fuck around, find out with United States flag

When I hear phrases like "fuck around, find out" it feels like jail/prison culture has busted out and is taking over popular culture...

The "fuck around, find out" mindset operates as a shorthand for harsh justice. Prison justice. That phrase and others of its kind reinforce the idea that actions have clear, brutal consequences. A way of signaling a no-nonsense, retributive worldview where power is respected and transgressions are punished without mercy. They are phrases that tend towards a form of conservatism... a law-and-order morality that maintains rigid social relations.

This is just one of the ways that conservative values can be dressed up for popular consumption. There are many others and they aren't always easy to detect.

Anarchists say and do things like this as well. Anarchist scenes have long been critiqued for reproducing the conservative cultures they form within. In the past, that has meant critiques from feminists, queer theorists, people of color, indigenous folks, and many more that point out the reinforcement of hierarchies others were either unaware of or aligned with. But as we see with popular culture today, there are plenty of other things outside of those well developed critiques. 

What do you think those things are?

Do different anarchist tendencies reproduce different forms of conservatism?

Are there common phrases that highlight this?

Is it good, bad, whatever?

Comments

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:02

"Anarchist scenes have long been critiqued for reproducing the conservative cultures they form within."

Conservative cultures?

Like Portland, Seattle, and Montreal? Huh? Those are extremely liberal cities, which is why those cities have the biggest scenes, as compared to, say... Houston, Salt Lake City and Calgary, i.e: actual conservative strongholds. Yalls premise is delulu.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:10

really?
conservative vs liberal?
is that really a barometer for anarchists???
both are just in reference to aspects of the system.
if anarchists were to apply these terms (in the philosophical senses of these terms) to specific situations, they might be more useful, but even then???

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:39

yeah ... what's with this prompt?

it's a total mess, how do you just equate "punishing transgression" with "conservative values"? what's the inference there, that liberalism is when there aren't any consequences? clearly not true. this is why it's important to make distinctions between institutional power and like, interpersonal conflict between normal people.

you're not "conservative" for reacting to transgressions or punishing them, it's about proportionality

Mary Apple (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 22:08

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Lumpy is absolutely justified in tackling this divisive (and paramount) issue. Fundamental to the life and thought of Anarchy from the very earliest times is a tension between inevitability and armed struggle. After that, who knows? But one thing's for sure: the great multitude of idiots don't support our efforts!

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 13:07

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

You can respond to transgressions without punishing someone for them.
You can punish someone for transgressions without being harsh.
You can be harsh in your punishments of transgressions without being consistent, systemic, institutional, etc.
And the transgressions themselves can be open to debate.

The "conservative values" referred to aren't any of that. They are the values that come from traditional, law-and-order mentality... which is somewhere between institutional and interpersonal relations. It's a bit of a cultural stereotype, but conservatives tend to be associated with a focus on harsh law enforcement while liberals tend to be associated with defending people who break the law, asking for leniency, tolerance, flexibility, the spirit of the law, etc.

When it comes to anarchists, there are instances of all that. There are those who really push for "Solidarity Means Attack!" which I think is more on the conservative side. There are those who are more squishy ...but I'm not thinking of a good slogan from them.

There is plenty of criticism of "anarcho-liberals" or those on the squishy side, promoting highly permissive values and being rather soft on enemies of anarchists. There is also criticism of the action-oriented "serious" anarchists.

What the prompt is asking though is to examine mainstream culture and its conservative elements, whether or not it's a liberal city or a communalist rural conservative town or somewhere else. To identify those elements and consider that some anarchist tendencies may also share them for one reason or another. Anything more than specific than that would hopefully emerge through the conversation on the topic. Maybe there isn't anything like that. Maybe anarchists have rooted out all the conservative aspects of mainstream culture. I would be surprised.

lumpy (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 09:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

your first paragraph is just a list of completely uncontroversial observations, i assume all of that and i don't equate any of it with values much? except when ppl suck at doing things in proportion, which might be because of their shitty values or other things but mistakes aren't our values, are they?

"They are the values that come from traditional, law-and-order mentality... which is somewhere between institutional and interpersonal relations. It's a bit of a cultural stereotype, but conservatives tend to be associated with a focus on harsh law enforcement while liberals tend to be associated with defending people who break the law, asking for leniency, tolerance, flexibility, the spirit of the law, etc."

^ this is a mess, plus you're believing rightwing media representations that have no basis in reality. liberals don't "defend people who break the law", they love prisons as much as anyone.

then we get to this stuff ...

"When it comes to anarchists, there are instances of all that. There are those who really push for "Solidarity Means Attack!" which I think is more on the conservative side."

... at this point, we're completely lost in this sauce of this strange dichotomy, there's literally nothing "conservative" about solidarity or attack without redefining all those words completely

and then you end off with an appeal to "root out" this nebulous "mainstream conservatism" from anarchy, which ironically, has a whiff of reactionary logic. the vague contamination that's kind of everywhere and not very well defined but we must be suspicious and FIND IT and DO AWAY WITH IT! then we will be clean and pure ... yes ... i like where this garden path is going!

ANYway, here's my solve for this problem: construct each one of your values from scratch, reason all of them through from start to finish and make sure they don't contradict each other. throw away this garbage dichotomy from the media, this was stirner's point

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 09:53

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Happy to see you moved beyond just arguing with the prompt or the writer of the prompt and actually came up with some commentary on the topic. It was a team effort and did it together, but I am proud of you and 99% of your success is yours alone.

lumpy (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 11:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

...you remember i'm an old fart, right? i've had many formal debates, just rarely bother with them here because it's not worth the effort. no need to break out the gold stars

alex (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 10:25

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

one of the lunatic theorists on twitter posted a quote from a critic of bruno bauer's at some point that claimed more or less that bauer's project of unlimited critique, once it finally turned on itself, left him with a kind of conservative realism--another version of the old form of western philosophical surrender to the inherent or intractable corruption of human society, in favor of living as well as you can with what youve got according to basically traditional, aristocratic values and precepts. stirner's main response to that, i think, is that "the self" too--which i take to mean more or less the critical standpoint--must be destroyed in order for the kind of free creativity you're calling for to take place, but in general i think you're being a little too dismissive of OP here even if i agree that some of the specific points they raise are not very clear. i would say the past few years have fairly richly demonstrated that for many people anarchism is little more than an aesthetic shield and cudgel they use to protect their right to keep their otherwise unexamined attitudes and positions safe, which has probably always been true but is also i think always a good idea to question.

