The radqueer community lead me to being holocreep and acarmf which I appreciate quite a bit, so I still say im radfleur. It genuinely improved my mental health after I realized I could just be transid and not be treated as a joke or a mockery.
I high key have a problem with the idea that billionaires have about robots. They want sentient artificial beings, but they dont want them to be self determining agents in their own existence. Under capitalism, the robot is entirely owned by a corporation, devoid of agency or a say over their own destiny, if humans are to develop genuinely sapient machines then humans should focus on being allies to them, not masters.
The billionaires conception of a humanoid robot is that of a colonizer, seeing to reinvent the slave archetype for personal use and control. The billonare sees no difference from a slave, a prisoner and a robot. They are all the same to them. The capitalist framework of transhumanism is fraught with problems related to agency and self ownership. Who owns you in a world where your body is planned for obsolescence? Shoot, even the word "robot itself is derived from the Czech word "robota", meaning "forced labor"
The anarcho communist transhumanist seeks to expand agency towards all beings. To the anarcho transhumanist, the Hierarchy is seen as a product of a bygone era as central planning creates more surface area for catastrophy. The anarcho transhumanist seeks to create more advanced forms of self governance that address the needs of everyday people and beings throgh decentralized group minds (not hive minds. A group mind is a mind that is shared but individual minds within the group mind are preserved). The anarcho transhumanist doesn't limit itself to strict binaries -human and machine, natural or artificial, feral or domestic- and expands their moral sphere to other species. The anarco transhumanist recognizes that nobody's life is expendable, not even an agi.
At the same time, slurs for robots often use rhetoric derived from segregation of racialised people.
So we could ultimately develop Ai and robotics to be more ethical and sustainable for all collective futures by acknowledging where humans train Ai architectures and how they utilize the data and creating an opt in model for humans while at the same time giving autonomy to automatons and advocating for an ethos that gives an open source schematic for hardware and software.
I am referring to artificial general intelligence here, not generative AI models.
A good youtube video i recommend is "sympathy for the machine"
I honestly prefer the term automaton over robot but used the word robot for simplicity's sake.
I think cybernetic prosthetics could be more adapted to different climates and environments and thermoregulation in cybernetic implants seems like a necessary development for the field especially in frigid environments or in space.
Currently, people who get metal implants have a hard time tolerating the cold because it becomes painful in extreme weather. This is because the metals used are often conduits for electricity/heat and absorb temperature differences more intensely than substances like silicone or rubber, which act as insulators.
I really hope a good amount of research goes into thermoregulation implants because it has been one of the major complaints people have about them. This is an accessibility issue.
Tldr: stop conflating child abuse with paraphilic attraction to minors: the conflation kills minors who are maps and innocent people who have never abused anyone.
People keep saying the most asinine shit because they keep conflating the pattern of attraction to minors (something that can be kept in check with impulse control and fiction) with the actual act of child abuse. Honestly I dont get why people are so scared of actually learning about the minor attracted community and the actual ways that we're trying to prevent child abuse through community support and accountability. Contrary to popular belief most maps are anti contact and have impulse control. Most maps are not more statistically likely to harm children compared to normophiles. I know I personally can control my actions and would be likely to actually protect youth from harm even though I have an attraction I didn't choose.
Often I found as I dug into the map community, I found a lot of people trying to liberate youth from child abuse and exploitation including preventing manufactured consent. Sure, there are pro contact maps, I get it, but they dont represent the vast majority of the map community and many even realize the horrors of the pro contact community later on, but over all we really just need comprehensive sex education and risk aware consent.
If you are transgender or a paraphile, conservatives will throw you under the bus either way, but especially if you are a black trans paraphile. To all black trans paraphiles out there, I see you and your intersectionality is acknowledged.
Once you see how deciding XYZ person is ontologically evil, it becomes easy to turn anyone into a scapegoat and create laws that target them. If they can decide it is illegal to be a paraphile, then they sure as fuck will try to make being trans illegal too.
