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.