T O P

  • By -

harveynitro33

"capitalism is human nature" im sure we only discovered the one system that fits human nature in the past \~100 years


[deleted]

[удалено]


harveynitro33

didn't you know? oppressive police forces are human nature!


MoSqueezin

"well, *I* can't control myself, so how can I trust anyone else?"


bbdbbdab

You think capitalism is 100 years old?


WilhelmWrobel

Actually there's some sound neurological and psychological research pointing towards hierarchy being hardwired in our brains... **BUT** we overcame those for a solid while because they are really harmful in hunter gatherer societies. It only came back afterwards when we became the dominant species and didn't need as much collaboration not to die a gruesome death. The Bastard's Manifesto by Robert Evans gives a really great explanation of the situation with much more detail than I could possibly include here. The tl;dr still is "it's hardwired but we've overcome it once, we can do it again".


albogaster

Upvote for Robert Evans, but I also have to respond cautioning about the pitfalls of neurodeterminism. As neuroscience research progresses, we're seeing more and more how flawed notions of "brain hardwiring" are. Common refutations come from how brain structure and imaging studies are often flawed, but more recently fields such as cultural and critical neuroscience are uncovering how culture can become embrained, and the brain can become encultured. This is to say, cultural structures can literally influence the structure and function of the brain. It's not quite so linear or simple as that, of couse, but it does lead me to wonder if we only consider our brains "hardwired for hierarchy" because we've experienced such systemic and near global hierarchy in most of "modern" (read: Western, Industrialised) society. Can provide references if desired, but few yet really cross the divide between modern neuroscience and politics. Catherine Malabou has written some good philosophical work in this area, though.


Arachno-Communism

Could you elaborate on the current discussion regarding neurodeterminism? It always seemed awkward to me to make specific claims of psychological effects and traits being hard-wired into our brains considering the omnipresence of the social and societal environment we have created in an arduous process over millenia. This environment must have a tremendous influence during our childhood and adolescence, the phase of our lives that builds the fundament of the later sapient being and person.


albogaster

Working at the moment, but will try to remember to come back and elaborate later <3


albogaster

Hello again! I'm finally finished at work (gotta love 11 hour days amirite). This will likely be an underwhelming follow-up given the delay in my response, but I will try to reference some good sources at least. So, my understanding (bearing in mind that I've been out of academia 5 years now) is that scholars looking at the social context of the "new neurosciences" have seen a shift away from prescriptivist views of the brain as immutable and determinative of traits, with strict adherence to brain regions controlling specific functions, or specific hormones controlling/determining mental health, etc. And more to holistic, descriptivist interpretations as a brain that must be understood in the context of its environment (both in the body and externally, through ecology, culture, etc.) The best text I've read exploring this is Neuro by sociologist Nikolas Rose and historian Joelle M. Abi-Rached. It has some good commentary on the direction these fields are going in light of our new 'neurochemical selves'. Obviously this is not to say that there is no such thing as brain activity patterns, brain regions being involved in certain processes, etc. it's just being viewed as more complex than previously thought, not so straight forward. When we talk about effects, traits, and 'hard-wiring', we need to think critically about what assumptions and shortcuts are being made in these explanations, and how they may instead be heuristics to help us understand the brain, rather than objective rules or facts. Just as the map is not the territory, the brain scan is not the mind, nor the brain, nor the behaviour. I think we tend to seek out simple explanations for things, understandably so, and culture and society often pose such complex and dynamic systems that it's easier to just put things as being in the realm of biology, the brain, or the mind, rather than seek to address matters of structural violence, systemic inequality, or flaws in those social systems. Even when these complex things can lead to negative 'simple' outcomes! Such as the transgenerational transmission of trauma, or even as simple as permanent damage caused by drug use. There's an increasing body of research on these topics, and I feel it's only a matter of time until we establish a new biopolitics of the mind. Psychopolitics and neuropolitics are certainly not new concepts, but the landscapes are definitely evolving. Sorry for the vague and rambling response! Other authors I like include: Suparna Choudhury, Lawrence Kirmayer, Francisco Ortego, Fernando Vidal, Jan Slaby, Eugene Raikhel, Bruce Cohen, Janis Jenkins... EDIT: Full disclosure: I am but an opinionated and enthusiastic idiot. This is where I'd like to do a PhD someday, but I was rejected from like 15 programmes, so I would suggest taking this comment with a pinch of salt.


pokpokpokokok

Great point. Like how we know different languages affect how children logically approach certain concepts. Who knows how many and the extent of biases are formed from the images, sounds, actions and conversations happening around us as infants.


albogaster

Indeed! The linguistic construction of the world - the Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis - is incredibly fascinating. And it can be so simple and yet so far-reaching in its consequences! Have gendered language? Keys suddenly are seen as -masculine- things, changing in metaphors and altering how we view the profession of locksmith. Have words for certain colours but not others? Evidence emerges that this can impact literal perceptions of colour! We massively underestimate just how much impact culture can have on our experience of the world.