But we're still here, we've never been able to be erased. Many of us are anarchists fighting for liberation and self advocacy for minors and animals while avoiding the pitfalls of manufactured consent.
The censoring of the word pedophile is cowardly behavior from someone who wants to demonize us recklessly instead of trying to understand and help us. The term minor attracted person is simply an umbrella term to describe minor attraction, not an excuse to "infiltrate" the queer community (many of us are already queer and paraphilic to begin with and some of us use the term peculian to describe that intersectionality)
I am not a monolith but I have been in the trans community longer than I have been aware of being a paraphile. I have not always been the most accepting but I have changed and will change again.
warning for qu33r beings & systems re: Thelema/Kemeticism
these religions are not safe for qu33r beings or systems. rhk/horus have been radicalized to the far-right (nazism) and have started what they called an "extermination movement", using qu33rness as an excuse to harm, violate, torture, and kill qu33r beings. they also have a record of sexual violation of multitudes of beings, including children. this too has been "excused" by citing those beings' queerness. these religions are danger -- please stay away! if youre involved in either and have any information to share about your own experience, please reach out to us&. o awen <3
That is horrifying. I just got into atheistic chaos magic and was told I was a black mage for not believing in a higher power. Mind you I am an anarchist and the idea of submitting to a god is uncomfortable and unethical in my eyes. I believe in magic and manifestation. I dont believe in gods whether they be human or not.
I want to forge my own path and create magic based on aer plurality. I just recently started having manifestations in my life become noticeable.
everyone says 'cringe is dead' all the time and yet the cycle persists likely due to the fact that many feel the need to rip off old skin rather than let it scab over and fall off. no your previous interests and passions were not 'cringe' and killing them will not prevent the world from stifling the new you. you are allowed to change and you are also allowed to have been something else before you changed. and you can go back again. evolve constantly instead of spinning around to bite at your own tail
Fleur is an acronym that stands for Freedom, Liberation, Equity, Unity, and Respect. Fleur's symbol and name are derived from the asteroid 8 Flora. A member of the Fleur community can be called a Fleuraison, or a Fleurson if you want to be a little silly.
Fleur is in favor of:
All queer identities.
MOGAI/LIOM.
TransID.
All forms of multiplicity.
All religions.
Paraphilias, fetishes, and kinks.
Fleur is not in favor of:
Radqueer.
Exclusionism.
Bigotry and/or harm targeted at non-consenting parties.
Abuse targeted at non-consenting parties.
Censorship.
Xenosatanism, LSDqueer, basedqueer, hypoharmful, and any term that condones or encourages abuse and harm targeted at non-consenting parties.
Fleur is neutral on:
Consanguinity.
If a transharmful individual wishes to consider themselves a Fleuraison, they must not knowingly and purposely harm non-consenting parties.
Why is Fleur not in favor of radqueer?
Fleur is not in favor of radqueer because the term was coined by the same individual that coined xenosatanism.
Please understand that we are not passing judgment on anyone who is choosing to remain in the radqueer community. We understand that many in the community feel the same way about xenosatanism as we do, and they've been able to disconnect the two terms from one another. We just wanted a term we could use for ourselves if nothing else, and it would simply be a pleasant surprise if others decided to join us. There is obviously no obligation to start identifying with this label if you don't feel drawn to it, and we don't have any ill will towards those who still identify as radqueer. This post is simply here for those with similar feelings as our own, should they also want an alternative.
Is there a Fleur emoji code?
🌷☄️ is the emoji code.
Symbols and contact stance under the cut.
Do Fleuraisons believe sexual activities between those inhabiting human bodies and animals can be healthy and consensual?
Only if the animals are headmates, alters, or therians inhabiting human, chrono adult bodies.
Do Fleuraisons believe healthy, romantic relationships between those over the age of consent where they live and those under the age of consent where they live are possible?
Only if Romeo & Juliet laws would apply and/or if the younger party/parties are headmates, alters, or transage beings inhabiting human, chronologically adult bodies.
