talked a lot with someone else tonight about the problems with Leftist Content - the incentives which drive them to reactionary actions and attitudes, and an inability to reach new people, the siloing of content into algorithmic bubbles, the niche ideological milieu discourses, the same refrains which get no easier to deal with on the 100th time hearing them.

it makes me wonder what's possible beyond what i went through.

a new generation of those willing to speak their mind on things in society they're frustrated with is being born. and a lot of energy that could be directed at healthy critique of systems and structures of power is being directed towards framing interpersonal disputes as political disputes because leftists get tailwagged so fucking easily. twitter made it *too* easy, which is why leftists are mass-exodusing.

mostly i feel like we've all failed to do the work in collectively establishing the frameworks and structures that enable us all to open up discourses further, with a mind towards multi-directional empathy and without Final Answers.

i'm not going to pretend i have any solutions. but i can't help but wonder if it'd be possible to start building some of this. pick a few sites of struggle, get involved with them in person, and try to explore the concepts that arise through the struggle in a piece of "content" - rinse and repeat.

perhaps significant ground could be covered if a group that's friendly with each other and adjacent to each other's politics enough from the get-go coordinated similar strategies in different places, with different sites of struggle.

@exiliaex groups are nodes of power and nodes of power attract fascist personality types like flies to shit, i think you can only ever work with people, with individuals but you also gotta accept that most people arent really interested in deviating from reproducing the current state of things as much as they'll claim otherwise. it's convenient for their social cohesion to not see the part they play in it and their radicalness will only extend to seeing how others reproduce what they consider to be the ills of society. in general you're probably better served to focus on reaching out to something that isnt severely retarded in the first place and focus on communicating with non human animals and hope some humans follow your example than to do something that looks like the preaching and organizing that the rest of the fascists do to play power games with each other and filter deviance.

@ZiaNitori i understand where you're coming from and don't entirely disagree - but groups exist just as much as people do. there's no way to "just work with people as individuals."

i definitely am not interested in the preaching and organizing you refer to. and i do think that some sites of struggles worth looking into and working with are non-human sites of struggle. environments, ecosystems.

but there's also other groupings i've been thinking about that are less "a group" and more abstractly applied to everyone. like every "lefty" talks about "third places" in discourses about how capitalist modernity has destroyed the ability to live and have organic interactions through the monetization of social space. but i wanna go a step forward beyond notions of "third places" and talk about more ways to take social spaces back. in one framing the language of "rights" arises - what right do we have to The City, to space, to just Being outside, which i'd like to avoid, if i can. but "rights" are a common way to introduce people to certain concepts, so i'm not entirely opposed.

@exiliaex rights are a thing granted from something you are comfortable being subordinate to, a creature who respects themselves as an autonomous being thinks about what they are capable of doing and how to get to someplace that's better, not fiddling with what they have the justification to do. i agree that groups exist insofar as humans are a weird colony thing and it's often more coherent to engage with a colony as its own thing but i'm not really interested in talking to people who's behavior is better described as a function of the state as being a part of something bigger than themselves, i'm looking for the cogs that dont fit in the machine and trying to teach them how to move on their own and that takes engaging with them as an individual so they can start to see themselves that way

@ZiaNitori sorry i hadn't responded to this yet.

i agree with you about rights, for the most part. but i also think justice and thus 'justification' plays heavily into what someone considers as the "someplace better" that they're trying to get to. i think "rights" can be used to bridge discourses and action. i don't know if this makes sense to you. but i think there is a defiant form of rights-discourse that *is* interested in people being autonomous and discovering what they're capable of doing moreso than a "subordinate to something" discourse.
example: "i have the right to be in public and i will fight you if you try to remove me" - rights here is not about asking permission.

i also spend my time, in my personal life, around the cogs that don't fit in the machine and trying to learn together (moreso than just 'teach them') how to move through the world in a way that maximizes their power. i don't think it's about everyone being individual though. part of learning how to move through the world is learning how to exist in groups. to act in groups. even if the group is just "me and my friends"

i don't really know exactly what you mean with your colony statements. i'm not really talking about colonies when i'm talking groups. i'm talking about certain levels of shared experience. even something as simple as "people who live near the water" vs "people who live near the mountain" - even if nothing "official" groups either of these groups together, i think there is a real experience shared. even if other things modulate that experience to be closer or further away from others in the grouping.