People who are unable to smoothly merge or use slip roads without slowing down 500m before even starting to turn off should have their licenses revoked unless they take a driving course to correct their behaviour.
People who zigzag should just be put in a gulag however. Scum of the earth.
Humans need to go extinct for the good of every non-human on the planet. We’re never going to get a critical mass of people worldwide on the right page to continue increasing our population without wrecking everything.
I sympathize with this deeply, but we can’t see defeatism as the path forward. Those last hopeless human conflicts won’t be good for the non-humans on the planet today either - I dont see humanity going out quietly. We gotta keep trying, and maybe it’ll be better in the next life, and for the new people, and maybe they’ll be better than us for it.
I’ll ignore the smuglord response for the onlookers and bite anyway No, I’m not going to “magically” solve anything. Overpopulation is a malthusian reactionary myth and often two steps away from claiming that the poors have too many babies. The reason why the environment is being destroyed is because of capitalism. It’s simply not profitable for the people in charge to switch for cleaner types of energy or to look for any solutions whatsoever. The fact that you think the solution to this is not communism, but that everyone should die, is telling. Another comrade has put it better than I can:
The United States, for example, is 4% of the World’s population but still uses 25% of the world’s resources annually. The United States outsources their pollution and their production to the third world, where the labor is cheapest due to imperialism, and then says “the third world is responsible for the climate change because of their carbon emissions! We need to cut down on the number of people!”
Communism is better than nothing, but it’s going to have to be a global communism to make a difference, since any one of us on the planet can clearly consume 5x+++ their share of resources annually.
Even if we got 75% of the world population with the program, we could still have a consumption problem 5x that of America, because the greatest consumers will be the last to join the revolution.
Climate Stalin is the only thing that might, might improve the situation we’re going to find ourselves in. Other than that, we’re just going to pollute ourselves and everyone else to extinction, hence my belief that all non-human flora and fauna would be better off without us.
Simplicity of design. Rust is built cleverly. It has lots of features and there are also tons of clever ways to solve a problem. Odin is quite simple and although not entirely minimalistic, it is written in a very clear way when approaching a problem. The borrow checker in rust in one thing I would call clever. It takes time to get used and although can be quite useful for safety it is too clever.
Extreme leftists, A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violently authoritarian as their religious, corporatist, and fascist counterparts, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their need, each according to their ability”. In practice, they’ll “need the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party”. Repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions. The former champions of labor will become champions of death.
They’re akin to the pigs in Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story.
Your liberty and self-determination are beset by many threats: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the supposed collectivists. They all claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”.
Beware of their cults. Your life is worth more than their “cause” and/or “solution”. Understand what they really are; power over everything, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a willing pawn or dead, just like all the other presumably benevolent dictators throughout history. Arm yourself with knowledge and clarity in perception. Train your mind and body. Fight and deny the peddlers of arbitrary authoritarianism as if your life depends on it - because it does.
E: Lots of butt-hurt invertebrate Molotov-sippy-cup-throwing wannabe-dictator tankie shit-heels out there, all tryna start the revolution tomorrow. Good luck, comrades.🖕🏽
i didnt voice any opinion on what the extreme or far left are, so i imagine you either didnt understand my comment or are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian
The point of animal farm is “Communists are so shit, they’re almost as bad as capitalists”. Suggesting that Orwell wouldn’t prefer communism to capitalism is simply false.
His writings on the matter in his essays seems pretty clear that he’s against arbitrary unchecked statist authoritarianism, which is what I’m talking about.
Ah yes, as if anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism or really any other human ideology and methodology centered entirely on egoism don’t engender some strange communal cargo cult behavior. It’s almost as though they too are full of shit?
It is funny to believe in ‘self-determination’ when you can’t even recognize that all the important decisions have already been made for you. It is rich to pretend to fight against the nihilist when you only believe in yourself. So go egoist, live your life as you please, blissfully unaware that you are just as stuck the very herd of individuality that we all find ourselves in.
No, you’re utterly wrong about what my beliefs are.
I believe in mutualism, in voluntarily exchange of ideas, labor, and value, all collectively bargained.
I believe in democracy, in secular federal republics, and forthright debate about the value of human life and who gets to make decisions about that concept and it’s implications, where words have actual meaning, balance is considered a virtue, and an individual can still have rights and protections from other individuals, collectives, and the state while being subject to the will of a popular vote.
I will never tolerate those who presume to speak for or demand my family, my friend’s, my colleagues’, or my labor, sacrifice, skill, and knowledge at the point of a gun or a knife.
