186
187

Arrogantly belligerent pig gets what's coming to him (Nantes, France) (youtu.be)

Kropotsmokin が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist -1ポイント0ポイント  (15子コメント)

Fuck you.

[–]SenseiMike3210plus a little Marx 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

Well, someone's angry...

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

Just trying to figure out if you're stupid or trolling. I'll explain it just in case you're that dumb.

  1. Cops are one of the most violent and largest impediments to any sort of liberating praxis.

  2. You are using a species of nonhuman as a pejorative to describe this extreme impediment.

  3. This means that pigs - the nonhumans - are intimately associated and tied to this projection of Statist violence and oppression.

  4. This reveals an obvious hierarchy of nonhuman<human.

  5. Speciesism is the named description of this hierarchy.

  6. Carnists such as yourself only care about breaking down hierarchies when it directly benefits you - not when you're on the top of it - and projecting the violence and oppressiveness of cops onto the nonhuman pig is one of the clearest points where this becomes the most obvious - especially in "revolutionary" praxis.

  7. So it shouldn't matter if pigs "care" or "understand" human lexicon, it's the creation and structuring of hierarchies that are embedded within our own linguistic constructions. See #6 why this is important to acknowledge.

Does that make sense to you or should I try to use smaller words?

[–]SenseiMike3210plus a little Marx 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Does that make sense to you or should I try to use smaller words?

Ya, still doesn't make sense but not because of the size of your words. No one (including pigs) would be better off if we stopped calling cops pigs...except maybe cops. If you can show me that anybody's situation would be better if we all stopped associating cops with pigs then maybe I'll reconsider my position. But until then it just seems like a nonissue. The pigs aren't hurt by it, nobody is hurt by it so who gives a fuck?

This reveals an obvious hierarchy of nonhuman<human.

Speciesism is the named description of this hierarchy.

I can turn this right back at you. I'm assuming you must, at the least, eat plants. Plants aren't human. You subordinating the lives of plants to your own reveals an obvious hierarchy of nonhuman<human. Speciesism is the named description of this heirarchy. You are a speciesist.

and projecting the violence and oppressiveness of cops onto the nonhuman pig is one of the clearest points where this becomes the most obvious.

Unless you can show me that ceasing to project the violence and oppressiveness of cops onto pigs will break down hierarchies ultimately benefiting pigs then your claim that I only care about breaking down hierarchies when it directly benefits me is a non sequitor. I mean, it's a non sequitor anyway because there's no way you could know that (even if it were true, which it's not) from me calling cops pigs. That's just stupid.

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Yup you are dumb - it doesn't matter how it effects pigs, it matters that it creates a hierarchy that's implicit within our own revolutionary praxis - it means there will never be a point where we are able to consider nonhumans to have their implicit 'value' or 'agency' and thus perpetually justifying carnism. I'll address plants because I think it's funny and it's such a carnist troll "argument".

I believe plants have their own agency to be considered separately from humans as well. First read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/infp/comments/4jytfn/guilty_of_doing_this_all_the_time_at_parties/d3brs03

To live we are required to extract life from other living beings. This doesn't mean that these beings have to be belittled or to be considered less than humans in any regard - to be clear here, using "pigs" as a pejorative does this without a doubt.
To give you a background about myself I'm in the long process of becoming a farmer - I directly interact and engage with the process of life production and life extraction. The act of "planting" and "harvesting" is a sacred act where I come face to root with the building blocks of life.

Because I eat plants doesn't mean I devalue them the way you do plants and nonhumans. Eating and the production of food is something that is a sacred rite that deserves the utmost acknowledgment of respect and reverence.

To live others must die and that's something that I recognize and respect. You on the other hand spit on the life that sustains you.

[–]SenseiMike3210plus a little Marx 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

it means there will never be a point where we are able to consider nonhumans to have their implicit 'value' or 'agency' and thus perpetually justifying carnism.

Baseless speculation with no evidence or even basic logic to support this conclusion. For one, I recognize that pigs have agency since they clearly exert power over their environments to effect an outcome. This is in no way contradicted by my calling cops pigs. Your point that one necessarily follows from the other is flat-out wrong. Furthermore, you do not and cannot support your argument that it will perpetually justify carnism. It is completely possibly to simultaneously call cops pigs and not be a carnist. Case-in-point, my vegetarian and even vegan friends who call cops pigs.

