^ OK, but I mean if I wasn't yawning.

So, at least on Dynasty Café, it's currently 1:1.

EDIT:
Meanwhile, it's 2:0 for the "Yes it does" party over on the CBRX Discord

last edited at Apr 10, 2020 9:24AM

HmMmmmMMmmMMMmm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giV5qCJW2Y

Yeah, I watched that vid after I posted here. [lewd]

IFRIT-CHAN GET! COME ON AK GIMME SARIA-MAMA TO COMPLETE THE FAMILY!!!!!

last edited at Apr 11, 2020 7:02AM

90 rolls, but I did drop the 4th copy. Would be really mad if it was another spook. Also apparently spook is banned word in MR for some reason.

Also apparently spook is banned word in MR for some reason.

It is a racist slang term, that's why

shadesofgreymoon posted:

Also apparently spook is banned word in MR for some reason.

It is a racist slang term, that's why

Rotfl. Good to know. I literally never heard anyone use it that way and I was hearing/using spook as a gacha word for over 2 years now.

The only spooks I know are the haunting type...

BugDevil posted:

The only spooks I know are the haunting type...

Yea. That's where the gacha term comes from...

shadesofgreymoon posted:

Also apparently spook is banned word in MR for some reason.

It is a racist slang term, that's why

Rotfl. Good to know. I literally never heard anyone use it that way and I was hearing/using spook as a gacha word for over 2 years now.

I grew up in the "South" in the 80s and 90s.... the things I've heard -_-

I grew up in the "South" in the 80s and 90s.... the things I've heard -_-

What exactly is this supposed to be racist slur for anyway? White people who jump out of drawers to surprise ya?

The only context I heard the word "Spooks" is from the Stirnerian/Egoist current of Indiviualist Anarchism.

I grew up in the "South" in the 80s and 90s.... the things I've heard -_-

What exactly is this supposed to be racist slur for anyway? White people who jump out of drawers to surprise ya?

It is a very old racist term for a black person. I grew up in Kentucky, which is basically 20 years behind the rest of the world at any given point, so old terms like that were still tossed around quite a bit even in the 80s and 90s. I've heard my own mother use it a few times too, among others. /sigh

The only context I heard the word "Spooks" is from the Stirnerian/Egoist current of Indiviualist Anarchism.

Why am I not surprised that you'd make the most ridiculous connection possible?

What exactly is this supposed to be racist slur for anyway? White people who jump out of drawers to surprise ya?

It is a very old racist term for a black person. I grew up in Kentucky, which is basically 20 years behind the rest of the world at any given point, so old terms like that were still tossed around quite a bit even in the 80s and 90s. I've heard my own mother use it a few times too, among others. /sigh

Really? When I think of ghosts and ghouls I think white as a sheet.

Either way, banning the term spook only gives such outdated thoughts more power. By doing that you are telling the world that a couple of old-fashioned people and some backwater state can chain down all of society with them. Use it the right way and nobody will even remember the stupid version (heck I'm sure 99% of Americans already don't).

last edited at Apr 11, 2020 6:23PM

The only context I heard the word "Spooks" is from the Stirnerian/Egoist current of Indiviualist Anarchism.

Why am I not surprised that you'd make the most ridiculous connection possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/7KbVeOv.png)

Because it's the only one I've been exposed to thus far.

The only context I heard the word "Spooks" is from the Stirnerian/Egoist current of Indiviualist Anarchism.

Why am I not surprised that you'd make the most ridiculous connection possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/7KbVeOv.png)

Because it's the only one I've been exposed to thus far.
(https://i.imgur.com/7KbVeOv.png)

Now that can't be entirely true, I'm sure you have heard of ghosts before.

One might think you are a devotee of communism the way you reappropiated my picture there. But I guess anarchy is all about breaking the established rules. Just remember who owns the link and can change it at any time, k?

last edited at Apr 11, 2020 6:31PM

Really? When I think of ghosts and ghouls I think white as a sheet

I'm pretty sure I know the origin of the term but I'm rather uncomfortable discussing racist slurs, so ^^;; But if I'm correct in my thinking it kinda does come from the same place as a ghost.

And yes I agree about outdated thoughts being given more power. But it has to be done because people discover words like that and use them. Stupid, really.