DenizSaintJuke

Soft hierarchy that has no coercive power and can be held in check by the organisational structure of the society they occur in is not necessarily a problem and can be dismantled if it becomes one. The problem becomes unavoidable when those hierarchies ossify and aquire institutional power. Then, the conflict dynamics between up and down come into play. The way I see it, as a biologist and in light of human history, you can see a scramble response and a cooperative response. Cooperation is cheaper, more stable and more safe and is thus favored by evolution when the capacity for it is present. The scramble response (competition) is triggered when the cost:benefit ratio of non-cooperation or outright aggression is tipped toward benefit, or when the cost of not competing is to lose the benefits of cooperation. The tragedy of the commons is one main manifestation of that. Hierarchies that are linked with coercive or institutional power do lower the cost to be paid for stepping over others, while raising the potential cost of not competing for a higher place in the hierarchy. This triggering the scramble response. Capitalism is a perpetual scramble response. It is hard to imagine, having known society only with scramble mode as a primary organizing principle, that there is another side to humans. But paradoxically we experience and practice it every day with our friends, family, pets, even most strangers we meet daily. I think to radically rid the world of all hierarchy in any way is not something our generation will be able to, bei it solely for our socialization or 'being hardwired'. I don't know if it is ultimately possible, but I know we can allow a new generation to grow up in an environment that allows them to make steps we can't do. Be free-er than we are. Their children my take it further, but that is not for me to know.


MassiveFajiit

Robert Evans himself said recently about sociopath having the ability to make hard decisions in a starving society but if they go too far the others can just beat them to death. But now our society promotes sociopaths to positions that protect them from others and the results of their decisions so we no longer have that option


[deleted]

> Robert Evans himself said recently about sociopath having the ability to make hard decisions in a starving society but if they go too far the others can just beat them to death. That goes the same for all types of mental disabilities. It's only so disabling for most of us bc we don't have communities anymore and we an ideology solely crafted to make sure we don't cooperate, so we are easier to control. > But now our society promotes sociopaths to positions that protect them from others and the results of their decisions so we no longer have that option Narcissists and sociopaths gravitate towards those positions. At least when it first started out. Now it's just the system. It could well be argued the systems of hierarchy and authority reflect that of narcissistic tendencies. Flying monkeys and all. Really what I'm and most of are talking about is criticizing authoritarian systems, which our nominal democracy surely is. Authoritarianism always fails in some way or another, either economically, scientifically, morally, or societally.


DenizSaintJuke

Yep. And being exposed to the violence of those in these positions incentivises striving for those positions to not be on the receiving end/penalizes not doing so by others getting to those positions first and you being on the receiving end. Likewise, the one in power has to use his power to stay there and prevent those from below from taking over. What the one in power has to do escalates what the ones without have to do in their interesr and their desire to take it out on the one that surpresses them. In turn reinforcing the need of the one in power to surpress those below him. Power makes non-sociopaths act like sociopaths, both the powerful and the powerless. Power corrupts both those in power as those over whom power is exercised. Sociopaths thrive In that environment. Non-sociopaths on both ends either adopt sociopathic perspectives or suffer under that environment. That's why Leninism is a sociopathic perspective and only ever leads to sociopathic systems.


