+1
mstdn.social/@kkarhan/11120162…

Kevin Karhan

2023-10-08 21:54:45

My allegiance is not to a flag or book or party, but words and values.

If that requires too much conviction and not enough stupid followership for you than maybe you need to re-evaluate your position.

Being able to formulate a nuanced opinion is way harder than declaring one side universally good or bad.

And no I won't CW that since it's very much idependent of any issue or topic.

Make of that what you will, cuz I refuse to be your enemy - unless you're a Neonazi or other kind of Fash Trash!

“DIE ERDE IN BE’ERI UND IN GAZA BEBT AUF DIE GLEICHE WEISE”

"Ich bin 19 Jahre alt.
Ich komme aus dem Kibbuz Be’eri.
Für mich das Wichtigste, was ich zu sagen habe… Und so ist es seit Jahren… Wenn wir mit Raketenbeschuss angegriffen werden, geschieht das letztendlich über unsere Köpfe hinweg. Nicht die Raketen. Sie fliegen nicht über unseren Kopf hinweg. Sie treffen uns ziemlich gut. Aber die Entscheidung, mit Raketen anzugreifen, fällt über unseren Kopf hinweg. #Bibi , #Hamas – das ist mir egal. Was ich weiß, ist, dass Be’eri leidet, Nahal Oz leidet, Kfar Azza, Sderot und Gaza leiden. Und – glauben Sie mir – für jede Rakete, die aus 4,5 km Entfernung abgefeuert wird, bebt die Erde in Be’eri und #Gaza auf die gleiche Weise. Genau auf die gleiche Weise. Wir können nicht so weitermachen, wir können nicht........"

bonustracks.blackblogs.org/202…

#Antimilitarismus #Antireport

First of all, from an anti-authoritarian perspective I think it's important to consider also the views of people who are not okay with the current system and those who aren't and do not want to be represented or co-opted by leaders, nations and systems that (unsolicitedly, forcibly or by majority's decision) have declared/turned the others as/into "their" subjects (with no or very limited possibilities to change that easily) in whose name they then claim to commit all kinds of terrible things.

Secondly, multiple generations of people who live there don't have a direct connection to the original historical catastrophe but were and are born in the catastrophic consequences that derived from it ever since. While the knowledge about historical context matters for understanding the conflict, the present situation matters as well and that one cannot be solved or just accepted by focusing purely on the origins and past circumstances.

And finally a consistent anti-authoritarian perspective only makes sense to me if it calls out the authoritarians and authoritarian structures on either and any side instead of siding with what seems to some perhaps as a "lesser evil".

- L.

@anantagd @dawoderpfeffer And I think it is important to differentiate between the majority and the reasonable ones that reject co-optation and prefer autonomous positions.

- L.

I disagree. I think it offers enough variety for interpretaion.

- L.

It seems like we're having a fundamentally different interpretation of the picture then. Which I guess is fine.

However as anti-authoritarians we stand with the point that the opposition against any state's/leaders' co-optation of people especially in such a conflict is a key element to break through the "logic" that causes and/or feeds these conflicts and oppressions.

That does not mean that we equate or sweep under the carpet the differences in power/agency/suffering or that we'd speak out against solidarity with the victims of this war and of any oppression in Palestine or that we'd support Israel (as we do not support or sympathise with any states and their militaries, neither do we do that with authoritarians who claim to oppose them. Yet we aim to differenciate and again, we try to point out to be against the co-optations and whatever else states and leaders do to throw people in the meatgrinder and to dehumanise the others).

And I think it's a bit too easy to forget all these people who are anti-authoritarians and radical critics not only of their government but of the state(s) and its structural oppressions. Or those individuals who were just born into this awful situation, who perhaps try to find a way out of it in their possibilities or grew desperate over failing to do so - that all these exist even if they might not be in any majority or larger faction or that they don't have a possibility to (re)present their positions. Yet these people get co-opted by "their" rulers and get framed and treated as the enemy by the others' rulers too.
Isn't it misreading too to simply ignore or disregard that even if or especially when it might be presumably a minority?

- L.

@anantagd @Heidentweet @dawoderpfeffer I can see your interpretation of the picture. But I can also see that there are indeed drawings of what could be called the prototypical understanding of an "average family" but that the point (or one of more) that can be derived from the picture goes beyond that (and obviously beyond the original artist's intention whatever that might be). As for realising the rest of what you stated, I don't really disagree with you.

- L.

I didn't read that she said that. And I'd say it is an (attempted) co-optation as well to push everyone in seemingly preset categories, be it in terms of gender or in terms of nationality or "the majority's decision". There are people who desperately want to break out of that and struggle for that and it's exactly these people that seem to get forgotten in this debate too, wouldn't you agree?

- L.

@DaWoDerPfeffer@mastodon.social @Sofie @dawoderpfeffer@friendica.opensocial.space Is it possible to have this discussion without personal attacks and blaming? I think there are valid points in your argumentation as well as in hers (and of course in mine 😁 ). And I think there could also be certain dilemmas that might be hard, if not impossible to overcome here too. Yet, I think these can be debated in a perhaps more cognition-fostering way.

For instance, I see the point you make with "all men" and yet I feel this can (perhaps ironically) still become a patriarchial point/argument, once it leads to the creation of a category that uses definitions by one side of what "men" are/should be and who belongs in that category, even if there might be people who do not identify as such or reject/don't know binary categories in their perception. Get what I mean?

- L.

@DaWoDerPfeffer@mastodon.social @dawoderpfeffer@friendica.opensocial.space @Sofie Yeah well, why do you assume she's German? I think she stated that she isn't at one point in this debate. That's the thing with categorising people/pigeonholing and the false assumptions that might lead to.

Furthermore it appears to me that she might've had less an issue with the topic itself and more with the tone.

First of all, thanks for your explanations.

Secondly, we're an anti-authortiarian and anarchist group. We don't disregard the "majority's decision" in a representative democracy but it is neither in our understanding of anarchism nor in challenging authority to disregard any minorities or to see every individual and their political, social and other agenda and agency as only part of an vague mass that has the possibility to vote once every couple of years and then remains irrelevant for the rest of it.

- L.