Fellate yourself over your dreams of becoming the pEoPLe’s ChAmPiOn of ThE rEvoLuTiOn on your own time, not mine.
If the violent revolution against the current brand of authoritarians in power is led, co-opted, or hijacked by the authoritarian left, the proponents of democracy, equity, and liberty will be executed very quickly after, as history has shown time and again.
So, no, the extortionist capitalists won’t go away quietly, but I don’t trust the tankies to bring about some utopia after they execute the “class-traitors and class-enemies”.
But history has a pretty clear record about what the authoritarian left does right after they “win”, and it’s not the “egalitarian equitable utopia” they claim they’ll usher in.
Authoritarian is a non-starter for me on account of the fact that it doesn’t actually mean anything. Is it the opposite of democracy? What is democracy in this context, and what would your revolution look like?
Authoritarian is a non-starter for me on account of the fact that it doesn’t actually mean anything.
You’re wrong. Words have meanings.
authoritarian /ə-thôr″ĭ-târ′ē-ən, ə-thŏr″-, ô-/
adjective Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom. “an authoritarian regime.” Tending to tell other people what to do in a peremptory or arrogant manner. synonym: dictatorial. Similar: dictatorial Characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; – of governments or rulers. “an authoritarian regime” Similar: autocraticdictatorialdespotictyrannical Expecting unquestioning obedience: “he was imperious and dictatorial”; “the timid child of authoritarian parents”; “insufferably overbearing behavior toward the waiter” Similar: dictatorialoverbearing Of, or relating to, absolute obedience to an authority. Characterised by a tyrannical obedience to an authority; dictatorial. noun One who supports the principle of authority, as opposed to that of individual freedom. Behaves like a tyrant. Similar: dictator The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Is it the opposite of democracy?
Yes.
what would your revolution look like?
If we’re talking about the United States, non-violent, presumably brought about by collective action and enforcing laws regarding protections to citizens, labor unions, the environment, etc. that are already on the books.
Look, I’m assuming you’re a true-believer tankie; clearly, I’m not and never will be.
Let’s not waste each other’s time, anymore. I gotta walk my dogs, smoke a spliff and rub my wife’s back when she gets home, and you gotta do whatever it is you do.
Sarcasm and posturing? How do you honestly plan to diplomatically redistribute power/wealth without this happening? When has meaningful change ever happened without those in power engaging in violent retaliation against the often peaceful and nonviolent exploited classes? And here you sit and smugly discard all the movements that actually managed to get something done as ‘fascist’ and ‘corporatist’’
It may take a violent revolution, but I don’t trust any tankie to bring about a utopia after the dust settles once all the fascists and corporatists get their due. They’re just another flavor of authoritarian statists.
The rulership of the revolutionary party forever is all they’re interested in. Seizing the means of production “for the party”, never really for the proletariat, who they will happily execute once their usefulness has been served. As history has shown time and again.
Sorry your so butt hurt by sarcasm and “posturing”, but I’m old enough to spot wannabe populist dictators and their ball-garglers easily. They get nothing but contempt, ridicule, or fists, knives, and bullets when they get really grabby.
Oh my god dude you sound so pathetic right now. If you actually do hold radical left beliefs of any kind and it’s not just a cute online label for you (really doubt that but I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt) go outside, touch some fucking grass, and organize IRL, or at least talk to people IRL about it. We’ve all heard your bullshit “anti tankie” tirades from people like you a thousand times over, you’re not changing any minds and are not impressing anybody with your arguments, I can absolutely guarantee you that.
organize IRL, or at least talk to people IRL about it.
I do. I’m part of a union. And I vote regularly, and talk to my peers, colleagues and friends about politics especially at the local level. I have attended debates and lectures as well.
We’ve all heard your bullshit “anti tankie” tirades from people like you a thousand times over, you’re not changing any minds
Hey numbskull, did you forget what the original thread meme was about in the first place? I’m not saying any of this to change minds en masse; the question was to paraphrase, “what is your opinion counter to what many other’s is?”
You’re so butt hurt, you gloss over the original meme in the first place just to tell me I’m full of shit. Wow, didn’t expect that from tankies at all. 🙄
and are not impressing anybody with your arguments, I can absolutely guarantee you that.
Cool beans, tough guy, not here to “impress”, just answering a meme question. Remember?
Go suck each other’s dick on hexbear or lemmygrad about “how ya got me good”. I’m sure I’ll be malding all night about it.
