem to imply that in-system relationships function solely as an avoidant behavior, and its clear that they see them as inherently lesser than external relationships. They view the internal world, lives, and identities of system members as being obstacles to normalcy.

Because that's really what matters to them at the end of the day. The patient's desires are secondary, if they're even taken into account all. Any positive experience with their neurodivergency is viewed as an obstacle in the way of the predetermined goal. And its been decided for the patient long before they walk in the door. The goal is enforcing hegemonic ideals of normalcy, complacency, and obedience.

Because you know what? Even if this hypothetical patient's experiences are exclusively pathological, even if their in-system relationships are for the purpose of avoidance, even if they are "clinging" onto parts as a coping mechanism. So fucking what? Sure, call it "anti-recovery" if you want to, but we value that autonomy of individuals to decide how they want to live their lives, and that includes continuing to live with their disorder as they see fit.

Because its laid out clearly here. The patient's ability to decide for themselves what they want is seen as a problem to be solved. Their experience and self-expression is a pathology to be cured. And under no circumstances will we stand for that.

#antipsych #antipsychiatry #psychiatry critical #mad pride #mad liberation #psychpunk

62 notes · View notes

cosmicjoke · 5 months

Note

Always love your Levi thoughts. You understand him so well. The only thing I may interject is the interpretation of him being a slave to being a hero. For me personally, I don't view it as an indication that read on him alludes to a selfish motivation. On the contrary, I think Levi's natural selflessness and empathy, coupled with his low sense of self-preservation/self-worth and humble acknowledgement of his strength, make him a bit of a slave to heroism. Again not in the sense that he wants to be some great hero, but because a mix of who he naturally is and his own experienced trauma just make him have a sense of duty that leads to him chronically being heroic and self-sacrificing, often to his detriment. Just my two cents, though!

Hey there, and thank you!

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I just meant, when people try to make a correlation between Kenny's speech and Levi's heroism, they often frame it as if to say Levi is "drunk" on being a hero, as in, it's a personal dream of his. That is, after all, what Kenny meant when talking about "being drunk on something", he was talking about personal dreams, and how those dreams often lead to our own corruption, by not being able to let them go, by those dreams becoming the driving force behind our actions, etc...

I don't think that relates to Levi. Levi's heroism doesn't corrupt him, or sully him and his motivation, because it's not a dream of his, it's not something he aspires to or wants to "achieve". It's just who he is. He's different in that regard to most of the other characters in AoT, in that he doesn't have a personal dream. He fights for the dreams of others, and allows himself to be used by others as a tool toward realizing their dreams, and of course, toward the goal of freeing humanity.

But I do agree that, due to his selfless, empathetic nature, one might describe Levi as being "enslaved" to his heroism, in much the same way one could say Eren, for example, was a slave to his own nature of perpetual dissatisfaction. I've talked a lot about how I think Attack on Titan promotes the idea of nature over nurture, and this would be an example. How we ultimately can't escape or change who we just simply are.

I also suppose it's why one could call Levi a tragic hero, because he really just thinks so little of himself. I don't want to say Levi has no sense of self-identity, and I wouldn't really say Levi has an entirely low sense of self-worth or preservation, because he will and does fight for his own survival when he has to, he values his own life, as he does everybody's. I think he just views life in general as something that has inherent value and is worth fighting for. But for sure he places the lives and well-being, both physical and mental, of others above his own, and would happily sacrifice himself if it meant saving the lives of others. And I think he has very little ego or ambition. He's got nothing he wants personally, nothing he wants to achieve personally, nothing he desires that personally motivates him toward fighting. What motivates him is simply wanting to help others because he believes their lives matter, their dreams matter, their right to have autonomy over their lives matters. And he's got this strength that he can't imagine is for anything else, or anything better, which again comes from that lack of ego. He's just an exceptionally selfless person who's also able to understand and empathize with other human beings at a deep level.

So, yeah, I think we actually agree. I suppose I should have rather said I don't agree with the statement that Levi is "drunk" on being a hero, because that implies it's a personal dream, or that he gets some personal satisfaction out of saving people, or that he's doing it for the recognition of being a hero.

