[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 2231



File: 1476304899592.png (575.19 KB, 300x300, 1ae.png)

No.2231

Everywhere I go, AFK and wired, is filled to the fuarrrking brim with nationalists antifeminists and 'not racist but's. I can't go fuarrrking ANYWHERE without being mocked or hated for being an anarchist. I don't mean people try to argue with me, that I wouldn't mind, but I do just mean hated.
Leftypol is 20% nationalists 60% Anti-PC statists and 20% memes. Uboa is 90% idiots. I just saw a post on whyihatepeople saying socialists just want to transfer the money from whites to blacks. I AM BLOODY SICK OF IT. BEFORE IT WAS JUST CHANS BUT SINCE ORANGE HITLER BECAME POPULAR EVERY IDIOT WHO HATES WOMEN THINKS THEYRE A POLITICIAN. READ A fuarrrkING BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR MEANINGLESS LIFE.

Is there anywhere left that isn't polluted with pseudonazi scumbags? I know they're rarer here, but they still have a presence.

Please don't respond with something like "anon can't face debate so they beg for safe space". I am not saying I wont debate Nazis, just that I am sick of seeing them everywhere I go.

  No.2232

go to a communist/anarchist forum then

  No.2233

Politics is getting old. Pass.

  No.2234

Nazis are to be bashed not debated :P

But, stay healthy lain... This is all probably a symptom of the USA elections.

  No.2235

>>2234
But seriously though, debate is good, but those people don't relly care if they are right, as long as they are allowed to hate whatever it is they hate. So don't take a gun and don't start fights, but just hang in there man.

  No.2236

>Leftypol is 20% nationalists 60% Anti-PC statists and 20% memes.
That's what gets me. You'd think that a leftist board would keep the fragging Nazis out, but it's packed to the gills with the kind of Nazis who say they're reds just because they take the "socialism" part semi-seriously.

  No.2237

Do you go around telling people you're an anarchist like a vegan or what?
If you don't want political discussion, then don't go there. If you want political discussion.... well you're in for a soykaffest regardless of your beliefs.

  No.2238

>>2236
It's 8chan, so you can't expect much. What's more surprising is that there is a popular leftist board there in the first place.

  No.2239

Well, now you know how nationalists have felt for years. Everywhere we looked, nothing but liberalism as far as the eye could see. And we got mocked and hated for being nationalist, hell, just for being conservative, at least where I was. Seriously, the 2000s and the early part of this decade were a fuarrrking depressing time to be nationalist/antifeminist.

I'm not trying to bash you OP, I'm just saying that, for the first time in a long time, our star is rising. Let us have our fun for now. Sooner or later (maybe as soon as November) things will start spinning your way again, and the general public will go back to hating on us rather than you.

  No.2240

>>2231
>Anarchist

You'll have to have some pretty solid facts and theories to back that ideology up at this point in history to not get laughed at by anyone. Honestly, you should be more happy with anti-PC statists than rabid liberals because your "anarchism" is pretty anti-PC in the current social climate where the majority wants to be coddled by the government so much they'll support 'the democratic nominee'.

Also, I mean, if you want anarchy you could move to a slum in a 3rd world country. The word you're probably looking for isn't "anarchist", but "libertarian".

  No.2241

Have you considered that maybe you've gotten too deep into politics and it's colored your view of the world? Where before you just saw a spectrum of beliefs, now you only see people who are with you or people who are against you? I've been struggling with this myself and after a lot of self reflection, i began to realize i was putting all opinions that disagreed with my own into into one of two straw men. One encompassing all positions to the left of me as being "SJWs" and one comprised of opinions to the right of me as being "alt-right extremists" or basically "no true Scotsman". This is especially easy to do online, and doubly so on sites where people can be anonymous, since the views expressed come from a faceless void, it's easy to lump a loose collection of positions and ideas together as if they came from a single person and assume there is consensus.

Take a short break from political dialog, just focus on relaxing for a while. Remember that your sanity is more important than people being wrong on the internet.

This election is doing strange things to people. I'll be happy when it's over.

