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

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).

By that criteria the weird theocracy the Taipings ran for over a decade was a "pretty successful" system, then. All the moreso as they were actually pretty self-sufficient unlike the Anarchist examples you named there - who, ironically, were both heavily dependent on the Bolsheviks for the military matériel necessary to sustain themselves as long as they now managed despite the only too open ideological enmity.

Though one might wonder what then that makes revolutionary regimes that were actually able to fight off such assorted armed reactions and go on to actually try their thing on the long term, like now say those selfsame Bolsheviks...

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 6:25AM

@BV
All you've been saying is "It worked for a very short period due to extenuating circumstances and outside support". So did hundreds of bad systems. But there is not a single example of long term success, unlike with capitalism. There are no real anarchist factions today that are in power or work anywhere on the globe. You are clinging to fringe ideas that are barely even anarchist and sell it as a success for the movement as a whole.

Sounds to me like you merely blindly follow whatever someone told you and didn't actually bother looking at the details.

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 7:02AM

....huh...came to shit post, ended up learning new things.
Weirdly enough, AL chat bans a new word every week and spook is certainly not one of them. Then again, that chat is absolutely broken in many other ways.
Jap has been banned since release and a lot of people don't even know why, most people innocently type it 'cuz of the damn 40 letter limit. Most racial slurs are censored now.
Not a racial slur but the word cunt got censored after a few weeks and I'm 100% sure that one is my fault because I say it a lot when I'm angry, not being toxic I just like using it in my sentences for dramatic purposes, I got muted everyday for like a week when that happened XD. and because of the Sandy spam
This was AL(global) history with Rye.
next episode: how a couple of degenerates broke the 40 letter limit

Sorry I broke the big tangent.
[AAAAAAAAAAAAAA]

...seriously the only meanings I've ever seen "spook" used are A) spies and suchlike (eg. "CIA spooks") B) something frightening or unnerving, eg. "something spooked the horses".

...seriously the only meanings I've ever seen "spook" used are A) spies and suchlike (eg. "CIA spooks") B) something frightening or unnerving, eg. "something spooked the horses".

@shadesofgreymoon already explained what the racial slur is about and where it's used. I think it's pretty uncommon these days, because 99% of people don't know it, me included until yesterday.

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 7:21AM

Well fuck me for trying to explain that my beliefs aren't exactly that fringe in the anarchist movement and even giving you, not just some historical examples, but even existing ones. The latter of which you, oddly enough, chose to ignore. I wonder why that would be? Also, about the Taipings... I have actually re-looked into them someday last week (I can't pinpoint which day exactly, but still) and those guys had both some ideas that were pretty nice and some I'd consider questionable at best. On one hand, they promised land redistribution and various things that could be called proto-socialist-ish. On the other hand, they were a theocratic monarchy, which... no...no... and... they actively encouraged the genocide of Manchus, so... No wonder the Qing-Taiping War was one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Well fuck me for trying to explain that my beliefs aren't exactly that fringe in the anarchist movement and even giving you, not just some historical examples, but even existing ones. The latter of which you, oddly enough, chose to ignore. I wonder why that would be?

You yourself said that anarchists don't have a monolithic belief anymore, therefore there is no collective movement in the first place, right? So your ideas are fringe.

Current examples? Which are? Mexico and Syria? A conservative capitalist drug cartel infested and ruled haven and a regime that suppressed its people the same way any dictatorship did before it? Get outta here. Try a little harder next time.

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 8:17AM

...seriously the only meanings I've ever seen "spook" used are A) spies and suchlike (eg. "CIA spooks") B) something frightening or unnerving, eg. "something spooked the horses".

@shadesofgreymoon already explained what the racial slur is about and where it's used. I think it's pretty uncommon these days, because 99% of people don't know it, me included until yesterday.

I mean. Lingo specific to the US Bible Belt or thereabouts doesn't have much... notability... out here in the wider world.

Also, about the Taipings... I have actually re-looked into them someday last week (I can't pinpoint which day exactly, but still) and those guys had both some ideas that were pretty nice and some I'd consider questionable at best. On one hand, they promised land redistribution and various things that could be called proto-socialist-ish. On the other hand, they were a theocratic monarchy, which... no...no... and... they actively encouraged the genocide of Manchus, so... No wonder the Qing-Taiping War was one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

The point I was making was that by the criteria of "pretty successful" you were using that particular bunch of millenarian religious utopists was at least as credible as the decidedly rather shorter-lived and less self-sufficient particular bunch of millenarian secular-political utopists you cheer for.

