valentinesmith

I mean yes sure couples have to communicate but relationship anarchy isn’t really about who does the dishes but if a relationship includes sharing finances, includes financially / emotionally caring for each other or if it is potentially a „purely“ sexual relationship. Or just a platonic relationship.

The anarchy is not meant in the same way as its political ideology counterpart but states that you do not adhere to established rules or hierarchies within traditional relationships.

Maybe as a relationship anarchist you want someone you only fuck from time to time but you also want to share finances but you don’t want emotional sharing. This would be an uncommon constellation that could be easier to make sense of using their concepts. You could also obviously get there with other means but likewise maybe this also generally just wouldn’t work/vibe with you - which is also fine.

I really just wanted to give people the chance to engage with potential tools to talk about their relationships differently and maybe that helps.

Either way connecting and communicating with people and partners is always complicated and you have to train it and keep the communication working. So yeah it might be more complicated but maybe thats why it might work for different folks.

I‘m not that deep in relationship anarchy and in a currently monogamous queer relationship.

I do think the difference lies in the traditionality you have touched upon in that you and your partner have a script / rough idea that has/is guiding aspects of your relationship and that relationship anarchist would want to explicitly frame/structure themselves in most of the relationships they engage in. This is more in the direction of: my romantic partner is also a partner I share finances with or plan to cohabitate with or think about offspring with etc.

I don’t think there has to be an inherent value judgment in this. Different people prefer different things so I think it always works out and either way you have to communicate with your partner in what works in your relationship. (Who does what housework, what do esch of you want out of the relationship, etc.)

I mean you can be heavily invested in a relationship as a relationship anarchist.

The anarchy part is that you do not take for granted how a relationship should be structured and that you are open to have very unique and consensually agreed upon aspects in your relationship.

If you want commitment and reliability and loyalty you can for sure ask for it and name it as something that is essential for your relationship and if they do not give it to you it might just be best to split ways.

Of course I understand that there will be people who weaponise relationship anarchy to just do whatever the fuck they want to and rationalise/justify their behaviour but I think the concept isn’t condemnable per sé. There are also people who weaponise therapy speak to gaslight and I wouldn’t want to generally talk bad about therapy.

Just wanted to give a counterpoint because I think engaging with relationship anarchy and for example looking at a smorgasbord can even help monogamous people to figure out what is important to them and what they want.

I think your comment reads quite combative.

I think with the context of the Meme, yes there are some people who call you and you just know its gonna be a huge annoying phone call that you should just avoid and text the person after because some people just wanna talk your ears off.

I dunno if we have to do the: omg millenials/gen alpha is too phone anxious thing.

And sure its called a mobile phone, but as an argument that feels somewhat pedantic nowadays. Primarily its a mobile internet connected computer nowadays I would say. I use the camera/ texting/ social media functions way more than the real phone capabilities. Maybe thats different for you but I don’t think it’s uncommon that its one of the lesser used functions.

Sure if people are too anxious to pick up the phone and it negatively impacts their life they should get help for it. I don’t think we should shame them in that case though. It feels to me like shaming depressed people when they cannot find the energy to shower, which I would similarly feel is inadequate input.

Ich hätte jetzt nicht erwartet, dass die Wirtschaftswoche einen so langen scharfen und vorwerfenden Artikel gegen Merz rausbringen würde :D

Vor allem die Vorwürfe und Verfehlungen der letzten Wochen nochmal so einzuarbeiten.

Ich denke aber auch, dass ich nicht sehe, dass Merz so gut ist im Taktieren oder generell in der Lage wirklich gute Koalitionen zu bilden geschweige denn vorausschauend zu planen oder Probleme wirklich anzugehen.

Aber das fühle ich bei der ganzen CxU schon nicht von daher ist es vielleicht auch nicht sonderlich nennenswert als Einwurf. Es werden/bleiben wilde Zeiten :(

Thanks for sharing, it really did feel like a sketch out of the movie.

I guess I would also focus on the dog and the niece when they are more approachable and not as combative and so many people in your family are changing quite profoundly

I hope you have a lovely day without phone calls!

Okay, ich hab das Spiel nicht selber gespielt. Aber ich finde den Takeaway von dem Artikel ein bisschen flach.