Levi's a hero precisely because he doesn't think of his actions as heroic, even as they decidedly are. There's nothing calculated behind his heroism. There's no sense of martyrdom or self-aggrandizement behind his actions, no attempt to frame his acts as grand or benevolent or merciful. He just helps people because he's naturally that selfless and caring, and simply wants them to have the chance to live, to choose for themselves, to not be forced to make choices which will leave them lesser than they were. Levi speaks about being willing to get his hands dirty, making hard, ugly choices so no one else has to, doing bad things so no one else has to. So no one else has to compromise themselves in the same way. He wants people to not have to live with the pall of uncertainty, desperation, fear and lack of control that plagued his own life, and plagued the lives of everyone, to an extent, that lived within the walls. As Levi says, even if it's to kill each other, at least having the choice to do that is better than being killed by something beyond their control or choosing. It's, again, why I always call Levi the only, genuinely pure hero in AoT. Because he only acts for others, never for himself. And that isn't just a story he tells himself to make himself feel good, or look good. His inner thoughts and feelings aren't in conflict with that. He doesn't derive some secret satisfaction from it, or have some ulterior motive beyond the immediate aid of others. With Levi, that selflessness is the actual truth of who he is.

#Levi Ackerman #attack on titan #shingkei no kyojin

16 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 7 hours

Text

A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?

As discussed in section A.3.3, most anarchists would agree with Situationist Ken Knabb in arguing that “in a liberated world computers and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate dangerous or boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more interesting activities.” Obviously ”[c]ertain technologies — nuclear power is the most obvious example — are indeed so insanely dangerous that they will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt. Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance of their commercial rationales. But many technologies …, however they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. It’s simply a matter of using them more sensibly, bringing them under popular control, introducing a few ecological improvements, and redesigning them for human rather than capitalistic ends.” [Public Secrets, p. 79 and p. 80] Thus most eco-anarchists see the use of appropriate technology as the means of creating a society which lives in balance with nature.

However, a small but vocal minority of self-proclaimed Green anarchists disagree. Writers such as John Zerzan, John Moore and David Watson have expounded a vision of anarchism which, they claim, aims to critique every form of power and oppression. This is often called “anarcho-primitivism,” which according to Moore, is simply “a shorthand term for a radical current that critiques the totality of civilisation from an anarchist perspective, and seeks to initiate a comprehensive transformation of human life.” [Primitivist Primer]

How this current expresses itself is diverse, with the most extreme elements seeking the end of all forms of technology, division of labour, domestication, “Progress”, industrialism, what they call “mass society” and, for some, even symbolic culture (i.e. numbers, language, time and art). They tend to call any system which includes these features “civilisation” and, consequently, aim for “the destruction of civilisation”. How far back they wish to go is a moot point. Some see the technological level that existed before the Industrial Revolution as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture and all forms of technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the wild, to a hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist and dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used to create an anarchist society based on industrial production which minimises its impact on ecosystems.

Thus we find the primitivist magazine “Green Anarchy” arguing that those, like themselves, “who prioritise the values of personal autonomy or wild existence have reason to oppose and reject all large-scale organisations and societies on the grounds that they necessitate imperialism, slavery and hierarchy, regardless of the purposes they may be designed for.” They oppose capitalism as it is “civilisation’s current dominant manifestation.” However, they stress that it is “Civilisation, not capitalism per se, was the genesis of systemic authoritarianism, compulsory servitude and social isolation. Hence, an attack upon capitalism that fails to target civilisation can never abolish the institutionalised coercion that fuels society. To attempt to collectivise industry for the purpose of democratising it is to fail to recognise that all large-scale organisations adopt a direction and form that is independent of its members’ intentions.” Thus, they argue, genuine anarchists must oppose industry and technology for ”[h]ierarchical institutions, territorial expansion, and the mechanisation of life are all required for the administration and process of mass production to occur.” For primitivists, ”[o]nly small communities of self-sufficient individuals can coexist with other beings, human or not, without imposing their authority upon them.” Such communities would share essential features with tribal societies, ”[f]or over 99% of human history, humans lived within small and egalitarian extended family arrangements, while drawing their subsistence directly from the land.” [Against Mass Society]

While such tribal communities, which lived in harmony with nature and had little or no hierarchies, are seen as inspirational, primitivists look (to use the title of a John Zerzan book) forward to seeing the “Future Primitive.” As John Moore puts it, “the future envisioned by anarcho-primitivism … is without precedent. Although primitive cultures provide intimations of the future, and that future may well incorporate elements derived from those cultures, an anarcho-primitivist world would likely be quite different from previous forms of anarchy.” [Op. Cit.]

