Vegan Anarchist

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You both like veganism.

You: Hello

Stranger: Hello

You: what's a good movie?

Stranger: I'm a fan of The Thing

Stranger: What about you?

You: Before I Fall

You: I suppose movies about badasses

You: What got you interested in veganism?

Stranger: read some anarchist lit

Stranger: also grew up on a farm

Stranger: and went vegetarian as a kid

You: ah, ok

Stranger: What about you?

You: research into factory farming

You: springing from the Effective Altruism movement

Stranger: Mmm, EA, I assume you are in college?

You: yes

Stranger: everyone I've ever met into EA is a student or recent grad

You: well, it's very new

Stranger: Have you read Sunaura Taylor's Beasts of Burden?

You: I haven't

Stranger: I reccomend it

Stranger: best book on animal rights I've read recently

Stranger: Has some good parts with Singer

Stranger: Who the author had some interactions with

You: So what's different about it?

Stranger: It's really strong interectional work

Stranger: the author is disabled

Stranger: and very involved in disability rights activism

Stranger: And she draws a lot of parallels between the animal rights and disability rights movements

Stranger: And talks about the ways they are interlinked

Stranger: and how disenfranchising animals and reducing them to things and property

Stranger: makes it easier to dehumanize marginalized groups

You: ah, I see

Stranger: Very strong book, I highly recommend it

Stranger: It's got some flaws, but really interesting ideas

Stranger: so you are Singer fan?

You: I suppose

Stranger: I think that's a really common inlet for vegans

Stranger: a ton of vegans I know were really into Singer when they first went vegan

Stranger: some say that way and most get more radical

Stranger: *stay

Stranger: My partner went vegetarian after reading Singer's stuff, so that was his inlet

Stranger: It's a very straightforward argument that requires minimal changes in values

Stranger: You read any Francione?

You: Nope

Stranger: That's probably the biggest figure in veganism aside from Singer, and the biggest distinction vegans draw in themselves

Stranger: The abolitionists (Francione, rights based approach) and the welfarists (Singer and utilitarian approach)

You: Ok, good to know

Stranger: Are you a utilitarian?

You: No

You: Habermas - deontology

Stranger: ah, drat, i was all ready to argue against you

You: We can still do it

You: What type of utilitarianism?

Stranger: Nah, it's fine

Stranger: I just like trying to make vegans not utilitarians

Stranger: and embrace a more rights based approach

You: ...yes, more

You: because utilit still is involved with rights

You: Are you involved in EA?

Stranger: I was very briefly around 5 years ago

Stranger: I mean, I guess I still am to some degree

You: How so?

You: Go to a meetup?

Stranger: because I donate most of my income

Stranger: but I think it's a pretty limiting perspective

Stranger: And an easy out for people who don't want to work towards meaningful change

Stranger: Yeah, i went to 2-3 meetups

You: I mean, EA is just a vehicle

Stranger: I don't actively involve with the community because of the problem I described

You: the EA community?

Stranger: Yeah, go to meetups anymore

Stranger: or really describe myself as an EA

You: you sound like one

You: one who doesn't attend meetups

You: I've been to one.

You: They seemed caught up in thinking they didn't know very much about EA, and that there was so much more to know that they didn't know

Stranger: To me, there were a lot fo people who were really into earning to give

Stranger: Instead of actively cooperating to solve problems at the root

Stranger: The members didn't seem interested in fighting for systemic change

You: Because they want to do the job that they love

You: I want to be an electrical engineer

You: I don't want to work a bunch of direct work

Stranger: I mean, that's a fine job. No one is being harmed by you being an electrical engineer

You: I'm talking about the earning to give

Stranger: I mean people who were actively profiting off of others

Stranger: and justifying it by donating 30% of their income

Stranger: I ran into so much of it

You: Profiting off of what others?

Stranger: really turned me off the community

You: I'm not following how they were profiting

Stranger: Sure, so example, one person I met was a lawyer for Nestle

Stranger: And they their job was basically defending Nestle when they were sued for violating labor laws

Stranger: But they donated a large percent of their income to EA charities

Stranger: Even though their income was from helping a corporation steal from workers

Stranger: There were other less extreme examples, but that was the one that really stood out to me

You: Rather than working for some other company?

You: Were they seasoned?

You: I mean, I'd practically work on a nuke if that meant a good starting job

Stranger: They were around 30

You: Ok

Stranger: so pretty new out of law school, but literally fresh out

You: They could do their job shittily

Stranger: She didn't really seemed bothered by her job

Stranger: it was the job she had been offered that payed the most by far

Stranger: and she justified it by donating some of her income

You: but someone's gotta do it

You: someone would do it anyway

Stranger: Again, this was the most extreme example

You: right

Stranger: yeah that was her argument

You: So what's your counter?