Also just sayin' but last I checked Makhno quite cheerfully massacred landlords and similar "class enemies" in the Ukraine too.

Plus land reforms and suchlike are something a lot of regimes irrespective of wider political position have historically enacted already to defuse rural unrest if nothing else. In the Chinese context this was done, for example, already by that radical rabble-rousing revolutionary Cao Cao a good two thousand years before the Taipings - which incidentally gave him a lot of street cred in the eyes of the remaining Yellow Turban rebels (p much China's OG Taoist radical revolutionaries who made the whole thing hip and cool ever thereafter - indeed the Taipings were extremely unusual in being based on a very strange interpretation of Christianity instead) as it was well in line with their own goals. Cao ended up absorbing quite a bunch of those guys into his army and state that way; didn't hurt such policies also effectively strengthened the economic base of his burgeoning empire (historians rate him as probably the most all-around competent Three Kingdoms warlord for a reason).

Happy Easter to all who celebrate!

Damn when did Leafy get so cool?

Also happy Easter o/

Happy Easter to all Catholics!

...seriously the only meanings I've ever seen "spook" used are A) spies and suchlike (eg. "CIA spooks") B) something frightening or unnerving, eg. "something spooked the horses".

@shadesofgreymoon already explained what the racial slur is about and where it's used. I think it's pretty uncommon these days, because 99% of people don't know it, me included until yesterday.

It originated back in the 1940s so yeah, not used much. But it pops up here and there enough to get the word banned...

It originated back in the 1940s so yeah, not used much. But it pops up here and there enough to get the word banned...

TBQH this files under "lol, 'Murica" in my books.

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.

Current examples? Which are? Mexico and Syria? A conservative capitalist drug cartel infested and ruled haven and a regime that suppressed its people the same way any dictatorship did before it? Get outta here. Try a little harder next time.

It's unfortunate, I must not have expressed myself very well. As far as I can tell, none of my points got across, and your response was basically just a restating of your initial position.

More importantly, and I don't say this as staff but rather as an ordinary person interested in discussion. All discussions worth having begin with respect between each person involved, and respect for the subject at hand. Your treatment of BV at the end here is uncouth, and displays a clear lack of respect for him. If you hold such contempt for a person or their worldview, it would likely be better for everyone involved if you avoided engaging with them to begin with. I similarly fail to see any value in triumphantly declaring yourself the victor after having either A) completely misunderstood the point out of ignorance, or B) willfully painted your opponent's claim in the worst possible light. I like to think the best of anyone in a given discussion, so I'll assume it's A and just take one moment to clear it up.

Any engagement of meaning with the Syrian Civil War would reveal that BV was discussing the YPG-led Kurdish government in Syria, commonly referred to as "Rojava" or "the Kurds." They most certainly represent elements of the kind of anarchy that me and BV agreed on, and they have been on the opposite side of the dictatorship for nearly the entire civil war.

You're free to reply if you wish, but I don't have much interest in sustained disagreements, so just keep in mind that I'm rather unlikely to continue further.

Any engagement of meaning with the Syrian Civil War would reveal that BV was discussing the YPG-led Kurdish government in Syria, commonly referred to as "Rojava" or "the Kurds." They most certainly represent elements of the kind of anarchy that me and BV agreed on, and they have been on the opposite side of the dictatorship for nearly the entire civil war.

Even a cursory search pegs them as having a very "live and let live" relationship with Assad, so uh not really on that last part in practical terms. Having a certain degree of shared More Pressing Matters To Worry About (cough ISIL cough Turkey cough) might of have something to do with it - not hard to see why Damascus would consider an autonomous province preferable to one de facto entirely out of their control.

The actual long-term sustainability of their little experiment outside the context of the wholesale anarchy of the Syrian Civil War meanwhile is entirely up in the air. Setting up statelets in such chaotic circumstances is easy enough and has been a big hit the world over throughout the ages; keeping them going once things finally calm down and whoever was left standing as the top dog when the smoke cleared starts reconsolidating his territory and authority is quite another, never mind now the usual headaches of economy (though the oil no doubt rather helps there, as it did both the IS and the antebellum Syrian state).

Doubly so the assorted high ideals claimed by and ascribed to the group. History is rife with idealistic reformers who, between the tribulations of actually governing in the long run and the usual siren calls of power, wealth and ingrained tradition, ended up as Not So Different from whatever they replaced. (Leaving aside the only too predictable bullshit from Turkey and its clients there's no particular shortage of criticism both internal and external of how the Rojava do various things.) Know the one about counting your chickens before they hatch...?

