[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

Anti-Capitalist & Anti-State

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Revolt. Agitate. Organize. Educate. Board Guidelines

File: 1428596427708.png (171.97 KB, 375x523, 375:523, sjw.png)

b7d2aa No.8500

So what do you all think of SJWs? Like the kinds of people who took over 4chan and reddit.

02119c No.8505

They prejudice the socialist movement. That's all.

820793 No.8511

They're statists.
They're statists who want to punish me because, I don't know, they're jealous of just how god damned white I am.

422efe No.8513

File: 1428795894122.jpg (144.3 KB, 800x798, 400:399, newleft.jpg)

I agree with them on some points (ending sexism, racism, homophobia etc), but they are terrible at debating (i.e. buzzword like "mansplaining", they also tend to strawman a lot) and have insane concepts like "cultural appropriation".

>>8511
Yes they are in general very authoritarian, even if some of them claims to be anarchists.

c64b53 No.8528

File: 1428907238295.jpg (48.54 KB, 280x560, 1:2, 1419822273795.jpg)

I think it's actually important to note something about SJWs that I think a lot of people tend to forget:

SJWs are not true feminists - hell, the people they read and support aren't real feminists either, while I'm at this. The people they read and talk about (or claim to read) are the byproduct of Continental Philosophy and 20th century feminism in decline. Where once feminists engaged in genuine, direct political action and dismantled real patriarchal hierarchies, now they sit in university classrooms reading phallic objects into 200+ year old works of literature, censor people for using "triggering" language, vote for Hillary Clinton, and attack random victims on social media who don't conform to their idle talk. They use buzzwords they don't understand the meaning or origins of, and the entire content of their contributions to academia are literally nothing else than a self-contained dialectic that is spinning exponentially into an incomprehensible circlejerk of collective lunacy.

SJW are, on tumblr, 13-24 year-old special snowflake idiots hiding behind a pseudo-ideology so that they can have free reign to act as rude and demanding as they want to people, or, in academia, are statists.

Being an anarchist: I can't deny that there certainly are actual hierarchies that continue to exist in the world today and that some of these are based on oppressing people based on race or sex, but these are just the symptoms of larger problems like capitalism and the State that affect everyone.

But even for whatever actual problems there are with the ridiculously-specific issues that the SJWs have focused in on: They do absolutely nothing about them and refuse to move on from the 20th century and into the future - past the traditional Left and, in my opinion, past the concept of gender entirely.

I haven't read much about it myself yet, but as far as contemporary feminism goes, post-genderism and cyberfeminism have some promising ideas. I feel like they very likely could just be capitalizing on trendy 21st century discourses on technology like the SJW have done with video games, though, so their execution of their ideas could be just as toxic.

But anyhow: SJW on tumblr and in academia are a joke and will be irrelevant and forgotten by the end of the 21st century.

16a0f2 No.8532

File: 1428950521336-0.jpg (146.58 KB, 1000x600, 5:3, cleyre1b1b.jpg)

File: 1428950521336-1.jpg (295.11 KB, 1024x1390, 512:695, liberal-feminism.jpg)

File: 1428950521336-2.png (1.94 MB, 617x1653, 617:1653, indoctrination.png)

Did the term "SJW" ever attain a definite meaning? To me it always seemed to be a convenient slur from /pol/tards directed at everything not being Third Reich Nazism.

You guys do realize that feminism has more than one form, right?
Most importantly liberal, state-socialist and anarchist?
That they aren't conveniently hiveminded or even in agreement amongst one-another?

I think we should make an attempt at dissecting these three branches of feminism ITT. To try to separate and define the authoritarian(socialist) and liberal and see what theory we're left with.

It would be both elucidating and generally beneficial for our movement, since 'they' seem to make an increasing impression in the mainstream (reddit, specifically /r/anarchism, /r/socialism and /r/communism in our case).

It would solve a lot of
>Reddit AnFem posts X
>How outrageous, since Anarchism is actually Y!
Well if we could easily determine if this AnFem is actually just a LibFem or a Marxist-Matriarchist in disguise it would solve a lot of distress that we're currently witnessing among the 8chan libertarian/left community.