in brief, you can "throw away" the liberal/conservative dichotomy--which certainly can mean next to nothing in popular media--and embark on a journey of pure and unmediated self-creation, but if what you happen to be left with then is a bunch of positions and characteristics that "conservative" or "liberal" describes in common language, street language etc then that is something worth considering in my opinion

lumpy (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 11:09

In reply to by alex (not verified)

sure! maybe, yeah. it's just shorthand lingo and a "know thyself" type of conclusion

i just think the word "conservative" is sandy ground to build anything on. people can build their castles there if they want to, i'll just have a chuckle, let it play out, whatever. i'm never telling people what to do or think.

But to your example, if somebody were drawn to say, anarchism (or whatever political position), often while young, through aesthetics instead of theory, that's a huge watershed problem. you could wander around in a fugue for years, thinking "i'm an anarchist" when really, you're just somebody who thinks punks are sexy or watching cops get lit on fire is based or whatever. that's all well and good BUT when you finally realize that your politics have almost nothing to do with your kinks, you blame the ideas that you never really understood, instead of yourself. i think anarchism gets a disproportionate amount of this.

put another way, i don't think ideas are necessarily always responsible for when infinite dumbasses fail to understand them or use them as convenient rationalizations. any popular theory will be misapplied and in the american context, the "liberal/conservative" dichotomy has been so poisoned for so long ...

alex (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 12:25

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

yea but im not talking about day trippers or whatever, although i think it's fair to if you spend time in spaces where there's a lot of that kind of thing. an example from my life might be the question of two crusty moms, both with a strident critique of societal norms and the medical establishment, both who call themselves anarchists or at least operate in anarchist spaces, one whose crustiness eventually melds into blood and soil mysticism derived from the recycling of wagnerian volkische bullshit through the anglo-american hippy economy of ideas, and the other whose crustiness i would say is distinct precisely in that it is more aptly called "conservative" than "fascist." the wagnerite-hippy mom turns out to be creating once again the image of a family rather than a life with her family members, and is more than happy to peddle advice based on whether it reifies that image rather than whether it is remotely true or helpful. and while the other mom perhaps could be said to be overly suspicious of her doctors, her reasons are grounded in an analysis that suggests she would be wise to hold them at arm's length, since it turns out they come with the state and the dairy industry in tow, and that the solution to this is to find/develop her own knowledge and practice to refer to, rather than to endlessly appeal to or attempt to reform (or control) the institution in question. so--is "conservative" a useful word to understand the kind of perspective that drives the latter person to take the position she does vs the former, or would some other word be better? as the idiot butterloving commenter below observed, there are everyday uses of the word that are not reducible to talk show politics or whatever

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 11:14

In reply to by alex (not verified)

yeah, i'd just say no, not useful, except maybe to be a dick about it. you're describing individual people with complex motivations and these lazy generalizations are only going to be used to dismiss, instead of actually listening to them

like if i'm trying to explain my reasons and i talk for awhile and then i turn and look at the person but they're just on their phone and they mumble - "sounds kinda conservative", think that just means we were never really talking at all. i should probably get better friends?

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 13:17

" it feels like jail/prison culture has busted out and is taking over popular culture..."

We ARE in a prison, fellow anarchist. Popular culture IS a fucking prison as well.

Additionally, who the fuck cares what popular culture is absorbing? Anarchists have always been outside the mainstream. Turn off your internet, brah.

FUCK!

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yes, sometimes that is true, and other times it is certainly possible to move outside.

what gets me most is how so many anarchists sound like teenagers trying to be cool and current within this lame reality (no dig on teenagers, they are still trying to figure out who they are without the experience to balance it).

lordluvaduc (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 14:28

and here I thought "fuck around, find out" was just a rewording of "karma," you know, for the non-religious, or whatever.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 14:30

jeezus fucking whiners...
if you don't like the prompt, write your own. click away, touch grass. 

"waaaahhh, i don't like your content! waaaahhhh, meet my needs now and always!" 

what the actual fuck y'all. 

lordluvaduc (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 16:20

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i hear that,

except

if this prompt were "pancakes!" and everyone responded "waffles?" or "you know, there are other breakfast options" your complaint would make more sense. but this prompt is more like "pancakes, but maybe asphalt or is it helium? is this good or bad? what are other examples?" once again, too many prompts disguised as one, too many dog whistles and fragmented sentences.

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 07:24

In reply to by lordluvaduc (not verified)

yeah, normally i'd agree. @news commenters are the worst, myself included but this prompt isn't just lazy, which i also am but more like ... is this writer even interested in anarchist ideas?

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:01

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

The prompt is fine you just have a problem answering the questions because you decided to define "conservative" in a way that makes the prompt seem idiotic. Here, a special question just for you:

What aspects of anarchist subcultures do you think are an overlooked inheritance of authority from the larger culture it exists in?

boomerang (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:08

In reply to by anon (not verified)

see, here's the thing; all aspects of @ subcultures come from the dominant culture, at least in North America & Europe.

anarchy adheres to western epistemological categories for the most part.

it takes effort to extricate oneself from European Enlightenment modes of thought and this is made more difficult when some anarchists insist that Indigenous or feminist or POC critiques are only about identity politics and summarily dismiss them out of hand.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:43

In reply to by boomerang (not verified)

actually, not case in point, read again, oh, unless you are consumed by your own myopic ideology

teZcatlipoca (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:23

In reply to by anon (not verified)

boomerang sounded like they were saying that when you're have white settler consciousness, aka run of the mill modern dumbfuck consciousness (being ethnically white isn't even required), no amount of leaning is way too much

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 19:19

In reply to by boomerang (not verified)

Why should anarchists extricate themselves from Enlightement as a whole? Like with any philosophical current it's a buffet...