  No.2242

>>2231
I want to say something, but I don't know how to put it so that you won't possibly misinterpret it as belittling you. All I can say is that you aren't alone and that the election is less than a month away and it's possible that this soykaf might die down after that. I'm sick of seeing statists telling me how giving away freedoms is a good thing in places where I used to see people talking about how they were willing to die fighting the government if the government overstepped, people who support either major candidate yelling at me about how if I'm not voting for their candidate I'm voting for the candidate that they oppose even if I support neither, and the general circus this last year has become with politics.

>Please don't respond with something like "anon can't face debate so they beg for safe space"

What "debate"? I've been seeing less and less actual debate and discussion about politics in recent years and more of just soykaf flinging and attacking strawmen.

Do you have any hobbies you enjoy that don't involve other people that can help get your mind off the current situation?

  No.2243

>>2240
exact posturing OP is probably fed up with. Please stop

>>2239
Because you seem to call literally everyone who doesn't agree with you a "liberal," while completely ignoring the historical usage or ideological meaning of the term. Liberalism and nationalism aren't even at odds with one another, because of how both ideologies work to maintain capitalism. What's more, the nation-state is a concept many liberals respect and worship.

I don't want to say much for the kind of resentment you have towards others, but I do want you to know you can some day move past it. Peace.

  No.2244

>>2243
Well, I actually do appreciate the intricacies of the issue, but I was using a blanket term "liberal" to keep my post short. Here in the U.S. at least, it seems like most liberals, or perhaps I should say most people who define themselves as liberal, have been more globalist than nationalist, at least in my experience, which is why I used the term. But I do agree with you, its not a binary thing where everyone is either a conservative nationalist or a liberal globalist, there are people who are in between or, as you have said, have both liberal and nationalist ideas. And there's nothing wrong with that.

As for resentment, my post wasn't to say that I resent OP or something, I just wanted to point out that the "other side" had been facing this kind of stuff for years. And, I'll admit, it does seem a little unsporting to me to start complaining about it just as the nationalists start doing well. Yes, I am saying what goes around, comes around, sure.

But I also, in a way, understand OP's frustration. So, my other point was that, no matter what ideology you have, there are times where your gonna get a lot of soykaf for it. But keep your head up, keep the faith, and who knows, things may just start going your way.

  No.2246

Well, I can see why more "alt-right" viewpoints are being posted on the Internet. We live in a call-out culture, at least in my opinion. Or rather, a selective call-out culture; one where the evils of one group, race, or religion is constantly called out while you cannot call-out the evils of another even if they both did the same evil thing or even worse than the acceptable target.

One of the best examples is how in America, we can sit here and talk about how white folk had slaves back in the 1800s and committed genocide against the native Americans, which are very bad things but we as a culture cannot change. But somehow we have people who never owned a slave or never was a slave bringing it up constantly. So while we have whites in the now feeling guilty about stuff they never did and blacks feeling degraded for stuff they never experienced, we ignore the gang violence, broken families, and poor choices that is destroying black America today and when we do talk about this; we almost immediately as a culture talk about what white people have done in the past to black people and not what black people are doing to themselves now.

We will talk at length about how bad Christians were hundreds of years ago, but when an ISIS inspired shooter decides to kill 50 gay men in a club we don't talk about the horrible attitude that Islam has about homosexuals to the point that publications in the Middle East were celebrating the death of innocent people and homosexuals facing the death penalty. No, we try to mask it as something else.

I feel as if, if we were to talk about everyone at least more equally and call out everyone's issues then there wouldn't be a need for people like Donald Drumpf. There wouldn't be a group of people who feel like they have to point out issues even if it means being labeled as racist or hateful.

  No.2247

>>2239
Thank you for pointing this out - I didn't look at both sides. I do however think that it makes more sense for people to hate nationalists I'm not saying they should, I'm sure you're a lovely person. Nationalism directly affects specific groups of people based on things they can't control, whereas the criticisms of anarchism are basically saying that it doesn't work. I'm sorry if I insulted you, I just think if your ideology promotes bigotry the groups you deem lesser are naturally going to hate what you say.

  No.2248

doesn't this belong in /civ/ ?
politics is clearly the topic
also "hurr durr argumentZ!" tier posts....

Anyway I'm not here to complain
OP (or whoever), suggest me a book on anarchism. Something that's good for someone who knows soykaf about politik, but also that isn't too dumbed down. I don't mind making an effort in reading it.