Stranger: Someone else doing something is not an argument to be complicate in something terrible (especially when there might be an opportunity cost to doing something better)

Stranger: The same argument can be used for almost anything terrible

You: I think it's an argument

You: Someone else would just fill the slot

You: That argument can't be made for eating animal products

You: Someone else won't "fill the slot"

You: But for that job, someone will

You: I'm just saying

You: I also don't see what's wrong with her doing that job

Stranger: Yes, but there will never be any change in the system if people are always willing to be complicate in terrible things because that's how it is

Stranger: I don't think it's actually that different than veganism

Stranger: One person going vegan doesn't have any effect on the supply

Stranger: but one person going vegan doesn't happen in a vacuum

You: Ya, but it's not a job to be filled

You: It's a choice

Stranger: And if people use the justification "someone else will do it" large scale change will never happen

You: Ok

You: I see a little bit of what you're saying now

Stranger: That's a lot fo the problem I had with other EA I interacted with

Stranger: They were so fixated on the measurable metrics of their measurable actions

Stranger: Which can be really valuable

Stranger: if you are donating money

You: Yes

Stranger: it's good to use metrics to figure out the where you will have a large impact

Stranger: but if you get hyper focused on it

You: ya, but I don't think they get focused enough

Stranger: You fail to account for the types of change that require group action

You: I think, to do that, more groups would do pro bono work

Stranger: and aren't as easily measurable

You: yes yes

You: I see what you're saying

You: but that's also a point, I think, of EA

You: to be a group

Stranger: They were largely unable to engage with thinking about changing systemic problems that cause so much suffering

Stranger: And instead measured what one person can do with money, and multiplied it out

You: facebook.com/groups/1006887426016674/

You: Well, for one, a few people can't really do systematic change

You: not internationally

Stranger: I need a facebook account to see your link

You: That requires a much bigger movement

You: EA is small

You: It's the "Effective Altruism: System Change" group

Stranger: Ah, got it

You: I think the crux of the issue isn't that most EAs (you encountered) make marginal calculations rather than bigger picture things so much as the movement is just small

You: I sometimes hear about reaching critical mass as a movement

You: but I don't believe that's realistic for EA

You: Like I said, I've been to one meetup. I don't know most EAs

You: as people

Stranger: I've been doing organizing with anarchists instead recently

You: Ya?

You: in the US?

Stranger: Yeah, although one of the groups I work with does a lot of support for Latin American anarchists

You: So what system change do you care about?

Stranger: But I appreciate the systems based approach they have

Stranger: Helping oppressed people organize for food justice, environmental justice, better governmental systems

Stranger: Especially the global poor

You: How for the global poor?

Stranger: Have you read "Debt: the First 5000 years"?

You: No

Stranger: I highly recommend it. Especially if you like history and sociology.

You: Ok

Stranger: It's a really interesting history of debt and money

You: Are you reading something these days?

You: I still wonder what actions I can take though

Stranger: and spends a lot of time explaining how modern systems of national debt work as essentially a modern tribute system

You: for more systematic change

Stranger: A lot of the work I do is around helping groups organize to fight for their own interests

Stranger: You can work with local tenants rights groups, or immigrant groups, you can rescue food and bring it to picket liners

You: In the US?

Stranger: Yup, I do all these things in the US

Stranger: but I live in a major US city

You: Ok, it's still very foggy, but I see a little

Stranger: Organizing around US international politics is another good one

You: Ya lost me there

Stranger: The US is a hugely interventionist country

You: So you're suggesting letter writing to diplomats and whatnot?

Stranger: A lot of progressive change gets violently suppressed by US military action

Stranger: Nah, not really that

You: Then what

Stranger: I don't really want to place myself

Stranger: But there have been parts of the US that have organized around getting comparatively non interventionist people elected to congress

Stranger: There is also just general awareness campaigns

Stranger: which really have to be a collective effort

Stranger: I'm not terribly involved with this

Stranger: but I know people who are

Stranger: All of my work is in the city I am in

You: Honestly, my parents deeply get into the news. One even held local position for a time. But when it comes down to actions I can do, I don't know. Locally, sure, there are some low commitment thing like Habitat for Humanity. Although, locally + globally I think it's better to spread awareness about Give Well and all that jazz

Stranger: I think that's unfortunate and shortsighted, but better than doing nothing

You: I see any play in politics as so extremely small

You: Politics is so large and dynamic

Stranger: They are

You: So when you say "organizing" and spreading awareness

Stranger: But I think you are falling for the trap I was describing

You: I'm lost

Stranger: Mmm, you mean you are lost on the specifics?