For instance secularism and opposing power monopolies as well as totalitarianism is very consiatent to anarchism; while the embrace of property rights as well as capitalist "free" markets, much less. And reciprocity... if you enjoy support from anarchist networks, it's to be assumed you won't be promoting Islamism, Holocaust denial, Maoism, slavery or any other dogshit authoritarian tendency the next day, rite?

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 16:02

In reply to by anon (not verified)

reciprocity might be a bit much to ask. if you're giving something without trying to create a benefactors' power dynamic, then the recipients may just flip the table and dump the pies to the dirt. that's a possibility; they have that agency. but if other hungry people are there you can bet the table flipper will meet with some indirect effects of their actions. i believe this theory can be researched under the "dangerous space policy". if you are an ideologue, then what's left to you is to clearly state your position and hope that ppl appreciate your beneficience enough to think about it. but i doubt kicking a racist out of a feed will make them less racist, that's the thing.... we're like a big family or something.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yeah, it sounds like they bumped into a few "anarchists" at a protest on their way from the progressive high school in the burbs on their way to register for classes at Evergreen...

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 09:42

In reply to by lordluvaduc (not verified)

If you can't make sense of the prompt, then the problem isn't the prompt.

The title alone should tell you what the prompt is about.

Gee, "Conservatism in Disguise" ...what's that mean?

Oh, examples from basic anarchist history that show it's something that has really happened and not a strawman? Crazy! Must be dogwhistles!

Hold on a second... pointing out how sometimes a pattern can be more subtle than more obvious examples of outright sexism, homophobia, white supremacy, and colonial attitudes?

With examples from popular culture? Wow! Why would anyone do that when they are trying to communicate with strangers?

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:28

In reply to by anon (not verified)

It isn't a joke, it's a discussion prompt. It only needs to describe the elementary features of a topic. It doesn't even need to be more than the title. It could be one word and be good enough for setting a topic for a week of discussion. The work is supposed to be mostly on the side of the people discussing the topic, with all the free creative play and deep insights they have to make the discussion interesting. The podcast that discusses these every week is a regular example of how to do it. You make it work.

T0T\|/G0|) (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:46

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Stop being so defensive. The prompt was a failure and didn't sit well as intended. Instead of trying to force it down everyone's throats by telling everyone how wrong they are, admit something about it failed, perhaps, to get across what you were trying to accomplish. Try again next week.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:57

In reply to by T0T\|/G0|) (not verified)

This isn't about defending any one prompt, it's about the assumption that it's on us to make your discussions happen for you when it is actually up to you all to make the discussion happen. If we are telling you that you can do whatever you want to make the prompts work, that is the opposite of forcing anything down anyone's throats. We do our own discussions on the podcast. Almost every week is an example of how even the lowest quality prompts can turn into a conversation that is relevant because the people talking about it make it work.

This is on you.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

goddamn. we get it. you're awesome and we all suck. no, no defensiveness on your part.
for fuck's sake, get over yourselves already. the topic sucked, people told you that. move on.
yes, we could have made something happen from it, but when anews gives you shit, we make a shit pie. don't tell us you don't like the taste of it afterwards or that we should have made shit cake with shit demigloss.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i'm not the prompt writer. fwtw.

but you making this an all or nothing thing (you're all, we're all, etc), is just another crappy rhetorical device. sure prompts can be written better and worse. better writing can make interesting conversations easier. but better writing doesn't necessarily make anything better, because sometimes commenters just aren't feeling it. which is fine. but putting all the power into the hands of the prompt writer IS NOT ANARCHIST.

just be fucking anarchists, ffs. 

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

the newest brilliant observation: "putting all the power into the hands of the prompt writer IS NOT ANARCHIST."

wow. good one.

anyway, it is all so very interesting.

one stupid prompt by anews gives them more comments than most things on this site, and that doesn't even include the ones deleted (some for no apparent reason while pedophilic ones remain up) which put following ones out of context to make little sense, but that's a side issue that will never be addressed.

i don't know who this says more about, anews, the commenters, or online anarchists (99% of them) in general

sad.

T0T\|/G0|) (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

We can't have earnest and meaningful "discussions" under the constant threat of deletion. You are taking your role as an overlord/provider way too seriously. We are not your subjects or pets. If you want to prompt good discussion about anarchy then offer good prompts and see what happens.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:34

In reply to by T0T\|/G0|) (not verified)

"We can't have earnest and meaningful "discussions" under the constant threat of deletion."

Yes you can. I have seen it. I have also seen good prompts result in miles of totally off-topic conversations about farts and dicks and Wayne Price. A good prompt is helpful, but it doesn't determine the conversation in the comments.

T0T\|/G0|) (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

What is wrong with organic fart dick Wayne conversation? Just because things diverge off-topic or do not play out like you hope they would doesn't make them any more or less valid. Often the best and most anarchistic things come from the unexpected.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:12

In reply to by T0T\|/G0|) (not verified)

There isn't anything wrong with that. It is just an example that makes it obvious how distant from the prompt the comments can get. It demonstrates that no matter how good the prompt is, or even what topic the prompt is about, the conversation is not determined by it.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 07:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

wow. way to deal with criticisms you big fucking baby. so now criticizing anews prompts is off the table too, watch out or the mods might report you to the peace-pigs next. you realize this site was primarily started for critique, right?

sideline anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

totw author: do better anews commenters!
anews commenters: do better totw author!

Yes to both!

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:25

In reply to by sideline anon (not verified)

i feel like i am hearing you say we are both worthy of love and that we both should be more self-reflective
how about, fuck-off peace-creep
no need for mediation

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:29

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Do whatever you want and if that amounts to "I'm just going to complain to the TOTW manager because I don't like my TOTW burger" then that's your call. But I am going to do what I want and point out the entitlement baked into your criticisms. Other people have done fine interpreting the TOTW prompt and responding to it and not just on the podcast, but even in the comments on this TOTW.

Reminder, you can also submit your own TOTW.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 14:45

Isn't the term "fuck around and find out" the quote that the Proud Boys use?

After that is when I first started hearing people use it. You can see bumper stickers (I know I drive) and some businesses have this slogan up, which is pretty dead giveaway that they suck (anti-anarchist).

