Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

"Tough Guy Straightedge"

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Raise Your Fist, May 11, 2010.

  1. anarchoskin69

    anarchoskin69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    150

    2

    2

    Nov 14, 2010
     
    i'm a buddhist, vegan, straight edge mother fucker. first of all, buddhists believe we need sex, duh, as long as you dont obsess over it. straight edge is against PROMISCOUS sex, as in multiple partners. so having sex with one partner is O.K.

    some buddhist monks drink but its rare, they all generally indulge in caffeine though through green tea. i take medicine and drink caffeine, hell, you could call sugar a drug as well, but ill take that too. if you want an example of ANARCHIST, STRAIGHT EDGE, VEGANS check out a documentary called Documentary Inside Straight Edge (2007). i think you can find it at btjunkie.org

    anyways, i am NOT about beating people up over it as i dont beat people up over eating meat. there are always the 1 percent of a crowd who ruin a group's image, and those are the one percenters. i dont indulge in that kind of bullshit violence, but i encourage the vegan/straight edge lifestyle sometimes with the friends i hang out with, at the bar by the way, and at their house where they eat meat. ive actually converted some people to vegetarian and vegan diets through those means.
     
  2. nike

    nikeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    thanks for the links, guess i really live somewhere behind those mountains - i would never have thought that those orange clowns discovered popular music and took the sitars and bongos away, in germany they almost vanished some 15 years ago and straight edge isn't really popular around here.
    sorry, but still i have to ask if it's your (buddhist) concern how i deal with my sexuality or if it's generally ok to live non-promiscous or not.
    as far as i remember the x-sex thing started as an idea to revert back to a more humane point of view on casual sex after some people became aware that they sometimes didn't knew the driver after the odd saturday-night on the backseat of the car.
    i think it's okay to discuss aspects of scene- or youth-culture (or whatever you want to call it, english is not my native tongue) and to conclude to ask at least for the drivers name - but this "allowed/not allowed" is just too much and in my eyes far from being anything resembling anarchism.
     
  3. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    I do not think of buddhism as a religion but more of a philosphy. I believe in multiple partners because I believe marriage is sexist. I will not force you to believe what I believe you, but Worshipping Buddha is a religion and I think that is stupid brainwash authority.
     
  4. nike

    nikeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    buddhism is definitely a religion, worldwide there are around 450 million buddhists, so it's the 4th of 5th most important world religion.
    despite the historic buddhas teachings against dogmatism and belief in authorities there are 4 or 5 different schools of buddhism, sometimes fighting even each other for influence, but preaching kinda 3rd way between fatalism and activism - so you don't have to fight your repression, you just have to learn to overcome your suffering...
    there is a organized clergy, many temples idolizing the founder gautama and asking for sacrifices and donations to keep the monks alive, of course they are the keepers and teachers of the belief, so you know your duty if you are a true believer.
    the buddhists have kinda bible too, abhidhammapitaka is a philosophical collection of religious texts, suttapitaka are the teachings of buddha himself, finally there's the vinayapitaka, a collection of rules for the monks - all together it's called tripitaka or pali-kanon.
    i spend some time with my parents in thailand and burma and sometimes it really broke my heart to watch people with barely enough to eat still making expensive gifts to the temple for their karma's sake - their belief in re-birthing is just the old give-and-you'll-be-rewarded- with-salvation-game and even if the monks are unpropertied in theory, their life is much more comfortable than the lives of the poor.
    the buddhist clergy tries to gain influence politics and society, monks interfere with family issues often demanding young boys to become monks, burma had a serious civil war some years ago because the military regime tried to cut the rights of the buddhist clergy. the same happened in vietnam in the early sixties, the us-supported diem-regime tried to suppress the nationalist buddhist propaganda for the re-unification of north and south vietnam - the pictures of the autodafes of buddhist monks in saigon are still famous and finally the buddhists succeeded after the cia-supported coup against diem and his brother.
    buddhism in the western world is still a personal thing without real connection with a community, as far as i know there were no buddhist sects or groups in europe - quite a difference to the neo-hinduist hare krishnas or the guru-groups like the sanyassins.