For the primitivist, other forms of anarchism are simply self-managed alienation within essentially the same basic system we now endure. Hence Moore’s comment that “classical anarchism” wants “to take over civilisation, rework its structures to some degree, and remove its worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in civilisation remains unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely because the aspects of civilisation they question are minimal … overall life patterns wouldn’t change too much.” Thus ”[f]rom the perspective of anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism appear as reformist, whether or not they regard themselves as revolutionary.” [Op. Cit.]

In reply, “classical anarchists” point out three things. Firstly, to claim that the “worst abuses and oppressions” account for 1% of capitalist society is simply nonsense and, moreover, something an apologist of that system would happily agree with. Secondly, it is obvious from reading any “classical” anarchist text that Moore’s assertions are nonsense. “Classical” anarchism aims to transform society radically from top to bottom, not tinker with minor aspects of it. Do primitivists really think that people who went to the effort to abolish capitalism would simply continue doing 99% of the same things they did before hand? Of course not. In other words, it is not enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step! Thirdly, and most importantly, Moore’s argument ensures that his new society would be impossible to reach.

So, as can be seen, primitivism has little or no bearing to the traditional anarchist movement and its ideas. The visions of both are simply incompatible, with the ideas of the latter dismissed as authoritarian by the former and anarchists questioning whether primitivism is practical in the short term or even desirable in the long. While supporters of primitivism like to portray it as the most advanced and radical form of anarchism, others are less convinced. They consider it as a confused ideology which draws its followers into absurd positions and, moreover, is utterly impractical. They would agree with Ken Knabb that primitivism is rooted in “fantasies [which] contain so many obvious self-contradictions that it is hardly necessary to criticise them in any detail. They have questionable relevance to actual past societies and virtually no relevance to present possibilities. Even supposing that life was better in one or another previous era, we have to begin from where we are now. Modern technology is so interwoven with all aspects of our life that it could not be abruptly discontinued without causing a global chaos that would wipe out billions of people.” [Op. Cit., p. 79]

The reason for this is simply that we live in a highly industrialised and interconnected system in which most people do not have the skills required to live in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that six billion people could survive as hunter-gatherers even if they had the necessary skills. As Brian Morris notes, ”[t]he future we are told is ‘primitive.’ How this is to be achieved in a world that presently sustains almost six billion people (for evidence suggests that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is only able to support 1 or 2 people per sq. mile)” primitivists like Zerzan do not tell us. [“Anthropology and Anarchism,” pp. 35–41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38] Most anarchists, therefore, agree with Chomsky’s summation that “I do not think that they are realising that what they are calling for is the mass genocide of millions of people because of the way society is now structured and organised … If you eliminate these structures everybody dies … And, unless one thinks through these things, it’s not really serious.” [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 226]

Somewhat ironically, many proponents of primitivsm agree with its critics that the earth would be unable to support six billion living as a hunter-gatherers. This, critics argue, gives primitivism a key problem in that population levels will take time to fall and so any “primitivist” rebellion faces two options. Either it comes about via some kind of collapse of “civilisation” or it involves a lengthy transition period during which “civilisation” and its industrial legacies are decommissioned safely, population levels drop naturally to an appropriate level and people gain the necessary skills required for their new existence.

The problems with the first option should be obvious but, sadly, it is implied by many primitivist writers. Moore, for example, talks about “when civilisation collapses” (“through its own volition, through our efforts, or a combination of the two”). This implies an extremely speedy process which is confirmed when he talks about the need for “positive alternatives” to be built now as “the social disruption caused by collapse could easily create the psychological insecurity and social vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian dictatorships could flourish.” [Op. Cit.] Social change based on “collapse,” “insecurity” and “social disruption” does not sound like a recipe for a successful revolution.