Good luck with the revolution, “sPaCe_CoMrAdE”. 🖕🏽
Please cry harder about some stranger’s opinions about tankies, you butt-hurt twat. Then all the people who hate me can start a revolution for your fee-fees.
“I support the upcoming American Hitler 2.0 rounding up and elimination of undesirables fascism because a system that forces me to contribute to the healthcare of others is equally bad.”
As soon as you have any actual answer on how to demonstrably improve peoples’ lives and do this rither within this system in a way that they’ll let you, or without this system in a way that they won’t assassinate you, I’m with you. I’m serious about that. But you don’t have an answer, I already know, because all I see is posturing and arm chair theorizing.
As soon as you have any actual answer on how to demonstrably improve peoples’ lives and do this either within this system in a way that they’ll let you, or without this system in a way that they won’t assassinate you, I’m with you.
If we’re talking about the United States, the “answer” is historically clear: collective action, the spread and dissemination of the history of the labor movements, what our laws say about capital and labor today, what our personages in government’s rhetoric is about labor, when the next elections are for their office, and how to organize, starting locally and building to the state and federal level. Kind of like what’s happening now.
If violence and aggression occur, be extremely wary of how quickly it can lead to purges and an even darker more authoritarian system, even if the religious, fascists, and/or corporatists are defeated. The pigs who squeal the loudest about how they’re the voice of the people tend to be quickest to put people’s backs against the wall.
This was my original point. Your whataboutism is expected and is boring.
all I see is posturing and arm chair theorizing.
This is exactly what I see and hear when I talk to the latest Bolshevik boot-lickers who pass themselves as experts on Marxist theory, capital and labor, history, and how to depose the government of the US.
At least those people are looking at places where actual revolutions happened and were sustained. Contrary to the US, where unions get busted, action groeps cointelpro-d, leaders assassinated, police violence used, and only the threat of the USSR to gain any social progress. And where QoL is on a steady decline? Please give me a better example.
Furthermore, historically, no one socialist nation has ever existed without being under continuous attack from those very forces - religious, fascists, corporatists, so I don’t know what your on about. You’re clearly passionate but I read your comments as incredibly idealistic to a fault.
Edit: and what’s happening now is the very likely possibility of a 2nd Trump administration and this insane 2025 plan they’re cooking up. So I don’t even know where you are getting your information.
You’re clearly passionate but I read your comments as incredibly idealistic to a fault.
Edit: and what’s happening now is the very likely possibility of a 2nd Trump administration and this insane 2025 plan they’re cooking up. So I don’t even know where you are getting your information.
Hopefully this will be abundantly clear and we can both move on with our lives:
I’m not here to give examples of whatever vague (and very predictable) whataboutism tactic you throw at me and get caught up in some pointless argument with you on a meme thread.
My original point in answering this meme question posed by OP is to not trust authoritarian tankies who historically, time and again, purge their luckless proletariat “allies” after deposing the original authoritarians to retain a stranglehold on power and bring about an even darker and bloodier regime after they co-opt and hijack any mass political movement they can sink their parasitic little tankie dictator teeth into.
I don’t care if you don’t believe that.
Just like how neo-nazis think the Holocaust wasn’t real, plenty of tankies believe the USSR never really invaded Poland the same time Nazi Germany did. Or the purges in Ukraine weren’t that bad. Or not that many people died during the invasion of Tibet. Or in the Cultural Revolution. Or Tienanmen Square. History from multiple non-western sources have a lot to say about the so-called authoritarian left. You can start with The Kulak Archipelago.
When I said “what’s happening now”, I’m referring to recent labor union victories all over the United States that have been documented in the news.
Though you might be, I’m not a Bolshevik true-believer (obviously) and I’m done with the authoritarian Kool-Aid. I’m old enough to recognize wannabe jack-booted thugs and dictator ball-garglers pretty easily nowadays. It’s not that hard, they’re everywhere from just about every economic and political stripe.
The only thing that ties them all together is when they say something along the lines of “tHe true VerSiON oF __________ HASN’t BEeN Tried YeT”, while glossing over the historic oceans of blood on their ideology’s hands.
And as soon as you mention any of that? “wHatAboUt ________ism aND tHEIr blAh BLaH BlaH blAH?”
Whatever point you’re trying to prove, you’re not going to convince me. I used to be pretty hard Auth-Left myself, back in the day. I’ve left that cult in the dumpster where it belongs. You’re either trying to catch me in some “gotcha” circle-jerk, or are too butt-hurt about me condemning tankies to remember what the original point of OP’s thread was, or are just really dense.
