VoidianThe same people who rage against authority love moderating communities where their ideology is the only one allowed
RhynoplazWhich of these best describes your opinion that the Anarchists disapprove of?:
Sexism,
Racism,
White Supremacy (or any ethnic-supremacy),
Homophobia (or any sexuality-phobia),
Fascism,
Genocide,
Drug-phobia,
Ethnic-, gender-, sexuality-, ableist-, etc., based slurs,
Oath-taking or pledge-taking.
Did you intentionally skip over the parts that you don’t like in Anarchist thought?
Degrading, disrespecting, or insulting another person or group of people, because of their : Gender or Gender Identity, Ethnicity, Immigrant status, Religion, Sexuality, Language, Physical appearance or body size, Substance or medicinal use, Disability, Age, Acceptance of any unfavorable or disfavorable group, whether this group is political, economic, social, or cultural.Buffet Anarchists.
definitely_AI“WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES”
The only time people complain about rules is when they have broken them or intend to break them.
They seem upset for not being able to harass people for some reason, I’m just curious which form of harassment they feel is justified.
This is such a fascist take.
“If you speak out against the party then you are an enemy of the people”
“If you do not subjugate under Sharia then you are an infidel”
That’s not at all what I am saying. I think you may have become the thing you are raging against.
The lack of self insight is just astounding. This is literally what this post is about. Your black and white thinking and talking points mirrors that of MAGA. You just randomly happened to choose another set of beliefs, but you are every single bit as dogmatic and clueless.
I find this hilarious because you keep raging about people calling someone fascist for not sharing the exact same opinion, yet that’s exactly what you’re doing, accusing me of being something I’m not because you won’t take the time to understand what I’m saying.
No, you are. You are just in denial about it.
Incorrect. There have been plenty of cases where an observer criticizes existing rules and their application due to inherent bias rather than an unfavorable interaction.
People who see wrongdoing and act to stop them without personal gain do exist.
You’re right. I suppose I should have said, you don’t complain about rules that you agree with. But generally, when someone’s on here complaining about being silenced and specifically quotes “People should not be harassed for these reasons:” I’d bet it was because they harassed somebody for one of those reasons and they feel that they should be able to do that.
You’re doing so much projection here it’s genuinely sad.
Your logic relies on a cherrypicked take of the anarchist code of conduct to manufacture a smear. You selectively cited the list of prohibited behaviors while deliberately ignoring the sections that protect rational discourse. By removing that context, you’ve created a false binary: either one submits to YOUR specific method of centralized policing, or they are a bigot who wants to harass marginalized groups. Which is exactly the kind of behavior I’m criticizing. Waving the anarchist flag because of the good parts (anti-bigotry) while ignoring the difficult parts (personal responsibility, critical thinking).
“The only people worried about privacy are those with something to hide.”
I haven’t degraded anyone. My focus is on the contradiction of using the language of liberation to justify the mechanics of control.
Lemmy has a lot of performative anarchy: putting on the badass sunglasses of a rebel only to act as a gatekeeper for a specific set of permitted thoughts. When someone claims to be an anarchist but their first instinct is to use centralized power to silence anyone who doesn’t follow an ideological script, they haven’t abolished authority, they’ve just claimed it for themselves.
True anarchy requires individual responsibility. It’s about the capacity for adults to navigate discourse through their own discernment, critical thinking and voluntary association rather than needing someone to pre-filter their reality. If a community can only exist by forcibly removing any voice that challenges the status quo, it isn’t a functional anarchist space; it’s just a digital walled garden with a cool flag.
That’s not anarchy, that’s being an asshole. You are generalizing an entire group based on the actions of one person.
Calling names doesn’t change the structural reality I’m pointing out: that there are a lot of people using ‘anarchy’ as a mask for top-down, centralized authority.
I’m not attacking anarchism. I AM an anarchist who is tired of seeing it appropriated by authoritarians.