I believe plants have their own agency to be considered separately from humans as well. First read this:

Ya, ok I read it. So what? Obviously plants have agency...they respond to and act upon their environments. That's not news to anyone.

To give you a background about myself I'm in the long process of becoming a farmer - I directly interact and engage with the process of life production and life extraction. The act of "planting" and "harvesting" is a sacred act where I come face to root with the building blocks of life.

Well...that's neat.

You on the other hand spit on the life that sustains you.

I mean, that's being dramatic but it's also beside the point. Plants and pigs don't care if I "spit on them" (just to be clear this is metaphorical, I've never literally spat on a pig and I don't plan to). It makes no difference to them whether I call cops pigs. It makes a difference to you because you like pigs but not cops. But offending your sensibilities doesn't really translate to oppressive revolutionary praxis now does it?

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus you're dense

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Alright, I'm 100% you're just a troll but I know that it's going to bug the shit out of me. It doesn't matter if the pigs or plants "care" (though "caring" is an incredibly anthropocentric notion in of itself) - what matters is that you are constructing hierarchies with your language and it is translated into your epistemological and ontological self - you only care about breaking down hierarchy as long as it serves yourself - the moment that it doesn't you stop caring - you are no Anarchist and that's the whole point.

hierarchy is fucked and you create it and epistemologically perpetuate it through your lexicon. I haven't even begun to talk about the effects it has on plants or nonhumans - it's the effect on yourself and your "intellectual" dishonesty when you claim to be against hierarchy when you call yourself an "Anarchist" - you must reorient your very ontology to break down oppressive structures and you simply, and willingly, calcify them.

[–]SenseiMike3210plus a little Marx 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

It doesn't matter if the pigs or plants "care" (though "caring" is an incredibly anthropocentric notion in of itself) - what matters is that you are constructing hierarchies with your language and it is translated into your epistemological and ontological self

Of course it matters what its effects on pigs and plants are...what's the harm of a hierarchy if it literally has no harm? Like, I think humans are more important than a rock. See that? I just admitted to placing rocks in a hierarchical relationship below people. But it doesn't matter because it didn't hurt anyone. Which is the whole point.

you only care about breaking down hierarchy as long as it serves yourself

I mean that's so dumb and presumptuous on your part. I'm a cis white heterosexual male, if I were only interested in breaking down the hierarchies which hurt me I wouldn't be engaged in the struggles I am, seeing as most social hierarchies actually benefit me. But I am organizing with homeless people of color and involved in prison solidarity and much more. Not that I'm tooting my own horn, lots of us are engaged in those kinds of struggles. I'm just bringing it up to show that you are talking out of your ass.

you are no Anarchist and that's the whole point.

...right, because you are the most capital-A Anarchist of them all! You are the arbiter of what is and isn't anarchist because you have "oriented" your "ontology"...or whatever. Do you even know what these words mean? You are just vomiting silly philosophical buzzwords because you think it'll lend your argument more credibility if you use more intellectual language but it's really, really, transparent. I mean look at this:

epistemologically perpetuate it through your lexicon.

My language is perpetuating hierarchy through the philosophical study of a theory of knowledge? Haha, wut?

I'm sorry I belittled pigs but if you can't show me how calling a cop a "pig" hurts pigs or anyone else then your whole issue with it makes about as much sense to me as taking issue had I called a cop a piece of trash because it creates hierarchies with respect to garbage. So what?

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

ehhhhhh we're so done here. This was such a silly conversation to try to have.
Also, just because you don't know certain words like "Ontology" and "Epistemology" doesn't mean they are buzzwords. But mk.

[–]SenseiMike3210plus a little Marx 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

No the problem is I do know what they mean. You're just using them incorrectly. I do not have an "epistemological self". That doesn't even make sense. I do not have a self that is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of justified belief. Your lack of self-awareness is both impressive and embarassing. Get back to me when you have more than unsubstantiated and presumptuous claims to make. And while you're working on that, please learn how to use ontology and epistemology correctly in a sentence.

[–]Jaadaw 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree with you, but you aren't gonna win people over by reacting like this.

[–]PSJJJJ_Guerrilla Ontological Anarchist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Naa, I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. I just like to be rude to carnists because it makes me laugh - the whole thing is just a big troll/lol fest for me.
I mean, I do believe the things I'm saying, but also don't give a shit if whomever I was talking with cares or understands what I have to say - they clearly eat meat so calling cops a nonhuman pejorative is so low on their care level.