You go your way, rhetorically fellate whatever autocrat-of-the-week your heart desires, and I’ll go mine, and, hopefully, we won’t ever have to meet in real life.
Nope, not really. But even if we did have 2 completely different solved sets of physical rules for minuscule quantum stuff versus everything else, all events would still be casual. It wouldn’t change anything.
Measuring quantun superpositions can have different outcomes under the same circumstances, right? So therefore, it cannot be deterministic (= what you described) because randomness is involved.
It's not that we don't know, it's that we can't know, via Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Iirc, hidden variable interpretations of quantum physics have thus far failed to explain what's happening. It seems to be probabilistic.
Outcomes must be knowable/predictable if it is deterministic. Things could have played out differently at least at small scales, which often have large effects.
Fwiw I agree, the concept of “true randomness” never set well with me… often we use probability to model systems that are too complex to understand or calculate directly. However, in this case I defer my personal beliefs to genius scientists and mathematicians who have spent their whole lives exploring just this dilemma. So far we have no deterministic model for quantum mechanics, and no indication that such exists.
(not an expert or formally educated on the subject, but I recommend reading A Brief History of Time for an accessible overview)
A good while back we had no working model for a heliocentric solar system nor any solid indication of it…until we did. But I’m pretty sure the earth was going around the sun even before we realized it, and even before we existed at all.
A Brief History of Time was great! I’d also definitely recommend it to all.
Humanity cannot and will not change its practices fast enough to avoid running out of resources we keep ourselves dependent on because it’s “profitable.” We are a doomed species and won’t be around for very much longer. We are likely living in the flash of bright before the long dark. I don’t think the world my grandchildren live in will be remotely like the one we have now.
I’m perfectly fine hedging my bets and living life normally, but I think our longevity is an uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to face.
Unfortunately I find it hard to disagree with you. There’s no ordained purpose to us here and we are certainly legion enough to topple the ecosystem we depend on. It’s wholly depressing and utterly insane that we don’t act with the urgency the situation requires. Country-borders don’t help.
Edit 8 days later: Wow, a lot of people really like using their free speech rights to advocate against free speech…Weird.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don’t support free speech at all.
All censorship is bad. One day it’s naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying “god” in the wrong context.
Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.
Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.
Again, nazis don’t have the power to do those things here in this century in the US.
If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most…
Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship…
No it isn’t. One is a violent group who want to kill and enslave. The other respects life. They are not the same. They do not have the same rights. You are dead wrong, period. No amount of rationalization will make you not dead wrong.
Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.
Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.
The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)
Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one’s own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.
But communist views ARE censored, and it is specifically because it is claimed that they killed and enslaved. Meanwhile, Nazi views are celebrated as they announce to all that killing and enslavement is their goal.
Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).
As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let’s see if it’s something we haven’t already heard a million times and rejected.
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored?
Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.
Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).
Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.
It’s similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant
I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want
yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi
Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.
The problem with your “private company” defense is that they used government power to ensure their voice was heard loudest above all others. They literally censored in the most literal sense of the word.
This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.
Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.
Doesn’t mean you don’t support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don’t agree that I’m against free speech, I’m against harassment.
False equivalence. Online you can choose not to see things you don’t like. Online, no one can force you to look at things that offend you…at least not yet.
Which is why all the censorship on social media is so ridiculous. And if someone is DM’ing you to harass you…That’s not free speech anymore that’s harassment and there’s already laws about that.
As all real free speech advocates will tell you in opposition to „free speech absolutist“ elon musk is that you are free from government intervention for being of different opinion but not free to harass others with -isms.
You’re not free to dump on women, poc, neurodivergents, disabled people and any other minority.
Words aren’t violence. and naughty-racial words, are words.
I actually want people to be allowed to say those things, why? Because if someone says it out loud, unapologetically when they say they hate those n-words in their schools. Well now I know who to stay away from.
So if I tell your friends, school and employer that you are a murderer, a pedophile or about your dirty hobbies, that is perfectly fine with you? You do recognize those things are punishable by law?
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.
It’s the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don’t fuck with the freedoms of others.
“Freedom of expression of opinion” would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions…
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between “should be allowed” and “should be cencored”. It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it
Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
You’re confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action.
Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech.
As much as I think it’s a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime.
You’re oversimplifying. What we’re talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts.
Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.
distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.
Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.
Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.
The vast majority of humans are actually nice, altruistic and not selfish if you treat them with respect. And hence anarchism would not resolve in everyone killing each other.