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 15:25

There are multiple ongoing genocides, dangerous wars with incredibly dangerous implications: what looks like a "global civil war", yet you'd have us debate the merits of popular Yankee lingo? Idgaf where fafo came from, being this terse, you really are ducking around. And you might find out

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 17:26

Why are we discussing pop culture slang meanwhile undocumented migrants are being hunted down like Pokémon?

Unless it's to make a point about how the culture has undergone a vibe shift toward the right?

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 17:38

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The core idea is that conservative values can originate in one context, such as prison culture or mainstream media, and gradually take root in other spaces, including anarchist communities. The prompt references historical examples where anarchist scenes have adopted, defended, or replicated conservative ideals, often without realizing it. To make the discussion more engaging, the focus is on those conservative tendencies that aren't immediately recognized as such like rigid, punitive, and law-and-order driven mindsets.

If you're inclined, you can connect this to current events and it seems like you might already have a direction in mind. Are you noticing a broader shift toward the right in mainstream culture? If so, is that shift influencing anarchist subcultures as well? And does that have any impact on the attention given to issues you care about, such as the targeting of undocumented migrants?

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 18:03

"it feels like jail/prison culture has busted out"

How do you do, fellow outlaw anarchists?

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 19:09

Morons seeking their demise like ants walking into a fire. That only sounds bold and edgy 'til you realize it's just more stupid ideology or tuffboi sensibilities making losers sacrifice themselves for a bunch of billionaires.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 20:22

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You've nullified your own empty simile, brah. Typical "human moron" behavior. Additionally, your anthropomorphic framing of antness as "intelligence" is doubly damning, brah.

Antness (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:43

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"all just to defend your Rightard bros."

What in the world? Perhaps instead of breaking you with higher concepts such as antness it would have been better to discuss brainwormness, which you clearly suffer from, brah.

Protip: there is more than on commenter on anews, brah. Just because someone show you your own ass doesn't make them a "righttard", especially when we anarchist are beyond left AND right, brah.

Take your vitamins.

ConceptDickMeasurer (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:22

In reply to by Antness (not verified)

Okay.... so what is the meaning of "antness"?

Is it, like, the condition or quality of being like an ant, OR of being an ant? DO ants require to have an ontological quality defined for them, that gives them a specific nature? What is an ant's antness, or what makes an ant "ant-like" if they're ants already?

All the answers in the news at 6!

a slimy toothy… (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 19:11

In reply to by ConceptDickMeasurer (not verified)

antness is the quality of being ant, that is to say the ant-beingness of ant-beings who are being ants. this beingness is a becomingness, a coming into being of an ant-quality — or better yet ant-character — whose qualia is qualified by this asymtotically ascending (antscending?) into-antness, that is against an-antness (lack of antness), & in constant conflict with antianantness, the dialectical tension that gives meaning to ant-bodies & antibodies alike

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 19:23

Here's an anarchist phrase I saw printed on one of those Pick-up trump flags,
"ABOLISH THE F.B.I."

Now you've got liberals sharing anonymous letters from FBI agents about how they're community members who are under threat from the current federal employee purges.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/10/2025 - 19:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Elements of the bourgeoisie who have described themselves variously as anarchist or sovereign individualist are attacking the federal government for their own benefit, and some anarchists would have others defend the State against the rich/racist/Christian anarchists.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 07:31

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Not "the State"... their view of what the State has to be. As the State is not a monolithic thing. By now it's Rule of Law secular neoliberal democracy Vs full oligarch-ist, borderline monarchist dogshit White supremacist Xian dictatorship.

No one's forcing you to pick a side here... You may just let them fight each other. I'm just wondering what would be the anarchist's place in a new civil war. Or in a situation like in Ukraine.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:26

i'm frequently saddened by posters' "critiques" of the totw prompt. Because the complaints seem so passive. Maybe i'm reading them the wrong way. But to me a conversation involves plenty of false starts and ums and tangents and input from all the people involved, which means that whoever started the conversation doesn't constrain the parameters. 

Commenters can be thoughtful participants in framing/reframing the totw, narrowing it to the threads they find most interesting. Or, since this is a party with many different people to talk to, they can leave and start their own conversation or join some other one. 

The metaphor of a conversation at a party, for online interactions (esp on this site) is obviously flawed, but I sure think it's more apropos than the "pancakes, waffles/cement" etc. one. 

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:34

In reply to by anon (not verified)

well, let's stick with the party metaphor.

who farted and left the room?

that's what many TOTW make me think of, seriously.

and, i don't have an answer for how to make that better (this is not my project, nor one i would undertake), except, if there is nothing interesting for the mods to ask, maybe, they should not ask. skip a week, try to get more people to ask, but it too often seems like AI might be writing some of these...

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 08:48

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"It" as in anews, is your project, to the extent that forums that we participate in become our projects. I don't care if that's not the "it" you were referring to, because it is the most relevant "it" in this conversation. 

No one farted in the room, someone made an attempt to start an interesting conversation. There is no gaseous quality to the attempt that foils other interactions, or precludes a shift to a more interesting interaction. Your comparison is pithy, but at the expense of good faith.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 11:12

best example of this is anarchy bros who listen to Joe Rogan and think they're edgy by using 'woke' in the pejorative when they have no idea what woke means or where it comes from.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 07:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

anarchy bros can say whatever, of course. the rest of us can then call them out for their, at minimum, ignorance, but probably what is actually racism. White, dreaded anarchs are not edgy, they're clueless.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 08:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

it depends on what is being conserved. to keep from being damaged, lost, or wasted, this is to conserve. but of course anarchists rarely consider all the nuances of language so here it is meant as conservative in the party / political sense only. it seems to me that is also missing the mark. the power in charge now is not conservative, it is white supremacist & fascist. white dreaded anarchs are probably not white supremacists but they are clueless.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 12:50

In reply to by anon (not verified)

">be white"
whatever that means with the obvious baggage you seem to pack into it

">have every opportunity and many privileges POC don't"
EVERY opportunity, come the fuck on now. even you don't believe that

"still not enough...must have white dreads"
MUST, what about want to, i thought we were anarchists, or beter yet, most people with any curl or kink to their hair develop dreads if they don't comb it, not to mention they have historically been all over the globe, so try again, i know you will.