Then there are the anti-organisation dogmas expounded by primitivism. Moore is typical, asserting that ”[o]rganisations, for anarcho-primitivists, are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular ideology in power” and reiterates the point by saying primitivists stand for “the abolition of all power relations, including the State . .. and any kind of party or organisation.” [Op. Cit.] Yet without organisation, no modern society could function. There would be a total and instant collapse which would see not only mass starvation but also ecological destruction as nuclear power stations meltdown, industrial waste seeps into the surrounding environment, cities and towns decay and hordes of starving people fighting over what vegetables, fruits and animals they could find in the countryside. Clearly an anti-organisation dogma can only be reconciled with the idea of a near overnight “collapse” of civilisation, not with a steady progress towards a long term goal. Equally, how many “positive alternatives” could exist without organisation?

Moore dismissed any critique that points out that a collapse would cause mass destruction as “just smear tactics,” “weird fantasies spread by some commentators hostile to anarcho-primitivism who suggest that the population levels envisaged by anarcho-primitivists would have to be achieved by mass die-offs or nazi-style death camps.” The “commitment of anarcho-primitivists to the abolition of all power relations … means that such orchestrated slaughter remains an impossibility as well as just plain horrendous.” [Op. Cit.] Yet no critic is suggesting that primitivists desire such a die-off or seek to organise it. They simply point out that the collapse of civilisation would result in a mass die-off due to the fact that most people do not have the skills necessary to survive it nor could the Earth provide enough food for six billion people trying to live in a primitivist manner. Other primitivists have asserted that it can, stating ”[i]t is not possible for all six billion of the planet’s current inhabitants to survive as hunter-gatherers, but it is possible for those who can’t to grow their own food in significantly smaller spaces … as has been demonstrated by permaculture, organic gardening, and indigenous horticulture techniques.” [Against Mass Society] Unfortunately no evidence was provided to show the truth of this assertion nor that people could develop the necessary skills in time even if it were. It seems a slim hope to place the fate of billions on, so that humanity can be “wild” and free from such tyrannies as hospitals, books and electricity.

Faced with the horrors that such a “collapse” would entail, those primitivists who have thought the issue through end up accepting the need for a transition period. John Zerzan, for example, argues that it “seems evident that industrialisation and the factories could not be gotten rid of instantly, but equally clear that their liquidation must be pursued with all the vigour behind the rush of break-out.” Even the existence of cities is accepted, for ”[c]ultivation within the cities is another aspect of practical transition.” [On the Transition: Postscript to Future Primitive]

However, to accept the necessity of a transition period does little more than expose the contradictions within primitivism. Zerzan notes that “the means of reproducing the prevailing Death Ship (e.g. its technology) cannot be used to fashion a liberated world.” He ponders: “What would we keep? ‘Labour-saving devices?’ Unless they involve no division of labour (e.g. a lever or incline), this concept is a fiction; behind the ‘saving’ is hidden the congealed drudgery of many and the despoliation of the natural world.” How this is compatible with maintaining “industrialisation and the factories” for a (non-specified) period is unclear. Similarly, he argues that ”[i]nstead of the coercion of work — and how much of the present could continue without precisely that coercion? — an existence without constraints is an immediate, central objective.” [Op. Cit.] How that is compatible with the arguing that industry would be maintained for a time is left unasked, never mind unanswered. And if “work” continues, how is this compatible with the typical primitivist dismissal of “traditional” anarchism, namely that self-management is managing your own alienation and that no one will want to work in a factory or in a mine and, therefore, coercion will have to be used to make them do so? Does working in a self-managed workplace somehow become less alienating and authoritarian during a primitivist transition?

It is an obvious fact that the human population size cannot be reduced significantly by voluntary means in a short period of time. For primitivism to be viable, world population levels need to drop by something like 90%. This implies a drastic reduction of population will take decades, if not centuries, to achieve voluntarily. Given that it is unlikely that (almost) everyone on the planet will decide not to have children, this time scale will almost certainly be centuries and so agriculture and most industries will have to continue (and an exodus from the cities would be impossible immediately). Likewise, reliable contraceptives are a product of modern technology and, consequently, the means of producing them would have to maintained over that time — unless primitivists argue that along with refusing to have children, people will also refuse to have sex.