>pics related

c64b53 No.8534

>>8532
Perhaps you can enlighten myself and others, but as I said above >>8528 I'm under the impression that "SJW" - while a convenient /pol/lack slur for people who don't conform to their ideology - is still a useful category for delineating mainstream "feminists" and in general what the feminist movement has declined into.

In my opinion, they tend to attack problems that, while indeed real problems (to some degree, at least; the mainstream feminists/tumblr feminists/academic feminists tend to make issues out of nothing because they're young, privileged first-world women), are really only subordinate to the larger problems of the State and capitalism and only serve to further divide up resistance to all forms of hierarchy. As George Carlin once said (heavily paraphrased): The thing about feminists is that they are all trying to get out of the kitchen and attain the equality that they deserve, but after this they just go on to become career women wage slaves.

Of course, being that this is an anarchist board, I'm sure none of us would be opposed to hearing the anarcha-feminist viewpoint and more accurately defining how it differs from authoritarian and liberal feminism.

Also,
>Voltairine de Cleyre
Mah comrade.

422efe No.8536

>>8532

>Did the term "SJW" ever attain a definite meaning?

I think that you achieve SJW status by agreeing with some of their core principles : racism, sexism and other "-ism" are prejudice + power, only the oppressed minorities can define their oppressions etc…

>You guys do realize that feminism has more than one form, right?

Yes, in a sense anarchism hold feminists values, because a person in an anarchist commune/society will have the same rights regardless of their sex/gender. Unfortunately, in 8chan and other "chans" when you mention feminism people assume that you talk about the SJW type.

>>8534
>In my opinion, they tend to attack problems that, while indeed real problems (to some degree, at least; the mainstream feminists/tumblr feminists/academic feminists tend to make issues out of nothing because they're young, privileged first-world women), are really only subordinate to the larger problems of the State and capitalism
I saw that argument on /leftypol/ as well, could you elaborate? Because I can quite imagine that even without the State and capitalism, some people will still discriminate or hurt others based on race/sex etc…

16a0f2 No.8537

File: 1429071110194-0.jpg (150.62 KB, 999x730, 999:730, 1a.jpg)

File: 1429071110194-1.jpg (164.63 KB, 426x640, 213:320, 1b.jpg)

File: 1429071110194-2.jpg (39.84 KB, 306x423, 34:47, 2a.jpg)

File: 1429071110194-3.jpg (85.98 KB, 565x422, 565:422, 2b.jpg)

>>8536
>I can quite imagine that even without the State and capitalism, some people will still discriminate or hurt others based on race/sex etc…
This is what I feel that anarcho-feminists try to address, and I think that this indeed can be a hypothetical problem as well.
When one has subtracted the state and capitalism, we are still left with the social and inter-personal sphere wherein males and females have a genetic difference of 1.5%. (Female-female and male-male genetic difference across ethnicities are only at a 0.01% genetic variation, by comparison). The male hormonal make-up was developed for protecting the children and life-giver, the female from environmental extinction. This has granted males (of many species, not at all exclusive to humans) a predisposition to aggressiveness, ideally in relation to protection, in comparison to women.
>To clarify:
Culture shapes the societal expression of male testosterone. Back in the day it was needed for tribal survival in an environment where every single creek could house a potentially lethal predator, whether it be venomous spiders and snakes or big cats and hyenas. The males need to present an equal or greater amount of force against the aggressors for the survival of the tribe. In today's society, stripped of such dangers; capitalism, religions and corporations pander to graphic violence, subservience and competition. Christian doctrines, for example, which have had a great decrease in the past hundreds of years in general western culture, is still remarkably remnant in even the most 'irreligious' of western nations. It resides in the collective unconscious through ethics, culture, holidays, morals and individual upbringing.