Then I think instead of saying “This type of people do this bad thing”, maybe phrase it as “doing this goes against the values of the people you claim to be a part of”.
They did. Why are you tone policing? You’re doing exactly what they’re saying is bad…
AmnesigenicCope
TrickDacyLemmy has a lot of performative anarchy:
thank you. That goes for all the lefty subs. I’m deeply involved with the leftist movement in my country, on a direct political level (I was an elected official two terms back, and am running again this cycle), and the amount of narcissistic performative ego-bullshit and echo chamber group think is jarring to me. I feel sometimes like online leftist space is like MAGA with different talking points.
“If you are not as extreme in your views against these things as I am, then that means you are in favor of those things and will be banned”
That is literally most of the left wing lgtbq subs here. If you imply any sort of nuance you are banned from /r/pyongyang.
It’s very much /r/conservative for the left.
ParagoneSuperEars
Critical Thinking.
( & your selective-framing which leaves-out the actual-problem, can go eat rocks )
Archy is the hierarchy that civilization uses as its skeleton & nervous-system.
Hierarchy was the original, & the Hierarch was the original top-person.
Got a brain in your body??
THAT is archy.
The people who pretend that no-archy is the ideal, ignore the blunt fact that within their own bodies, they eradicate anarchy, allowing ONLY archy to operate, because it is orders-of-magnitude more effective & viable & healthy.
& they pretend that anarchy ought rule the world.
Parent-child relationship: ought that be archy, or no-archy?? Toddler wants to take the car for a spin, & parent-boss won’t allow that?? Archy.
Ought aviation be unregulated, in anarchy, or regulated, in archy?
How about licensed surgeons? No-archy/no-regulation, XOR archy/regulations?
How about manufacturing? No-regs/no-archy? or regs/archy?
The ideological won’t-know/intentional-ignorance in both right & left is stunning.
And some of us are sick of all of it.
Yoga, not communist-party-imperialism, not no-archy-fuzzbrainedness-which-ignores-how-even-our-bodies-work, & not personal-imperialism/fascism, but yoga, the harnessing & binding in efficient & effective coherent-directional-harmony, is the right way.
( :
_ /\ _
lol
If you’re losing the battle of wisdom against a toddler, perhaps there is a reason to listen to that toddler…
Arthur Besseunmoderated internet spaces are quickly overrun with bigotry, csam, and spam.
if, in the name of “free speech”, you only moderate the csam and spam, the space will be primarily occupied by people looking for a forum that welcomes bigotry.
respect to @[email protected] for rm’ing bigotry and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals cause lemmy.dbzer0.com to be a nazi bar 🥂
see also:* en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar * techdirt.com/…/on-social-media-nazi-bars-tradeoff… * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It’s a misunderstanding of anarchy to equate it with either total chaos or total control. True anarchism is about opposing coercive authority, not creating a new, rigid authority that dictates what discourse is acceptable.
You can absolutely oppose bigotry and harm (which are coercive actions) without resorting to silencing anyone who doesn’t conform to a specific ideological viewpoint. Genuine community defense is about voluntary association and preventing harassment, not about restricting the exchange of ideas.
chosensilenceyou’re applying this to an internet community that has no real world interaction as a group. i think it’s okay to be authoritarian on your own channel lol.
i think it’s okay to be authoritarian on your own channel lol.
Absolutely. But don’t pretend to be an anarchist then. Be actually honest about your views and people may then (as per anarchist thought) choose for themselves if they want to get on board with that or not.
i don’t see those as incompatible. you can be an anarchist and very controlling over your own online space.
Again, as long as you’re very explicit about it. But don’t call it an anarchist space. It’s then a space, run by an anarchist, that doesn’t follow the rules of anarchism.
shrug i mean i guess but there is nothing about enforcing regulation that is anti-anarchist.
Enforcing regulation and enforcing one’s own personal views are two different tbings. This entire convo is supposed to focus on the latter, not confuse them with each other.