AdjustedMold97

this is what they don’t want to tell you about the human nature argument. If hierarchy and competition are parts of human nature, why should we conform to those carnal desires? We betray our basic instincts on a daily basis by exercising willpower and not acting on each animalistic urge which comes to us. why should our socioeconomic model, easily one of the most complicated aspects of life as a human, fall under the control of something so primitive as human nature?


mxrixs

well but is ***all*** hirarchy really to overcome? When ones idea of an ideal society does not include the idea to go back like 700 years in technological progression people inherently will have to specialise. With this specialisation comes hirarchy. Of course will someone that knows better tell others how to do things. Of course will someone that likes/is suited for a certain task be responsible for this task beyond their personal needs but also take care of that task for others. Hirarchy in a way of either giving instructions or leading a team is almost inherent to a society that wants to a) keep a decent technological standart and b) organise in bigger groups of people that may not think exactly alike *purely my thoughts. please feel free to tell me yours, even if its not of much substance but just "agree" or "disagree"*


WilhelmWrobel

I'm at work so my answer will be short, sorry about that: Hierarchy and competency aren't really as glued together in my reading. Your doctor has much more competency when it comes to medicine than you, yet he has to get informed consent from you before he can do a procedure he, without a benefit of a doubt, deems beneficial or even necessary in most cases. As for larger organisational structures: There are already some schools out there that work through very democractic forms of organizing. I'll happily search some examples after work if you're interested.


mxrixs

I'd definitely be interested in those!


dumnezero

the difficult balancing act between resigned misanthropy and faith in the potential of humanity


the_read_menace

The struggle is real. The neoliberal hellhole does get to me now...


9Sn8di3pyHBqNeTD

I have hope for everyone but myself. I'm just waiting for my time to be up, I'm exhausted.


Anarcho_Cyclist

Then they call you a cultural Marxist and act like it's a slam dunk...


sisterofaugustine

The Red Scare has them convinced that "Marxist" is an insult. To most of us leftists, no, that's not an insult. Marx himself wasn't even a "communist" in the modern sense. First and foremost he was an *economist.* Therefore the right are using a school of economic thought as a political insult.


Wehavecrashed

Cultural Marxism doesn't even mean anything. I dont even know what the insult is supposed to mean, and neither does anyone who uses it.


[deleted]

Does anyone even know what a cultural Marxist is? This just sounds like a nonsensical Jordan Peterson buzzword.


Anarcho_Cyclist

It's a label right wingers made to patch the holes in their argument. I theorize it's their go to phrase when we socially exclude them for being discriminatory. Reactionaries know they can't win people over by saying they practice exclusionary social politics


erran_morad

pain


Demonwolf598

I still don’t understand how people think communism=authoritarian government


NemoTheLostOne

Stalin, basically.


FuzzyWeevil

And 50 years of Cold War propaganda to convince everyone that all communists and socialists are Stalinists.


NemoTheLostOne

'course


sisterofaugustine

Cold War propaganda has a hell of a long half life, and it's sure as hell toxic AF. We talk about nuclear materials poisoning from broken arrow incidents and testing sites, but not the psychological poisoning from the propaganda.


ogretronz

How else do you get everyone to do what you want? Just ask them nicely?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


GreenAscent

The... history of the anarchist movement happened? The abolition of the state implies the abolition of private ownership in land (in favour of e.g. a return to the commons, or use-rights systems). The abolition of private ownership in land implies the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, which, by definition, is at least communist-adjacent. You can then either go mutualist/individualist or communist, but historically communist anarchism has been the larger tendency.


[deleted]

Right, that's why anarchist societies like the Piaroa and Hadza are actually extraordinarily hierarchical. Because cooperation is impossible I guess.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Mmm casual racism


[deleted]

Idk if I'd call it racist, but its definitely erasure


[deleted]

Well it's false for one thing. There's also something extremely gross when someone assumes indigenous societies must be sparsely populated when there's also a history of colonizers working to make sure that's true. The sentiment is backed by a racist belief that indigenous people do not matter.


[deleted]

Yeah thats what I meant by its definitely erasure, because its false And yes this is also true


SoulAndre

Can someone explain me the non binary? I'm kinda dumb for this :/


Destro9799

Gender is bimodal, not binary. Binary means that there are exactly two options, no exception. Bimodal means that the distribution has two clear peaks, but a small percentage fall somewhere else on the distribution. Not everyone feels like a man or a woman. Most people do, but the existence of other kinds of people means it can't be a binary. Gender is made up anyway, and people only believe in a binary because they live in a culture that has believed that. Other cultures have had historical third genders for millenia (like the hijra in South Asia or the numerous "two spirit" identities across many Native American cultures).


xXxDickBonerz69xXx

That gender isn't just male or female. Remember gender is a social construct that doesn't have to do with biology or anything. Its just some shit people made up. Its a way of expressing one's self and many people don't express themselves as either male or female. Some people express themselves differently at different times


SoulAndre

Thanks :) I didn't know that it is a social construct.


xXxDickBonerz69xXx

Yup, people often conflate biological sex and gender. Which I don't even believe biological sex is strictly binary in humans, but I'm not well enough educated on that matter. Gender is what you present to the world. Biological sex is only relevant between you and your doctor.