    to me sexuality is far above morals and rules as long as it happens in mutual consent of equals in age and experience, personally i' don't like some of the practices that seem extreme to me, domination or violence just isn't my thing, but i don't need to know the name of somebody i share the excitement and satisfaction with and sometimes the physical experience is enough, love and sex are two different things that might fit together, but they don't have to fit together. and i really wish we could get out of this weird mess of moral and bigotry still degrading one of the most personal aspects in life to a dirty business.
     
  5. anarchoskin69

    anarchoskin69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    150

    2

    2

    Nov 14, 2010
     
    No it's not my concern how you conduct your own life, though as you said I would recommend asking for the driver's name. and I agree, marriage is sexist, but it doesn't have to be. neither is marriage necessary in my eyes, as buddhists believe the same. there is buddhist anarchism, ever heard of Gary Snyder? Kerry Thornley? Max Cafard? religion can't be completely discounted, there's Christian Anarchism, Islamic Anarchism, ect. Leo Tolstoy was a christian anarchist, and if you haven't read Tolstoy then I'd assume you're missing out on quite a bit about anarchism. This goes back as far as the 19th century anarchists.

    In fact, I think it's necessary for a person to believe in a higher human being and see peace not through telling all others to reject that higher belief but understanding their need for a higher belief, whatever it may be. in buddhism, overcoming suffering is more important then God.

    heres an excellent article from back in March of this year on Buddhist Anarchism: http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/14307

    also there was a famous Japanese Buddhist monk who was an anarchist, ended up getting executed by the Japanese government for running an anarchist press out of his temple. I can find the name if you want.
     
  6. anarchoskin69

    anarchoskin69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    150

    2

    2

    Nov 14, 2010
     
    again, not telling you to believe in a higher being, i just recommend it sometimes, just as i do vegetarianism/veganism and the straight edge lifestyle.
     
  7. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Anarcho-christians and anarcho-muslims are not real anarchists.
    I meant when the buddhist philoshy when I said Buddhism was not a religion not worshipping Buddha. Buddhism is a huge religion meaning it is can be fundementalist too.
    I am against marriage because I think it is sexist and I believe marriage binds women to men, and I believe that is sexist. I believe in free love.
     
  8. ViciousCesar!

    ViciousCesar!Experienced Member Experienced member


    88

    0

    0

    Mar 27, 2011
     
    Straightedge for your own benefit/beliefs is cool in my book. But doing it to fit into some scene is pure shit. Besides most sXe always seem so high strung, self-righteous and angry at the world. I think they need to smoke a bowl and relax.
     
  9. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Agreed
     
  10. nike

    nikeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    i have to admit that i don't know anything about max cafard, but about the others you mentioned:
    writers and poets, not really famous for real-life-activism, especially kerry thornley is hard on the edge of what i call lifestylism (as far as i remember he cooperated a lot with "illuminatus" r.a. wilson?) - what did they ever achieved outside the poets chambers?
    tolstoi never called himself an anarchist, as far as i know he had no contacts with the anarchists of his time and his critics about the tsarist russia were still limited to social reformism and moral rigorism in general terms - he never really took the side of the oppressed and the revolution of 1905 surprised him and his neutralism - he wasn't really interested in whats going on in the country.

    i think i heard of that unlucky japanese monk, he was murdered somewhere in the terrible time between 1931 and 1941 when japan became an ultra nationalist and militaristic state and any kind of critics became really dangerous, very similiar to germany during the nazis 1000jährigem reich. i think he protested against the mass slaughter in conquered china - even the german nazis were disturbed by the massacre of Nanking.