If one takes an empirical approach to societal history, leading up to the present society, one finds that male-to-female aggression has had a pretty messy track record. To avoid the discussion of liberal and legal inequalities I will head straight into the area of the social sphere, where an anarchist society would reside.
I will not make the assumption of a commune entirely made up of clinically clean anarchists who have had 0 real-life exposure to religious dogma or morality, as that would not only seem highly unrealistic, but also would be a rather useless and unproductive subject of discussion. Instead, in this scenario we have a stateless anarchist commune who is left tackling the highly complex societal environment of pure philosophical reasoning of the individuals constituting it.

In what starts as a peaceful commune of free individuals - some folk who still remembering/idealizing the pre-revolutionary culture and a religious minority, who had freely constructed a holy place of worship early-on in the establishment of the open commune are starting to make more and more repressive requests. In this case, they have started to argue in favor of the selective veilance of the female body - even during summer-time. Some find it hard to argue any further than "it just not being right", while others citing theological doctrine for their reasoning. (Religious belief resides in the sphere of free- thought and -expression). Well at first one could simply oppose their will by being of majority anarchist presence in the commune. So wouldn't it then be in the rational self-interest for the people of faith to invite more people that share their belief in attempt to gain a larger presence? (To hinder the influx of free peoples would be to oppose the freedom of movement in a stateless region). Now they have majority presence to democratically enforce their repressive theological ethics on the free women of the commune and the freedom in the commune is now in free-fall.

How would an anarchist society avoid a subtle, but highly likely threat like this, without becoming overtly authoritarian?

The demonization of femininity is alive and well within our present, scientific and supposedly modern society.
To avoid it in a stateless society - one needs to understand how.
I have never witnessed a discussion on a *chan board come close to addressing this issue.

Let's try it out.

62dcc8 No.8545

>>8536
>some people will still discriminate or hurt others based on race/sex

You will never ever stop this
All you can do is mock them and assist whoever has been discriminated against
To do anything about the bigot would be authoritarian in nature, and draw you ever closer to SJWs

>muh thought crime

16a0f2 No.8549

>>8545
This is true.
I've thought about this latest posts for the last couple of days and I've come to the conclusion that this freedom could be simply with the help of the federalist structure and democratically erected common law of the commune. If it would be breached the citizens would react, which all already have means to protect themselves (weapons) or would get help by basically any nearby comrade. If a certain specific group was trying to start an anti-anarchist insurrection one would simply have to fend them off with complete solidarity force - lethal if necessary. I think I was underestimating the power of the individual to an extent.

04ac93 No.8564

If you took it seriously you wouldn't be that shit (still quite shit tho) but most people just read those tumblr public service announcements about how sombreros are a hate crime


6b1c9b No.8571

SJW is just a term used to discredit something without actually providing an argument. Its stupid /pol/ bullshit. It's fabricated by the right from cherry-picking from various movements; stupid shit that we keep dividing ourselves with. Lots of Gamer Gaters use this term to shit all over feminism for example. This phenomenon is pretty much exclusive to entitled internet users and hard right-wingers.


16a0f2 No.8575

>>8571

Absolutely, I started noticing this pattern to the extreme when I came over here to 8chan.

Always either Right-wingers or extreme right-wingers, shitflinging at everything left of them (which for a fascist for example is essentially everything).


a787c6 No.8594

>>8575

This exactly. Seriously, fuck this whole blaming the victim.

Gender inequality (in socio-economic terms) is inherently anti-anarchist / authoritarian. We should join with their cause instead of being divided.


7c4220 No.8606

>>8537

>they have started to argue in favor of the selective veilance of the female body

They can argue as much as they want, they can't force it on people.

>So wouldn't it then be in the rational self-interest for the people of faith to invite more people that share their belief in attempt to gain a larger presence?

I agree. It would also be in the rational self-interest of the women to rally people who oppose their attempts to force their belief on others.