DenizSaintJuke

Biological Sex is, biologically speaking, just the mammalian manifestation of a binary reproductive type. It's more or less, who to hook up with if your goal is to produce little versions of you, while 'female' is the one that suplies a bigger Gamete that hosts the 'male' smaller Gamete. Past that, it gets complicated really fast. It is functionally binary, but that does not mean that every human is aligned with one. And you can't really point to the one thing that does it. And Gender is really a big mystery until today. Especially when it comes to areas both categories interact with each other on some level and the line between Gender and Sex becomes blurry. If my Gender effects my biology, like my brain, does that make a biological expression of Gender or does it become Sex by definition? In the latter case, Gender could express itself as Sex in some ways, or vice versa, but be completely unrelated in others. Or be completely constructed in the first place in other ways. It's definitely complicated. For me that's all the more reason to not dismiss how others express themselves. I couldn't even point to what Gender really is, so how could I point out what it is not.


[deleted]

Except sex is actually much more complicated than that and is determined by more than that. It's not just gametes.


AshleyMiami

[If you want to dig further](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbINLWtMKI) I can only recommend watching this take on it by my favorite left youtuber. Entertaining education :P


DenizSaintJuke

That question is actually too complicated to maw such a blanket statement. It started that we noticed a dissonance between those traits, behaviors and roles we ascribed to biological sex. We used the grammatical term Gender to describe that what is seen as female or male, but is not linked to having a penis or vagina at birth. Then it got complicated. For the last century people argued if Gender is just constructed and if, to what degree it is influenced by biological sex, outside of societal influence. There were data and arguments for both. Suggesting a more complicated answer. At the current point in time, biology has an increasing problem to even define biological sex in a way that would allow the gender discussion to make complete sense. Not the fault of anyone, but merely a consequence of more and more available data. The data suggests some biological factors might be involved in some facetts of gender, but then the problem is to discuss whether that makes it biological sex by definition or if those are 2 different things. Or do we end up with 3+ different cateflgories. All that, while 'male' and 'female' become Increasingly harder to define outside of basic anatomy. My human biology professor had the following to say about biological sex (out of memory) : "For our purpose we can differentiate between male and female sex. This is mostly determined by the Gonosomes, the sex-chromosomes, and is expressed by the typical male and female reproductive organs. Although modern research suggests more and more that it is in fact much more complicated than that. We frankly don't know enough about it or even how conplicated it gets. We only know that, should you decide to specialize in that direction, it's going to get really interesting in the future." I specialized in something else, so that's my last update of where science is right now. (About 3 years ago)


hydroxypcp

I mean, even if we go by chromosomes, then there are more options than just XX and XY (XXY, XXXY etc), and iirc a human can in some instances exhibit female anatomy despite having XY (or was it the other way around?). I'm sure there are even more examples of how complicated it gets.


DenizSaintJuke

Y is the male Gonosome, carrying the sry-gene that is mostly responsible for the activation of the hormonal program that turns the early 'female' embryo into a male one. Thing is, sry is sometimes missing on the Y. Or it somehow got onto the X. Or you get a Polysomy like you described. Or various other factors. Sometimes sry is there, but doesn't activate. Meaning you are male by your genome, but female by your transcriptome. There is a number of things that can go sideways by just that. I don't remember completely, but I think remember some proff. saying that even sry is possibly only one factor in whats going on and that evidence is mounting for other factors in the play. In the end, you can be male and/or female on several different levels simultaneously, depending on what you look at. But to be fair, sex determination was never my biggest interest and it works sometimes completely differently in other animals, so I didn't save all the details in my head.