Really? When I think of ghosts and ghouls I think white as a sheet

I'm pretty sure I know the origin of the term but I'm rather uncomfortable discussing racist slurs, so ^^;; But if I'm correct in my thinking it kinda does come from the same place as a ghost.

And yes I agree about outdated thoughts being given more power. But it has to be done because people discover words like that and use them. Stupid, really.

You do what's comfortable for you.

As for me, I don't see what's uncomfortable about it. I also think that banning words never has any use. There are endless alternatives that racists can use. Ultimately it all depends on what the term really aims at.

Spook has a normal meaning, so banning it is stupid. Same with cracker and similar slurs. Nigga, slaver or squinty-eyes and whatever dumb nonsense racists can come up with to insult latinos... those are obviously only intended as racial insults, so they have no reason to be used anymore. Which should go for everyone, even the "races" in question. Similarily banning those words only gives them power. It's all about intent. Crucifying someone for using it at all while using it yourself is just increasing the divide. America is especially bad about this. The problem is not the word, it's the one who uses it.

The only context I heard the word "Spooks" is from the Stirnerian/Egoist current of Indiviualist Anarchism.

Why am I not surprised that you'd make the most ridiculous connection possible?
(https://i.imgur.com/7KbVeOv.png)

Because it's the only one I've been exposed to thus far.
(https://i.imgur.com/7KbVeOv.png)

Now that can't be entirely true, I'm sure you have heard of ghosts before.

One might think you are a devotee of communism the way you reappropiated my picture there. But I guess anarchy is all about breaking the established rules. Just remember who owns the link and can change it at any time, k?
(https://i.imgur.com/3gIotpn.png)

Anarchism is more about changing the entire ruleset so it is no longer a hellscape where the strong dominate the weak,
but hey.

Anarchism is more about changing the entire ruleset so it is no longer a hellscape where the strong dominate the weak,
but hey.

Maybe in some off-shoots. The core idea is just tearing down the system, consequences be damned. It's the anti-thesis of a ruled body. It also doesn't work, much like communism.

You do what's comfortable for you.

As for me, I don't see what's uncomfortable about it. I also think that banning words never has any use. There are endless alternatives that racists can use. Ultimately it all depends on what the term really aims at

Well it's uncomfortable because I'm white and I grew up in the south around about every kind of racist hatred you could think of; homophobia too. (So imagine my family's delight learning I'd come out of the closet, heh.)

But the term "spook", I THINK, stems from the racist notion that in the dark the only parts of a black person you can see are their white teeth and eyes. Thus, they are like a ghost. It's hard to find the etymology on it online, but I believe that that is how it was explained to me like, 25 years ago.

last edited at Apr 11, 2020 7:05PM

Well it's uncomfortable because I'm white and I grew up in the south around about every kind of racist hatred you could think of; homophobia too. (So imagine my family's delight learning I'd come out of the closet, heh.)

But the term "spook", I THINK, stems from the racist notion that in the dark the only parts of a black person you can see are their white teeth and eyes. Thus, they are like a ghost. It's hard to find the etymology on it online, but I believe that that is how it was explained to me like, 25 years ago.

I figured as much, but that's what I am trying to say... they are just words. You are not racist like the people you knew back then. You aren't racist for merely knowing the origin of a term either, let alone explaining it. I wish that you don't feel guilty over understanding what bad people think. I can tell you how a murder victim was stabbed and I can hold a knife, but that doesn't make me a knife murderer. I have never used any kind of racial slur against someone in my life and never will, not even jokingly. So why should I not be able to talk about the words? Same goes for everyone else in my book.

And now that you explained it, I can kind of see how the term came to be used that way. It's pretty flimsy, but when are these kinds of things not? Thanks for going out of your comfort zone.

last edited at Apr 11, 2020 7:12PM

Maybe in some off-shoots. The core idea is just tearing down the system, consequences be damned. It's the anti-thesis of a ruled body.

No, there's a lot more to it than that. Anarchism is a long-dated political theory. The "primary" body of work relates to dismantling hierarchical structures, which does not on its own tear down society. A huge portion of Anarchist literature is utilitarian and consequential in nature, so I highly doubt that those who've actually bothered to read would agree that "consequences be damned." And a significant number of anarchist groups, leaders, etc. have worked alongside trade unionists, civil liberties movements, and so on and so forth. With few exceptions, nobody actually wants society to be torn down with nothing to replace it. (Sincerely, not an Anarchist.)