I will repeat that I have limited interest in sustained disagreements, but I would make a handful of notes, mostly to cover my previous curtness.

First, there is rather a significant difference between avoiding conflict with an opponent deemed too powerful and your own characterization. If one were to view any given faction in the war through the lens of end goals, it's rather easy to see that the YPG is distinctly opposing the central government. There is no scenario in which both sides get what they want, therefore they are opposed to one another.

Secondly, I made no note of their "assorted high ideals," nor did I ascribe any particular value to said ideals or their efforts to achieve them. I said quite plainly, they represent elements of an anarchic system as I view it. Nothing more, nothing less. (Upon rereading my post, I must admit that I only barely gleaned through what BV said, so it may be the case that putting us together there gave the wrong impression.)

Third and finally, I bristle at the suggestion now and earlier that one ought to judge systems of governance based on their ability to make and survive war. Democracy is not better than Monarchy because some colonists ~200 years ago murdered enough of their opponents to establish their own government. It's better because it - presumably - brings about the most good for the highest amount of people. By far the most-discussed military achievements of the last two centuries were carried out by Revolutionary France and Nazi Germany. I'd like to think none of us are going to ascribe any further value to either system of governance beyond their ability to make war.

last edited at Apr 12, 2020 9:03PM

First, there is rather a significant difference between avoiding conflict with an opponent deemed too powerful and your own characterization. If one were to view any given faction in the war through the lens of end goals, it's rather easy to see that the YPG is distinctly opposing the central government. There is no scenario in which both sides get what they want, therefore they are opposed to one another.

Yet Assad's Russian patrons have been the primary, if not sole, spokesmen for the recognition of the region's political goals in the diplomatic arena while the Rojava and Damascus have for years had a working agreement of convivencia and if nothing else have gone out of their way to avoid butting heads over the very obvious incompatibilities in their political agendas. (If this state of affairs will continue after Assad's very likely eventual victory in the civil war remains to be seen.)

It's actually not hard to see why Damascus and Moscow might feel that working out a compromise with the Rojava is good geostrategy; simply put, the latter does not get along with Iraqi Kurdistan across the border and has no truck with pan-Kurdish nationalism in general. Letting them run the Kurdish parts of Syria (at least for the time being) could thus be a rather convenient "2birbs1stone" way for Assad to both pacify the region without further fighting and buffer his country against entanglements in such wider regional problems.

Secondly, I made no note of their "assorted high ideals," nor did I ascribe any particular value to said ideals or their efforts to achieve them. I said quite plainly, they represent elements of an anarchic system as I view it. Nothing more, nothing less. (Upon rereading my post, I must admit that I only barely gleaned through what BV said, so it may be the case that putting us together there gave the wrong impression.)

le shrug
The Rojava claim a long list of certainly commendable goals, and as for example BV here demonstrates are seen to represent such by diverse outsiders. How much of that will actually stand the test of time remains to be seen; the history books are too full of roads paved with good intentions that ended up somewhere quite different than originally envisaged for me personally to be anything else than skeptically cautious.

Third and finally, I bristle at the suggestion now and earlier that one ought to judge systems of governance based on their ability to make and survive war.

One can certainly judge their practical effectiveness and viablity by their capacity for weathering crises, and large-scale warfare is assuredly perhaps the single harshest test a regime can face. It's probably also worth noting that the need to prepare for violent communal confrontations has historically been a key driver of state formation, and remains a key field of responsibility for any governement worth the name discounting a few lucky exceptions that can rely on a larger protector for that.

The classic modern case study for this would be the Great War, later termed WW1 - the states that had their shit together survived the unprecedented stresses intact (though obviously not unscarred), those that didn't imploded under the pressure along assorted internal fault lines. In the aftermath a whole crop of diverse little would-be statelets sprouted from their wreckage, many of them unabashedly utopian-revolutionary in their goals and virtually all proven unviable in more or less short order.
The one that managed to buck the trend became the Soviet Union, went on to survive an even more terrible war, and eventually fell over and died in a whimper on account of its chronic inability to properly manage its domestic affairs.

Which just goes to show that the ability to survive peace is no less important, what now far less dramatic and suited for the silver screen. :v

Democracy is not better than Monarchy because some colonists ~200 years ago murdered enough of their opponents to establish their own government.