  No.2249

File: 1476370047978.png (196.73 KB, 200x193, 1389575137875.jpg)

No politics outside of /civ/ please. That is the one thing besides porn that the Internet is filled with, don't pollute lainchan with your garbage.

  No.2252

>>2248
>>3442
Peter Marshall's book Demanding the Impossible is a good start point. Covers many of the flavours of anarchism over the years.

Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays is also a good read.

If you want to learn about anarchism in action then the best place to start would be the Spanish Civil war. Off the top of my head it was one of the best expressions and the philosophies application.

If I can think of anything else I'll let you know.

  No.2253

>>2246
>we can sit here and talk about how white folk had slaves back in the 1800s and committed genocide against the native Americans, which are very bad things but we as a culture cannot change. But somehow we have people who never owned a slave or never was a slave bringing it up constantly.
Are you seriously saying you feel insulted by history, because I hardly ever see slavery brought up in a different context than just historical discussion and I don't think I've ever seen genocide against native Americans brought up outside of historical discussion. However in the discussion of blacks today I regularly see the discussion turn to how blacks in general should be treated like criminals, which happens to be why people get offended by that discussion.

>We will talk at length about how bad Christians were hundreds of years ago

Protip: people tend to not like the atheists that constantly go on about that, including other atheists.

>we don't talk about the horrible attitude that Islam has about homosexuals

Because in most discussion I see people try to paint an entire group as supporting his actions when they don't, and normally use statistics from developing countries where views on the issues can differ to do so (some developing mostly Christian or Hindu areas still burn people for being witches). There's also the problem of how a lot of the discussion seems to disregard recent history, in particular how gay marriage only started being recognized at the federal level just over a year ago in the US, how it wasn't until 13 years ago that the US Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning homosexual sex between consenting parties were unconstitutional with previous president George W Bush supporting the law that specific case involved, and how those unconstitutional laws are still enforced in some states (such as the 2013 and 2015 cases in Baton Rouge, LA).

  No.2254

>>2242
>What "debate"? I've been seeing less and less actual debate and discussion about politics in recent years and more of just soykaf flinging and attacking strawmen.

This is so true it hurts. Even in universities, where debate and open discussion are supposed to be a key part of the education, debate seems to be dead. It's almost as if people are no longer able to control their emotions when confronted with a point of view they don't understand. The lack of the proper tools or the conversational skill has left a lot of people with only the ability to bray at each other.

  No.2255

>>2253
>>2246
>We will talk at length about how bad Christians were hundreds of years ago
>Protip: people tend to not like the atheists that constantly go on about that, including other atheists.

This is why I wish the fedora'd gentlemen would shut up about stuff that doesn't matter. There still are places in the world where Christianity is an oppressive force, particularly against reproductive choice and homosexuality. These are things that actually matter which get overlooked by people in more advanced countries.

  No.2258

>>2253
>Are you seriously saying you feel insulted by history

No, I'm not saying that. People do love to bring up the fact whites do a lot of evil. And I grew up in a non-white household where whites were often talked as being evil. I've met some terrible whites but most whites are okay people, and it's clearly true of all groups but why is it that we can hold slavery against white people or use it do excuse black crime?

https://nypost.com/2014/10/25/pro-jihadi-ax-attacker-wanted-white-people-to-pay-for-slavery/

There are a lot of people with this kind of mentality, hurting people who had nothing to do with slavery because they can. And you would be right, a lot of these people may never carry out this but still, it's terrifying when people think this way.

>However in the discussion of blacks today I regularly see the discussion turn to how blacks in general should be treated like criminals, which happens to be why people get offended by that discussion.


I'm part black and have no desire to be treated like a criminal, you won't get that from me. But I feel that it's a must to discuss actual issues that plague our community otherwise we'll get nowhere. Also, I get the feeling you don't hear a lot of discussions black people have, quite a lot of it is very anti-white in nature.

As far as the last paragraph, there is a major difference between how the US treated gays and how the Middle East treats gays. If I was gay, I would be blessed as fuck to be in the US, where being gay doesn't stop you from being a CEO for one of the biggest companies (or being Indian or any race for that matter) and the most homophobia you'll get is getting called a fag or getting a few weird looks. Compared to the Middle East now where in a bulk of the countries, you're already dead. This is the selective call-out culture I'm referring to.