But don’t call it an anarchist space
tell me you’ve never been in a non-internet anarchist space without telling me 😂
(hint: offline anarchist bars tend not to tolerate fascists either)
rules of anarchism
😭
(this is a bit, right?)
oftenawakeAnarchy is no rulers, not no rules.
Big difference!
Eh?
Coercive authority is how we enforce rules that not everyone agrees with. Rules like “don’t rape your kids”. The answer shouldn’t be “they get their own community but we kick them out of ours”, right?
I really, really hope that having rules against molesting kids aren’t the only thing keeping you from doing it.
I really, really, hope that you can understand that for some percentage of the population, morality isn’t a guardrail, & that has been visible for millenia.
The person you’re replying-to isn’t the only person in the world, & evidence is that without coercive-force & enforcement & enforced-accountability, then DarkTriad IS GOING TO rule the world, no matter what, & making-believing isn’t going to prevent that.
It isn’t “mere coincidence” that NOT fighting organized-crime ends-up with them running the territory, and it being impossible to root them out.
Ask northern Mexico how it went for them with their insufficient-enforcement paradigm, & then they lost control of the territory, & can’t get it back.
IF you have an immune-system, THEN you systematically assault & kill pathogens, within your own body.
THAT is the fundamental-fact of viability in natural, competitive ecologies, inhabited by pathogens, parasites, cancers, & their equivalents.
All the people who live in goddamn making-believing that “utopia is the natural default: all we have to do is remove all structure, & it will spontaneously arise, blessing all of our lives” are fucking incompetent at knowing actual-human-nature & actual-human-history.
Go without an immune-system, with AIDS, & no medication, & see how long it takes for pathogens to destroy your life.
Will you live multiple months? Your avg remaining lifespan should be somewhere between 1/30th & 1/100th of the average human lifespan, right? Something like that.
If, after they’ve done that, THEN they’d have validity to stand-on, about no civil-immune-system being required, except that they’d be gone, just as their making-believing wants us gone/nonviable.
“Snakes in Suits” had a perfect vignette in it:
a psychopath who’d been let out on a daypass butchered-up somebody.
they couldn’t understand why that was a problem, because it had been ages since they’d done it last-time!!
Utopian morons who pretend that diversity never could extend to THAT kind of diversity, get other-people slaughtered.
And that isn’t tolerable.
IF somebody wants to live in lala-land, THEN it is THER lives which ought be available for the monsters to butcher, NOT random innocent others.
Won’t-grow-up should automatically get one removed from authority, including voting-authority.
This race, humankind, isn’t viable, unless it grows-the-fuck-up, quickly.
& if it won’t, then the universe is going to be scoured-of-it by next century.
All because ignorance is “more comfy” than growing TF up, … & in the deathmatch between the 2, humankind sides with ignorance, obliterating upright-objective-integrity.
Bring it on: universe’s LAW is Natural Selection, & we pretend we know reality, but our behavior contradicts what we say, consistently.
Universe is the only judge of whether any of us exist next century, NOT our making-believing.
Sorry to be absolutely fed-up with won’t-think, no matter how fashionable & politically-acceptable it is, but humankind’s on the traintracks, and the rumbling of the oncoming-train is thrumming the rails, now.
_ /\ _
You’re right, predators exist, and ignoring that is dangerous. But coercive systems don’t solve the root problem; they just move it around. Prisons don’t stop abuse, they concentrate it. Cops don’t end corruption, they institutionalize it. The illusion is that punishment equals justice, when really, it just perpetuates the cycle of suffering: hurt people hurt people, and systems that rely on domination will always produce more of both.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be consequences. It’s consequences without hate and domination. A world where harm is met with accountability and prevention at the root level, not exile and fear of punishment. The question shouldn’t be “How do we punish?” but “How did we fail this person, and how do we stop failing each other?” That’s not softness. That’s seeing through the delusion of separation, the idea that “monsters” are a different species, not products of the same broken systems we all inherit. It’s the admission that IF NOT FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR GENETIC MAKEUP AND YOUR ENVIRONMENT, you would be exactly as dangerous and harmful. True safety doesn’t come from bigger cages. It comes from communities that refuse to abandon their own, even the difficult ones.
