+1 for Syncthing

It’s not ok to insult anyone. Why do you feel the need to do so, and why are you asking for permission?

In the same vein, my friend frequently tells his fiancé to quit being a f*ggot when he doesn’t want to eat something unusual or complains about mild annoyances. Which always draws hilariously confused looks from nearby straights who don’t know them very well.

Nipple Batman made balconies useless?

Removed by mod

I was wrong about who I was for several years. A pretty unexpectedly intense DMT trip set me right

EDIT: This isn’t really the ideal place to elaborate on my experience, but thanks for the interest.

No, crimes exist for whoever isn’t in power. There are several crimes that can only be committed by rich people, such as those related to banking and the stock market, formation of cartels* and monopolistic/anti-competitive practices, etc. But conveniently the criminals are only prosecuted when they are the political or commercial opponents of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

*Not the drug kind, the “a small group of companies with a combined market majority conspires to fix prices while pretending to compete with each other” kind

Nah, my writing is sigma.

Seriously Indisputably Gross Mistyped and Absurd

Yes, you did answer my question very well especially with the part about cyclical history. I will watch the resources you linked to in both comments. Again, I am very thankful that you took the time to answer me so thoroughly.

After I’ve done some studying, would you mind if I maybe DM’d you?

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this comment, and for being so nice about it too. In this polarized political climate, it’s quite refreshing to find someone who holds “extreme” views and who is still willing to educate rather than butt heads.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Reading your comment an immediate concern that came up was with complacency. The system you described seems to rely very heavily on nobody being an idiot (in the original Greek sense of the word, someone who isn’t interested in matters of the city-state) but in reality, a lot of people are. What if a few generations into an anarcho-syndicalist utopia, a group of people decide to elect a representative in a broad sense, informally of course, because they trust him and it’s easier this way and they can focus on other things? And then another group likes the idea, and another, and these representatives end up scheming amongst themselves…

I think where I’m going is that the structure doesn’t seem rigid. That can be a very good thing for several reasons, but it can also be bad in that it seems (again, to my uninformed self) to not be very resilient against erosion.

I hope you’ll notice that I am absolutely on board with the abolishment of impositional hierarchies. Both concerns I’ve expressed have to do with how the system would stay alive rather than with what it sets out to accomplish.

Thanks again for taking time out of your Sunday to educate a total stranger.

It becomes its own thing. Like if you hear the word “truther” out of context you wouldn’t be blamed for thinking that it refers to someone who takes the truth very seriously. But in the context if a “9/11 truther” it means the opposite: someone who is completely dissociated from reality.

When a movement adopts a word as its name, it’s like the word splits in two: one with the original meaning and one which refers to the group and means whatever that group stands for. Which one becomes dominant basically depends on what version the mainstream media uses more often. It’s a zeitgeist thing.

I am not the guy you responded to but I am interested.

Because in my ignorant head, the big problem with anarchy (I use the word broadly to mean “a lack of government” mostly because I don’t know any better) is: what’s stopping an ill-intentioned mob from making itself a de facto government little by little through coercion when people can’t resort to a system that concentrates and organizes the otherwise sparse powers of society that want to uphold the state of anarchy? It’s like you’d need a government to ensure that there’s no government, which is clearly absurd.

If you’ve never watched the movie 12 Angry Men, do yourself a favor and watch it. You are going to love it and it has everything to do with your comment.

I think this is an example of where the left-right axis isn’t the most adequate way of viewing things. The Fediverse in general is anti-authoritarian. You can be all the way from a far-left anarchist to a far-right anarcho-capitalist and still be anti-authoritarian, just like both tankies and nazis are authoritarian.

But isn’t that exactly what they were saying? If you go on X, for example, you can literally be banned for using the word “cisgender”. Musk considers it a slur. Here, you can voice any opinion.

However there’s a different between agreeing with some right-wing policies and being a full-on MAGA fascist. Full-on MAGA fascists shrivel up and die when exposed to any discourse that hasn’t been heavily censored and editorialized in their favor. So naturally they’ll avoid places where different opinions are shared. This alone is enough reason to call this place an echo chamber, because a (sadly) very prevalent set of opinions isn’t represented here.

And I can, for example, get away with referring to MAGA fascists as MAGA fascists knowing full well that not a single one of those Trump-fellating pussies will say anything against me for it, and even if one does, the community will not have their back.

If they actually did that they’d go out of business really fast. They have to fight against your right to block ads instead.