  No.2259

>>2258
> pro-jihadi-ax-attacker-wanted-white-people-to-pay-for-slavery/

Using a psychotic ax wielder as proof doesn't really bolster this or any other point of view.

  No.2260

>>2259
Well, I can't just say, "My grandfather hates white people, so therefore blacks sometimes hate whites".

  No.2265

I hope I won't get banned or get my post deleted for this, but have you or any other comrades ITT checked out /anarcho/ on 8ch? It's not super active but it has regular activity and could always use more posters.

Also tbh I've been for awhile now interested in the possibility of creating an anarchist imageboard (I've made some posts about this on /anarcho/) with all the things you've mentioned in the OP in mind. Because I feel the same, and I also feel like there isn't a really solid anarchist community on the internet anywhere - especially not one that serves a concrete purpose and isn't just a place for anarchists to shoot the shit.

The reality of the situation though is that the imageboard community has been thoroughly astroturfed by fascists, so, we're kinda just fucked in this respect.

  No.2267

>>2258
>why is it that we can hold slavery against white people
That's a question that would best be directed at your family and others who actually believe that.

>https://nypost.com/2014/10/25/pro-jihadi-ax-attacker-wanted-white-people-to-pay-for-slavery/

I'm sure he represents public at large about as much as Dillon Roof does.

>Also, I get the feeling you don't hear a lot of discussions black people have, quite a lot of it is very anti-white in nature

I wouldn't expect it to be much different from the people I grew up around and my relatives when given similar situation and social status, just with a different target.

>there is a major difference between how the US treated gays and how the Middle East treats gays.

There are also enough other major differences to make the Middle East mostly irrelevant when passing judgment on Muslims in the US. Judging people in the US mostly based on the actions of people living in other countries half way across the world living in a completely different situation makes about as much sense as judging people for the actions of their ancestors.

>and the most homophobia you'll get is getting called a fag or getting a few weird looks

Um, no. I'm not even gay and I've seen worse in person.

  No.2268

>>2265
There used to be anokchan... I don't know when it folded but it is gone. It was surprisingly pretty cool and there was some funny stuff there alongside serious topics, or even in the middle of them.

  No.2272

>>2267
>That's a question that would best be directed at your family and others who actually believe that.

But it seems like a lot of people believe that and that really scares me, especially if it's enough for a group of people to rise up. Sure, there are a lot of people who actually racism to end, including towards whites. But I just know that there are going to be legit racists in these ranks, the kind of people who want blacks to be mistreated as you mentioned and other problems.

I know I've gone on a tangent especially with Islam, but my core point is that it feels like the alt-right was a demon of our making by allowing people who say anti-white things a pass while jokes and humor seems like it gets blown out of proportion because it targeted black people or other minorities.

Maybe I'm wrong and I just watch too many videos about isolated incidents. But that's a problem I see.

  No.2273

>>2268
I know about anokchan, although I didn't find out about it until it had already went down.

The problem IMO with anokchan is that it was pretty much just a place for people from anarchistnews to shitpost. It was inevitable that something as niche as an anarchist imageboard wouldn't last very long, which is why I'm concerned with how one could make an anarchist imageboard that would be inviting to anarchists who don't use imageboards, and serve other purposes, but also keep the core imageboard formula intact and keep the best parts of imageboards and imageboard culture.

  No.2277

>>2244
see in my book globalism and nationalism are entirely compatible. The United Nations, for instance, is a collection of independent nation-states and the "global economy" basically consists of nation states doing business with multinational corporations. You might -try- to make the case that because these corporations spread across multiple nations they're more global, but that ignores the fact that corporations depend on state regulation and authority to function properly - capitalism itself needs a lot of state involvement, actually, even the "laissez faire" variety that a lot of libertarians seem to worship.

The kind of "globalism" you're against is probably the marxist, "class struggle is a global struggle" variety, which a lot of liberals seem opposed to. Either by issuing statements like "communism/anarchism will never work, we should have regulated capitalism instead, like Germany," or just anti-revolutionary sentiment in general, where change can only occur within the framework set by the status quo. We can classify this type of marxist globalism as proletarian internationalism, although something more moderate would be alter-globalism.

