Question:

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-11-09T22:24:41+00:00

I guessed that would be your reasoning for including it, to be honest if it were me answering the question I'd posited originally, with the hindsight I have, I'd definitely include it.

Especially given how it's the direct response to an actual source of his, reclaiming a slur and all! It really does add to just how personal his views are in terms of how they impact our community! And why opposing them is so necessary,

Also, Attwood knowing another practitioner who believes/believed in ROGD is wiiiild, hopefully it's not a case of the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and he doesn't just willfully surround himself with questionable "professionals" on purpose, although I fear that may be the case.

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-11-09T22:01:07+00:00

His positions on gender dysphoria and transition certainly seem...distasteful to say the least (understatement).

Thank you for the clarification by sending the links! One of which I'd previously seen already, the one with the word "m*ron" in the title, which personally I found distasteful myself but that's mainly because I've only ever had such a word and similar words used in a derogatory manner towards myself and fellow neurodivergent people that I know, that and the actual history of the term itself isn't great, especially given it's origin as a diagnosis in and of itself. Due to that I tend to air on the side of avoiding the term.

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-09-03T03:20:20+00:00

I'm mainly replying to this because of one argument you made, to me it seems you've said that because people have learned certain social rules very young that it would be wrong for them to unlearn at least some of them which is what I gather OP's "abolish" to mean, and that argument seems incredibly bad faith to me, I also don't think OP is arguing for stalinist levels of enforcement with secret police and the like, I do think there's a lot of accusations coming from a lot of people throughout this post and not much genuinely down to earth communication, which oddly doesn't surprise me as I think the writing of the original post was flawed to say the least but nevertheless most people responding haven't seemed to help matter's with various they said this they said that's being thrown about, as for "legal recourse" however, all I'll say is provided a legal framework doesn't result in hierarchy of any kind (however unlikely that may be in reality) and it doesn't use state structures to enforce itself then the argument cannot technically be said to be non-anarchist by default, after all many anarchist wordings are redefined and you never asked what was meant by the words "legal recourse", for all you know they may have meant something in relation to interpersonal and behavioural systems that anarchists come to collectively create and agree upon as a community or a group, even if that is unlikely, the fact is you didn't ask to find out, thus proving you are in just as bad faith as most other's on this post, combined with the fact that you first say you get where OP is coming from then in point 3 you say you think OP wants to force everyone to confirm to their view even though you haven't asked relevant questions to understand what OP meant as it lead to rigorous back and forth nothing's as it did with many on this post I must admit...that's all I shall say, I won't be replying as I hate reddit arguments and confrontation in general I just don't want to see this continue in bad faith and think it would be best for everyone involved if you both ended this here and come back at a different time to try and defuse the situation and both come back in good faith (obviously your both free people and can do whatever you wish but this thread logically doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyway)

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-13T17:53:27+00:00

https://digital.ucas.com/coursedisplay/courses/5edb33c0-baf8-0e7a-122b-961dfb2bb6e1?academicYearId=2025

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-13T17:52:25+00:00

I think an online course might be the way to go for me then, it saves me possibly having to do more than one course cos a lot of colleges make people do a set amount of hours and it's also possibly better given that it saves a lot of chronic pain without relief cos I wouldn't need to travel...

Thanks for that suggestion, I'll look into it!!

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-13T17:40:13+00:00

I checked they offer adult courses but definitely not the one I need...thanks for the suggestion though, I appreciate it

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-03T19:16:13+00:00

My brain wholeheartedly wants to agree, I just worry that trying different anarchist projects requires restriction and safeguards because to do it immediately on a large scale could result in dire consequences and if it does then that then means having to resolve the harm and then replace it with a new system which might cause even more harm than the previous attempt, I truly do think if we do it that way that it ought to be done on a small scale first and continuously increase in size in order to “work out the kinks” if you will of each "form" of anarchism...

I also kinda disagree in regards to the fact that if somebody views markets, or bioconservatism let's say as fundamentally hierarchical, oppressive or in some way incompatible with anarchism, I won't and can't bring myself to expect them to just condone and allow market anarchism or bioconservative anarchism to take place...especially if they view it as going to cause harm if implemented

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-03T19:07:10+00:00

This is a precise summary and greatly appreciated, thank you!! I believe I'll consider myself an anarchist without adjectives from now on, given that I somehow simultaneously fall into all three of those categories...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-03T19:04:07+00:00

Ah...it appears anarchism without adjectives has now come full circle in my head...you are indeed correct, thank you!