Spare me the US national mythology, Eurofag here. Chip-truth the American War of Independence only succeeded because the UK's imperial rivals decided it was a fine opportunity to grind some (not-so-)old axes, and while the resulting new country going its own merry way certainly had some very important long-term ramifications for world history the particular mode of governement it adopted was for the time being entirely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The big game-changer was the French Revolution and much of the 19th century (if not also well into the 20th) was one way or another spent (unsuccessfully) trying to put all the genies it let loose back into the bottle. (Or not, since eg. the Code Napoléon was a fine piece of legislation and widely used as a blueprint.)

It's better because it - presumably - brings about the most good for the highest amount of people.

According to idealists, maybe. In terms of actual practical politics that matter in the real world it has the very meaningful merits of accountability more finely nuanced than the traditional worry over outright rebellions, responsiveness to changing demands, institutionalised smooth transition of power and - this is kinda important because it underpins most of the above - ability to swap out the leadership at regular intervals. Working halfway properly it thus avoids HELL of a lot of the problems more or less inherent in systems with more permanently tenured leaders.

By far the most-discussed military achievements of the last two centuries were carried out by Revolutionary France and Nazi Germany. I'd like to think none of us are going to ascribe any further value to either system of governance beyond their ability to make war.

Pretty sure you're confusing Revolutionary and Napoleonic France which aren't quite the same thing (like, at all) but both indeed were wildly successful at making war - to the point that the former not only survived the counter-revolutionary onslaught of virtually every European state that mattered at all but could go on the offensive and rewrote the playbook in the process. Napoleon did even better but lacked an exit strategy and, unable to make a lasting peace with his enemies, eventually fought his empire all the way into exhaustion and collapse.
Both really shook up things in a wide variety of fields beyond those of Mars, though, and were the direct catalysts for a very long list of reforms and developements then and later (just to name one example the Prussians reformed themselves out of serfdom after getting comprehensively manhandled by Bonie).

The Nazis OTOH... eh. They were basically the end state of the hubris of the Prussian state (directly inherited by the German Empire then the Weimar Republic, or at least meaningful parts thereof) and German nationalist narcissism mixed with some very toxic craziness that had bubbled up from the blasted hellscapes of the Great War - or as one historian pithily put it, "political extremists leading criminal gangs seized power in traumatised societies." (He included the Soviets there, btw.) They started a war they had no means or even concrete plans to win and basically only got anywhere due to large dosages of good luck, the institutional competence carried over from previous German regimes (which, incidentally, they did their level best to throw away) and some truly egregious and inexcusable bungling on part of their opponents. Once the luck ran out and those opponents picked themselves up and got their shit together the game was essentially up and the rest was just delaying the inevitable. (German strategists actually pegged the war as lost already after the failure to take the Caspian oilfields in the summer of '42 and started telling Hitler to look for peace - which he naturally wanted to hear none of; it was after this point that he suddenly developed an interest in Wünderwaffe btw.)

I'm still not awake enough to engage with the last 7 paragraphs, but I still want to state for the record that simply referring to Rojava as "the Kurds" is a tad too simplistic, as there are many Arabs, Assyrians and even Syrian Turkmen (though they're really just a subset of the Turkish people) and Armenians amongst their ranks. Just like the other sides of the Syrian Civil War, there isn't a one-on-one correlation between side and ethnicity.
And about the being conflicted with the government: well, who do you think the YPG and their al-Sanadid and MFS allies initially revolted against? Granted, the government had already withdrawn much (albeit not all) of their forces in the north to fight rebels and salafi militias in the west of the country by that point, but still. And certain government garrisons managed to cling onto pockets in the north, mostly being at a ceasefire with the Syrian Northerners, though some smaller scale engagements did occur, most of which were indecisive, those that weren't were in the Northerners' favour. Of course, with the exception of the aforementioned pockets, fighting between the government and the North stopped being a thing, largely because the coalition of rebels and salafists conquered the Euphrates valley, driving a wedge between them. This wedge was soon replaced with a different one when ISIS started its (in hindsight, pretty brief) rise. And who were the first to hand ISIS significant defeats again? (Rhetorical question, don't answer.) That's why they attracted foreign support from capitalistic states, whether they were democracies or authoritarian states, that already supported either of the main sides of the civil war. This was actually an alliance of convenience, really, including with - yes, I'm not denying, and, in fact, mentioned it in the comment in which I mentioned contemporary examples of anarchist polities, and I'm mentioning it again now - the Syrian government. Some anarchists and leftists have, sadly, seen this move as Rojava being a puppet to the west, but rather than that being the case, it's just that Rojava js just being pragmatic in its diplomacy. I'm gonna skip right over the admittedly very important and very interesting stories of Rojava capturing the ISIS capital of Raqqa, Turkey and its allies invading Afrin, and Rojava and the Syrian government delivering the final coup de gras to ISIS, and go right to the crisis regarding the Turkish invasion of Rojava. Trump has basically greenlit the invasion to Erdoğan because he's an idiot who, nevertheless, has authoritarian tendencies (and if it's hard enough either having an authoritarian in power, or having an idiot in power, try having both simultaneously, and in a country with such a global outreach that its politics affect basically everything), agreeing to withdraw the small US expedition in Rojava southwards, opening the border-regions up for invasion. Rojava, of course, felt betrayed by that move, and, diplomacy-wise, are now turning to the Syrian government and Russia for aid. This, however, also means that many parts of northern Syria are now actually under join SDF/SAF occupation (SDF - Syrian Democratic Forces; SAF - Syrian Armed Forces), which, I dare say, is kinda unfortunate.