I've seen many a liberal piece about the need for "nation-building" in the United States, or the Middle East so I have extreme skepticism towards the idea that they're anti-national - rather, liberals seem to support nationalism so long as it sounds good but once the actual consequences of it are realized they've suddenly created a new enemy to rally against. It would be kind of a funny process to watch, if it wasn't also completely terrifying and responsible for so much war and genocide.

The resentment -I- was referring to how you seemed to have some sort of a persecution complex, where everyone who wasn't a "Nationalist™" like you is somehow threatening you and your ideology. I hate to break this but all ideologies are not created equal and it's really up to you to justify your beliefs with your actions, there's no getting around that.

So call me critical, but all the "Nationalists" I've met seem hell-bent on injecting nationalist sentiment into every setting imaginable, like someone who just discovered swearing for the first time, and thinks it's their job to not only use it as often as possible but also enlighten others in the noble art of expletives. It's obnoxious and probably a major factor (obviously overshadowed by advocacy for eugenics) why I mistrust "Nationalism" and don't make company with its adherents, or really feel sympathy when "Nationalists" talk about how persecuted they are.

  No.2278

>>2273
There's really nothing stopping someone from just running a single, *chan-style board in addition to a larger forum or hosting some other service on the same site, honestly. I'm not sure what such a community would look like but it would certainly be interesting.

>>2258
What are you talking about? People speak out against treatment of gays in the middle east all the time, even homophobes do it. What never gets talked about is the relative acceptance same-sex relations seemed to have in the centuries before the cold war and continued colonization of the middle east, and how that shifted with said colonization.

Gays might get a better treatment in the USA, but that treatment almost always aligns with income level - if you're a poor gay person chances are you also don't live in a particularly tolerant area, and you're going to get a lot of shit for it, not just in the "people look at you funny" sense but in the sense that it's still completely legal to fire for homosexuality, and christian organizations do this frequently. There's also the widespread southern practice of "conversion therapy," which has something like a 50% suicide rate among participants as well as gay teens getting bullied, attacked and murdered in public high schools. Not to mention the higher suicide rate -in general- among gay people. So yeah, a gay person could get denied that CEO position, and a whole lot worse.

  No.2279

>>2278
>What never gets talked about is the relative acceptance same-sex relations seemed to have in the centuries before the cold war and continued colonization of the middle east, and how that shifted with said colonization.

Are you implying that colonizing the Middle East somehow made an area that is primarily Islamic more homophobic? I'd love to read your sources on this.

And you know something, I'll be real with you. Despite living in the Bible Belt, I've seen very little homophobia in my community and the only time I've ever heard any serious homophobia it came from blacks and even then that was pretty rare. I've spent most of my time with people my age at any given time and the most people ever got was "FAG". I work in a neighboring city where I have a couple homosexual co-workers, no one as far as I know gave them any real shit for it. The most I've heard was some woman saying she could "turn him". People get fired for being shit workers and not due to sexuality or race. My world has been mostly peachy, despite being part black, I've never experienced any real racism. I feel like my failures and successes are my own and not my race's.

So, as far as I see and my experience tells me, is that homophobia is pretty weak in the United States and when the worst I see is some humor and then I see people in the Middle East who are okay with throwing gay people from buildings well of course I'm going to disagree with it.

But arguing this is making me realize that I'm from a pretty good place in the world and maybe I should consider that when I form arguments. I honestly thought that conversion therapy was just some rare that pops up and is only really referenced on tv shows. Most of the businesses I applied for work are not really Christian companies and are major companies who cannot afford to fire people over someone being gay.

  No.2280

>>2279
>Are you implying that colonizing the Middle East somehow made an area that is primarily Islamic more homophobic?
Indeed I am. While it is a bit more complicated than that and I was making the point to be contrary to mainstream narratives, it seems that I can safely say westernization has had a negative impact on treatment towards homosexuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_the_Middle_East
Although we can't really say "homosexuality," a western concept existed in the middle east pre-colonization. Which is why I said "same-sex relations." And the truth is there was no monolithic level of tolerance for it: some regions, time periods and cities were more tolerant, and some were less. Apparently, there was even a gay Caliph at one point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakam_II

> honestly thought that conversion therapy was just some rare that pops up and is only really referenced on tv shows.

can't be that rare, if it's part of the RNC platform this year.
>Most of the businesses I applied for work are not really Christian companies and are major companies who cannot afford to fire people over someone being gay.
there's also the "gay glass ceiling" to watch out for in secular companies, where queer people are less likely to be promoted.

