Understandable, but thats a bit of an overreaction don’t you think?

No one is discussing whether it’s a “good” definition, just that it’s understandable, this isn’t a disagreement on the “moral rightness” of whether to define hierarchy that way, just that it’s intelligible and consistent.

Also, actually fuck off comparing anarchists having a specific definition of hierarchy to homophobic bullshit, that is entirely in bad faith and I KNOW you know that.

This isn’t an “in-group”, you aren’t being excluded, they aren’t trying to obscure what they’re talking about. They’ve come to an understanding that when THEY say “hierarchy” they mean something different, stop trying to assign some devious motive to it. I get why it annoys you when an anarchist SHOULD know they’re talking to people unfamiliar with that usage, or act difficult and refuse to acknowledge that the term means something different in general usage. That doesn’t ALL anarchist do that, or even that those that DO are trying specifically to fuck with you.

The reasons behind the specific definition is pretty complex, but you have to understand, when anarchists are talking about these systems they don’t want to spend a whole page PRECISELY explaining what they mean every single time. Many writings are translated from other languages, or written in english by people who aren’t native english speakers, “jargon” here is kinda necessary for ease of communication. Are you gonna get mad if you hang out with some electricians don’t understand what the hell they’re talking about when they start using technical terminology?

Wrong, it’s how the term is used in a lot of anarchist literature because precisely defining what they mean by “hierarchy” is important for discussions about it. So yes, it’s a bit of out joint with Standard English usage of the term, that doesn’t make it wrong. They aren’t being obscurantists, or trying to fuck with you by using hyper specific terminology to trick you into thinking they mean something else. Also words can’t be “co opt’d”, different groups use them differently all the time, it’s a normal feature of all languages don’t be an ass about it.

It’s the problem that occurs when a term that is being used in a narrow more academic context makes contact with people who use it in a more colloquial conversational sense. Neither definition is “wrong” really, it’s just very confusing unless clarified, and becomes a problem when both sides refuse to understand that context comes into play here.

You’re Damn Right.

It really do suck that Jon Nödtveidt had to be so fucking good AND a completely unhinged lunatic killer.

I just have to disagree that there IS a dichtomy between what could be defined as natural and unnatural in this case. I just cannot see that it is a particularly meaningful difference between what is being categorized as “natural” and “unnatural”. I fundamentally believe it to be something that’s more emotionally relevant to people than meaningful in a material sense. Also, I particularly loathe when people use emotionally charged language to describe natural processes, nature really does not give a single shit about morality or ethics or the things we value, it’s not a “good” or a “bad” thing outside of the human lens, everything happens for material reasons and nothing more. Quick post-script, if you’re the one downvoting my posts that’s kinda disrespectful, I thought it was an interesting conversation I wasn’t telling you to “shut up and agree with me” or anything. If that wasn’t you then I apologize for suspecting you.

“meant” what do you mean by “meant”? who meant? why did they mean for that? You’re not making sense, you’re ascribing special properties to manmade enviorns and acting like they’re polluted, bad, or different in some essential way. That manmade enviorns are polluted, harmful, or otherwise damaging is just incidental, they don’t HAVE to be that way, you cannot just assume that they’re innately worse than “natural” enviornments, they’re just different. I just want to understand how you think “manmade” is any different from the effort ALL fauna and flora makes to change their enviornment to suit their needs. Is it “natural” the bees build hives? Is it “natural” for beavers to damn creeks? Were trees “meant” to alter the soil chemistry around them to fight off competitors? Did bryophytes defy nature’s will by evolving a waxy cuticle to survive in locations untouched by plants before they evolved? Humans, nor any other animal whatsoever was “intended” to live somewhere or some way. This a fundamental error so many people make when talking about the ecology of our planet, there is psuedo-religious way of looking at things and ascribing of anthropocentric values. None of this has a purpose, none of it has a goal, none of it has an intent, or a desire, or any sort of human-like trait.

No I’m sorrry, “the environment” is just everything around you. Your house is the environment, new york city is nature. These distinctions are made up in our heads but deep down there is no essential difference between your house and a tree, or the city you live in and a forest. We haven’t seperated ourselves from anything, we’ve just changed it. Changing evolutionary pressures doesn’t mean we’ve somehow unmoored ourselves from it, traits are still being selected for and against it really doesn’t matter how anyone, or thing cares about it. It MAY end up getting us all killed, but the process will continue anyways and the “fit” will continue to reproduce more successfully than the “unfit”. It’s not that I don’t agree with you that the things that get selected for aren’t what I’d consider good, or that will make us happiest as a species. It’s merely that natural selection as a process will not “care” about what we care about because it is a process, nothing more.

Survival of the Fittest isn’t failing, it just doesn’t follow what you’d like to be “fittest”. If a person is more reproductively successful because they’re religious, guess what, that makes them “fittest”. It really doesn’t matter if it’s stupid and illogical, just that it succeeds.

Who needs to brush your teeth anyways? I’m sure this Woodford Reserve will keep my mouth disinfected .

I’m skeptical of trying to put myself on too much of a pedestal for what things I choose to consume, but I do feel with some conviction that I am 100% making the correct choice but trying to only minimally connect with social media for any kind of reason. With full awareness of just how snobby I sound saying this, I see the shit my co-workers and friends talk about from TikTok and instagram etc, and I’m just thinking the entire time “this is not that funny, or interesting” It always feel the anthropomorphized equivalent of a dog’s chew toy. " Anyways, enough verbally fellating myself, if avoiding social media is making you feel better and less anxious then stay away from it, but if it’s not really working and it’s just making you feel isolated from your peers then maybe indulge at least a little. Stay conscious of your usage and don’t let it eat into your psyche, but you don’t always have to consume the “Best” media at all times, it’s okay to eat some junk food from time to time.