It's unfortunate, I must not have expressed myself very well. As far as I can tell, none of my points got across, and your response was basically just a restating of your initial position.

Your points simply have not in any meaningful way affected my stance, because you are interpreting facts in a way that is overly idealized towards your preferences. I am glad @random explained all these points, because I really wouldn't have had the patience.

Although I replied to BV in the first place, not you, so it's not like I was responding to your points to begin with.

More importantly, and I don't say this as staff but rather as an ordinary person interested in discussion. All discussions worth having begin with respect between each person involved, and respect for the subject at hand. Your treatment of BV at the end here is uncouth, and displays a clear lack of respect for him. If you hold such contempt for a person or their worldview, it would likely be better for everyone involved if you avoided engaging with them to begin with. I similarly fail to see any value in triumphantly declaring yourself the victor after having either A) completely misunderstood the point out of ignorance, or B) willfully painted your opponent's claim in the worst possible light. I like to think the best of anyone in a given discussion, so I'll assume it's A and just take one moment to clear it up.

I have not belittled BV, I have belittled his stance and will continue to do so as long as he strings along half-hearted arguments without any interest in the greater picture. Neither A nor B apply. Please don't project this stuff unto me just because you disagree and don't like my tone. And I want you to point out where I said anything about triumph or victory, just so we are clear this is the same conversation.

Any engagement of meaning with the Syrian Civil War would reveal that BV was discussing the YPG-led Kurdish government in Syria, commonly referred to as "Rojava" or "the Kurds." They most certainly represent elements of the kind of anarchy that me and BV agreed on, and they have been on the opposite side of the dictatorship for nearly the entire civil war.

I was fully aware of what he was refering to. What I was obviously implying is that these movements have achieved almost nothing at the time when the country was even halfway stable, therefore Syria was just another regime. You can't make any judgement on what political ideologies have merit in times of a civil war, only beyond it.

last edited at Apr 13, 2020 3:50AM

Mom, what happened to the meme room?

Well I have no interest on that discussion, I came to talk more Homolive: I sorta remembered they are supposed to be idols and found out there's a couple of [Magnet] covers. The Marine x Rushia cover is really neat.
There's a lot of flirting between the girls in general. Oh and Fubuki flexing her harem LOL

I'm already deep into this. Help, these meme ladies are too cute and possibly bait gay. Currently watching Ninisanji yuri duo vids.

Mom, what happened to the meme room?

Well I have no interest on that discussion,

To be flatly honest, and despite being the who started the whole discussion on Anarchism, I'd much rather discuss the History of Famana (partly because (as said in a post on page 360 which I've been editing on a daily basis) I'm the more attentive and well-worded one of the editors for the Timeline of Famana page on the Wiki), but no one else is interested in or has any knowledge of that amazing fictional world, so, once spooks were mentioned, BugDevil and I diverged into a conversation about anarchism that has gone volatile in the meantime.

That said, I now, for some reason, remembered that tumblr post where OP said:

Stop making "there are two types people" and "well that escalated quickly" jokes, they aren't funny anymore

And then two other tumblr users responed, respectively:

There are two kinds of rapid escalation

and

Well that peopled twicely.

And now I can't stop laughing.

last edited at Apr 13, 2020 8:33AM