">must fight you over it"
no, i guess its better to just roll over to any lame politics coming down the line, don't want to be called racist.

">i'm white, hear me roar"
yeah, good one, ya got us with that, no go back to sleep.

i have no skin in this game. i have no dreads, and i am also not white.

but you, are a complete moron.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 13:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. 

They devour one another and cannot even digest themselves. 

Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money—these impotent ones! 

See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss. 

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 13:09

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Don't be racist against the whites or the MAGAs will sanction you. It's not DEI when it's the white minority who own all the land and eat all da poopoo. I have seen it. Disgusting!

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 15:18

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yeah that's one STUPID and POLITICAL way to respond.
where have all the anarchists gone?

any pushback, guess what? yer MAGA, racist, right-wing, blah, blah, blah
you fucking moronic sheep

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 09:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

So you won't to beat up white people with dreadlocks because you erroneously presume them ALL to be racist? What a liberal you truly are!

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 09:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Maybe WOKE is a perjorative at this point: Have you noticed the extent to which the Biden/Harris Democratic Party has recuperated the concept/term? Is this what YOU--as an anarchist-- want to be identified with? Move to a "blue" state, I guess!

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 10:57

In reply to by anon (not verified)

several points pertain re: woke...

1. woke is from aave meaning ~ "be aware of the racist world you live in, young one."

2. white people latched on to the term shifting its meaning to something akin to "politically correct"

3. racists like neither black people nor political correctness and use the term pejoratively

4. some anarchists don't like mainstream identity politics and have conflated the racist/ fascist pejorative "woke" with their critique of idpol

5. some anarchists don't seem to realize or care they sound anti-black and continue to use woke pejoratively.

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 11:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Conflating an anarchist critique of identity politics (and the WOKENESS that it is now so clearly synonymous with) with RACISM is a really cheap manipulative ploy....guess we should all keep our opinions to ourselves and fall in line with the democratic party commandments!

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 11:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

But the Democratic party is no longer in power, you dweeb. Your MAGA CHUDs and their puppeteer Elon are the government now, and they've been already purging it from the "WOKE mind virus" through a putsch. You can't any longer rant about the WOKE commie globalist bogeyman like all the other shit-brained puppets on Fedbook and X, as it's gone. Neo-eugenics and the "White genocide" ID pols are the new agenda in place. Big bravo, "anarchist" lackey.

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 12:14

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Well what do you expect? When big insurrecto grifters like Frank Lopez implore his audience to vote Democrat, what do you think that tells you? They were never anything but the edgy, spiky haired black sheep of the Democrat Party family.

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 11:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

anarchists defending the term "woke"

so sad

fuck woke!
that don't make me anti-black or racist.

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 11:43

In reply to by anon (not verified)

what is your definition of "woke" ?

what does it signify for you?

does it have real meaning outside of the aave context?

I could go on, but you get my point. I don't think you know what you mean by the word.

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 12:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes, it does. I'd argue it's original meaning hasn't changed in any significant manner, except insofar as it's extended it's logic beyond racism to include all the other "isms" and "phobias" within the doctrine of intersectionality.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 08:43

In reply to by anon (not verified)

duh...i don't know what i mean by the word.....duh....can you tell me what i mean by the word?
fuck off, reclaiming words like "woke" in a positive way is insulting on an anarchist site. go back to community college where you might seem provocative and intelligent.

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 10:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

is it a "reclaim"? because it wasn't a slur in the first place and the reactionaries who misapplied it were being dishonest or didn't know wtf the word even meant

i'm sure they wanted it to become a slur and that hits pretty hard if you're stupid but like ... would i cede that to them? if enough stupid ppl all mindlessly start misusing a word, does it in fact, become a slur and then need "reclaiming"? i dunno... that's giving dipshit reactionaries who were clearly running a psyop too much credit, if you ask me

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 11:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I am not defending the term. I am trying to point out outside the aave context the term has no meaning. Its a term stolen by the dominant culture and in the process has lost its meaning.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:38

The idea that NA anarchist subculture inherits anything from conservativism is laughably absurd! We're talking about the most unhinged idpol-brained subculture in existence here. If anything, the one thing anarchists inherit from conservativism would be trust fund moneys from their conservative parents!

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 15:30

Well back to this crappy TOTW... I just don't think the author knows what "conservatism" means. Just coz some principles are bejng enforced has got nothing conservative.

But this is all vague... they coulda started relating to what they mean by conservatism, then there could be a better discussion.

Mary Apple (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 20:43

In reply to by anon (not verified)

What might have been a more fruitful TOTW would have been posing the question(s): What IS conservatism? What has it meant historically and how have those definitions/understandings differed from the current MAGA/Fox News use of the term? THIS would have likely led to some very interesting conversations.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 21:06

In reply to by Mary Apple (not verified)

Probably. That would be the first step before moving onto the case of conservatism in anarchist subcultures. Next time the TOTW will be broken into several parts where each dependency is addressed before discussing their application in more specific contexts.

lumpy (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 08:05

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i mentioned this but i think maybe it got deleted?

"conservative" isn't the kind of word you can build much of a critique on at all, it's just a lightly coded phrase for a big blob of "things i don't agree with" OR worse, it's an identity marker

but what this writer did, making very broad aspersions about all of anarchy when it has a "rigid, law and order mindset" (whatever tf that means) is like a sweeping generalization shoved up the ass of another sweeping generalization. this is your brain on america, this is your brain on social media, it's just bad theory folks, like a deep fried turducken of bullshit for the superbowl

maybe if the writer could be bothered to pick a specific allegation about anarchists to critique, there might be something interesting there, who knows?