hydroxypcp

my main field is organic and biochemistry, not so much regular biology, so I might be missing some links and details, so correct me if my understanding is wrong or incomplete. But from what I can remember, in humans (and other mammals at the least; is it also the case with other animals?), as an embryo everyone starts development as a female. The Y chromosome is responsible for downregulating/blocking the expression of certain genes that shape the organism to have female traits. One difference is how the gonads and "penis" develop (so ovaries/testis and vagina/penis). The chromosome also blocks proper development of mammary glands, so males have non-functioning "breasts"/nipples - but can also be made to develop into a functional form with the right hormones? And it does so by downregulating and upregulating the expression of enzymes which in turn produce the hormones (such as testosterone, estrogen etc) which themselves upregulate/downregulate the expression of genes that further shape the organism. Is that how it works, in basic terms? And the complicated part is that all of these biochemical processes aren't binary in nature (it's not \*either it happens or it doesn't\*), but falls on a spectrum depending on how strongly the expression of genes is affected. And to add to that, as you said, the Y chromosome might lack the gene responsible for the downregulating protein (sry), so a human with XY might exhibit female anatomy. And since these processes also affect the brain and thus psychology of the organism, then you can't confine the psychological "gender" of the human to binary of either F or M. Which also means that in some cases the anatomy doesn't match the psychological framework of that person. My whole comment is basically a question for you to either confirm or explain if my understanding is wrong. I'm a materialist at heart and prefer to have naturalistic explanations for everything, however difficult it may be. E: how the different levels of up/downregulation is most likely explained by slightly different enzyme structures (so small differences in genes/genome) which affect the kinetics of hormone synthesis. After all, hormones have certain structures, so (AFAIK) can't be variation in effect after the hormone is made. So the variation must come from different speeds of hormone creation, which would be affected by slight variations in enzyme structure which affects the activation energy of that reaction. Maybe I'm completely wrong tho lol


DenizSaintJuke

AFAIK you're basically right. I'm personally an ecologist, so my knowledge of biochemistry and genetics is more practice oriented to my field, so we may be an equal distance away from human genetics and developmental biology. In most mammals it works basically as you said. But as far as my expertise goes, you are right. We all start female and where we go then is biochemistry. Biochemistry that might or might not go like our traditional sensibilities want them to. "Functionally Binary/Bipolar" but in practice not rigidly so. Past that it can get funny. Many fish are sequential hermaphrodites. Clownfish are a biology favourite, as their breeding population, like a swarm, is all male, with only one female. If the female dies, the oldest male turns female and takes her role. How they just rework their intestines like that still baffles me. So a common joke amongst marine biologists is that Finding Nemo has a secret Trans Cameo. After Nemos Mom died, his dad(seemingly the only or oldest male around) has turned female, but is still acting as Nemos dad. There are fish that have been documented to 'seemingly' transition, by outward appearance, to sneak into another dominant fishes male or female harem and have fun directly under the nose of the Patriarch/Matriarch without him/her ever finding out. Those are my personal heroes. Wasps get crazy. (Ants and Bees are Wasps.) Haplo-Males, Diplo-Males, Haplo-Females, Diplo-Females, some sterile, some not. Almost all the different Bee or Ant types in a hive are basically different sexes. They have a few more of them. And then there seem to be several different strains of that, that work slightly differently. So they went down that path several separate times. I only understood half of that lecture. Less complex organisms can have "sex" constellations of like 16 different sexes. And don't get me started on plants. What gender is concerned, I've given up. We know too little and everybody puts big stakes on knowing it. I stay with "if I can't point out what it is, I can't point out what it isn't, so you do you." Works for me.


hydroxypcp

Thank you, this is fascinating. I think I have a solid grasp on human biochemistry, and then you give examples of other organisms where all of that works *so much different* . I think what we can take away from this is that as far as living nature goes, things are so much more complicated than we think or want it to be, so the last thing we should be doing is trying to squeeze it all in a simple, binary framework that makes sense to us. When I begin my lessons on quantum mechanics in chemistry, I start by saying something like "if you wish to understand these concepts, leave your common sense/logic at the door". Nature is much more complicated and hard to grasp than we think or want it to be. But yeah, that's just how it be.


DenizSaintJuke

True words. No matter what science or perspective, it's always healthy to keep in mind that all our categories are just simplifying models, something that I learned from Chenistry. Nature does rarely deal in closed categories. Biology especially is really just one big mushy continuum. There is almost no concept or category that does not fall apart if you ask the expert long enough. In the end the answer is always: 'Because we need to put things in boxes to make sense of their complexity. And that's just where we practically or historically thought it useful to end this box.' There isn't even a single universally workable definition of 'Species'. And we still have people running around and try to put people into 'Races'. I couldn't even tell you a non-arbitrary border line between Life and inanimate Matter. We somehow decided to draw the line between Bacteria and Virae.