I don't mean to speak less of your experiences, because I don't have them. However, I do have data.

  No.2286

>>2277
Well, I get what you’re saying about globalism. The way I see it, at least, it’s not that there can’t be a global market. The U.N. I have more problems with, simply because, while it is a paper tiger right now, I feel that it lays the ground work for something that could be much more controlling. See the E.U. and how its power has expanded for an example of what I mean. As for the market though, in the world we live in, no matter what happens, the global market is going to exist, and every country needs to participate. But international trade should be conducted in such a way that it is very beneficial to the state and the people. Most multinationals though, who are at the center of international trade, don’t give a damn about the state.

There is a problem with multinational corporations, which is that, while they do rely on governments to function, they also aren’t really attached or loyal to any governments. They may need nations, but to corps, nations are a necessary evil, not something they support. Combine that with a fact that these corps have a lot of money, and that they can use this money to influence governments, and you have a problem. Governments, because multinationals have a large stake in their economies and give money to politicians, cater more to multinational corporate interests than to the interests of their own people. I mean, that’s basically the situation we have today, to a limited extent. Extrapolate that a few decades down the road, and you basically get to a situation where nations exist on paper, but the decisions, or at least the decisions that matter, are basically called by multinationals for the sake of their own bottom line as opposed to anything else. That effectively makes nation states irrelevant, even if they still technically exist.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that governments absolutely need to find ways to make corporations beholden to the state. One of the concepts of fascism that I agree with is that all major business enterprises should benefit the state in some way, and that the government should mandate to private industry what it will do in certain situations, if it’s necessary. Not in the communist sense of seizing the company and running every minute detail, but basically the ability to heavily regulate the economy, and step in and dictate to a company on a certain decision and then get out and let the company run itself normally again. Corporations don’t need to be destroyed, but must be brought under the control of the government, or they will eventually completely control the government, and that will eventually be the practical end of nation states. Globalism, on the other hand, tends to take a less restrictive approach, which focuses more on maintaining free trade and open, unrestricted markets. In a nutshell, that is why I don’t think nationalism and globalism are really compatible in the economic sense. (cont.)

  No.2287

>>2277 cont.

I think your statement about many liberals supporting the idea of nationalism until it gets messy is spot on, particularly in America. And yeah, it’s pretty amusing, in a dark sort of way. But also, as you said, they tend to turn on nationalism once it actually gets put into practice and they realize it can be brutal and exclusionary, so its hard to say they really support the ideology in the end, at least from where I’m sitting.

The other thing is that I was also talking about being liberal not just in the economic sense, where I actually agree with some liberal ideas, but also in the social one. In the social sense, most liberal ideology seems to support the ideas of diversity and multiculturalism, which run counter to the nationalist idea of preserving and expanding the influence of a single culture, faith, ethnicity, etc.

As for me having a persecution complex, I don’t know what to say other than, I don’t feel that way. Hopefully my second post mostly cleared that up. My first post wasn’t saying that everyone I met or everything I saw in every context that wasn’t nationalist gave me problems. I was simply making the point that a lot of people either disagreed with nationalist sentiment, or had almost a kneejerk reaction to the term, and so nationalists, including myself, got given crap by people. Not everyone who didn’t agree was like that, there were also a number of people who disagreed that were very respectful, or who partially agreed. Also, a fair amount of media was very liberal (in the social sense) or anti-nationalist (in the political sense) and that was also somewhat obnoxious. Not all media, mind you, a lot of it had nothing to do with politics or society either way, but there was enough like that to be obnoxious. I was just saying OPs situation and feelings were similar to the one’s nationalists had felt for a long time. So, unless you feel he also has a persecution complex, I don’t know what else to say.

Anyway, on your last point, I get what you’re saying. I can’t speak to the people you’ve met, obviously, but I think there are a few reasons they might be that way. One is because they’ve just embraced the ideology (i.e. a lot of people online right now) and, since they’re new, they act like new converts to any ideology and feel like this new thing they believe is the most amazing thing ever and they need to share it with everyone, whether they like it or not. There are also some people who become nationalists just because its “taboo” and they just want to hate people. They don’t really care about actually accomplishing anything. That kind of person is usually poisonous and looking for attention anyway. But hey, there are also nationalists who are fairly quiet about it most of the time. Every ideology has loud and obnoxious people who are believe in it, really. I’m not asking you to be sympathetic, it doesn’t really bother me one way or the other.