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 11:05

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

I've never had much interest in moralizing lumpy. They're just boring. And pretty status quo, in regards to most of the major topics...humanism, tech, economy, justice/crime, psychology, etc. Very undynamic npc vibes. Gets right-baited super easily

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 10:07

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Exactly! The definition/understanding of what it means to be a "conservative" has changed decade by decade. In some ways, it could be argued that anarcho-primitivism is the ultimate conservative position, in that it views AGRICULTURE as the first mistake! Personally, I don't see many modern "conservative" influences creeping into the anarchist space (after all, the anarcho-capitalists host their own conferences and bookfairs and don't show up at the largely left-oriented anarchist bookfairs), but I definately see a progressive left/ activoid influence infesting the anarchist scene...

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 18:25

When it comes to covid fafo very much applies. The virus doesn't care about your political leanings, nor your denial.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 08:50

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Spotted the liberal, uses the victimized term "gaslighting" and thinks they are smarter than everyone else with absolutely nothing to back it up.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 09:09

In reply to by anon (not verified)

wow. a whole big website. i hear they are hard to make and only have things that are true. you must really know what you are talking about. i hope you don't think i am "gaslighting" you.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 09:56

In reply to by anon (not verified)

This but unironically. Whether a website is hard to make depends on who you ask. Be honest though, ever seen that website before? If no, why would that be? Not because gatekeepers in government and the mainstream media surely?

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 10:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

these so-called conversations are stupiid and i judge all concerned, including myself. 

sources are only relevant if you trust them. if your reason not to trust science and/or government is strong (as there is every reason for), then you won't trust government/science sites or references. on the other hand, trusting random scientists who disagree with other scientists is not "not trusting science" it's just not believing in people who disagree with you/how you want the world to be.

y'all have no basis for coming to an agreement, and it's ridiculous that the same disagreements get worked out as if some resolution will happen. neither of you (or none of you) are convincing anyone.

and this is all just one example of the modern/online world being a dishonesty/mistrust machine, teaching us that we can't believe anything or anyone (at least online). one might believe that that is a good thing, but the transition to behaving differently is brutal.  

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 10:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

that's not how i do it?

"trusting a source" is like a bad habit you fall in to, like complacency. you can always fact check the shit out of literally every statement except when you don't have time or internet access. i rarely trust sources and i just start researching if i smell bullshit, which is often. of course, those are media skills that you need to learn and develop. even worse, you need to fully realize the difference between your own biases and material data, which often leads to a psychological crisis for people, cuz dunning kruger

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 09:38

In reply to by anon (not verified)

What do you think I'm "gaslighting" you about exactly? Are you implying that I'm being dishonest about not taking any covid vaccines? If so, that would be such an odd thing to lie about lmao. No, anon. I'm not gaslighting you. I assure you that I am 100% covid-vax free, and am still perfectly healthy. Perhaps the reason you think this constitutes gaslighting is because, ironically, the sources you trust so blindly are the ones who were gaslighting you all along. Plot twist!

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 10:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

it's probably not dishonesty. more like a garden variety logic fallacy where you honestly believe that just because a bad thing didn't happen to you personally yet, it proves a conclusion somehow

but it doesn't. fraid that's not how science works

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 11:23

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Fair enough, but, time is on my side of the argument, not yours.

The more time marches on, and nothing happens, the less and less credible your position becomes. Remember that we're talking about a virus that was originally being marketed as "the DEADLIEST moast CONTAGIOUS virus in teh whooooole world!!!!!!!"

Also, I'm not a NEET. I don't play vidya. I don't stay indoors all day. I'm super exposed to people all the time so if anyone was likely to catch it, I assume it would be me, sooooooo...

"If your covid-god is real, then may he strike me where I stand! (Laughs in viking)"

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 11:33

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i'm not the same person you were previously arguing with and you seem to be struggling with the difference between caution back when there wasn't information yet, versus now, where nobody is claiming any of that about covid

nowadays, the main concern is how exactly long covid works, after people contract the virus multiple times and immunocompromised folks in general, which was pretty much always how being immunocompromised works, which is to say it sucks major ass

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 11:26

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Also, its not just "me, personally". But me, my friends, everyone I know, everyone they know, etc. But oooooohhhhhh noooooooo forget your lived experience! trust tEh sCieNCe!!

Yall remind me of fearful christians ngl

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 21:06

In reply to by anon (not verified)

In a way, it's comfy to get your brain stucked in some context from years or decades ago. No need to adapt to new situations, or even care about pesky facts!

Like if you believe the Spanish Civil War is still on then FTW, everyprole's a Comrade and you can have hours of fun trying to mobilize kids at school about the need to unite the proles to build a revolutionary mass movement and the school board fires you the next day well you can just picket-line the place and sing some Joe Hill songs.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 08:19

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Even pre-Trump CDC and WHO no longer recognized Covid-19 as a pandemic. So what's with all the scare, bringing back this scarecrow from 2020... for what was already one of the *least* deadly global outbreaks in history? You outside-maskers are sounding like the typical psychotic conspiracy-obsessed cripples, just at Zoomer age.

Wiki's not a scientific source for anything, just a decent gateway for actual research on something.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 08:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The government isn't a monolith. CDC and WHO are not independent entities. Just look how the WHO dealt with the key feature of covid namely that is airborne. It's a travesty, whereas this government website just sticks to the facts, and the facts say, C19 is flying AIDS.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?filters=topics…
450,000 research papers on Covid-19 daily updated, have a browse.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 10:44

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes, Covid is an airborne virus, spreading through droplets. Like the deadlier Influenza, and the more innocuous common cold. So?

It doesn't justify keeping people inside by threat of steep fines and imprisonment. Or forcing the elderly to remain detained in badly-vented nursery homes for weeks or months.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 11:09

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Fuck.. true Muhrikan center-of-the-world ignorance.

France, Spain, Italy and Greece at least were on full lockdown for weeks or even months. You needed to have a dog or special authorization issued by cops to just go walk outside, or do the groceries.

Also Ontario had issued a stupid ban from going into public parks, because reasons. Canada had also forced people to vaxx if they wanted to leave the country by plane or boat, or work in public services... where the cases only skyrocketed in the months following the first two Covid jabs. So many other cases of absurd despotic managements.