And yes there are cases where the only answer is to keep someone harmful separate from the rest but it’s possible to do that out of love and care towards those that they would harm, NOT out of hate towards them as a demonized “other”. I’m talking about being pre-emptive, which requires ability for people to have open discourse. It requires the ability to rationally look at horrible behavior and address the causes.
Anarchism is not about zero enforcement of rules. Especially wise ones like don’t dittle kids…
chickenfor some percentage of the population, morality isn’t a guardrail
There’s more to human behavior than expressing ideas of correct behavior and violent enforcement of those ideas. Both of those are very limited, rely on oversimplified abstractions of how people are, and often have adverse side effects. What we are like and how we live is a complex product of how we engage and relate to our environment and the people around us; the best overall solutions to problems will be holistic improvements to that environment.
To extend your medical analogy, sometimes serious threats to your health call for antibiotics, but it is not the case that scouring your body of foreign organisms will make you healthier in the absence of an antibiotic-treatable threat, it’s actually important to have those.
Bringing it back to how online spaces are organized, I think it’s important for most people to feel like there is a way to express their genuine thoughts because if it’s all just people finding different ways to repeat a dogma, that’s a failure of communication, communication is not meaningfully happening, and an environment where you are unable to communicate is a shitty and dysfunctional one. That doesn’t mean all spaces must accept all points of view, but sincere and open communication should generally be a priority, protecting that is what free expression is about.
You can hope all you want that I’m not a pedophile, and coincidentally I’m not, but some people are. For some people, the only reason they’re not doing it is because they’re in jail for doing it.
And that’s my problem with all of these explanations of anarchy that I’ve heard. They all rely on people being fundamentally good and choosing to do the right thing together as a society. And most people are like that. But a not insignificant amount of others aren’t.
How would anarchy handle those people?
lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24695927
Responded to someone else.
That doesn’t actually answer the question. You make some very good points about the futility of our current mode of criminal punishment. I very much agree. But you offer no solutions that would require anarchy or benefit from it.
A centralized institution to implement all the changes that you mentioned is absolutely something a government would be more capable of.
Start building what works now, where you are.
Every reform you like started as people organizing. The second the state touches it, it turns care into control. Prisons, cops, “rehab”, all began as community ideas. Now they’re cages.
Anarchy isn’t “no system.” It’s systems we control. Local, adaptable, replaceable. The state just standardizes failure.
And what I’m saying is “local” systems will lead to “local” pedophile cults. Which absolutely has happened in America already, and which I think any society should have a mechanism to stop.
The fact that they still exist in an authoritarian system hardly argues in favor of them.
You know they exist because when they’re found they’re punished and it’s not normalized.
They banned me for asking if fascism with human right could be possible.
The interesting part is that it could be that despite the west’s support for human rights we could already be in a form of fascism. But that discussion could’t be had because the question already triggered a ban.
So I think banning helps to keep an instance clean but it also prevents intereting discussions.
Migrants and refugees are under constant attack throughout the west. The US has secret police racially profiling, beating, killing, illegally kidnapping and disappearing people. Civil rights are rapidly being restricted and rolled back. Israel does a genocide and bombs every county in it’s vicinity while the west offers it’s boots, bombs, and blessings.
The west doesn’t support human rights, and the fascists are already in power.
I don’t think it’s fair or productive to conflate America or Israel with “the West”.
First of all, it’s an ancient term used to describe sides in a conflict long since over, in some cases containing countries that don’t even exist anymore.
Secondly, it includes countries that actively oppose the US and Israel’s actions, like Ireland, or Spain.
Third, it doesn’t make any fucking sense, because it includes Japan, which is about as far east as you can get.