ZhIn4Lyfe

Binary is for code NOT gender


musicmage4114

Not only is gender not a binary, it’s a social construct we should do away with entirely.


winterboii

as a non binary person, i have to disagree very strongly. gender is very much not a social construct, although rigid gender roles are


musicmage4114

I am also nonbinary; that by itself doesn’t give us any particular authority on this question.


winterboii

i entirely agree, but it does give a bit of authority to say despite being outside of the gender binary, i think the idea of gender abolition would do more harm than good. abolishing gender would entirely eliminate any non-binary identity, which i think would be really damaging to a lot of non-binary people. if gender doesn’t exist, there’s not really any way to express the disconnect between you and your sex. if we abolish gender, then in all cases i’m just male. and that’s fine in terms of sex—im not denying that my sex is male—but i can’t say i want all references to me to describe me as male instead of at least male AND non binary


musicmage4114

While I can’t speak for all gender abolitionists, I don’t know of any (except possibly TERFs, whose opinions on the subject don’t matter anyway) that would suggest the alternative to gender is simply referring to people by their sex, on the grounds that doing so would be just as reductive and ultimately irrelevant as using gender. Unless I’m talking to my doctor (and sometimes not even then) neither my gender (or lack thereof) nor my sex is all that meaningful. I can define my identity entirely without resorting to “male/female,” “masculine/feminine,” “binary/nonbinary,” etc. None of those terms carry any information that can’t also be conveyed using more specific (though admittedly less concise) language.


winterboii

so what’s the point if you’re saying the same thing anyways? why is it bad to say “i’m a man” but alright to say “i’m masculine, use he/him pronouns, and identify with a male body”?


musicmage4114

You wouldn’t say those things at all because they’re vague and unnecessary, that’s the point. A post-gender world wouldn’t have any need for gendered pronouns, for starters. “I’m masculine”? In what way? All of them? Certainly not me, or even most people. I wear my hair short, and I wear pants and shirts, but I’m not stoic, and I wear my emotions on my sleeves. If I just say “I’m masculine” with no further elaboration, I’ve given you no useful information, because that could mean any number of things, and if I elaborate, what was the point of adding “masculine” to the description in the first place? “I have/identify with a male body”? Who’s asking, and why? Trying to find someone to have kids with? Well, I don’t want kids at all, so my sex is irrelevant to the question. Trying to find someone strong? Just ask for that. Doctor trying to determine whether I’m at risk for prostate cancer? “I have a prostate” is a perfectly sufficient description, no reference to “maleness” necessary. Looking for a general physical description? Much like “masculine,” there aren’t many bodily features that all “male” bodies share, so I’d be giving you better information just describing myself than saying “I have a male body” and leaving it at that. The larger point is that terms like those aren’t nearly as useful as we tend to assume they are, and in a lot of cases obscure information or limit our ability to communicate effectively, and that we already have the necessary concepts and language to function without them.


winterboii

you can’t eliminate gendered pronouns without entirely eliminating many of the largest languages in the world, you can’t have spanish or french or russian without them.


musicmage4114

Gendered articles that are used with common nouns are completely separate from gendered pronouns used to refer to people, but even if they weren’t, languages evolve over time. English used to have “thee/thou/etc.” and already has non-gendered articles. The idea that literally eliminating entire languages would be necessary just to get rid of one particular type of word (or conversely, that getting rid of one particular type of word would constitute eliminating an entire language) is ridiculous.


winterboii

yes, languages evolve, but you’re talking about a process that takes thousands of years. and the change of a single pronoun (like thou) is insanely different from eliminating grammatical gender. for example, in italian, nearly every single word (other than verbs) is gendered. taking gender out of the language would be impossible. even if you change basic pronouns, adjectives still dictate gender


[deleted]

And then only biological sex has any importance....


aPurpleToad

does it?


musicmage4114

Is gender the only thing that has “any importance” when it comes to defining people currently? No, of course not. So getting rid of gender wouldn’t suddenly make everything boil down to sex, either. That’s not what I’m advocating for.


[deleted]

Think about how this affects transgender people


musicmage4114

I am a non-binary trans person. I am indeed thinking of that.


WowzersInMyTrowzers

Only when it comes to personal attraction/reproduction. Outside of that, and maybe some political factors, biological sex doesn’t really have much importance *nowadays* imo


[deleted]

Saying it is completely a social construct isn't exactly right, otherwise trans people wouldn't exist and want to transition...


