[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /AK-47/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war. - New board: /draw/


File: 1608528152394-0.jpg (287.46 KB, 732x1024, 8df3c00570.jpg)

 No.2083[View All]

So some of you may have read the quite popular pdf where Rafiq dunks on eco fetishism, in that thread he references a previous thread where he had spent a lot of time focusing in on eco-fetishism, however this thread has been lost from Revleft. It's available on internet archives but to preserve it I've made this in the style of the previous popular pdf. Hope you guys enjoy!

This thread could serve to discuss this work if anyone ever dedicates the time to read it, or we could debate the place of ecology in modern day Marxism. To provoke discussion: does nature have any value outside how it immediately serves human interests?
60 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4292

>>4291 (me)
Per my promise in https://archive.is/HqXWm

 No.4293

>>3506
This, but all your going to get in response from Rafiq sycophants is how you're strawmanning him. And if you have the audacity to do anything put worship him you'll be accused of not reading him, even though his defenders have supposedly read him but can never actually defend him using his writings. It's absolutely insane cultish behavior.

 No.4294

>>3704
>He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it.
Which is a strawman that borders on a parody of ecologists being hippy earth worshipers.
>To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology.
No it, can't. That's like saying Epidemiology could be called Internal Medicine. They're looking at two different things a completely different scales.
>Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society.
Self preservation isn't something that society needs to instill in people. You don't have any knowledge of the history behind environmentalism. Just like a propagandist you cherrypick the historical periods that fit your narrative. As early as the 1960's the public used to think exactly like Rafaiq. They saw the environment as simply something to utilize, and that was a part form them. It's very much a colonialist mind set which you and Rafiq obviously share.
We know now that humans are very much effected by nature in a symbiosis that we barely understand. Rafiq rants on about ideology because he's an idealists with no understanding of the material roots behind it, particularly the history.
Also, I'm not so sure what's so ideological finding nature sublime. Yet somehow thinking that seeing nature as only a utility is somehow escaping ideology.
Rafiq is a left version of an autistic atheist. Proselytizing that there's definitely no god with zero self awareness that that itself is a faith based belief.

 No.4295

>>3705
>This thread is extremely clear in disproving this fact. You may not literally kneel every night and pray for nature, but it is still your God. It is the Other that you dare not disobey.
I don't disobey nature because it's more powerful than me that a cursory reading of history shows myself and humanity still don't understand.
When you see a "High Voltage" sign do you still insist on playing with the wires inside? You don't? Huh…I guess electricity is your God that you dare not disobey. So fucking retarded.

 No.4306

>>3705
>Why should humans want to respect other creatures?
Certainly not because of any ideological reasons or because we think "nature" is sacred. We should respect other creatures because we understand that respecting other creatures, treating them well, helps ourselves, our own psyches. Dogs and humans evolved alongside one another for tens of thousands of years (some research says even longer), it is expected that we would have some sort of "bond" to the animal – they found that both humans and dogs release oxytocin when looking at each other's eyes and interacting. Those dogs that were friendly, with puppy eyes, etc. we kept around, the rest we killed or simply didn't accept/feed and they died. There is something "real" that you feel towards your dog, but it is only you that feels it, your dog is acting on instincts and survival (if he goes against the pack, or isn't on friendly terms with the pack, he'll be cast out). So there is a perfectly good materialist explanation for the human-dog friendship phenomena, that doesn't involve Disney magic.

Compare dogs to our other "domesticated" pet. Cats probably came to humans by chilling on the outskirts of settlements, catching the rats and other small creatures attracted to our garbage. That's why cats today still seem independent, and most are OK changing owners, going somewhere else when they need, because that was their lifestyle around early human settlements, as long as there's food, they stay. Dogs on the other hand are pack animals and are not suited for the solitary life, so it is expected that their behaviour will be more "social".

 No.4307

>>4293
"This" to a very large post. "All you're going to get from sycophants is strawmanning" to a post with a very large response… Come on bruh.
>if you don't worship him wahh wahh
This is pathetic. Spend more time reading and learn how to criticize things. I'll be responding to the rest shortly.

 No.4311

>>4294
Okay it's not a strawman, you gotta stop using this word. It makes you look like a Destiny or Vaush watcher. It's fucking stupid. Just say what you think is wrong or say where you disagree. Do you know ecologists? Do you know biologists? Do you have academic training at all? This isn't to shame you: and yes it is relevant.