I disagree. There can still be a communal security service that resolves conflicts and tries to keep public spaces safe. I read an awful lot about shooting in this thread. I guess that might be a United States of American bias on the web, but still, I don’t understand how y’all think going aboiyt shooting others would be the first in anyone’s minds if they would be free 😅
What would an anarchistic world even look like? The first thing that would happen if society collapsed is local communities gathering into “tribes” which just expand and develop until we get to where we are. Humans are natural pack animals would gravitate towards a structured community.
It’s funny how you assume that structured can only happen with violence. You’re right, an advanced anarchist society would be a real democracy (not a representative democracy like we have today). It would in fact be way more structured than societies today. If a small group of people can’t simply enforce rules on all the others, the bodies that make decisions for the group will have to do a lot more work to make sure they are including everyone in the conversation in order to avoid conflict. It would involve a lot more conversation, deliberation and balancing than our current societies.
Absolutely correct. It would be the people who are in power now, building gangs and robbing the weak.
Anarchism is a schoolyard without teachers. Most kids are ok and will treat each other with respect.
But if you ever were molested in a dark corner of said schoolyard you know how important oversight is.
In an Anarchist world, it would be traumatized/autistic people like me running around with guns and shooting everyone who so much as touches another person on sight.
In an Anarchist world, it would be traumatized/autistic people like me running around with guns and shooting everyone who so much as touches another person on sight.
Genuine question: Why? What circumstances in an “Anarchist world” would cause this behaviour?
Or the other way: If you feel like this, what in our current system stops you from acting out?
If we had anarchism tomorrow which I‘m not convinced is a bad or good thing, we‘d still have people wanting to overpower others. Its a neurological/trauma issue. Most serial killers have a history of child abuse and so on.
These people will murder you regardless of anarchism, others will rape you, others will touch your kids.
But mire sinister, the ones who speak silver tongue will gather 10 friends and take your 10th as in the old ages.
And yes, if there is nobody keeping them in check, I‘d end them.
I don’t because people do keep them in check (less for the silver tongued, which is why I say eat the rich)
I don’t think there’s anything better or worse with using fractions versus decimal. Numbers are numbers… but your example just shows you have a •preference• for one method over the other. Not that either is subjectively better.
Your last example is literally exactly the same precision. Did you struggle with “significant figures” in school… lots of people raised in American schools do.
Significant figures is what I’m talking about. The entire point of them is to prevent spurious precision. How do you record a measurement of 3/4 precise to 1/4 using sig figs?
You can’t do .75 because that’s implying a precision 25 times greater than the measurement.
You can’t do .8 because that’s implying a precision that’s still 2.5 times more precise than the measurement.
I don’t quite think you got his point since they are not literally the same. 32/64 implies an accuracy of 1/64th or .01563. 0.5 implies an accuracy of 0.05 or half of the increment of measurement (0.1 in this case).
I don’t agree however that fractions are more accurate since it is arbitrary. For instance 0.5000 is much more accurate than 32/64 or 1/64.
It’s not that precision can’t be arbitrarily recorded higher in fraction, it’s that precision can’t be recorded precisely. Decimal is essentially fractional that’s written differently and ignoring every fraction that isn’t a power of 10.
How can a measurement 3/4 that’s precise to 1/4 unit be recorded in decimal using significant figures? The most-correct answer would be 1. “0.8” or “0.75” suggest a precision of 1/10th and 1/100th, respectively, and sig figs are all about eliminating spurious precision.
If you have 2 measurement devices, and one is 5 times more precise than the other, decimal doesn’t show it because it can only increase precision by powers of 10.
In the case of 1/64th above, if you just divide it out it shows a false precision of 1/100,000.
That capitalism is not the cause of most societal grief. Pathological self preservation is a fundamental human problem. It’s the reason we’re okay with seeing hordes of homeless people, or with killing people to resolve geopolitical issues. Greed can optimize any system to work for itself, people who are or will be adept at such optimization would thrive under any kind of socioeconomic or cultural system, including extremely leftist systems. Just spit ballin’ tho, haven’t thought about it much tbh.
The concept of timezones is fine, we need a way to differentiate when days start so its a bit silly for everyone to go off of UTC or any other clock, how are you going to track the exact date, is half the world just going to go from the 8th to the 9th during their workday
What can be fixed, is making timezones uniform amd straight lines, not zigzagging abominations where its possible to drive due north and have a time change 8+ times.
correct. also daylight savings and the 12-hour clock is bullshit. we should at least have Greenwich/UTC as a secondary clock, kinda like how some regions have their own calendar and have the Gregorian calendar as a secondary.
Add comment