Then there is the legacy of industrial society, which simply cannot be left to decay on its own. To take just one obvious example, leaving nuclear power plants to melt down would hardly be eco-friendly. Moreover, it is doubtful that the ruling elite will just surrender its power without resistance and, consequently, any social revolution would need to defend itself against attempts to reintroduce hierarchy. Needless to say, a revolution which shunned all organisation and industry as inherently authoritarian would not be able to do this (it would have been impossible to produce the necessary military supplies to fight Franco’s fascist forces during the Spanish Revolution if the workers had not converted and used their workplaces to do so, to note another obvious example).

Then there is another, key, contradiction. For if you accept that there is a need for a transition from ‘here’ to ‘there’ then primitivism automatically excludes itself from the anarchist tradition. The reason is simple. Moore asserts that “mass society” involves “people working, living in artificial, technologised environments, and [being] subject to forms of coercion and control.” [Op. Cit.] So if what primitivists argue about technology, industry and mass society are all true, then any primitivist transition would, by definition, not be libertarian. This is because “mass society” will have to remain for some time (at the very least decades, more likely centuries) after a successful revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective, be based on “forms of coercion and control.” There is an ideology which proclaims the need for a transitional system which will be based on coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in time, disappear into a stateless society. It also, like primitivism, stresses that industry and large scale organisation is impossible without hierarchy and authority. That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to “classical” anarchists to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating Engels arguments against Bakunin as arguments for “anarchy” (see section H.4 for a discussion of Engels claims that industry excludes autonomy).

So if, as seems likely, any transition will take centuries to achieve then the primivitist critique of “traditional” anarchism becomes little more than a joke — and a hindrance to meaningful anarchist practice and social change. It shows the contradiction at the heart of primitivism. While its advocates attack other anarchists for supporting technology, organisation, self-management of work, industrialisation and so on, they are themselves are dependent on the things they oppose as part of any humane transition to a primitivist society. And given the passion with which they attack other anarchists on these matters, unsurprisingly the whole notion of a primitivist transition period seems impossible to other anarchists. To denounce technology and industrialism as inherently authoritarian and then turn round and advocate their use after a revolution simply does not make sense from a logical or libertarian perspective.

Thus the key problem with primitivism can be seen. It offers no practical means of achieving its goals in a libertarian manner. As Knabb summarises, ”[w]hat begins as a valid questioning of excessive faith in science and technology ends up as a desperate and even less justified faith in the return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a failure to engage the present system in any but an abstract, apocalyptical way.” To avoid this, it is necessary to take into account where we are now and, consequently, we will have to “seriously consider how we will deal with all the practical problems that will be posed in the interim.” [Op. Cit., p. 80 and p. 79] Sadly, primitivist ideology excludes this possibility by dismissing the starting point any real revolution would begin from as being inherently authoritarian. Moreover, they are blocking genuine social change by ensuring that no mass movement would ever be revolutionary enough to satisfy their criteria:

“Those who proudly proclaim their ‘total opposition’ to all compromise, all authority, all organisation, all theory, all technology, etc., usually turn out to have no revolutionary perspective whatsoever — no practical conception of how the present system might be overthrown or how a post-revolutionary society might work. Some even attempt to justify this lack by declaring that a mere revolution could never be radical enough to satisfy their eternal ontological rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing bombast may temporarily impress a few spectators, but its ultimate effect is simply to make people blasé.” [Knabb, Op. Cit., pp. 31–32]

Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving primitivism. Moore argues that the “kind of world envisaged by anarcho-primitivism is one unprecedented in human experience in terms of the degree and types of freedom anticipated ... so there can’t be any limits on the forms of resistance and insurgency that might develop.” [Op. Cit.] Non-primitivists reply by saying that this implies primitivists don’t know what they want nor how to get there. Equally, they stress that there must be limits on what are considered acceptable forms of resistance. This is because means shape the ends created and so authoritarian means will result in authoritarian ends. Tactics are not neutral and support for certain tactics betray an authoritarian perspective.

