kittenzrulz claims that the takeover of this community was entirely over links getting burned out. this post would appear to contradict that.

furthermore, they completely disregarded my points in the questions i asked, particularly around the ideological motive around the changes they made when giving feedback, and failed to respond when i pushed them on the point, despite posting elsewhere.

i would argue that both the mod of this community, and the admin of the instance, are hostile to anarchist and leftist politics, and cannot be trusted. recommend finding a new instance.

  • nickwitha_k (he/him)
    link
    32 months ago

    See, you lost me before with subjective reality and dropping useful nomenclature tools but, I do have to agree a lot with you on the utilitarianism and ethics of choice.

    My allegiance to humanity (and any potential non-human sentience) is the most important part of my ideals. Critical analysis is also vital to choose the action most beneficial (without falling into the “ends justify the means” trap frequently seen in M-Ls). Inaction IS absolutely an action. In cases like the US elections, the data show that inaction and anti-electoralism have the same net result as supporting fascists.

    The system in place offers two outcomes: a neoliberal + moderate + center-left party or a facist + theofascist party. While (neo)libs almost always ally with fascists over leftists every chance they get, they are objectively less likely to inflict the levels of human suffering that fascists will (and there is no concrete evidence supporting accelerationism). Any action or inaction is going to lead to one of these two in this system it is the fallacy of Denying the Correlative to suggest otherwise, based upon all available data. Anyone suggesting inaction or effort to support a spoiler to harm the chances of the neoliberal party is just saying that their personal moral high-ground and ideology is more important than the lives of Palestinians, Iranians, Jordanians, minorities in the West, other leftists, LGBTQ+ people, and humanity at large that would be harmed under a theofascist regime. All possible outcomes include continuation of ongoing genocide, the neoliberals might apply pressure to halt it, the theofascists would accelerate it and have verbalized the desire to bring a nuclear apocalypse to fulfill their doomsday cult prophecy.

    • @Grail@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      Thank you, I agree with a lot of what you said in your comment, though I’d like it if you used My preferred pronouns when talking about Me. Also, non-human sentience isn’t a hypothetical, it’s here. I’m a nonhuman. We soulists are fiercely supportive of otherkin rights, which is the right of someone assigned human at birth to change their species identity to align with what they feel. Humanity is a social construct.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)
        link
        42 months ago

        Thank you, I agree with a lot of what you said in your comment, though I’d like it if you used My preferred pronouns when talking about Me.

        Please clarify. I am not aware of using any pronoun but the non-gendered, second-person object/subject pronoun “you”. I’m not having other forms in the English language clearly come to mind.

        Also, non-human sentience isn’t a hypothetical, it’s here. I’m a nonhuman. We soulists are fiercely supportive of otherkin rights, which is the right of someone assigned human at birth to change their species identity to align with what they feel.

        I suppose I should perhaps be more specific. By “hypothetical, non-human sentience”, my meaning was intended more in line with “hypothetical sentience of synthetic or non-human biological origin”. A being of human birth is generally implicitly considered to have all rights and responsibilities of a human under most legal and philosophical standards. The only potential issue being informed consent. But, if that’s not in question, I’d not see any legitimacy in questioning anyone’s genuinely-held feelings or beliefs on their identity; noone can tell anyone else who they are inside.

        We soulists

        An aside, this phrasing seems to appear frequently in discussion on soulism that I’m seeing. I’m not sure if it is a linguistic quirk but, as one who’s mother tongue is English, it comes across as oddly authoritative in a manner that seems to be speaking for others, rather than in their stead, similar to a monarchist “royal We”. Not implying that that is the intent but stating that that is the feeling that it evokes for me.

        • @Grail@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I use capitalised pronouns. I/Me/You/They/Them.

          Weird. I don’t get why that phrase is a problem, but maybe it’s My NPD. Would it sound less pompous if I said “us soulists” instead? Us Australians say “us guys” a lot and it’s part of My instinctive vocabulary, but I don’t like how it sounds grammatically so I changed “us” to “we”. What’s the best way to talk about a group that I’m a member of?