I can't prove to you that every ecologist is a hippy tier retard, however that isn't the point. From my experience with the left and ecologists I can attest to the utter ideology that permeates through this field. In the same way when you watch a Zizek film you don't go 'pffft prove it that every person thinks this way!', we know this because we live in society, and interact with it everyday and can attest to the truthfulness of the statements. Do you genuinely believe there is no eco mysticism seeping into the left? This idea that we should be 'one' with nature. The idea we shouldn't 'mess' with nature, and be good little boys? If you had bothered to read Rafiq you'd know what is oh so disgusting about this line of thought.

>No it can't.

Okay I agree here. As it field it is something separate from biology, however it comes with ideological baggage because of this separation. My personal background is in mathematics and physics and I could write a book or so regarding the ideology implications of these sciences in the same way Rafiq has here. It isn't really that surprising.
>Just like a propagandist you cherrypick the historical periods that fit your narrative.
>As early as the 1960's the public used to think exactly like Rafaiq.
Straw manning retardation. Has nothing to do with the point at hand.
>They saw the environment as simply something to utilize, and that was a part form them.
How is this bad? "not being a simp for muhther nature = colonialism" won't cut it. Literally not an argument dude. It's as stupid as those morons who claim "efficiency is capitalist!" and what not. I don't give the slightest shit how 'bad' something sounds to your liberal mind. Communist revolution sounds bad to your average joe, that means nothing. It means less than nothing to the value of communism.
>Wow nature is so pure and holy we barely understand how great it is 🙏
>What is ideological about finding nature sublime?
Wow it's really mask of time, isn't it? Are you acquainted with eco fascist work? Deep ecology shit? I suspect you are not since your lack of self reflection speaks bounds.

Do you know what nature is, 'Comrade'? Nature is shit and filth. It is disease. It is women dying at childbirth because the baby is too large. It is the mentally and physically ill suffering and being killed because they are not strong enough. It is rape, it is starvation and it is endless struggle. How is this torture sublime? The only thing that is sublime is the human intervention in this so called 'natural' process. This is what you think is nature. What you think is nature is specifically sterilized 'natural parks' and animals in zoos and pathetic petit bourgeois attempts of 'returning to nature'.
>muh autism
>muh atheism
>actually you're the one with no self awareness!
uh huh

 No.4313

>>4295
>I don't disobey the owner of my land! They are more powerful than me!
>I don't disobey my slave master, they are more powerful than me!
>I don't disobey my capitalist! They are more powerful than me!

It's clear: you're not a communist. "High voltage" is the complete fucking antithesis to nature you moron. It is the human ability to harness such great power and contain it by the sheer use of human labor. Electricity doesn't rule us, it doesn't 'decide' what we do like famines and capitalists do. The fact you act so smug after such a pathetic analogy really sums it up. You are so involved in your ideology, so narcissistic in your lack of understand, it's depressing.

>Do you know what nature is, 'Comrade'? Nature is shit and filth. It is disease. It is women dying at childbirth because the baby is too large. It is the mentally and physically ill suffering and being killed because they are not strong enough. It is rape, it is starvation and it is endless struggle. How is this torture sublime?


Nature is not all powerful. It is not a god. You can believe it is, by all means, but you're not a communist. You are a reactionary, since when humans say 'we should improve our lives' you cry about how hard it looks.

 No.4329

>>4313
>enlightened anarkiddie refuses to submit to the oppressive will of nature
>wont breathe
>dies

 No.4333


 No.4334

>>4333
This gives our movement hope since these grown adults can be so swayed by nothing more than cute propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFVUsYnw8U

 No.4349

Rafiq is a cunt. I have no clue why he's taken at all seriously. Yes, I do deify nature. All leftists should.

 No.4350

>>4349
>yes I diefy our queen. All leftists should.

Why should we all do this random stupid thing you say we should do?

 No.4351

>>4349
>literally fascism

 No.4352

>>4349
you’re dangerously arrogant

 No.4498

>>3389
Forums are not only the superior internet discussion method, but the most superior communication method in general for serious topics.

 No.4499

>>3392
>Kind of shows that you haven't actually taken the time to read his points. I love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Communism has nothing to do with these topics. Of course it has to exist. Its the base layer of our existence. Its our soul.

 No.4500

>>3702
>Coke and nature are the same in the fact that they give a number of people pleasure. This makes no bearing on whether or not we should take it into the communist future.
You're an idealist and solipsist. You'd happily move us all to brains in vats apparently to avoid surplus labor extraction.