    the complete team of philosophical fathers of anarchism regarded religion and the belief in a higher being as an obstacle on the way to a true emanzipation of mankind:
    we weren't "made" by anything above us - we are nature becoming conscious and our future is in our hands.
    so anarchism and religion is a oxymoron: there is no authority except me, therefore it's: no gods, no masters.
    as long as i need to believe in something that never was and hide the realities behind a screen of makeup stories used to give social limitations a higher authority i will never be able to deal with the here and now, more likely i will remain a child in the dark afraid to get up from hiding to turn on the light and see that there is nothing to be afraid of at all.
    besides that, anarchists all over the world quickly learned the lesson that religion is just another tool to keep the people apart from each other - and watching todays state propaganda i think it's more than obvious that we don't need this kind of troubles in our future.

    i don't think that marriage is sexist, at least in europe social reformism eased up most of the gender related unequality and slowly we get a growing number of divorced single fathers doing their job and there is and around 40% of the newborn arrive here in cute illegitimacy, the number of marriages declines by and by.
    to me it's just the obsolete attempt of the all-regulating state to keep social relations under control, married couples get tax-benefits as a stimulus to keep up the social order and the incalculable risk of human relations in unhealthy times becomes fixed up in a labyrinth of written down duties and regulations concerning material security - lots of things i have no use for.
    i decide to keep faith with somebody and remain loyal to a mutual social contract as long as there is at least a "good morning" after getting up from sleep - and i don't need a signed piece of paper to remind me.
    besides that i have a habit to loose rings and things at every opportunity. o_O
     
  11. anarchoskin69

    anarchoskin69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    150

    2

    2

    Nov 14, 2010
     
    ever heard the buddhist quote "Kill the Buddha"? If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him. It doesn't mean to literally kill him, but to question him, all teachers, including the Buddha. That is anarchy to me.

    There are some sections of the Bible which are anarchist in nature, but as with any religion of civilization, you have to pick and choose because they have been used as instruments of control. Still, the indigenous tribes that existed before the dominating sphere of wage-slave and wage-master, as well as the organized church/temple and organized monks existed.

    And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John viii. 32).

    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. x. 28).

    Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men (1. Cor. vii. 23).

    Please acknowledge that I am not Christian, but will defend the concept of religion, which, despite it's creation as an instrument of control had positive origins of it's founders (call him crazy, but Jesus was a socialist. Buddha taught us to challenge all authority. I can go on.)

    Instead of challenging religion flat out, saying "I am right and you're wrong", let's challenge the inherent dominant structures of it. That's what I have to say.

    If you don't remember, during the slavery of people of color in the United States the dominant ruling white class attempted to keep people of color from reading the Bible because of statements like these.
     
  12. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    No, FUCK RELIGION! FUCK THE BIBLE! FUCK JESUS CHRIST!
     
  13. Mike Generic

    Mike GenericExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    257

    2

    20

    Mar 29, 2010
     Canada
    Personally, I've seen straight-edge have both a very positive and negative impact on people's lives. I've known people who claimed "edge" just to be accepted into a group and take it to its most fundamentalist levels, alienating most of their friends, only to become a drunk frat boy stereotype once they started hanging out with people who thought that was cool.
    On the other hand, I've seen people whose lives have become so controlled by drugs and alcohol that seeking solace in a straight-edge group has literally saved their lives.
    Right now, most of my close friends are straight-edge, but to them, it's a positive, personal choice to live how they want to; drug and alcohol free (most of them are vegan/vegetarian), without trying to force their views on anybody.
    What I can't stand is the militant, "smack a beer out of your hand" straight-edge dipshittery that I hear about, but am lucky enough to have experienced the wrath of.
    Being Straight-edge to fit in with a crowd is complete bullshit. I equate it to the shitheads who make a point of buying a certain brand of shoes because their friends do.l
    On the other hand, being straight-edge for personal reasons; because you're uncomfortable with mind-altering substances or refuse to risk experiencing the negative effects of said substances, can only be a positive choice.