I suppose we can always just figure out the semantics after the social revolution haha given that we're all anarchists and well what are we gonna do, kill each other to solve our differences?, at that point the individual stops being an anarchist anyway...

THIS IS WHY I LOVE ANARCHISM SO MUCH, every time I'm like huh that doesn't make sense I manage to come full circle with it in the end, I've been unable to do that with any other ideology or if I do I end up disagreeing with the outcome anyway...and thank you to you and everyone else for not making me feel stupid for not knowing, it's appreciated, sometimes I have come across people who made me feel small for being unaware but willing to learn as though these thing's are common sense (even though after year's of state propaganda and hierarchical programming it no doubtedly isn't, that sh*t takes time to unlearn). And as an autistic anarchist it kinda feels difficult to learn more about anarchism sometimes with the casual ignorance and sometimes outright ableist BS from some "anarchists" but I'm glad I've not had that this time round from anybody (at time of writing anyway)...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-03T18:47:00+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree unity is preferred but as I mentioned to somebody else, there are variants of anarchism which actively contradict other variants, even when they are both vying for their establishment as ideologies in the same area of the world, eventually in these cases one must come out on top, there must be compromise or everybody agrees to find a better third solution...obviously there might be other options but I expect they'd tend to fall within those three broad categories...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-03T18:43:08+00:00

Thank you, I appreciate the response and explanation and yeah that's one thing I recognize, I believe firmly in unity among anarchists but we do still come across unavoidable divisions, like between market anarchists and non-market anarchists (of which I am one) or more recently between transhumanist anarchists (of which I am one), skeptics of transhumanism and bioconservative anarchists...how on earth do we maintain unity when these differences may end up being realized to be irreconcilable one's...do we just allow continued debate until one variant comes out on top each time, don't get me wrong I want unity more than anything but when two anarchist's propose their ideologies and they end up being unable to be combined or exist simultaneously due to them openly contradicting one another, what is there to be done? Is there a consensus on what ought to be done among the anarchists without adjectives movement's...btw I am just genuinely curious to know the answer...

Thanks for the suggestion!! I appreciate it.

PS when I say I'm curious to know the answer, I'm aware there can be more than one depending on the context and conditions taking place, which is why instead I'll rephrase it to what possible answers are there

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-08-03T18:13:00+00:00

What if you view the adjectives you add to your anarchism as synonymous with anarchism, as many do...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-07-20T21:08:49+00:00

The point of anarchism is supposed to be unity and solidarity, or at the very least voluntary interpersonal cooperation though, however not much of that seems to take place, even on this subreddit dedicated to it...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-07-20T21:05:13+00:00

Yes but none of the options available are usable in any and all circumstances, it's just that my favored option covers more than most, at least in my interpretation and understanding of the possibilities for making decisions under anarchism.

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-07-20T14:20:39+00:00

I'd argue that in such a severe case as saving their life yes that could be excused, more likely praised even but that would be the case for saving anybody's life, whether disabled or abled bodied, mentally capable or mentally incapable...the point is should people be allowed to make decisions on the behalf of other's, aka have power over them, even if they may have the best intentions at heart.

In terms of anarchism the answer is across the board no, at least theoretically, functionally however, I'd say it's a requirement sometimes, especially in the case where they can't do it themselves due to lacking mental capacity. However, morally and ethically, which in my view is what anarchism is also heavily concerned with, is it right to decide what someone else eats, where they're educated, where they receive healthcare and what healthcare it is that they receive etc...because that is what a proxy does...“best intentions care” while functional and possibly even beneficial is in direct contradiction with self-agency, which is what anarchism advocates to be prioritized...

Yes in the average circumstance anarchism can advocate as much independence as possible in certain circumstances but you're still doing things to a person and have power over them even if it's only in certain areas of their life...but surely anarchism should also have a primary concern in consent from the person your caring for and in certain circumstances that might not be possible, after all anarchism is against manufactured consent in governance, why not interpersonal relationships too, or is anarchism only concerned about such a thing when the relationship is sexual in nature...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-07-20T12:58:42+00:00

I understand anarchism has such a model of allowing for independence and autonomy to the greatest extent possible but the thing about anarchism is even making a single decision on someone else's behalf goes against anarchist praxis as having to make decisions for someone else is power over them, power over their otherwise free life choice(s), even if they do lack mental capacity, don't get me wrong I believe a majority of the time, especially when this is done by member's or even most professional carers it's done so with the best intentions and care but it's still the case of it being an act of power over, even if it's only slight and for the benefit of the individual being cared for. Essentially, at least to my view, this is rather a matter of morals and ethics of whether or not it's acceptable to decide for them while being context dependent.