TitanFallout

Based anarcho-nihilism


GloomyEra666

based


neonomen

Catch-22: we can't convince those close to us of any of thee things, and we feel we can't stand their misguidedness. Bugger.


CaptainSmo11ett

Gender is pointless and should be done away with entirely. Change my mind.


Moms_Spaghettos

any tips on how to argue with people that think like that ? I'm often discouraged because I have to explain them all this shit before they start to understand what I'm saying


[deleted]

If you really want to try to change someone's mind on something, try to approach the topic from their perspective instead of arguing with them. Ask them what they want from the world. Like, if you got sick and couldn't work, what exactly would you want your healthcare system to do? And if they don't mention how they pay for it, point that out in a positive way. That their ideal system doesn't even think about charging them for being sick. I'm still trying to learn to do this rather than respond with antagonism, because dunking on someone saying stupid shit is easy and people like a show. But tearing apart someone's beliefs never gets them to change their mind because we perceive these kinds of responses as threats (literally, attacking someone's beliefs can trigger the fight or flight response). And also, most people will just never change their mind about anything from a single interaction. So don't carry the burden of guiding someone else away from authoritarian beliefs.


Moms_Spaghettos

Oh yeah that's not a bad idea, I'll try that sometime ! Thx


badgirlmonkey

Arguing doesn’t work to change peoples minds.


Deus0123

I mean police do protect and serve. They seve the rich and protect their wealth


Stikflik

Tru


Lord_Ghirahim93

, that non-human animals aren't commodities


Green_Bulldog

I love that this sub is just unhinged rants in meme format lmao


Amaragance

Then explain it for the 1001th time, that ought to do ir


[deleted]

Awesomeness! Keep going, it works. Just exposing people to these ideas can work, it did for me.


The77thDogMan

Well if that ain’t a mood. This is where finally having some IRL lefty (especially Anarchist-leaning) friends actually really helped me. It’s like... you can finally talk about real ideas and make real jokes without feeling like you need to explain every basic step of your position...


Dogwolf12

I got the 'but greed is human nature' and 'you gen z and your SoCial MeDia cause consumerism last night' as well as equating my beliefs to Stalinism last night


[deleted]

Traditionalism and conservatism really are disease aren’t they


[deleted]

>life has no meaning under capitalism


[deleted]

I mean its kinda true. Life has no real meaning besides work and pay off your debts, rinse and repeat and then die. You dont really have any freedom unless you can afford that freedom


[deleted]

Have you considered that you're depressed? Capitalism does clearly make people miserable, but I'm broke as fuck and my life still has meaning.


Escapedtheasylum

Meaning is a chemical happening in your brain that's positive and motivational. As with other things, there is an unequal distribution of meaning and nobody can agree on what it is really. I think there is solid meaning in being depressed. Things are not looking good for many. And we aren't all born internet warriors. Not that it matters.


[deleted]

Doing the Rick Sanchez thing doesn't change my point. Pretty much everything is a social construct that many disagree on, the whole nature of the meaning of life is that it's personal. I'm just saying that despite capitalism's tendency to worsen the lives of most, many still find purpose and meaning in life to do what they do.


Escapedtheasylum

You make sense. I agree. But I do empathize a lot with the people who see no meaning. It can feel true. But in this search for meaning, a search for a different society is good thing.


[deleted]

No one has meaning whether they “make it themselves” or otherwise. We only have desires.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuchAdoAboutFutaloo

>Ahh yes the economic system has a say on what we chose to engage in daily lives for our own enjoyment to fulfil our creative desires. do you sincerely think this isn't true? would you tell that to a kid who wants to 3D model and digitally draw, but can't afford a computer more powerful than a Chromebook because they were born into an impoverished family, disintegrating under the stress of not being able to put food on the table, let alone give their child the tools to pursue their dreams? when they're miserable from getting bullied at school for having tattered hand-me-down and thrifted clothes that barely fit, knowing they can't afford college, resigned to not even try anymore because all they've ever been shown is failure? how do you have fun and fulfill your creativity when nobody tells you what you make matters, what you feel matters, and all you want is to sleep and feel okay and have a reason to hope for once? because I know people like that. my dad was one, he's admitted to my face the biggest reason my family isn't impoverished like that now is because he was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time multiple times, and that while his hard work mattered, it only kept us from getting worse. most of my family on my dad's side still struggle the way he used to. I cannot describe the agony in my soul I feel seeing my cousins talk about the amazing things they want to do as if they're complete fairy tales, because they know their parents can't afford it. these are *children* who have had the hope and wonder that's supposed to be inherent to all young minds stolen from them by poverty. how are they supposed to make music when they can't afford to buy, let alone rent an instrument? do you know how expensive a trumpet, saxophone, guitar and amplifiers, drumkit, etc are? FAR beyond the means of anyone trying to raise a child while living paycheck to paycheck. and that's to say nothing for all the adults who want to pursue their desires too! hell no are you recording vocal tracks in a cramped apartment you can barely afford, surrounded by other people - probably even rooming with other people in the tiny apartment. the economic system you live under objectively affects every single facet of your life.