    For the record, I do enjoy drinking, but I hate being stupid-drunk (the first, and last time I got blackout drunk, I apparently spent most of the time vomiting and quoting Minor Threat lyrics :S ). I hated drinking in high school, because all the other punks I knew just got out-of-their-mind drunk every weekend (if not more often). I believe that it is possible to enjoy things like alcohol or other drugs (though I fucking despise most drugs, but that's just me) without letting it control you. That's what it's about to me, self control. If you can control yourself when you're drinking or smoking weed, good on you. If you find yourself unable to control yourself, constantly going overboard in your consumption, that's where I see a problem.

    Sorry if I'm kind of rambling in this post, I had a couple beers with my Dad before coming on here.
     
  14. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    The only drug I have ever tryed is alchool which I hated. I am going to try every drug and see if they have more of an effect than alchool which just turns your head dizzy and makes you throw up. I wanna hallucinate.
     
  15. Mike Generic

    Mike GenericExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    257

    2

    20

    Mar 29, 2010
     Canada
    I enjoy alcohol, in moderation. I've tried marijuana a couple times and it's either done fuck all for/to me, or just made me fall asleep. I have nothing against people who drink/smoke weed, but for things like cocaine, heroine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, that stuff I find completely fucked up. What it does to you physically/mentally, plus the socio-political effects of, say, the cocaine trade. I think somewhere Jesus Crust posted an article about cocaine trade and the violence in Mexico. That shit, I straight-up cannot support or encourage.
     
  16. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,708

    165

    709

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States

    Complete and utter fucking nonsense...
     
  17. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Making cocaine legal would fix that problem. Ecstasy isn't even that dangerous it was legal to the 1980s when Ronald Reagan banned it.
    The violent drug trade is because the drugs are illegal. Making all drugs legal would bankrupt the cartels, and the economy would stablize.
     
  18. anarchoskin69

    anarchoskin69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    150

    2

    2

    Nov 14, 2010
     
    I respect your opinion as I hope you'll respect mine :ecouteurs:
     
  19. nike

    nikeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    i found another buddhist qoute right here on the site (thanks, comrade madame applez sir!):
    The cage of my neighbor is my cage too
    - so we talk about the bamboo-fences separating us:
    so i wanna ask: what is the concept of religion?
    you state that is was meant all the time as a tool of control - and i guess we agree on this point, there are some more aspects like the immanent anti-semitism of the christian gospels for example - or todays reality that buddha is killed each day by the buddhist dogmatism in thailand and burma - but i really stumble about this:
    there is no proof that jesus or gautama ever existed, all we know about their teachings was written long after both were dead and gone, by people who were no eye-witnesses and - at least in the christian gospels - mixed up oral history, legends and wonder stories with their own actual political needs.
    some time before i watched an us-documentation about crucifixion in history, dealing with the most famous torture-execution we know of - the one on that bloody golgatha hill still celebrated in christian churches, laizist schools and ordinary citizens bedrooms.
    step by step they worked out how the image of jesus and his time changed with each of the cannonic gospels:
    first he was a jewish hope for the return of the messiah and the liberation from roman oppression
    then he became a teacher of social adjustments
    finally he was the very first christian murdered by the jews, who deserve to be punished for their blindness and cruelty for all eternity.
    in other words: what we know about him is only the more or less reflected version of what people were told about him for certain reasons in the past.
    there are a lot more gospels which never made it into the bible, but tell very different stories about jesus, each reflecting the background of the writers, from gnosticism to almost disney-like magic tales - maybe even making him socialist, pacifist ect.
    and i want to ask: do we really need a manipulative image to realize the importance of ideas and maybe philosophies too?
    why should we need to add an abstract idol to a simple truth like 'liberte - egalite - fraternite' - and open the backdoor for the odd oxymoron slipping in - instead of taking reliable history and act accordingly to evade making the same mistakes the jacobites made?
    people deserve their daily share of rationalism and realism, everything else demotes them to minors in need of guardianship.
    hello good sheperd, pope and leader of the moral crusade...
    that's why i'm atheist...
     
  20. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    7

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    I am Atheist. I believe everyone is god because we control our lives.
     
Loading...