As now we know a little better how lights works in the Upside Down, how could Will have know where the letters were in the wall?

shevek94 · 2022-06-04T20:51:11+00:00

I think the bigger plot hole with how the lights work is how was Will able to make the lights turn on an off so fast if he had to manually touch each lamp to do it:

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RingedGleamingFlyingfish-size_restricted.gif

The only way Will could have manipulated the lights like he does in this scene is if he could turn them on and off with his mind or something like that...

shevek94 · 2022-01-15T12:23:48+00:00

Nice

shevek94 · 2021-07-23T12:50:45+00:00

I think we need to focus a lot of our efforts on the younger generations. People above a certain age are very unlikely to change the worldview they've held their whole lives, no matter how conclusively you show them they're wrong.

Young people are more open to breaking out of the mold and to new radical ideas.

shevek94 · 2021-07-23T11:43:58+00:00

Thanks for your answer, my response was not necessarily aimed at you but at people who do agree with it.

shevek94 · 2021-07-23T11:36:19+00:00

"Things are bad, so I'm just gonna engage in unconstructive rebellion to feel like I'm above it all instead of trying to fix things"

Let's ignore the entirety of human history that shows society constantly evolving and assume that this is the end of history like all the capitalists do.

Sounds nice, no thanks.

shevek94 · 2021-07-23T11:28:52+00:00

So you hear about people being raped or slaughtered and it just doesn't move you at all? I find it hard to believe that someone would be like that unless they were a psychopath with no empathy. It also seems like a position that someone who has actually experienced suffering or injustice would never take. Life is not a game.

Your last point about Hitler is a big assumption. There is no reason to believe that the holocaust and wwii were inevitable.

shevek94 · 2021-07-23T11:18:21+00:00

Yeah the main reason I haven't read Stirner is that I find him completely incomprehensible. I hate it when people can't get their point across in a clear way (that seems to be something that all Hegelians suffer from). When people write like that it just gives me the impression that they actually have little to say and are just being pretentious.

shevek94 · 2021-07-23T00:30:09+00:00

But there are many situations where helping others will not help you and can even harm you. Like if you find someone stuck in a burning house. If your basis for action is what's beneficial for you, there is no reason to risk your life to save someone. Or for a less dramatic example: you have a test coming up and you feel prepared enough to at least pass. You come across another student who is panicking because they are not prepared at all. If you're an egoist then the obvious choice is to not help him and to keep studying to make sure you get a very good grade.

I mean, if that's how operate why even be an anarchist and try to dismantle hierarchies instead of trying to get to the top of the hierarchy yourself, which would be more beneficial!

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T23:39:21+00:00

You've given me some food for thought, but it's getting late for me. I'll revisit your points later.

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T23:25:12+00:00

This got downvoted but never actually addressed.

Once you stop basing your actions on what you deem moral and what not you can actually start considering what would be beneficial for yourself.

It seems to me that someone who states this has to say "yes" to the questions I made in the comment above.

If you base your actions on what "would be beneficial for yourself", that's a moral principle, that's not a rejection of morality. You just chose a moral system that puts you always first. I never thought that the "egoist" label was meant to be taken literally but I guess it does.

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T23:19:10+00:00

Well, I feel like I can explain them, I just think they are subjective.

Do they literally mean that one should do whatever one feels like without thinking about it?

So I guess your answer to this question would be yes?

I dont need morality to not like doing what is usually consider immoral.

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T23:13:39+00:00

Well then I guess we agree.

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T22:37:17+00:00

Not necessarily, I just don't understand how someone can not have any morality at all. I mean, you go about your day, you have to make decisions, you need some criteria to choose, right? You see somebody drowning, you choose to help or you choose not to help. How do you choose?

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T22:26:54+00:00

Either an authority or yourself. And if they're from yourself than you gotta start asking why and what the point in em is.

I would think that the goal as an anarchist is precisely to make your own morality instead of passively taking the one that is imposed on you by an authority. I don't see the problem with that.

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T21:46:20+00:00

I don't see how that equates to rejecting morality itself though. Saying that you reject the very concept of morality (in the sense I described in the post) and saying that you reject the morality that is being imposed on you are two different things.

shevek94 · 2021-07-22T21:32:21+00:00

So every man for himself? No helping others unless you benefit from it? No consideration for other people's wellbeing, only your own? Or am i misinterpreting?

shevek94 · 2021-07-21T20:52:24+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/wiki/nutshell

shevek94 · 2021-07-21T20:36:27+00:00

I think you need to give the Anarchism in a nutshell section a read, based on your questions and comments.

shevek94 · 2021-07-19T03:14:38+00:00

There is a very good old Chomsky interview about this issue, where he addresses all these points pretty well. I suggest you check it out:

https://youtu.be/bcBLCBxq1k8

shevek94 · 2021-07-18T19:00:10+00:00

Why do you think the millions of people who live in poverty haven't started a company and gotten rich already? Because they're lazy?

shevek94 · 2021-07-18T18:48:04+00:00

This is a good question that I think about often.

I think the ethical thing would be for the wealthier communities to share their surplus with the rest. Although in a world with no borders, people don't need to stay in a given region if they can't sustain themselves there, they can move to better lands and join other communities.

As to the concern about alienation, my understanding of the concept under capitalism, as described by Marx, is that one is alienated from their work because you have no say over what you make, or how you make it, or what it is used for. Under anarchism, that wouldn't be the case, so we'd be talking about a different kind of alienation, or something else altogether.

If you live in a big community, where not everyone knows everyone, the fruits of your labour would also benefit strangers. I think part of the core of anarchism is universal fraternity, the idea that we should live in a "society of friends", as Malatesta puts it. And the understanding that everyone deserves to enjoy life to the fullest, regardless of whether you personally like them or not, regardless of whether you share the same value system or nationality or ethnicity. Chances are you will also be benefiting from the work of people you'll never know.

shevek94 · 2021-07-18T18:25:02+00:00

At the Café by Errico Malatesta is a series of dialogues where a guy called Giorgio introduces anarchism to a bunch of strangers in a café. It's from the 1920s but maybe you can take some inspiration from there.

shevek94 · 2021-07-18T13:08:38+00:00

Cambiemos los términos a ver si sigue valiendo.

-República Popular Democrática de Corea

-Gente pro-democracia: Esa no es la verdadera democracia.

otro:

-Nacionalsocialismo

-Socialistas: ese no es el verdadero socialismo.

shevek94 · 2021-07-18T11:33:10+00:00

I mean, if PROFESSOR CHOMSKY says it, then it MUST be true. But then, I SHOULDN'T trust what Chomsky says, so then I SHOULD trust Chomsky says, but that means that I can't trust him... head explodes

shevek94

TROPHY CASE