>Now they have majority presence to democratically enforce their repressive theological ethics

It's not Anarchist if they force it on people, that is authoritarian and should be opposed immediately. I can only see them imposing their will on them by either using force or dissociating with the women to pressure them into it. I think that in order to have a functioning commune you will need other communes, I don't think that it would work if they were isolated so you have the factor of their neighbours and I also don't think that everybody who wants the women to cover themselves will all agree with pressuring them into it, it's likely that there would be conflict even within the group. If they tried to force it on the women they would have to oppose it and find other people to support them; that could either be their neighbours or anybody that disagrees with the tyrants. I don't think that it's in their best interest to force it on the women because everybody that disagrees with them could refuse to help them, refuse to talk to them and scorn them and generally make their lives very difficult, solidarity is a force to be reckoned with. If it became violent defending yourself isn't authoritarian.


23cc8e No.8626

>>8571

>>8575

>>8594

go back to plebbit faggots

SJW is used to refer to authoritarian neolibs by everyone


6b1c9b No.8630

>>8626

Fuck off, reactionary old left. Aren't you supposed to be busy raving about how feminism is bad?


0cc313 No.8633

>>8630

Except that you know, SJWs don't care about meritocracy, just about muh gender/race diversity and "empowerment" (which to them is putting women above men).

>muh old left

Enjoy being distracted by dumb shit instead of seeing the whole picture.


ae8850 No.8639

>>8633

If you think feminism is about putting women above men I doubt you even understand anarchist theory either…


0cc313 No.8640

>>8639

It's not, but if you think these "SJWs" want real equality, you are in for hell of a ride.

>more anarchist than thou


ae8850 No.8641

>>8640

Yeah, I didn't mean to pull a more-anarchist-than-thou there it's just frustrating to keep having the same debate with the same kind of anarchist constantly.

I might be what would be classed as a SJW, what is the actual definition? I just see it used for every feminist be certain demographics so it's lost what it might have meant in the begining, in my opinion.


0cc313 No.8642

>>8641

Currently applied for someone in the left who actively campaigns for the rights of homosexuals, transsexuals and women. Something good.

Thing is, they tend to be authoritarian in their ways, often silencing opposition even if it uncovers abuse, like part of antiGG did. They also seek to "fix" inequality by treating the identities they claim to protect by differently and putting them on pedestals.

However SJWs don't have ideological consistency and my post might make no sense in some parts since it doesn't apply to "all" of them, and in many contexts is used as a dumb pejorative for any leftist who opposes rightists.


01b991 No.8647

>So what do you all think of SJWs? Like the kinds of people who took over 4chan and reddit.

I fucking hate that term. I think lets just call them "tumblirinas". I want social justice myself.

If I had to guess, I'd say they are yet another false flag /pol/ likes to do. They fall into poe's law of being that fucking retarded. Everytime I see one, I think its NatSoc making fun of us.

I am a radical, not an extemist. They are very extreme, not so radical.

I also sincerely doubt their genuine socialist/anti-capitalist cred, as many of them have been found to be capitalist puppets. Many use anti-oppression as a means to silence dissent.

At the same token I agree with many of the underlying issues they bring up.


7c675b No.8652

>>8500

Fuck you Stormshill, /pol/ ruined 4chan.


d59c2e No.9193


eab3e1 No.9248

>>8534

SJWs are cancerous, but patriarchy is a problem distinct from the state and capitalism. During the Spanish Civil War the Free Women of Spain formed to specifically address how - even as these old structures were under attack, companeros didn't magically lose their sexism at home.


000000 No.9252

>>9248

This exactly is a great point.

I think intersectionality as it is now is pretty flawed, it is too liberal. But what intersectionality tries to address I agree with fully, we just need a proper anarchist version of it.

Marxists, liberals and anarchists can't use the exact same tool, obviously. The biggest problem I have with intersectionality theory right now is it's treatment of class and the degradation that is created with the term 'classism'. This I think the socialist movement at large could actually co-operate on this issue to create a theory of intersectionality that is revolutionary.

libcom article on this exact topic:

https://libcom.org/library/insurrections-intersections-feminism-intersectionality-anarchism


e724b5 No.9540

>>8545

>>8549

if throwing off an oppressive entity authoritative then Isn't the entire notion of revolution authoritarian then?

My answer to that is the toppling of forms of oppression (i.e. liberation) is nothing more than self defense and this goes for attacking fascist and rapist and any other form of usurper.