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 11:22

In reply to by anon (not verified)

SIGH hey asshole, you're talking to somebody from one of the countries you just mentioned

i was just wondering if you were a troglodyte from the intellectual dark web or not, currently gargling bret weinstein's balls, etc. apparently not! good for you.

anyways, i agree with you. those things were despotic. they also reflected the panic and ignorance at the beginning of the pandemic and there's much better info available now

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 16:34

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Uh... why calling me an asshole who's into some internet Trumptard if you agree? Anyways, the stuff I said about these countries/regions is factual. Also that Covid was "airborne" through droplets didn't mean it could spread ANYWHERE at ANY DISTANCE by air.

Droplets have mass and are made mostly of water... so physics sez they'll both be attracted by a larger mass (a body, the ground, etc) and that the Sun's powerful UV rays will destroy the viruses contained in them after a moment of exposure. The fact these viruses always get big during cloudy, chilly & humid weather periods is consistent with this. Covid went nearly "dead" during dry Summer periods.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 06:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Just face the facts. The human society is doomed, ever since it fell out of the trees with a wimper millions of years ago, it hasn't learned a single thing, it's still dumb, slow, ugly and a pain in the ass, a dog is more useful. We cynical pesdimist anarchs just keep our brilliance to ourselves, fuck the rest of these hopeless whining specimens who dress up with fashion and preen themselves and ride in flashy machines, TheY aRe dUmB aS fUcK and uGlY arRoganT aPes wHo thInk tHE aRe tHe bEsT fReAkiN sPecIes wHo eVeR waLkEd tHis EaRth, WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!. We individualist anarchs RULE! Now sHuT tHe fUCk uP!

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 07:28

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't due to human's science and tech, tho... 0_0

If we go back to monke, that'll be just me and you chasing you across trees for a beating just coz you refuse to pick & eat the fleas outta my fur.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 21:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Comments like this always pique my sense of morbid fascination and blow me away because it's like peering into the window of a completely different world, nay, a parallel universe! To think that covid is this serious thing, a "plague" or whatever, that needs to not be "fucked around" with unless we find out, in the year 2025.

I can't even begin to fathom what goes on in the minds of people like this, lmao

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 00:50

In reply to by anon (not verified)

you don't recognise eugenics when it stares you in the face. Repeated asymptomatic infections and a ruined immune system can cause this level of short-sightedness.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 07:15

In reply to by anon (not verified)

That's dumb. People are bringing the eugenics argument for the vaccines as well. And for the low fatality rate Covid has had, that looks like a crappy, hardly-effective tool for systematic population reduction.

If there's eugenists, they've been working as healthcare managers and "mismanaging" the crisis so to multiply the morbidity rate of Covid by isolating patients into poorly-vented nursery homes staffed with poor or non-White workers. You wearing a mask outside or staying home didn't do shit for or against Covid... but paid lip service to these awful confinement policies.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 07:45

In reply to by anon (not verified)

My immune system is perfectly fine, I'm not worried about covid, lol. It seems the only one in denial is you, for taking like 12 covid booster shots because he got spooked into it by government-backed labcoats.

How many years need to go by with nothing happening to people like me before you admit you were wrong, hm?

anon (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 11:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes, but only if you train immune system it will stay perfect. That means exposing yourselves to pathogens whenever you can, inhaling those coughs around you, your immune system will only get in better shape. You see, the immune system works like a muscle, it gets stronger as you push it. But as with muscles, use it or lose it. Train it regularly.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 22:55

From a psychological standpoint, some, even anarchists, just have more conservative sensibilities. It seems like trying to "root out" conservatism is a social engineering that is not necessary for a thriving anarchy where political conservatism doesn't rule.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 05:43

Knowing what conservatism is easy for the true anarch, who is tuned into the critical perception of empathy and good deeds. This highly nuanced perception allows the true anarch to recognize a conservative fascist by their gait, there facial expressions, the tone of their voices when they speak, and their body language when they interreact with women. It is a light-headed all-knowing rise above the base ideological and cultural conditioning which enslaves the majority of people.

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 07:50

ok, but seriously, if this topic could even be salvaged from its extreme lameness on any level, anything interesting that would remain to be discussed would be erroneously, foolishly, idiotically, and reflexively labeled fash-adjacent, right-wing, or orange-haired, etc, which non of it would be anything of the sort, but because it might have nuanced takes outside the realm of your average leftist, um, i mean anarchist, so its pointless to begin in this particular forum, so let’s just get back to ridiculing the stupid topic…

ok, well, lemme put it this way,
as words, “conservative” and its wimpy co-conspiritor “liberal” are pretty damn useless, and only even remotely helpful when used as descriptors of perspectives, in fluid and situational ways. here’s an example: “i used to be more conservative with eating butter, too much cholesterol was a concern of mine, now i am more liberal with it because, what the heck, it tastes good”. but even that sounds pretty lame. doesn’t: “i used to be such a little bitch about how much butter i kept from myself despite its obvious deliciousness, but now i stuff it in my greasy face and other gooshy places too as often as i possibly can” sound so much better?

ok, that’s it. life is much better than this….see ya!

anon (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 17:32

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Not so much the word "conservative", I agree with your argument about it being a weak descriptive, as is "liberal", to describe hardcore fascists, however, the nuances I describe refer more to the chronic combination of seemingly trivial traits in behavior, fashion choices, food consumed (Hitler was a vegetarian frustrated artist), religious fervor (Stalin and Mathus were former priests), gait, treatment of various genders, facial expression in public etc etc. After all, physiology is an ancient art used by humans to determine the character of a person before committing oneself to a friendship with them, and many people unconsciously use this skill for survival. I mean, would you ask a person with a thousand yard stare holding a 9 millimetre pistol to a party? No.Would you invite a man who drools at the sight of a woman with a tanktop? No. Would you befriend a person who is a CEO at a company which exploits poor women in sweat shops? No. Would you associate with a person who denigrates folk who aren't of their own race or culture? No. Would you mix with people who sent their children to bed without dinner for accidently breaking a window with a baseball? No. Would you be suspicious of people who eat caviar and drink champagne every day? No. Would you associate with a man who frequents bars with strippers every weekend? No. Would you associate with someone who smears butter on their penis before intercourse with a victim of grooming? No. Would you ally yourself with people who walk straight past a homeless starving person in the street who totally ignores their plight and doesn't even offer a dime, some consolation, a candy bar, even a cigarrette for god's sake!? No.
So putting all these rather petty observations all together, these traits of a persons mental constitution, their values etc, one can easily identify the potential fascist tyrants that walk amongst us, seemingly nice and normal, but harbouring monstrose tyranical fascist monsters inside of them.