You: Yes

You: What specific things can I do

You: I still want to work as an electrical engineer

Stranger: A good place to start is to find a group of people who are already organizing around something important and help them

Stranger: You can, this doesn't need to be your job

You: But that's EA

Stranger: My job is in alternative energy

Stranger: but that's not what most of my organizing is in

You: Right, but besides organizing and spreading awareness about political stuff

You: What's something or an example of something

You: Like a project to work on

Stranger: I have to go in a minute, btw

You: I crave something specific

Stranger: Unfortunately, I think it really depends where you are and what your skills are

Stranger: Something I did after I moved to my town

Stranger: Is helped a neighborhood group in a low income, minority neighborhood, block construction of a high risk pipeline through their neighborhood

Stranger: It relates a little to my work, but mostly I was there to help them defend their own interests

You: But that's not about global poverty

You: that's what I meant

Stranger: I took a lot of shifts overnight, when I wasn't working

Stranger: Ah, I recommend joining a group like black rose

Stranger: that is already involved with self organizing groups of the global poor

Stranger: and seeing what sort of support they need

You: I'm not to crazy about anarchism

You: What's an example of somewhere where that'd be good

Stranger: Well then, another group that is supporting self organized people's abroad

Stranger: I only know anarchist organizations, that's one of the main reason I have been working with anarchists

Stranger: I'm sure there are non anarchist groups too

Stranger: I do need to head out though

Stranger: it was good to talk to you

Philosophy

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You both like debate.

You: Hello

Stranger: Hi, how are you?

You: I'm well

You: & you?

Stranger: Doing great

Stranger: What's on your mind?

You: Various

Stranger: Anything you'd like to have a debate about?

You: There are a few

You: What about you?

You: Do you have a particular area of expertise or research?

Stranger: Certain obscure areas of philosophy

You: What in?

You: Morality, epistemology, what?

Stranger: Metaphysics, mostly

You: Ok

You: So what in metaphysics?

Stranger: Well that's a pretty broad question, generally. I suppose notions of cause and infinity

Stranger: As well as arborescent/rhizomatic structures

Stranger: Notions around categorization

You: Ok

You: What about morality?

You: That's easier to debate

Stranger: Sure

Stranger: I tend towards deontology

You: What kind?

Stranger: Roughly Kantian, especially as the tradition has been developed by people like Arendt

You: What do you think of Habermas?

Stranger: Well, his work is both interesting and intensely boring.

You: Oh really

Stranger: I think the project is solid, definitely

You: The project?

Stranger: Well, the issue is to deal with the western hegemony inherent in universal values, as I've understood it

Stranger: Do you think it's possible to debate a nihilist?

You: Um, maybe a little

You: I wouldn't be the one to do it

Stranger: Fair enough

Stranger: I think that's one issue I disagree with Habermas about

Stranger: I think you have a duty to debate nihilists

You: I debate anyone

You: It's just I don't have the know-how for a hardcore nihilist

Stranger: That's fair, for sure. So, what is your stance on morality?

You: I like Habermas' deontology, but I honestly haven't read too far =)

You: I mainly like catching philosophy undergrads thinking all deontologists are classical

You: as if there's only classical Kantism and classical utilitarianism

You: or that we decide which we like based on our personality

Stranger: oh, yeah, I guess. Though I hate cheap philosophy gotchas

Stranger: I agree there's a lot more than just phil 101

You: I mean, they usually assume first

You: and then I say something about Habermas

You: and usually they just don't know

You: so it's not really "gotcha" more like

You: it's not as simple as you think

Stranger: sure, that is certainly true

You: I don't know where I was going with that

Stranger: For any given philosophy, its most famous errors have usually been patched up by a bunch of Neo-whateverists

Stranger: So things are never as simple as we might want

You: Yes

You: Gotta keep on reading

Stranger: Absolutely

Stranger: So what have you been reading lately?

You: The Magic Mountain

Stranger: nice

Stranger: Thomas Mann is great writer

You: Well that's good

You: What are you reading?

Stranger: I've been reading a book called Tehanu

Stranger: by Ursula Le Guin

Stranger: Probably the best fantasy novel I've read

You: Oh, wow

You: Do you watch movies and TV?

Stranger: Not so much tv really

Stranger: I saw the new True Detective

Stranger: Movies, yes.

You: Is that TV?

Stranger: HBo

You: Ok

You: I don't watch TV, but

You: I wish I didn't watch any movies alone

Stranger: Last great TV show I watched was The Return

You: ha, I also haven't heard of that

Stranger: also known as Twin Peaks, Season 3

You: What's your favorite movie?