27d272 No.9542

>>9540

what

a bigot isnt an oppressive entity by nature of being a bigot

a bigot is just someone with a stupid opinion of someone based on uncontrollable circumstances (skin/sex/etc)


27d272 No.9543

>>9540

oh wait i get it now

toppling a form of oppression is self defense but you're not toppling oppression by attacking stupid individuals who lack organized methods of oppressing

a bigot calling someone a bad name or refusing them a service isn't an oppressor so long as those discriminated against have easy alternatives


000000 No.9547

>>9248

>patriarchy is a problem distinct from the state and capitalism.

It's easy to imagine patriarchy forming states like chiefdoms, kingdoms, and empires. Ancient societies are marked by female idols, and the more they worshiped the female anatomy, the worst they treated women.


000000 No.9548

>>8511

>They're statists.

What do you think of the Civil Rights movement and voting rights?


e724b5 No.9549

>>9542

>>9543

Bigots usually are not just lone dickheads wandering about they are representative of the power structures within our society. In fact a lot of normative behavior (including reproducing racist, sexist structures) are reinforced through language and how our dialogue constructs the way people are represented. basically, when we talk we are either saying we are down with opression and visa vis supporting that oppression or we challenge the logic behind it and help break those structures down.

Anyways Ill fucking bash a fascist if he is alone or backed by any institutional authority. that kind of ideology doesnt exist in a vacuum


19a707 No.9559

>>8500

Excuse me shitlord, i ask you to check your privilege

We're don't tolerate white bigots here

Being white = right wing bigot


27d272 No.9565

>>9549

>Bigots usually are not just lone dickheads wandering about they are representative of the power structures within our society

youre so full of shit

>Anyways Ill fucking bash a fascist if he is alone

edgy teenager confirmed, pls gb2/tumblr/


bd150f No.9566

>>9565

Stay butthurt faggot. You have no response to that anon other than moralist posturing and memes. I don't even know what you think you're accomplishing by coming to shitpost in a dead board like /anarcho/


27d272 No.9567

>>9566

u used a bad word that must mean you and all of the society you live in must be homophobic right down to its dirty patriarchal core


e724b5 No.9571

>>9565

>you're so full of shit

nice one, i could do nothing but bow my head in shame as I read your ground fucking breaking reply, because, I at that moment, was beaten.

>implying you wouldn't bash a fascist

are you even an anarchist?

>>9567

lmfao, you are right. we do live in a homophobic society, that shit is undeniable.


e724b5 No.9572

>ITT edge lords experiencing cognitive dissonance because of the irrevocable connection between "SJW" tendencies and anarchism itself


c4128b No.9595

File: 1444953407798.jpg (25.21 KB, 512x512, 1:1, whySelena Gomez.jpg)

>>9547

>societies are marked by female idols, and the more they worshiped the female anatomy, the worst they treated women.


3e3d48 No.9630

File: 1445748830296.png (24.94 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, AnarchaFeminist.png)

>>9547

Are you joking? Patriarchy, empires, kingdoms, chiefdom, hierarchy, capitalism, kyriarchy etc. are all one in the same.


19a707 No.9635

>>9572

Fuck off, we're socially conservative anarchists here


e50436 No.9636

File: 1445913567409.gif (393.31 KB, 120x90, 4:3, _ae475a7e_1b0e_825f.gif)

>>9635

>socially conservative anarchist


2a41e2 No.9637

File: 1445958661360.jpg (83.35 KB, 770x712, 385:356, 1445547766180.jpg)

>>9635

Can't this meme die?


19a707 No.9638

File: 1446050184526.jpg (180.02 KB, 717x880, 717:880, image.jpg)


bf63c2 No.9639

>>9638

>If your dont think what i think your from reddit.

fuck off nazi


19a707 No.9640

>>9639

>i you don't think what i think you're a natsee

fuck off sjw


bf63c2 No.9642

File: 1446148226387.gif (1.09 MB, 267x199, 267:199, faggot lotr.gif)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]