Anark does (in my view) a well-cited and very polite refutation of Socialism4All’s response to one of his off-the-cuff videos, and a vastly more polite response to BadEmpanada than he deserves.
Anark does (in my view) a well-cited and very polite refutation of Socialism4All’s response to one of his off-the-cuff videos, and a vastly more polite response to BadEmpanada than he deserves.
I was arguing against Anark being a rich kid solely from his demeanor and the part of his home you could see from his camera, which I think Jabril is pulling from. Like he probably lives in a decent house because he’s in a polycule, i.e. lots of people living together in a shared space, so the whole polycule can afford a bigger house by pooling their resources.
He could very well be a trust fund kid, I dunno 🤷
No lol polycules and roommates can be poor, but they’re probably saving some money over living in separate houses, so they might not individually be as wealthy as their house otherwise implies.
Polycules are romantic relationships so if anything they will explain cohabitation despite being a trust fund kid. It’s also not coincidental that lefty cult leaders are often (1) personally wealthy and (2) live on the compound with their harem, though I don’t know it care enough to figure out if this particular grifter is also abusive. I don’t know actually anything about this person except that they put a lot of effort into a basic aesthetic, their way of speaking and presenting themselves, and that they make poorly thought out bad faith left punching videos, but the logic around living with a polycule just doesn’t make sense.
If you have ever been poor you can see the show being put on. If you’ve organized in left spaces you’ve encountered the loud ignorant white boy sectarian, and certainly those who place aesthetic over substance.
No evidence to suggest he’s abusive at all. It’s kind of a wild leap from “white anarchist man in a polycule” to “possible abuser”, no?
He’s been a community organizer for 15 years. He is absolutely putting substance before aesthetic. He spent a few hours out of his fifteen years of activism to reply calmly to two critics. I guess that makes the rest of his work invalid?