Stranger: That's a hard one, probably Stolen Kisses

Stranger: by Truffaut

You: a romantic comedy huh

You: what do you like about it?

You: a certain element?

Stranger: It's a very light movie, but it is very nostalgic relating to being young and in love

Stranger: It's also the sequel to 400 blows

Stranger: Opening Night is another favourite

Stranger: That's a Cassavetes movie

You: Aw, I haven't heard of any of these

Stranger: That means you are in for a treat

You: =)

Stranger: What about Fellini?

You: nope

Stranger: You gotta get into that foreign film section

Stranger: 8 1/2, Nights of Cabiria, La Strada

You: awwwww

You: that's like the only one I haven't touched

You: that's like a billion more!

Stranger: yeah, it's hard

Stranger: Fellini is a good place to start

Stranger: Or French New Wave movies

You: Note to self

Stranger: 8 1/2 is pretty much perfect

Stranger: I might, watch it now

You: Haa, ok

everyday sadism

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You both like argument, and debate.

You: Hi

Stranger: hello

You: Do you have something in mind?

Stranger: sure, how the online landscape promotes everyday sadism

You: not direct sadism though, right?

You: more like a indirect-sadism?

You: or no?

Stranger: well, everyday sadism is sadism proper, but it's usually associated with trivialities rather than more serious stuff

Stranger: so the direct/indirect thing doesn't really come into play

You: so you mean a light sadism?

Stranger: right, you've heard of the banality of evil, right?

You: I haven't

Stranger: lol welp, lemme backspace

Stranger: banality of evil refers to how fundamentally immoral stuff creeps into everyday life through normalization

You: I just read about it

Stranger: similarly, everyday sadism refers to how we normalize sadistic behavior patterns in trivial contexts

Stranger: say, deriving pleasure from griefing a stranger in a videogame or tying to upset someone by trolling them with an extreme demeanor

You: ok

You: I was thinking of something more self-inflicted

You: as in, endlessly watching meaningless youtube content

You: or constantly, still meaninglessly, browsing reddit

Stranger: well, yeah, that's what I'm alluding to with regard to the online landscape

Stranger: social media platforms like youtube rely on consumer retention as consumers are the product sold to advertisers

Stranger: therefore, the youtube algorithm keys consumers into relevant content trains they'll sit around and watch video-after-video

Stranger: reddit is a bit more self-selecting, but it's no surprise that many are attracted to outrage culture-themed subs

Stranger: these platforms help to constitute the broader online landscape, which, I would argue, promotes everyday sadism

Stranger: to be clear, I'm not saying this is a consequence of the internet itself, but rather current social media groupings

You: Ludditum come take me away

Stranger: lol

Stranger: see

Stranger: re: my final point

Stranger: it doesn't have to be this way

You: but

You: ALL OR NOTHING

You: =)

Stranger: idk what you're getting at lol

You: nothing

You: I'm just fooling around I suppose

You: So how are you different?

You: What are you doing differently?

Stranger: I'm not--we're all bundles of contradictions yadda yadda--I

Stranger: I'm as much of a reproduction of the online landscape as is anyone immersed in it

Stranger: and, to be fair, that landscape is a reproduction of dysfunctional social institutions that existed before the advent of computers

You: eh, I don't think that too far

You: me and my perfect grammar

Stranger: my take is that the online landscape encouraging everyday sadism is a reflection of contemporary society doing more or less the same

Stranger: but there's some interplay as the internet has a kind of amplifying effect

Stranger: sadistic communities grow and previously unmatched rates

Stranger: they metastasize community ethoses directed by grievances rather than internal ideological coherence

You: I wouldn't go that far

You: It's holonic

You: Not simple cause and effect

Stranger: to be clear, I'm not offering a hard determinist account

You: I don't think it's society causing it, but both

You: together

Stranger: the dialectic corresponds to both the base and superstructure, and so it goes

Stranger: change is nonlinear etc

Stranger: that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine causes and effects?

You: I don't see what you're going with that

You: change is nonlinear

You: now it just sounds pretentious

Stranger: you think?

You: ya, what's linearity have to do with anything?

Stranger: the fact that, as you said, it's not simple cause-and-effect; there are externalities

You: I'm saying society doesn't cause it

You: it's not merely a reflection of contemporary society

You: like you were proposing

You: It's just not that simple

Stranger: I went ahead and confirmed that I'm not offering a hard determinist analysis

You: I have to go

Stranger: it is a reflection of contemporary society insofar as material conditions supersede cultural forces

Stranger: later gator