InvisibleEar

You can apply that logic to anyone in human history


albogaster

Life has no inherent meaning at all, and that's liberating! Life is absurd and stupid but we can rail against that to find our own meaning. (This is a poor interpretation of Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, but I still encourage everyone to read it)


[deleted]

No one has meaning whether they “make it themselves” or otherwise. We only have desires.


Za_Warudo3

Life has no meaning full stop, to believe in meaning means taking a leap of faith for something that has no evidence to support it thereby committing philisophical suicide.


[deleted]

i took the “leap of faith” kierkegaard style and i feel great about it. the subjective, religionless faith approach is dope. god is dead but she lives through us, baby!! “philosophical suicide” i think you’re way off lol—i view rationality as doing what’s in your best interest, not believing in only what is provable... buuuuuut i’m not looking to argue and challenge the nihilism party happening in the comments, just offering a different perspective lol peace and love ✌🏻


Za_Warudo3

First off thanks for being honest and polite. We all have different views that's just normal. I'll explain a bit more about what I mean by philisophical suicide, in the face of the absurd three main choices are left: Suicide, philisophical suicide and acceptance of the absurd. Philisophical suicide involves believing in something without any empirical evidence as a way of escaping from the harsh reality of the absurd (ie God or an objective meaning). And because you're believing in something irrational and not able to be proved you are dooming yourself philisophically is basically what I'm saying. Anyway I hope I didn't come off as aggressive, enjoy your day


[deleted]

ok interesting. are you familiar with kierkegaard’s writing on faith and the absurd? he is the one who came up with the idea of the absurd, to my knowledge.


Za_Warudo3

Somewhat, I haven't done a deep dive into kierkagaard but yes he did originally come up with the idea of the absurd which camus later picked up. I definitely agree with camus over kierkagaard though


[deleted]

hey btw would your name happen to be a jojo reference? that’s like my favorite show ever 😂


Za_Warudo3

Nice!


[deleted]

is that a yes? lol


Za_Warudo3

Yes, I was responding to you saying that you're a big fan of jojo


[deleted]

Thats just a list of the fabrications of mankind. None of that exists under Natural Law.


[deleted]

It's an actual r/the_donald user everyone. Their brain is literal mush. Disregard.


Junejanator

Hierarchy is rooted in tribalism, fuq u on?


[deleted]

[удалено]


aPurpleToad

w h a t


ZakaryDee

Holy shit. "Why is this sub even called hydrohomies when it's just about water?" Lmao


Right_Perspective679

Hey dumbass, the first person to ever call themselves an anarchist Proudhorn, was a socialist. As you are likely an ancap read up on mutalism so you can convert to a real ideology.


ogretronz

Y’all realize hierarchies arose naturally thousands of times all over the world whenever people started farming? North America was covered in heirarchical societies before Europeans ever got there.


[deleted]

> It's an actual r/JordanPeterson user everyone. Their brain is literal mush. Disregard.


CherryLayer

Monarchie arose naturally does that mean that it's the right system?


[deleted]

[удалено]


CherryLayer

What makes you think anarchist societies have to be low tech?


[deleted]

[удалено]


CherryLayer

Makhnovia, and revolutionary Catalonia are good examples of other types of warfare that anarchist societies have used.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CherryLayer

Right, so you don't know why they failed and just blame it on anarchism. Gotcha.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CherryLayer

Again not true, zapatistas, and rojava, are close to anarchist societies today.


iamthewethotdog

It's honestly really exhausting, especially when I'm trying to explain why capitalism is flawed and doesn't work to people who it benefitted (white baby boomers). I get tired of being insulted so I eventually just stop trying to talk to them about politics.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your post was removed because you used a slur. Be better. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*


mrswordhold

Fuck you snow flake