This can be seen from the UK magazine “Green Anarchist,” part of the extreme end of “Primitivism.” Due to its inherent unattractiveness for most people, it could never come about by libertarian means (i.e. by the free choice of individuals who create it by their own acts) and so cannot be anarchist as very few people would actually voluntarily embrace such a situation. This led to “Green Anarchist” developing a form of eco-vanguardism in order, to use Rousseau’s expression, to “force people to be free.” This was expressed when the magazine supported the actions and ideas of the (non-anarchist) Unabomber and published an article (“The Irrationalists”) by one its editors stating that “the Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not blast any more government offices … The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the attack they gave themselves away.” [Green Anarchist, no. 51, p. 11] A defence of these remarks was published in the next issue and a subsequent exchange of letters in the US-based Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed magazine (numbers 48 to 52) saw the other editor justify this sick, authoritarian nonsense as simply examples of “unmediated resistance” conducted “under conditions of extreme repression.” Whatever happened to the anarchist principle that means shape the ends? This means there are “limits” on tactics, as some tactics are not and can never be libertarian.

However, few primitivists take such an extreme position. Most “primitivist” anarchists rather than being anti-technology and anti-civilisation as such instead (to use David Watson’s expression) believe it is a case of the “affirmation of aboriginal lifeways” and of taking a far more critical approach to issues such as technology, rationality and progress than that associated with Social Ecology. These eco-anarchists reject “a dogmatic primitivism which claims we can return in some linear way to our primordial roots” just as much as the idea of “progress,” ”superseding both Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment” ideas and traditions. For them, Primitivism “reflects not only a glimpse at life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate response to real conditions of life under civilisation” and so we should respect and learn from “palaeolithic and neolithic wisdom traditions” (such as those associated with Native American tribes and other aboriginal peoples). While we “cannot, and would not want to abandon secular modes of thinking and experiencing the world… we cannot reduce the experience of life, and the fundamental, inescapable questions why we live, and how we live, to secular terms… Moreover, the boundary between the spiritual and the secular is not so clear. A dialectical understanding that we are our history would affirm an inspirited reason that honours not only atheistic Spanish revolutionaries who died for el ideal, but also religious pacifist prisoners of conscience, Lakota ghost dancers, taoist hermits and executed sufi mystics.” [David Watson, Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a future social ecology, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240 and pp. 66–67]

Such “primitivist” anarchism is associated with a range of magazines, mostly US-based, like Fifth Estate. For example, on the question of technology, they argue that ”[w]hile market capitalism was a spark that set the fire, and remains at the centre of the complex, it is only part of something larger: the forced adaptation of organic human societies to an economic-instrumental civilisation and its mass technics, which are not only hierarchical and external but increasingly ‘cellular’ and internal. It makes no sense to layer the various elements of this process in a mechanistic hierarchy of first cause and secondary effects.” [Watson, Op. Cit., pp. 127–8] For this reason primitivists are more critical of all aspects of technology, including calls by social ecologists for the use of appropriate technology essential in order to liberate humanity and the planet:

“To speak of technological society is in fact to refer to the technics generated within capitalism, which in turn generate new forms of capital. The notion of a distinct realm of social relations that determine this technology is not only ahistorical and undialectical, it reflects a kind of simplistic base/superstructure schema.” [Watson, Op. Cit., p. 124]

Thus it is not a case of who uses technology which determines its effects, rather the effects of technology are determined to a large degree by the society that creates it. In other words, technology is selected which tends to re-enforce hierarchical power as it is those in power who generally select which technology is introduced within society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent habit of turning technology against the powerful and technological change and social struggle are inter-related — see section D.10). Thus even the use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from the range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have certain effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of critically evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and rejecting it as required to maximise individual freedom, empowerment and happiness. Few Social Ecologists would disagree with this approach, though, and differences are usually a question of emphasis rather than a deep political point.