It also doesn't work, much like communism.

Fight, fight, fight!!

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 12:08AM

Maybe in some off-shoots. The core idea is just tearing down the system, consequences be damned. It's the anti-thesis of a ruled body.

No, there's a lot more to it than that. Anarchism is a long-dated political theory. The "primary" body of work relates to dismantling hierarchical structures, which does not on its own tear down society. A huge portion of Anarchist literature is utilitarian and consequential in nature, so I highly doubt that those who've actually bothered to read would agree that "consequences be damned." And a significant number of anarchist groups, leaders, etc. have worked alongside trade unionists, civil liberties movements, and so on and so forth. With few exceptions, nobody actually wants society to be torn down with nothing to replace it. (Sincerely, not an Anarchist.)

It also doesn't work, much like communism.

Fight, fight, fight!!

It never worked that way. The anarchist manifesto always leads to two outcomes:
1. Chaos, uprising, which will be put down with a bloody fist = things return to the status quo
2. Revolution. The system is pulled down with a bloody fist and replaced with another that makes new structures that new anarchists will try to tear down again. A vicious cycle.

Anarchists are always exploited during revolutions, because their ideology suits them well, but the revolutionaries are not anarchists themselves. They want a different system instead of the one they have. Conflating the two is simply bad form.
Anarchy never works, because it is in human nature to work together and have a rigid set of rules that guide them. True equality is a pipe dream as well.

In a way the "true" anarchist's ideal is not so different from the "true" communism. Both are nice on paper, but go against human nature and thus will always stay fictional.

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 4:56AM

Well, at least there are some non-Anarchists on this site that actually know what Anarchists mean when they say Anarchism. Had I not been about to go to sleep and had I known BugDevil, even after almost a year of me coming out as an anarchist, believes in deeply rooted misconceptions, I would've just posted a link to Thought Slime's video "Top 10 misconceptions about anarchism" (his only top 10 video, before you ask).

Well, at least there are some non-Anarchists on this site that actually know what Anarchists mean when they say Anarchism. Had I not been about to go to sleep and had I known BugDevil, even after almost a year of me coming out as an anarchist, believes in deeply rooted misconceptions, I would've just posted a link to Thought Slime's video "Top 10 misconceptions about anarchism" (his only top 10 video, before you ask).

They are not misconceptions, they are realism. I don't care about your ideal version of anarchism, because it doesn't exist in reality. Dreams can't change anything.
Democracy and capitalism are both very flawed systems that don't actually work the way they are supposed to, because human nature over time will turn them into caricatures of what they are supposed to be... but at the very least they work to a certain degree. Fix the existing systems, don't replace them with ones that don't work.

First: Here is that Thought Slime vid I mentioned
Second: Capitalism is basically the main problem, but, about democracy, however, you'd be surprised to hear that most, if not, all, anarchists would actually agree with you.
Third: There have been some pretty successful anarchist polities, both in history and today. The Free Territory of Ukraine and Revolutionary Catalonia had great amounts of success. Their ultimate defeat and downfall wasn't because the anarchist system failed there, but because of military intervention by an oppressive regime (for the former it was the Bolsheviks, and for the latter it was Franco). But then there are contemporary anarchist polities. The Zapatistas (who don't refer to themselves as anarchists despite having all the same ideological ideas) have established a society like that in about a third of Chiapas, Mexico, while Rojava in Syria has met with considerable success... until the recent Turkish Invasion, which left them feeling salty towards the Americans who allowed the Turkish invasion to happen, and making new agreements with the Syrian government and with Russia. They still have their anarchist (or, at the very least, anarchist-like) ideas and system existing and functioning, but the volatile geopolitics of the Middle East that allowed Rojava to emerge in the first place remains ever-complex.
Fourth: What with some anarchists, especially anarcho-communists believing in the principle "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." I may be tempted into sharing a(n as of yet incomplete) playlist by Non-Compete.
Fifth: Anarchism, like any other ideology, isn't a monolith. Though all anarchists are in favour of both social equality and individual liberty, they do have slight favourabilites for one over the other, splitting anarchism into social and individualist currents, both of which have subdivisions of their own. Throw in the Proudhonian mutualists (who are actually the OG anarchists and are kindof in the middle) in the mix for an even more confusing mess. Ah... leftism... Has good goals, but has always been plagued by the vicious specter of sectarianism...

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 5:51AM