 No.4501

>>3702
>How the fuck do we need living organisms around us to live? Says who? Morons said thousands of years ago you need various things to live, who gives a shit about them now?
Absolute biology brainlet kys posting this trash. You have no comprehension of how complex even just human skin microbiome is. Stop shitposting this is supposed to be /edu/ not whatever it is you're doing here.

 No.4505

>>4498
Based.
>>4499
>>4500
The point isn't that I am choosing to bring these things to the communist future, I'm REJECTING the idealism of 'I like thing therefore it will exist in communism' that the nature defenders are proposing.

If it got to the point of brains in jars, why not? It's no more monstrous than what we already are compared to our animal brethren.
>>4501
>No you don't understand science, you're not heckin valid!!!
I'm fully fucking aware of the extremely basic concept that our biology is complicated. This is painfully obvious to every human alive. But are you going to sit there, in a world we have irradicated diseases with labor, with buildings hundreds of metres tall, dude we've been to the MOON. Does the concept of destroying all animals slowly really sound that crazy? Or creating cyborgs? I'm not saying it's desirable, the point is that doesn't matter.

If you want to discuss the human skin microbiome or something we can have a thread for that, but the actually intricacies of that are not relevant here, it's a philosophical discussion regarding humanity's relation with nature.

 No.4506

Fuck animals, fuck nature and most of all, fuck ecologists.

 No.4509

>>4506
Based

 No.4510

>>4505
>I like thing therefore it will exist in communism
That's not what they're proposing. Did you even read Marx? You're the idealist thinking we exist separate from nature.

Why the fuck do you think we need to destroy all animals? We can do communism without this shot. You're taking communism and extending it to weird transhumanist shit that has nothing to do with the relations of production. At least be honest. You're a transhumanist not a communist.

 No.4513

>>4510
Let us go through the comments
>>3378
I love nature, much of it is still not understood, so the fact that Rafiq thinks he could make a sweeping generalization as, “It’s not it’s own thing” while worshiping for more abstract concepts like wage labor just shows how much hubris he has.
&ltI love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Our love for these things have no bearing on their use in communism, our personal opinions on these objects are useless. More of an argument needs to be made. We don't exist separate from nature but nothing is more unatural than the human. And NOTHING worse than the communist. Nature abhors equality, freedom, the weak being given a chance, and rejection of 'natural' ways of life. Can you name a single less natural thing than democracy? We are against nature and we seek to destroy it in every fibre of our existence as humans. As beings that labour.

Why not destroy all the animals if they are of no use to us? Post capitalism and we gain no pleasure from our fake relationships with pets, dogs will just go extinct. Not because we genocide them mao style, but because the course of human history dictated it to be so. My question for you is have you read Marx?! What constitiutes the relations of production dictate everything in society! You know why they didn't call the commodity fetishism thing ideology? Because it is literally the core of our society and it's functioning, it's not a structure on top of it.

 No.4521

>>4513
>Can you name a single less natural thing than democracy?
NTA, but bees and ants make decisions "democratically", unless you consider bee and ant colonies as a single organism.

 No.4522

>>4291
>>4292
Still haven't found it in my archives but it may be in this book someone just posted on /leftypol/

 No.4525

>>4522
I made that and no, that is just a single forum discussion about ecology (it's posted in the OP). Good to see it getting reposted however.
>>4521
But it's not the concept of democracy that we have. That 'everyone should get their say', you know? What we see as democracy is just a way of running a hive that is effective at not leading to the death of the species, democracy as we know it is a complete rejection of the social order, of kings and queens, of tribe leaders and so on. I guess what I mean is the idea we should strive for some level equality is completely bizarre for nature, where disease runs rampant and food chains of constant death cannot be escaped.

 No.4529

>>4505
>I'm fully fucking aware of the extremely basic concept that our biology is complicated. This is painfully obvious to every human alive. But are you going to sit there, in a world we have irradicated diseases with labor, with buildings hundreds of metres tall, dude we've been to the MOON. Does the concept of destroying all animals slowly really sound that crazy? Or creating cyborgs? I'm not saying it's desirable, the point is that doesn't matter
Those accomplishments only blow your mind largely due to your ignorance of science.

 No.4531

>>4529
I guarantee I'm far more rigorously qualified from a better university than you are. The point is these things SOUND absurd to anyone not with our level of knowledge. Imagine 200 years ago and telling someone of the technology we have today. The sheer arrogance and ignorance it takes to declare some arbitrary thing 'really hard' means nothing to humans. It doesn't matter if you think it's personally very difficult to do things that would serve humanity, humanity will do them anyway.