  No.2288

>Read a fucking book

People just need a little common sense to know anarchy is a faulty ideology.

  No.2289

Wow just one mention of politics and this blows the fuck up. OP was asking for website or places to go that aren't full of this shit but the only replies are from fucking nazis. Sorry OP but I guess you can't escape these idiots

  No.2290

>>2288
ohhhhh, the anti-edgemaster! King of corrections! Master of moderation! I'm sure you have some very good reasons for this that have never been addressed by anarchist thinkers.

>>2289
tbh reddit.com/r/socialism is pretty non-cancerous. They allow way more --erm-- dissent in the ranks than most leftie communities, but any mention of liberalism will be shot down.

  No.2294

I don't understand. Why do you exactly care? Just ignore it.
Most of the stuff people talk about nowadays is just identity politics anyway.
If people would stop talking about that unnecessary shit, they would probably notice that they have more ideas in common than they think.
The only axis in politics which matters nowadays (to me) is nationalism (not to confuse with national-socialism, as there are also nationalist communists etc.) vs globalism.
And I think I would prefer not to have a central world government, led by capitalistic pursuits, especially as an anarchist myself. (I am sure you understand why)

  No.2297

>>2289
Excuse me, but I'm not a Nazi.

  No.2298

>>2261
This is not my thread. But it's nice to know you still think of me. I don't think of you at all.

  No.2299

>>2231
So OP, this is what's going on.

Group polarization is a well-studied process in social psychology. All groups tend to polarize over time. You can read the wikipedia page for group polarization and see the general mechanisms by which this process occurs.

Meditate on this for a while in the context of the Wired. In the Wired, mechanisms for group polarization are scaled dramatically. So the Internet is massively polarizing groups, on a huge scale, way faster than we've ever seen in human history.

Normally group polarization could be avoided by leaving the group, but now that social media exists, people can be held to their group ideals across communities. This is especially common in social media, where people hold each other accountable to other group norms in places like Facebook, and people proactively present themselves to appeal to their most extreme social subgroup. This happens on anonymous fora as well, and can happen even faster because it's easier to create the illusion of consensus when you have 3 nazis constantly posting and having a circlejerk. Nazis will purposely invade fora and attempt to make it friendly to their ideology; this requires them to attempt to push out all of the original users. This is what's largely happened to lainchan, for example.

The answer here is that nowhere is safe from this process. The polarization has happened across all of society, and it means that the previously mildly conservative reactionaries are now openly white supremacist, nationalist, anti-feminist, etc..

The only path forward is to destroy the reactionaries. Don't have any illusions about our ability to share a planet with these people. They have chosen their side and they'll have to live and die with that choice. No parasan.

  No.2300

>>2297 No you're full of hate but you are an individual who has their own ideas about how to deal with globalization yours just happens involve ethnic cleansing

  No.2301

>>2300
At what point have I EVER advocated for ethnic cleansing? I'm 100% serious here, don't you dare accuse me of being a Nazi or someone who actively wants genocide.

  No.2302

>>2280
I'm sorry, I forgot to reply to you.

That caliph is actually pretty interesting to read about. Admittedly, my Islamic historic knowledge is mostly with the first few caliphs after the death of Mohammad. That said, there was another caliph while not gay did legalize homosexuality in the Ottoman Empire, of course, you could argue it was because of his high level of education that led to that.

I think I'm going to go read more about various periods of the Middle East/Islamic history some more.

>I don't mean to speak less of your experiences, because I don't have them. However, I do have data.


I didn't see it that way. Thanks.

  No.2336

>>2286
hey, could I ask you to try to condense your thoughts a little? I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't think I could respond to everything if the paragraphs get long.

> I feel that it lays the ground work for something that could be much more controlling

I don't think you are getting what I'm saying, because the UN cannot dissolve nations for the exact reason that it's a UNION of NATIONS. What I mean here is that every decision which the UN makes is ultimately predicated on the consent of involve nations, whose first imperative would be to preserve their status as such. So the UN has little reasonable ability to enact "truly" globalist policies, at least to a meaningful, end-nationalism-and-capitalism extent.

