I enjoy books more than internet essays. Sue me.

Everyone could always stand to read more, I think gelderloos is a reactionary shithead who deserves to be trampled to death by a horde of escaped cattle slaves, have read bookchin and graeber and enjoyed them both.

I’ve also read most of C. Scott’s work which is interesting generally although the man seemed a bit incoherent.

Who are some modern anarchist authors worth reading? Give me your difficult academic texts where I’ll have to check 200 references. I fucking love them!

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    8·
    2 days ago

    Glad I’m not the only one who finds Gelderloos insufferable. I have to admit I’ve never finished one of his books because I just can’t he’s too arrogant.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      111·
      2 days ago

      it’s mostly his rank antiveganism that pisses me off but that’s mostly just indicative of his shitty attitudes.

      If violently coercing the indigenous people of the Arctic might be wrong participating in factory farming is fine.

      Uh huh, sure buddy.

      Smacks of tumblr arse dialogue vs a genuine attempt to arrive at a correct morality

      • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
        4·
        1 day ago

        Right, I’m gonna say it:

        Anarchists that can be but aren’t vegan are very sus to me. Like what enforced hierarchy could be more prevalent than “might makes right”?

        • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          1·
          1 day ago

          But inflicting pain is beautiful because it makes us think about our values or something.

          It’s fine because after you die of natural causes after a long life worms will eat your corpse.

          I am very smart.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            10·
            2 days ago

            Holy shit:

            I find it hard to understand someone who does not comprehend that pain is natural, necessary, and good. When we inflict pain on others, our faculties of sympathy provoke a conflict within us, and such conflict is also good, because it makes us think and question what we’re doing, whether it’s necessary, and whether there’s also an element of the beautiful in it. Evolving to eat animals and also to feel sympathy, our biology saddles us with a choice. Either we form an intimate relationship with that which we eat, understand it as a privilege to accompany the other creature in its last moments, and look forward to the day when we will also be killed and eaten; or we avoid this difficult process by forming an ideology so we know that what we are doing, a priori, is right, and therefore not a cause for conflict, sympathy, or doubt.

            Anyone who doesn’t want to both die by being eaten alive and earn that kind of death by causing it over and over for other animals is dumb and morally cowardly.

              • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
                6·
                2 days ago

                I’m impressed by the annoying kid in my middle school successfully tricking people into thinking he’s academically qualified thoughtful and intelligent (he probably is academically qualified, but that’s not the point)

            • Comrade_Spood@quokk.auEnglish
              2·
              1 day ago

              Its also just wrong. Like causing pain does not cause empathy or sympathy, it causes cognitive dissonance. We know harming things is wrong, we are harming something and we thus experience a conflict. You can either resolve this conflict by changing your behavior (stop harming others) or changing your beliefs (stop believing others feel pain, or stop believing they are worthy of empathy). The third option (which is quite often the case) is cognitive dissonance, where you ignore confronting the conflict between these two contradicting beliefs (the belief eating meat is fine, and the belief harming others is unethical). Like bro mustve failed intro to psychology