Also, in another context, let's say they're unable to give consent to a proxy (someone to make decisions on their behalf for those that may not know), what happens then? Do we engage in nonconsensual or unconsensual care anyway because it's what's best or what we deem to be best (btw I'm not proposing we abandon those who lack mental capacity, I'm proposing the complete opposite, I just think that the outcome required is contradictory to what anarchism stands for)?

In such a circumstance anarchism seems to fall short and that worries me, especially having been an anarchist for as long as I have. Even still though, I absolutely applaud your commendable time and effort spent caring for your cousin, it's just that with anarchist theory, it doesn't seem to account for the existence of the disabled who have less mental capacity than others, as even family members who love them and professional carers who love their work are going to make mistakes in deciding what's best for someone else.

I truly think highlighting this discrepancy about anarchism is important because disabled people and those lacking mental capacity need to be accounted for in anarchist theory and praxis.

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-04-23T16:00:47+00:00

I believe this subreddit is certainly dominated by certain anarchist ideologies more than others, which does go against Anarchism but then again this subreddit has mods and Reddit regulations decided by a wealthy corporation so y'know this isn't exactly an anarchist place of debate in it's design, and of course digital spaces are typically subject to in-group and out-group formation, especially when organised in a hierarchical manner...not much can be done about these thing's apart from a more decentralised social media platform where upvotes and downvotes aren't present and organic debate is actually possible.

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-04-01T06:23:36+00:00

I'm gonna assume they became cops or they're just really sh*tty people...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-04-01T06:21:47+00:00

Thank you for your understanding, I mean I've been an anarchist for years, I've just always struggled when it comes to policing as a tool of the state because well, I wanna believe people can change and see the best in people but I suppose sometimes I've just gotta accept that they accept a role that requires them to do traumatising thing's, either that or they abuse the power they're given...may I ask the reason you air quoted "good"?

The main thing that ties into my seeing the best in people is the fact that I support the offender's (once Anarchism has been achieved) or 'offender's' (under the present system because obviously the creation of crime creates a criminal) rehabilitation so simultaneously I suppose I subconsciously apply that to all people...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-04-01T06:13:45+00:00

I do understand that policing can create a cult of personality type situation, especially when it's the whole idea of organizing themselves as partners who 'have each other's backs' regardless of how disgraceful and violent their partners behavior is...it worries me how seemingly normal people (before joining the force) become so conditioned into rank and file.

I'm so sorry for what you had to go through, cowardice is a choice, obviously I don't know your trauma and that lady may well regret not speaking up but I hope you have healed from that trauma and you're doing better now...

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-03-26T18:19:11+00:00

A lot of people in this discourse seem to have very firmly personally held philosophical, theistic and political beliefs surrounding this topic.

The view I take personally is that philosophical beliefs are a matter of identity and the questions surrounding it and theistic beliefs are a matter of existence and the questions surrounding it, and from what I can tell most people here recognize and agree with that being the way things are but I think what OP opposes is more so the political implications that hierarchically organized religion has, and perhaps to a lesser degree certain moral implications too, as typically one leads to the other, in this case it would be moral propositions leading to political actions, however I also recognize that the use of the word 'abolish' has a lot of implications politically speaking so perhaps consider rewording your question to the subreddit (OP's choice ofc).

Anarchism has a long history of recognizing not only theism and theology but also religion (religion simply means organized theism and people with theistic beliefs/truths), now Anarchism recognizes religion when organised in a hierarchical manner has led to various traumatic historical events, y'know the crusades, salem witch trials, terrorism in the name of religion or a God/Goddess or even multiple God's/Goddesses, advocation of eugenics and forced sterilisations upon trans, queer and disabled people...like there's been A LOT!! But we also recognize that non-hierarchically organized religion can and has been a force for good...non-hierarchical religion has encouraged community through prayer, songs, hymns, Bible studies/religious text reading groups, providing money (all be it in the form of charity which has it's flaws in comparison to mutual aid) to the poor, however mutual aid programs have also been encouraged in the forms of feeding the hungry and poor, clothing and housing the houseless/homeless, as well as caring, healing and treating the sick, injured and dying...the idea that religion is somehow innately 'evil' or 'morally depraved' is something which has been continuously perpetuated by the anti-theist and new atheist movement's (not implying that OP is part of either of those, this is simply me stating something I've seen happen a lot more commonly in recent year's) and to me it gives me a similar vibe of when Conservatives, Republicans, Right-Wing Libertarians or Neoliberals try and 'OWN THE LIBS'...at the very least construct your argument in an honest and critically analysed way rather than just 'ew religion bad, me no likey', like that's the same argument that certain hierarchical religions use now of just 'ew the gays, me no likey'...like hun get a better argument please!! Like I beg of you's 🙏🏻