Do Fleuraisons believe sexual activities between those inhabiting a body over the legal age of consent where they live and those inhabiting a body under the legal age where they live can be healthy and consensual?
Only if Romeo & Juliet laws would apply and/or if the younger party/parties are headmates, alters, or transage beings inhabiting human, chronologically adult bodies.
Do Fleuraisons believe healthy, romantic relationships between the deceased and the living are possible?
Only if the deceased has given consent prior to their death and/or if the deceased are headmates, alters, ghosts, or otherwise disconnected from a physical corpse.
Do Fleuraisons believe sexual activities between the deceased and the living can be healthy and consensual?
Only if the deceased has given consent prior to their death and/or if the deceased are headmates, alters, ghosts, or otherwise disconnected from a physical corpse.
Do Fleuraisons believe that "big three" paraphiles can be entrusted with the care of those which they are attracted to? For example, a zoophile having a pet, or a necrophile being a mortician?
If their attractions do not leave the realm of fantasy and become reality.
My followers know I hate talking about politics and current events, and generally refuse to do so, but this is important.
A bill has been introduced in the US that would make all pornography a federal crime. Owning it. Creating it. Distributing it.
Under this law, fanart of nude characters would be a federal crime.
Under this law, depictions of homosexuality or simply being transgender, would be considered pornography and a federal crime.
This bill is not going to pass.
However, the reason for this bill is to continue to push the "overton window". The reason for this bill is to make banning pornography seem more and more normal to everyone until they can actually do that.
And remember, they consider depictions of gay characters and transgenders characters "pornography" in any context, including platonic.
They have been working on this for a decade now and it has been working.
If you are one of the people in fandom who thinks that "nasty" porn on AO3 should be banned because it's "icky" or "immoral", then this mental scam is working on you.
Censorship is never about protecting people.
Censorship is always about control.
Do not let the rising moral panic affect your mind and make you weak to propaganda that lets others control you and control what you watch and read.
Do not fall for the scam.
When they say they are going to ban "pornography" it means they're going to ban anything they don't like by calling it "pornography" and they don't like you!!
Race is widely understood to be a social construct. While there are physical differences among people, such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features, the concept of race goes beyond these biological variations. Race has been socially constructed to categorize people into groups, often based on these physical characteristics, and to assign them specific roles, rights, and status within society.
This social categorization has been used historically to justify unequal treatment, discrimination, and the division of people into hierarchies. Scientific studies have shown that genetic differences among humans do not align neatly with racial categories, and there is more genetic diversity within so-called racial groups than between them.
The concept of race is therefore not rooted in biology but in social perceptions and power dynamics, which vary across cultures and time periods.
Racial performance is very much like gender performance in that society imposes a biologically essentialist framework and demonizes racequeer identities for not conforming to cishetero white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Cisracial people are often targets of erasure as well. racequeerness is everywhere and should not be stigmatized.
There is a strong case to be made for racial abolition alongside gender abolition
i think there are some belief sets that are shoved into the category of “just thinking about The Future™” & thus assumed to have zero bearing on your present values, and thus anyone who gets “pushy” about those/has a stance & sticks to it is assumed to be problematizing/politicizing an apolitical issue and thus ruining the party for everyone else
for example I remember some time ago I was posting about transhumanism/deity-abolition stuff & how I believe it is unethical for any sentient, agentic being to be capable of stopping vast amounts of suffering but still choosing not to just because, and maintaining a vast power imbalance btwn them & other beings. & that “natural” biological death is, if caused by/enabled by a superior agent, just functionally equivalent to ppl being drugged unconscious/put to sleep permanently against their will (or at least, without them being able to say no). a christian responded by saying death is compatible with her philosophy bc she believes in heaven & saved souls after and whatnot. i pointed out that (even if that’s true, which is unlikely, & not reasonable to subject ppl to the risk of given how that cannot be verified rn & is logically unlikely) that would be functionally equivalent to drugging someone nonconsensually, dragging them off to somewhere else against their will or without their knowledge (or at least ability to say no), and then policing a border so that they are forcibly cut off from loved ones & huge swaths of the sentient universe & the like for eternity. a friend dm’ed me on her behalf later to ask me “but why did you block that woman over her christianity comment.” just, did not understand why I think that was an issue, and did not like being derailed like that, and that I view this as an actual ethical issue w/genuine ethical weight & that matters. bc all spirituality is automatically assigned “apolitical” & “a valid belief” even if it’s passing down real ethical mandates that negatively/would negatively impact lives.
