WatDabney

The concept is that people in their day-to-day lives, and particularly when dealing with stressful situations, find themselves emotionally drained and have to "recharge."

The exact distinction between introverts and extroverts is that introverts "recharge" by being alone, while extroverts "recharge" by being around other people.

Or more precisely, introverts not only don't get their emotional energy from others but can't get it with others around, while extroverts not only do get their emotional energy from others but can't get it when they're alone.

And what that means is that introverts gain emotional energy by manufacturing and stockpiling it, while extroverts gain emotional energy by draining it from others.

Or more simply, that extroverts are vampires and introverts are their cattle.

Which is exactly what extroverts are, essentially by definition.

That's not even an ideal - it's already a fact.

The wealthy and empowered few are already actively engaging in a war against the rest of humanity.

That most of the rest of humanity isn't yet fighting back makes it no less a war. But it does make it a war that we're increasingly likely to lose.

Sleight of hand.

It goes even beyond that.

Extroverts are for all intents and purposes vampires.

They aren't "rescuing" you. They're capturing you, so they can feed on you.

Weird that it seems every time I turn around I see one of two things - voters telling the Democrats that we want them to move back to the left or Democrats telling us that that's not actually what we want.

I'd actually be a little more tolerant of that if the fuckwads would just come out and say that the truth is that they don't care what we want - that their corporate donors want them to stay as far to the right as possible, and that that's the only thing that matters.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, because if they didn't vote for a baboon, the wrong baboon might get in.

And a reminder that to the current right-wing establishment, "privatization" isnt even actual privatization.

Actual privatization would be the government divesting itself of authority over and responsibility for some service, and thereby turning it over to the private sector.

But current American "privatization" is a wholly corrupt and destructive hybrid process by which the government still funds the service, and the only thing that changes is that instead of the money being given to a government agency, it's given to whichever private contractor offers the best bribe and kickback program.

And that's why I didn't bother writing any more.

You don't understand even the first thing about anarchism. The only question was whether you were willing to learn, but judging by the insipid cant you'd already regurgitated, there wasn't much chance of that.

Eh. So be it.

There's an awful lot to address here, but doing so will require addressing a number of common anarchist myths and misconceptions, and it'll be a lot of work.

So we'll start simply and see how it goes.

If you want to change society...

This is authoritarian thinking.

Society is not yours to change.

But isn’t it more important to ask what the problem is and how it could be improved across society

Yes, and that's exactly why I hold the position I hold - because I believe that the problem is people failing/refusing to exercise their own abilities to control their own lives and their own choices and instead simply going with one flow or another, then blaming the flow when it carries them somewhere problematic.

I don't.

Oh, certainly in some cases that's more or less what it is - essentially that this person said it better than I ever could.

But for all too many, it really does seem to be simply that their their thinking never stopped being fundamentally authoritarian - that even as self-proclaimed "anarchists," they're still operating under the unquestioned presumption that individuals are rightly forced to align with some particular set of ideas, and the only question is which one.