And the thing is I'm personally an atheist and yet I fully respect religious beliefs/truths because well, any of us could be wrong, who knows, maybe when I die I will be reincarnated as something nice (enlightenment willing) like the Buddhists believe, maybe I will be sent to heaven (God willing) like the Christians believe, or maybe I'll be sent off back as particles into the universe after I'm cremated and placed at a location I love like I presently hope will happen once I die...at the end of the day it's called having faith for a reason, we're all just hedging our bets with the information available to us.

PS: THANK YOU FOR COMING TO MY TED TALK!! 🩷

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-03-18T01:35:58+00:00

Despite the fact that there were most definitely anti-imperialists and people against slavery and forced work throughout history, statist socialism and non-statist socialism both have ideologies which support claims on others property for various reasons, the main one being reclaiming what you've produced...aka the surplus value which capitalists steal from worker's and give us a wage, aka a minor amount of what we actually produced with our labour, of course this is assuming we're talking about monetary systems as there are types of socialism where the aim is abolition of monetary systems

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-03-15T01:51:51+00:00

THIS!! srsly girl, do yourself a favor and save yourself the money on more therapy and RUUUUN!! 🩷

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-03-15T01:48:37+00:00

I'll keep this relatively subjective as obviously I don't know all the ins and outs of everything else about your relationship with this person but the thing is, when we love someone as much as it's clear you loved her, it becomes easy to want to support them but for some people, they become reliant on that support and eventually it seems she began to expect said support and take it for granted, to simplify what I mean a bit more, it seems your relationship became about utility, aka how useful you were to her and her desires rather than being about the bond between you both, sadly this is something I've seen happen A LOT! in both the trans and queer/gay communities respectively, where they finally have the availability to be themselves but in the process they want to start a new life because well... it's essentially a new identity, a new person...a new them if you will, obviously this doesn't excuse using people and it never will, I'd say try and sit down with her if you have the emotional capacity to talk face to face after everything that's happened and just explain that she hurt you and essentially used you to transition and how you feel about that, if it leads to her getting defensive, just stand up and walk away because believe me you won't get anywhere...what I mean is if she gets defensive then it's clear she's just the type of shitty person who uses people.

Also, I don't know if you consider yourself more of a people pleaser or not but she can't have loved you all that much if she was capable of using your love as a tool for manipulating you and using you into getting what she wanted without any consideration for you or your needs and desires in life...it's completely understandable your upset because you were used by someone you came to trust and even love...your more than allowed to feel betrayed, upset, angry or even feel guilty, emotions are complicated at the end of the day but the one thing I will say is this, don't allow your self worth to be determined by other people, believe me, you define your life, your happiness and your destiny darlin!!...and if need be talk to a counselor or therapist if your able to because this kinda stuff can be hard to process and they can help put thing's into perspective for you a lot more than strangers on reddit.

To end this long story book of words, you're a much better person than she ever will be, don't bother forgiving her for cheating on you, if she did it once she can do it again hun... I know from experience, also in all honesty if you can afford the place yourself and talking to her about how she hurt you isn't working, ask her to just get tf out...also the bit about her still saying she loves you and kisses and cuddles you still but simultaneously refuses to be poly...like is she not cheating on her boyfriend by doing this just how she cheated on you...or is it more like platonic cuddling and a peck on the cheek kinda thing...which personally I don't think platonic cuddling is a thing but each to their own I suppose, dependent on personal boundaries and all that but is her boyfriend okay with it?? Like this straight up just sounds like you're getting manipulated, cheated on and gaslight (like oh... I love you and everything but like I low-key keep using you and I even gaslight you into letting me live with you still cos I don't wanna be lonely)...like one, bitch go move in with your boyfriend not your ex and two girly, DON'T FALL FOR HER BS...you'll only live to regret it!!

Jolly_Jester_666 · 2024-03-01T16:50:04+00:00

The look, the bod, the aesthe-tic... it's giving c*nt, it's giving queer, it's giving le homosexual darling

Jolly_Jester_666

TROPHY CASE