Of course I know that the literal process of getting to the moon isn't 'insanely complicated', but the course of technology that needed to occur to allow this to happen, when you compare it to the most grand achievement of a dolphin or something -like dude my background is maths/physics I'm not ignorant here- ITS FUCKING BONKERS. We left our planet!!! Who knows of the possibilities the future holds for us? Certainly not random anonymous pseud number 6151

 No.4941

>>2297
I would rather we just go extinct tbh than let this hell cone to fruition

 No.4942

>>2297
> the abolition of biological life as such, the strip-mining of planet earth to produce the galaxy-spanning technological structure which will house mankind, the end of gender, birth, motherhood, family, sex, animals, religion etc.
How many flu shots do I need to develop this level of autism?

 No.4948

It is quite based, but the harsh tone used probably was too heavy, excessive.

 No.5043

Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.

t. Judge Rafiq

 No.5046

>>5043
based

 No.5063

Is Haz actually this person, disguised?

 No.5073

>>5063
I hope I wasn't the only one who noticed the similarities.

>Both Arabs

Check
>Both said they don't want to write anymore because it would be "long and rambly"
Check
>Accused of being an animal abuser by leftypol tripfag
Check
>'Anti-Anglo' philosophyfag
Check
>Both very easily agitated and will shout, scream and yell non-stop with little proclivity
Check
>Both recommend reading Zizek
Check

And the most damnable evidence.
>Both (very embarrassingly) refer to themselves in third-person.
Check.

If someone can find evidence of Rafiq being a Lysenkoist, it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do turn out to be the same person, I'm going to be very disappointed tbh. I'd have much preferred his writings than his dumb bloodsport cringe.

 No.5093

>>5073
Holy fug.

 No.5096

However, Haz did say that he didn't know who Ismail was, so perhaps not. That was an offhand comment which could be inaccurate though.
Also he is not that old, so he'd have to be a child genius probably to be Rafiq under disguise.

 No.5098

>>5096
Haz did say he knew a significant amount of Hegel in highschool while roasting Anal Water. It's possible he started early with his studies which may line up with the point you made.

 No.5099

>>5073
rafiq already knew of leftypol and had been a part of leftist forums since ~2008, he wrote a 500+ page book just to own some dudes on revleft - he also disagreed with heidegger. the traits mentioned are shared by most marxists who started out with zizek.

 No.5100

>>5063
>>5073
Rafiq wasn't a pseud who tried to obfuscate because he didn't know what the theory of value was. Their philosophies arent anywhere near each other either. Haz when pressed reveals he doesn't know shit and says you have to do idealist leap of faiths and "believe in the people" when it comes to truth. As already pointed out its Heidegger shit. The reason Rafiq was aggressive was because he knew what he wanted to get across and was tired of repeating himself. Read any of his posts and you get a clear explanation and position on whatever topic.
Haz just screams and yells because he doesn't know how to explain shit he just read once and doesn't understand. He would call Rafiq an Anglo for actually knowing something instead of pretending with big words. And hopefully Rafiq would shoot him and push the body in a ditch.

 No.8551

>>5063
Yes, pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you autism lurk hard enough you'll see details that are way past the possibility of coincidence; Haz has mentioned he used to play Skyrim all the time, one of Rafiq's only screenshots back on Revleft was an image of Skyrim.