Klar müssen wir koalieren, um eine Brandmauer gegen rechts zu haben. Aber ich finde die Formulierung impliziert mir etwas viel, dass man als linksorientierte Person mit der Koalition unglücklich sein würde, aber dass dann ja später vielleicht bessere Zeiten kommen.

Ja klar geht es immer langsamer als man es haben will, aber ich sehe auch nicht warum man nicht kritisch sein sollte? Ich kann auch mit Leuten koalieren, die ich kritisch betrachte, ich habe momentan aber eher das Gefühl dass sich CxU sehr darauf ausruht Migration als Thema zu haben und den Aufschwung nach der Ampel zu nutzen um einfach wieder ihr „übliches“ Programm abzuspielen.

In welchem Szenario kommt es also hier auf meine Koalition an? Das Spiel impliziert und der Artikel auch dass man noch Macht hat und Sachen bewegen kann. Ich finde die Demos zeigen total klar, dass der Weg der CxU sehr sehr negativ betrachtet wird. Die CxU kann trotzdem einfach mit der AfD anbändeln und es ist egal was meine Perspektive dazu ist. Natürlich hoffe ich, dass unsere laute Stimme gegen Rechts durch Merz‘s „Dickschädel“ geht, aber mit welchem Angebot von Koalition sollten wir hier denn locken?

Sorry für den etwas unsortierten Rant, irgendwie hat mir der Artikel echt nicht zugesagt, aber danke dir fürs Teilen.

Sure,

I guess Im sorry if my phrasing made that feel very combative, which is not how I intended it. I didn‘t know it was common courtesy to tell people you block them though, so have a good one.

It sounds horrifying to me still to be honest. I dunno how his wives being hot (is that what we are talking about?) really changes that.

I just don’t see how the „success“ alleviates the self-commodification and how regimenting your whole life based on some ideas around extracting highest value sounds like a pleasant life?

But sure, if you do relationships to extract value out of it, then maybe that is a reasonable way to go at it and maybe you even get together with pretty people that makes it worth it for you. if this was me I would still ask myself what the fuck am I doing this for, but maybe thats just my existentialism talking.

Agreed especially on the comment as a showcase of „mod differences“.

I think this just rather corroborates Ada‘s statement of how there were multiple reports the mods did not follow up on and how Ada had to eventually always do it.

So even with a good faith reading I do not see how this is a problematic ban and not just a common recurring topic which this instance has always protected us from, which is the whole reason I am on this instance.

While I understand that the „modding differences“ were the reason you aimed to migrate, I as a user do not remotely see the benefits of a move when it was Ada that stepped up to do moderation. Especially if as Ada mentioned our community had reported these instances, a move would just signify a deterioration of our experience.

I have to reiterate that I have always appreciated Ada‘s decisions. The stepping up and sheltering many of us on the Reddit exodus and providing me with one of the few places nowadays I can go to and expect a civil, homely and communal experience.

I for one repeatedly have enjoyed your community management and moderation style.

I am happy and glad to know that someone as experienced and resourceful has always been committed to create, foster and defend a safe space like blahaj.

The fact that moderation specifically is cited as a reason to switch instances is worrisome to me and feels like it will not be a place for me I want to frequent and I am sad that you are being painted in a bad light here.

I thank you for your continuous good work and hope that this move at least eventually will lead to fewer bad moments for you, because you do not deserve to be treated badly with the care you are giving this community.

He is flirting with the alt-right. And some movements „dabble“ in nazi memorabilia to mention the most flagrant connections to it or his failure to even outright criticize Hitler.

I know that the word Nazi is really triggering but its also true in this case. He is not said to be a Nazi himself but flirting with them. Which is factual and not really discrediting per se.

If the only argument here is: Nazis can only be German and its a historical term that cannot ever be applied to other nations I think that belies how everyone consistently uses language in a not strict academic sense and even then there are academic papers linking him to Nazism and right ideology in general.

And your other insinuation of saying that „anyone who isnt working for a more just and equal society“ would be applicable to Trump, his campaign and the things he platforms falls flat if you look at what his recurring talking points are. Sure let’s use the word Nazi less bit of course in association with Trump it gets used for very clear, explicit parallels. But I don’t think you really care about that if you try to frame everything as tiny transgressions by people who are just not „fighting for a more just and equal society“. If Nazi is too strong a word, what would you propose? And is the use of it logically a valid reason to discredit an opinion? On an open source platform talking about people who have English as a second or third language?