anon (not verified) Fri, 02/14/2025 - 08:58

In reply to by anon (not verified)

are you illustrating conservatism thru the use of all those judgements? how many friends might one have if they kick anyone out for a difference in opinion or a distasteful action?

i thought the prompt was trying to hint that your sort of exclusivist take can also be called "conservative"

while i recognize that a war machine is only gonna spin around and get somewhere when it's assembled from an apt combination of actors, is all of your time spent in that one war machine? personally i don't think cause and effect are as predictable as you're making out. you're basically just saying "people who act mean based on my criteria: potential fascists." To say nothing of conservative you've simplified the entire political field into progressive-leftist-or-fascist.

anon (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 23:14

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Actually I recently been studying old news footage, particularly that of Churchill, and from his body language and physiognamy I can definitely see a pompous arrogant fascist beneath the suit and top-hat. The top-hat is an instant give-away, then him smiling and sitting next to Stalin, how could any anarch not spot immediately a thuggish tyrant!

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 10:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Why do you associate all the activities/ behaviors you just described with being a conservative? There's plenty of "liberal" CEO"s and tech giants out there that routinely engage in half of this shit and as far as the grooming of children goes...let's be honest enough that its been the progressive left that has been most guilty of this for the last five or six years!

anon (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 23:05

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I forgot this other petty "conservative" action one can observe. Would you associate with someone who goes to golf tournaments and throws empty plastic cups onto the green when a player hits a hole in the one? NooOooo, they are obviously sheepish minded privileged fascist morons! They would NOT be a pure anarch in that crowd, this I can guarantee!

anon (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 08:21

don't eat so much butter you privileged asshole. some people don't have any butter. they only have crisco, and that doesn't taste so good. it is also bad for you. just stop.

Upvotes (not verified) Fri, 02/14/2025 - 00:45

Some great comments DID come from a shitty prompt, could we in fact learns from a "conservative" org like google and implement some kind of upvote/downvote system in the comments section to highlight useful comments vs just newest?

anon (not verified) Fri, 02/14/2025 - 00:52

In reply to by Upvotes (not verified)

Pure anarchs don't vote! Voting creates an ableist hierarchy which favors a privileged literate elite to wield authoritarian mechanisms. Would an anarch associate with the sheepish members of a Statist community? No!!

Mary Apple (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 11:33

Here's a suggestion for the next Topic of the Week: PROGRESSIVISM IN DISGUISE. Because this afflicts the "anarchist" milieu far more than an ill-defined (or not defined AT ALL) conservatism.

Joseph Orange (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 11:45

In reply to by Mary Apple (not verified)

Hello Mary,
How does PROGRESSIVISM (sic) "afflict" the "anarchist" milieu far more than an ill-defined conservatism?
If you could back up your assertion with a little more substance then it could be discussed, otherwise it's just an empty assertion that is merely and uninterestingly inverting the current topic.

anon (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 11:59

In reply to by Joseph Orange (not verified)

Joseph, no need to be so defensive towards Mary! Do you identify as a progressive, perhaps? Anyway, if the mods decide to make that a TOTW then everyone will have a chance to hash it out, just like they're doing right now with this TOTW....it almost seems like you don't want to see it discussed at all!

anon (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 12:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Ah yes, asking for more information on a loosely described assertion MUST mean one is in favor of the opposite side. You sure are s-m-a-r-t, 11:59! That's exactly how unbiased, intelligent conversation occurs. Turn off Joe Rogan, brow.

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 12:13

In reply to by Joseph Orange (not verified)

joseph, you're clearly without a clue. definitely a real thing
way more than just an assertion but has the same problem of being vague af

i prefer to use the slur "radlib" because i like to focus on how these are still liberals who ultimately just want to "improve" colonial capitalism or build their careers with stolen clout or whatever, all of which is irreconcilable with anarchist values but that's just me!

fake lumpy alert (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 12:16

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Nice try, sweetheart. Real lumpy is smart enough to know that asking for further clarification is not a "bad" thing for anarchists to do! Only an overly-defensive reactionary idiot would think otherwise! Mmkay!

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 15:07

In reply to by anon (not verified)

well, i suppose you could honestly not know why or how liberals were often the main enemies of anarchists for most of the last 50+ years? if you honestly didn't know that, then being dismissive of it might seem reasonable.

i don't know how you could be unaware of this if you ever talk to any older anarchists but maybe you don't? maybe this is news!

anon (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 15:25

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Sir, I am an 78 year old anarchist from Oakland. What you call "liberals" are the same reactionary "conservatives" of today. Do you understand what I am telling you? That other anon asking for the idea to be fleshed out did not deserve your snide ire. It is perfectly okay for anarchists to equally reject both conservative and liberal enemies. In fact it should be encouraged. Do not lose track of the ball.

lumpy (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 15:46

In reply to by anon (not verified)

ok, if that's true then fair enough!

but that's literally what i was saying too. i'm talking about criticizing the liberal "progressives" in equal measure with the "conservatives", in the spirit of "the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace" etc

as for my snide ire, don't worry about that too much. politeness isn't how this place does things

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 16:53

If you're a so-called leftist making fun of Covid informed folks, congratulations, you've capitulated to end-stage capitalism.
- A Liberal on BlueSky

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/18/2025 - 09:21

this entire topic misses the point. so-called "conservativism" (too many problems to even begin to explain) is a marginal issue within anarchism. the giant pink elephant in the room that almost always gets a pass, even when people pay lip-service to its critique, is yes, leftism, and more specifically these days, progressivism. so many anarchists these days seem to just slightly moderate their scripts from AOC and NPR. that's embarrassing.

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/23/2025 - 00:40

I'm a paleoconservative (google it). I hunt for my meat like my ancient anarchist ancestors, and shop at Wal-Mart!

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
w
1
4
9
c
e
W
X
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.