Rafiqposting

Can anyone please explain to me what rafiqposting is. I have read it quite a lot in the last weeks but I have no clue

Other urls found in this thread:

revleft.space/vb/members/30366-Rafiq
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Long-winded rants written in plural (we communists such and so) about how everyone who isn't exactly like you should be murdered in response to innocuous posts.

Thank you.
Every time someone brings up ecology or veganism someone says to read Rafiq. What about that?

Rafiq has long rants about "Nature"
I do agree with the point that Nature is just a made up term but he seems to forget millions of people die becouse of air pollution and high cholesterol levels cuz of meat.
I dont even recommend reading his posts he has some serius adhd

I see. And if you wanted to read it where could you find it? I have even read he has written a book.

It's not essential to marxism, therefor it's bad. For Rafiq, humanity should be as sterile as an ant-colony, with everything that makes us differ from this being a Lacanian pathology. The Rafiq poster feels that Rafiq is right but can't articulate his reasoning himself.

Wait till a left com drops the links in this thread

Rafiq is against preserving life/nature just for it's own sake because it is meaningless if it's not practical to humanity, which I kinda agree although my reasoning is that living beings would be better off not existing so they could not suffer by their brutal environment nor by the hands of humans.
He's also against caring and treating animals with kindness because they are meaningless unconscious biological "machines" worthy only insofar as they are useful to humans. Which I don't agree because I choose to care about animals, just like I choose to care about other humans even though there is absolutely no reason for it since humanity too is also meaningless (a point Rafiq doesn't seem to acknowledge and address).

On the topic of whether Nature and human nature exists or not, Rafiq fails to consider the view that one can acknowledge Nature but be against it and struggle against it. Although it is an uncommon view since most people either view Nature as good or a inevitable condition we need to conform to it.

revleft.space/vb/members/30366-Rafiq (click on "Find latest posts" or "Find latest started threads" above his avatar)
jrachblog.wordpress.com (his personal blog where he posted his "book", which is currently blocked)

this is Rafiqposting (50% zoom)

Oh fuck off. The issues in those posts matter to the communist movement for the sake of building its analysis. That is not to say that the movement must substantially focus upon them (with respect to issues which are 'far wider in their scope', for want of a better term) but instead merely take them into account and test the analyses made by its thinkers.

This post is a basic example of the kind of criticism which the communist movement should be carrying out as a supporting part of the struggle to achieve its goals. I would like to add that Rafiq argues that humans must make 'Nature' their resource instead of shying away due to submission to spooks. However, this may include introducing species other than humans into the human social world, which requires scientific advancement. Rafiq's analysis may only be considered to be valid with respect to the present, though in future the gulf between humans and animals in terms of the forms and complexities of their social worlds may not be as large. Furthermore, to choose to care about an animal is also an egoistic thing to do given choice alone and no calculus with regards to the most beneficial thing to do for the target ends at some level, though something else may bring happiness or a feeling of outwardly care while being more beneficial to oneself. (Those who seek to maximise the mutual benefit of the society or any particular conscious, decision-making entity would need to make the same calculus.)