I think especially Lemmy.ml should rather focus more on cleaning up their Tankie & moderator issues
As much as I would love to see it, I don’t think the lead devs of lemmy, who own both lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml, are going to ban themselves.
I wouldn’t be so sure. That was our Beer Hall Putsch moment. It’s not like they’re just going to give up and do nothing.
Liberals and leftists really need to arm up (and train) for when these idiots make good on their threats. We need to be able to defend ourselves and each other.
I’ll never tell people to go buy guns.
I will. In addition to the above shopping list, get a gun and learn how to use it. The best time to do this was back when Trump was campaigning for president in 2016 and things were starting to look a little too brownshirts. The second best time is now.
Also an anarchist. People in the US (and in most places) aren’t ready for the government to collapse on them. Not in the sense that they’re “not evolved enough” or anything like that, just that there’s work that would need to be done that mostly hasn’t been done yet.
The state is an exploitative organization, but it does perform some legitimate functions that people rely on. Anarchists have ideas on how to replace those functions, but it’s ideally the sort of thing you prepare well in advance, rather than throwing together in a panic at the last minute. A slow decline would be preferable.
for topic based instances. I was just looking for an updated list the other day.
I’ve got a pretty good list here: https://kbin.social/m/specialized_instances/t/186667/Big-list-of-specialized-instances
It is, but some people are weird about it.
State poverty levels were also tightly linked with pediatric firearm death rates, the study found.
It seems like you think I’m advocating for something that I’m not? “People should be free to choose who they associate with” does not mean “people should not cooperate with each other”.
There are plenty of natural incentives to cooperate, and people mostly do so by default. They just shouldn’t be forced to stay in organizations that abuse them. Being opposed to abusive relationships doesn’t not imply that one is opposed to relationships in general.
Well, I’ve never heard of a well-informed anarchist either, so there you go.
They just don’t understand any of the basics of organisation.
It sounds like you haven’t had much interaction with anarchists beyond maybe high-school, and haven’t read anything that we’ve written.
Also, police organizations complain that anarchist activist groups are too hard to infiltrate because there’s too much reading to do:
Infiltration is made more difficult by the communal nature of the lifestyle (under constant observation and scrutiny) and the extensive knowledge held by many anarchists, which require a considerable amount of study and time to acquire.
Literally “I can’t blend in with these fucking nerds because they read too much”.
They just base their whole ideology on the delusion that everybody’s just gonna play nice, nobody will want to do anything for their advantage and, cucially, that crime just doesn’t exist.
Our philosophy is centered around dealing with the organized crime of the state and the exploitation of the capitalists. If you generally can’t trust people to play nice, putting a few of them in positions of power tends to make the problem worse, not better.
I wanna see how any anarchist society deals with a murder.
Which aspect of it? Basic security is pretty simple, and there’s a number of ways to provision it. Forensics would be handled by contracting professional specialists. Trials would be handled by a polycentric legal system (as opposed to the monocentric one that we currently have. Punishment would generally be in the form of either restitution paid by the perpetrator to the victim (or next of kin), or exile.
But that’s already much too high for anarchists, who barely understand basic human incentives.
C’mon now, this is just confidentlyincorrect material.
Nobody wants to organize horizontally.
Yet you’re posting this on a rapidly growing horizontally-organized social media system, running on top of a wildly successful, half-century old, horizontally-organized global computer network governed by “rough consensus and running code”. Curious.
Obligatory “I am very smart”
It doesn’t mean that people can’t coordinate, just that the coordination needs to be voluntary. Think networks rather than hierarchies.
It’s similar to how the fediverse is organized. Any instance can defederate from any other for any reason, but we all try to mostly stick together, because there’s benefits to doing so. Those that are dissatisfied with the policies of the instance that they’re on can break off and form their own (ideally we’d have account migration too, but that’ll take time). No one is forced to connect, but the whole thing works regardless.
Well, it’s not infinite. The individual can’t be divided, by definition. But also I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that more land would be required? It doesn’t mean no more high-density housing. You just shouldn’t be forced into an undesirable political association with your neighbors, beyond the practical minimum coordination involved in living in the same building.
The people who generally want to destroy a system and rebuild anew are usually clueless or have an ulterior motive.
It’s worth noting that “destroy and rebuild anew” is a point of contention among anarchists. Some of us favor a revolutionary approach, but some (myself included) favor an “evolutionary” approach instead. Same end goal, just achieved through steady incremental change, rather than a big upheaval.
In practice though, success likely wouldn’t fall cleanly into either category. There’d be incremental change punctuated by occasional (smaller) upheavals. But I guess all social change happens like that, really.
The difference is than in an ideal anarchist polity, the minority can secede, even down to the individual. “Majority rule” only happens to the extent that the minority doesn’t find secession to be a worthwhile option. Whereas under democracy, the land and resources of the minority, and even the people themselves are considered to rightfully belong to the state. Any serious attempt at secession is met with violence.
Actually-existing “anarchistic” societies may not completely live up to this ideal, but it is what we strive for. Anarchists consider freedom of association and freedom of disassociation to be paramount.
In case you haven’t seen it yet, I’ve compiled a fairly sizeable list of focused instances. More would be cool, but there’s a fair number to check out already.
Other commenters have covered the organizational inefficiencies that allow bullshit jobs to exist pretty well. I’d like to also point out that larger organizations have more of these inefficiencies (part of what is known as “diseconomies of scale”, the counterpart to the more well-known term “economies of scale”). Our capitalist society actively subsidizes larger organizations, both literally and figuratively, resulting in more bullshit jobs and more economically wasteful behavior in general.
A non-capitalist free market society (such as a mutualist one) would have significantly smaller and more efficient organizations across the board. One can’t eliminate organizational efficiency entirely, but we currently have a lot of room for improvement.
I dunno, seems kinda bourgeois? Leftist mostly clean their own toilets. They also want to eliminate class stratification, even for those that had conservative parents.