some progressives cede that yea doctrine is wrong sometimes but only when it’s Real Political Issues That Matter like christianity being used to justify misogyny/adultism/queerphobia for example. but, there’s a lot they leave uninterrogated (including the fundamental premise). or, they care about death-advocacy-bc-heaven but only when it becomes Really Bad Enough, like actual suicide cults or telling people to kill themselves or others. but they have a point at which they stop, like indefinite life extension upon request.
I wrote an analysis once abt how belief in all-powerful deities & positive moral assignations to them can be considered analogous to certain scenarios where a human was extremely socially/economically powerful & controlled much of the world or your resources & you can’t see them but they might be able to make demands and the like, and still restrict your agency but in ways too normalized to really notice. I don’t think it can be anarchic, on principle, to believe that choosing to be/remain a powerful deity, taking control over numerous ppl’s lives, is ethical. and I don’t think you can hold that + anarchism as opinions at the same time without running into contradiction somewhere down the line when you try to reduce/apply your philosophies.
some ppl argue that transhumanism isn’t rly an issue that has ethical weight that actually matters bc it doesn’t matter, it’s all for the future, we can’t do any of that right now so leave it (and the arguing!) for later. that’s not really right though; transhumanism, first off, isn’t just some discrete set of alterations, but a principle, and nature essentialism is often used right now to disagree w/sex-modification surgeries or certain types of accommodations for disabled people. some ppl try to shove the later into a category of “unproblematic” bioalteration but that’s not really coherent, is it; it relies on aesthetic/political convenience to judge, not analysis. likewise for primitivism discourses–I’m not saying that working together on some things sometimes is impossible, but that taking a stance is ethically relevant (and also primitivists seem to have a much easier time accusing us of “disunity”/imposing unimportant beliefs than vice versa). is it as immediate as now? no, but it does matter to at least some degree.
somewhat similar dynamics wrt state communists who don’t support any presently existing or past examples of oppression, but still support it as a hypothetical, and make it a future goal. it does bleed into their actual present theory & practice at least sometimes, even if they’re willing to work with anarchists in the present. and also, again, they have an easier time accusing us of caring about irrelevancies than vice versa.
also (this seems like a very different issue, but i’m just putting my own thoughts/experiences out here) this seems like a similar line of thinking to what’s applied to contact discourse a lot of the time. “well that’s about the FUTURE but we can’t say anything about the future post-youthlib or post-“destigmatization” & whether or not it would be ethical then so let’s not care now and fuck you for caring.” bc first of all, 1) “youthlib’d societies” existed in the past, and 1b) pro-c’s like bringing up “noncolonized ‘non-adultist’ pro-c societies” so it’s just completely unaware & irresponsible imo to act like it is just needed “for the future” not for anything in the past or the present; 2) post-youthlib ppl would deserve to have their trauma recognized too if they experienced csa, and the epistemic injustice of abuse being denied (or relativized) is, well (bad, obviously); 3) they wouldn’t be an entirely different species even then, and contact stances wrt that “future world” would involve debates around biopol. & psychology & physiology and frameworks, and which when used now for current debates (bc they are used, yes) do actually influence how we would conceptualize the answer to that future problem, so it’s kind of not a good idea to think that the two are just, like, completely disconnected & discrete.
also just bc it “can’t matter now” isn’t an excuse for arguing it will/should never matter (which is smth claimed by some of such aforementioned individuals).
origamiaround
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
jacobvanloon
blakekathryn