Rafiq was very young, this was leaked in a debate he had with Invader Zim, in which Zim criticised him for being young, ignorant and overly arrogant for his age, to which Rafiq more or less affirm the accusation with indignation. At the time, I think Rafiq was around 16 or 17. This was several years ago, and Haz is in his mid 20's now.
Haz recently wrote an article against Luna Oi on the infrared substack website; problem is, for someone so supposedly intelligent, the writing style is almost identical to Rafiq's, right down to the tendency of bolding text and using enlarged letters for rhetorical emphasis.
There's even more stuff; when Infrared first started out, other autistic fans dug up an essay published on a russian website under a different name than 'Haz', the name used was 'Tahir', and there was some suggesting in the fbi.gov that it seemed like stuff Haz would say–Haz confirmed that this was him. Thing is, this essay had the same writing style as Rafiq. You can confirm that Haz DID in fact once go by the name Tahir because in one of Infrared youtube's oldest videos, there's a skype call showing usernames, and the one next to Haz's webcam is 'Tahir'.
Rafiq's revleft profile listed his location–Detroit, Michigan. Haz has repeatedly said he's from Detroit, Michigan. Likewise, on Revleft Rafiq occasionally mentioned how his uniquely privileged class position allowed him the spare time to read theory etc. Haz is transparently upper middle-class, a Lebanese immigrant. Rafiq was, for what it's worth, also the ostensible child of arabic immigrants.
Oh, and on the topic of older Infrared youtube videos, there's a very early one: "Chomsky is the poison of the left". Remember who else fucking hated Chomsky, had entire threads dedicated to disavowing him?
It gets funnier too–the arguments Haz uses in that video are almost IDENTICAL, word for word, to the primary arguments Rafiq levied against Chomsky back in the day.
Either Haz is a big fan of Rafiq, or Rafiq is Haz.
There's two problems with the Haz is Rafiq theory though. One, Rafiq hated memes, but Haz constantly uses memes. However, you could make the argument that this is an accelerationist ploy to gain momentum and virtual exposure; after all, Rafiq was terminally online and understood the nature of internet culture all too well. Two, Haz seems more deterministic than Rafiq, constantly referring back to an essence of humanity, whereas Rafiq, at least back in the day, seemed militantly opposed to such an idea, advocating for transhumanism etc.
However, people change, years go by, and people who read constantly, always proposing contrarian ideas, tend to adjust themselves in relation to the maintenance of such contrarianism. What's popular now? The same kind of ultra-leftism Rafiq was once an outsider for embracing.
As for the guy talking about Lysenkoism, it's obvious that Haz is using this as a stand-in for the same principle. Rafiq hated the idea of genetic determinism, he wrote screeds and screeds against it. How do you make this fairly radical concept more palatable to outsiders? You use a historical stand-in. Lysenko. Also, there was some thread where Rafiq mentioned the emergencing pertinence of epigenetics off-handedly.
LASTLY, the names of several of the mods in the infrared-discord are too similiar to the names of some of the power users that would thank all of his old posts on Revleft. Ezra comes to mind (go check, Ezra-X was the revleft user, Ezra was chinese, the Ezra we saw on Infrared show was named Ezra just as well, and was chinese just as well), so does a person name 'Alet' who, is really just one character away from 'Alex', another recurring character. coincidentally, guess what? Both 'Alet' and 'Alex' spoke/speak/are german.

 No.8552

Two other things. fbi.gov means d 1 s c 0 r d, word filter on the site got in the way.

Other thing, Haz's change in attitude towards certain topics, relative to Rafiq's, can probably be attributed to schizo-festing reactionary theorists. Haz has mentioned he found the readings of Heidegger, Land, Dugin, etc. to be surprisingly enlightening. One of the last posts Rafiq ever made was discussing the neoreactionary movement.

 No.8553

>>5100
Cope, you can't distinguish between Haz posturing for the sake of an internet persona and his more substantive streams. Go watch the early youtube vods of Infrared, before he became more popular and had to start pandering. The level of theoretical sophistication, actual specificity when pressed on advanced topics like dialectical materialism etc. is every bit equal to Rafiq's.

 No.8554

>>8553
oh yeah, there was also that time he was getting grilled by iFunny. dudes were calling him fat and shit cuz he never posted an image of himself. in response, he made a brief post saying he was "quite fit". turns out haz is jacked…

 No.8735

>>4352
But probably not as arrogant as a pack of retards worshipping another retard who’s never done a single thing worth a damn and is only even known in a defunct forum of autistic nerds

 No.8736

>>5100
>Rafiq wasn't a pseud who tried to obfuscate because he didn't know what the theory of value was.
lmao

 No.8752

>>8553
>before he became more popular
1k subs ain't popular

 No.8775

>>8551
Another similarity is the dislike of anime, not to mention. And both must have had deep knowledge of various leftist personalities. But, anyways, RevLeft's archive seemed to be broken last time when checked; does anyone have a usable copy of the website to access somewhere?

 No.8776

>Again, no where does he deny any facts of environmental >science. We know why tsunamis form, this has no baring on whether or not we should try and stop them. Idiots would claim that we shouldn't try and stop them because that would be 'interfering with nature'. As communists that's exactly what we do, we destroy the current 'nature' of things.
mangroves significantly reduce the wave energy from storm surges and tsunamis just one of many the benefits from
ecosystems to humanity , I haven't seen a convincing argument as to why should destroy things that benefit us,


Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]