That said, I would agree that the UN can become more controlling - however, If the UN does become more controlling, it would be on the terms of economically / militarily dominant nations such as the United States, who already exert a high degree of influence within the UN. This would preserve or even extend the nationalism of those nations, and demonstrates what a particular kind of globalism really is: imperialism, with a humanitarian mask.

>Most multinationals though, who are at the center of international trade, don’t give a damn about the state.

but they do, as you said earlier: they rely on governments to function. multinationals don't give a damn about PEOPLE, who often get conflated with the state or the nation but realistically wouldn't give a damn about it if they had the option not to. The result is multinationals promoting policies that takes a particularly influential people, usually the close circles of their own CEOs, and puts them as the heads of state in powerful countries. Typically, this is as easy as befriending the heads of those countries, if they aren't already among their ranks, because that social structure existed before multinationals or capitalism. "loyalty" to concepts such as nations has always something of a farce, you can tell because the leaders of a country rarely die when they go to war. Capitalism is especially compatible with nationalism, however, because nationalism is something capitalists pretend to have to market to a particular demographic. For all talk of a national identity, that will not change.

>Extrapolate that a few decades down the road, and you basically get to a situation where nations exist on paper, but the decisions, or at least the decisions that matter, are basically called by multinationals for the sake of their own bottom line as opposed to anything else

sounds exactly like what we have now, tbqh. Except the multinationals are also beholden to shareholders, who control so much wealth (required to get a meaningful amount of good and services) they can get everyone else to do their bidding. So the multinationals are really just as contrived as the state is.

>Not in the communist sense of seizing the company and running every minute detail

Not what communists believe in, you may want to do a little more research. Communists would dissolve the company completely, in some cases creating a new state in the process but also (and in my opinion interestingly) by opposing the power of the state to legitimize the company or creating alternative institutions to "phase out" capitalism. Classically, communists would seize the means of production through a general strike to completely destroy the company.

There are some democratic socialists who think capitalism can be done away with without removing the state, but they're considered the most moderate form of socialism and not really reflective of the body at large.

>Globalism, on the other hand, tends to take a less restrictive approach, which focuses more on maintaining free trade and open, unrestricted markets

Again, we need to come to an agreed-upon term with regards to globalism. You're talking about modern capitalism, which pretends to be globalist but is really imperialistic for reasons that I stated prior. There are many forms of globalism.

To sum things up, corporations must absolutely support states, and not just in name only because the actual structure of a state - with a monopoly on violence, and a legal system that codifies property, which they can assert a lot of control over - supports them.

Under capitalism, states must support corporations, because the hierarchy endemic to capitalism - rich and poor - is the only thing validating the leadership of the state, which is often a reflection of who has the most capital.

Keep in mind that by "corporations" and "states" I mean "the capitalists who run them," because if the actual members of a corporation or state had a fair say then it would look a lot different.

My question for you now is, what implications do globalizing technologies such as the internet have for nationalism? It seems to me that any semblance of an identity people have is contextually derived, if that context can be extended to anywhere in the world then what does that say for regional ties? Do you like the idea of cyber-nations or are you just going to do away with the internet in your nationalist utopia?

> they tend to turn on nationalism once it actually gets put into practice and they realize it can be brutal and exclusionary, so its hard to say they really support the ideology in the end, at least from where I’m sitting.

Probably because they aren't ideologues who dismiss genocide and war for unstated reasons. I would say you're conflating the ideology with the consequences of said ideology, I would say rather than turning on nationalism the concept of a "good nation" underlies liberalism, which goes together with liberal forms of nationalism. Surprisingly, this kind of nation and nationalism is exactly their own. If you don't believe me, look up "civic nationalism" and "cultural nationalism". There are even leftist forms of nationalism.

I think you may be conflating a certain brand of nationalism with all nationalism, and you find this to be incompatible with global capitalism, because you've been confusing it for globalism. However I think you may also find on careful analysis that nationalist sentiment is an important part of liberalism, which is why terms like "patriotism" are often seen positively.

I think the analysis in your final paragraph is likely correct, but that being said I also find trouble sympathizing with nationalists of your ilk because of the support for war, genocide and so on.