However, few anarchists are convinced by an ideology which, as Brian Morris notes, dismisses the “last eight thousand years or so of human history” as little more than a source “of tyranny, hierarchical control, mechanised routine devoid of any spontaneity. All those products of the human creative imagination — farming, art, philosophy, technology, science, urban living, symbolic culture — are viewed negatively by Zerzan — in a monolithic sense.” While there is no reason to worship progress, there is just as little need to dismiss all change and development out of hand as oppressive. Nor are they convinced by Zerzan’s “selective culling of the anthropological literature.” [Op. Cit., p. 38] Most anarchists would concurr with Murray Bookchin:

“The ecology movement will never gain any real influence or have any significant impact on society if it advances a message of despair rather than hope, of a regressive and impossible return to primordial human cultures, rather than a commitment to human progress and to a unique human empathy for life as a whole … We must recover the utopian impulses, the hopefulness, the appreciation of what is good, what is worth rescuing in yumn civilisation, as well as what must be rejected, if the ecology movement is to play a transformative and creative role in human affairs. For without changing society, we will not change the diastrous ecological direction in which capitalism is moving.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 63]

In addition, a position of “turning back the clock” is deeply flawed, for while some aboriginal societies are very anarchistic, not all are. As anarchist anthropologist David Graeber points out, “we know almost nothing about like in Palaeolithic, other than the sort of thing that can be gleaned from studying very old skulls … But what we see in the more recent ethnographic records is endless variety. There were hunter-gatherer societies with nobles and slaves, there are agrarian societies that are fiercely egalitarian. Even in … Amazonia, one finds some groups who can justly be described as anarchists, like the Piaroa, living alongside others (say, the warlike Sherentre, who are clearly anything but.” [Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, pp. 53–4] Even if we speculate, like Zerzan, that if we go back far enough we would find all of humanity in anarchistic tribes, the fact remains that certain of these societies did develop into statist, propertarian ones implying that a future anarchist society that is predominantly inspired by and seek to reproduce key elements of prehistoric forms of anarchy is not the answer as “civilisation” may develop again due to the same social or environmental factors.

Primitivism confuses two radically different positions, namely support for a literal return to primitive lifeways and the use of examples from primitive life as a tool for social critique. Few anarchists would disagree with the second position as they recognise that current does not equal better and, consequently, past cultures and societies can have positive (as well as negative) aspects to them which can shed light on what a genuinely human society can be like. Similarly if “primitivism” simply involved questioning technology along with authority, few would disagree. However, this sensible position is, in the main, subsumed within the first one, the idea that an anarchist society would be a literal return to hunter-gatherer society. That this is the case can be seen from primitivist writings (some primitivists say that they are not suggesting the Stone Age as a model for their desired society nor a return to gathering and hunting, yet they seem to exclude any other options by their critique).

So to suggest that primitivism is simply a critique or some sort of “anarchist speculation” (to use John Moore’s term) seems incredulous. If you demonise technology, organisation, “mass society” and “civilisation” as inherently authoritarian, you cannot turn round and advocate their use in a transition period or even in a free society. As such, the critique points to a mode of action and a vision of a free society and to suggest otherwise is simply incredulous. Equally, if you praise foraging bands and shifting horticultural communities of past and present as examples of anarchy then critics are entitled to conclude that primitivists desire a similar system for the future. This is reinforced by the critiques of industry, technology, “mass society” and agriculture.

Until such time as “primitivists” clearly state which of the two forms of primitivism they subscribe to, other anarchists will not take their ideas that seriously. Given that they fail to answer such basic questions of how they plan to deactivate industry safely and avoid mass starvation without the workers’ control, international links and federal organisation they habitually dismiss out of hand as new forms of “governance,” other anarchists do not hold much hope that it will happen soon. Ultimately, we are faced with the fact that a revolution will start in society as it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests a means of transforming it. Primitivism shies away from such minor problems and, consequently, has little to recommend it in most anarchists’ eyes.

This is not to suggest, of course, that non-primitivist anarchists think that everyone in a free society must have the same level of technology. Far from it. An anarchist society would be based on free experimentation. Different individuals and groups will pick the way of life that best suits them. Those who seek less technological ways of living will be free to do so as will those who want to apply the benefits of (appropriate) technologies. Similarly, all anarchists support the struggles of those in the developing world against the onslaught of (capitalist) civilisation and the demands of (capitalist) progress.

For more on “primitivist” anarchism see John Zerzan’s Future Primitive as well as David Watson’s Beyond Bookchin and Against the Mega-Machine. Ken Knabb’s essay The Poverty of Primitivism is an excellent critique of primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard’s Anarchism vs. Primitivism.

7 notes · View notes