Are you really comparing a completely optional forum to a society where people can and will point guns at you?
Anybody who sees Authority as a responsability is naturally averse to having it because they would feel the weight of it and would feel bad if, whilst holding Authority, they made a mistake and others got in some way hurt because of that.
Those who see Authority as power to advance something (be it their own personal upsides or some idea they believe in) with little or no feeling of responsability towards others (be it not all directly or they’ve suppressed it by convincing themselves their actions are somehow “for the greater good” hence any bad they do with the authority has that grand excuse to salve their conscience), have no such aversion to holding authority.
That posture towards authority of people of the second kind applies more broadly to all manner of things which serve to pressure, convince or manipulate others (Authority is generally power force something on others) so of course they also have no aversion to using other such tools, including using ideology to manipulate others, and sometimes that means passing themselves as somebody who holds a certain ideology, and that includes Anarchism.
So yeah, you’re going to find that certain people who parrot Anarchist talk aren’t in fact people whose Principles mean they’re naturally Anarchist but rather people being Performative Anarchists in order to fit-in and manipulate others driven by entirelly different Principles, and such people are absolutelly pro-Authority as long as they’re in control of it.
In summary, there are two types of people who seem Anarchist:
- Those whose personal principles means they are averse to people controlling other people. There are naturally against any form of Authority.
- Those who want to control other people and are in a specific situation where Theatre Of Anarchism can advance their objectives. These are against forms of Authority which hinder their objectives but are in favor of forms of Authority which advance their objectives.
IMHO, the best way to spot the second kind from the first is to look for the often repetition of common slogans and having a superficial level of ideology with no actual tracing back to personal principles since they learned the ideology at an intellectual level rather than being drived by their Principles - i.e. what feels Right and what feels Wrong - to finding that formal ideology as something that fits them.
By the way, this method to identify the real ones from the performers also works for all other ideologies and even things like Faith - start paying attention and you’ll spot all manner of teatrics around ideologies all across the entire political spectrum as well as in people professing some faith or other.
The anarchist code of conduct
in misanthropy we call this being human
Okay, I’ll bite. I need to add to my block list anyway.
Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right? Paradox of intolerance? Which turns out not to be a paradox after all? You should def look that one up rather than waiting for me to type it all out.
People like to refer to the paradox of tolerance but always skip out on the inconvenient bit:
""Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.“”
If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.
One problem with bigots is they dont care about truth or logic. Its a waste of time to continually argue the same points over and over again with people who refuse to learn or think.
But remember, be sure that your point is logical and truthful, and not parroting talking points in spite of them being repeated all around you.
Being truthful and logical is not always a popular position. Some would say it’s not even often the popular position.
You personally don’t have to. Always plenty of people out there willing to do it for you.
If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.
it’s not that people can’t, but spaces which have unlimited tolerance for sealions suggesting that it’s necessary to argue about that are likely to have less interesting discussions than spaces which do not 🙄
Then be clear about the rules. I have 0 problems with people creating communities with very clear rules on what is allowed and what isn’t. I wholeheartedly welcome that. What I take issue with is when people claim to have open discussion, or the space is for “rational discourse”, or “anarchist” discourse etc. but then ban everything that doesn’t very exactly align with the mod ideology.
If most people waving the anarchist flag would admit they’re just doing it because it’s cool but actually, they just want to be the authoritarians in place of the authoritarians, that would be fine. I’d happily avoid them. Problem is that when they don’t admit it, they drag down the whole anarchist ideology because they are misrepresenting it.
Just to let you know before I block you, I didn’t read your “reasonable disagreement” of a wall of text
You mean the direct quote of Popper that you yourself referred to? You didn’t read the very piece of text you told me to read?
so I guess you have an intolerance to intolerance?
Lemmy is a Tankie Bar.
Okay, that’s just funny. Hi friend
So how is that different when it’s online vs offline?
right-wingers aren’t allowed on leftist spaces. nothing positive comes from that.
unmoderated 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 @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com for rm’ing bigotry and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals cause lemmy.dbzer0.com to be a nazi bar 🥂
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.
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.
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?
https://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.
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.
_ /\ _
for 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’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.
Yeah the problem is that these people are deciding that “I am a nazi and I think white people are the supreme race and I want to install a fascist state” and “I don’t think China is actually socialist” are both nazi, fascist, bigoted speech, and then people like you are saying “no that doesn’t happen they only go after the bad stuff every single time and never get anything wrong”.
and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals
It’s ironic you state it like this, since we are an explicitly anarchist server ;)
It’s ironic you state it like this, since we are an explicitly anarchist server ;)
it’s not really ironic as i am well aware that you are and i appreciate you for that :)
what i’m saying is that i’m glad that, despite obviously being a (fellow!) proponent of freedom of expression, you haven’t fallen victim to the childish line of thought which leads some people to let their spaces become nazi bars. so: thanks!
People keep setting up these Punching bars and then get mad when their patrons get Punched.
Removed by mod
Cope
It’s all about powerplay and finding the best rhetoric that plays best with your level of charisma to try to whitewash it with. Sometimes it’s also used as a filter because it inherently attract a certain type of person in those communities sort of like r/conservative in reddit attracts a certain type of person. The modern social network is a lot about being able to create and grow your own cults on demand.
Say what you will about reddit, lemmy has plenty of brain dead people as well, and in some ways they are even more cultified.
You have to lick the correct footwear.
Just tell them that moral absolutism benefits the status-quo.
Because it’s true. It does. I think it’s actually a psyop by the capitalists to prevent socialism ever taking a foothold or affecting their money. Capitalists are afraid of positive incremental change, so they tricked leftists into being afraid of it too.
Aannndddd… people “wonder why” nothing changes, when THEIR pack/herd/tribe gains power, or when another’s does: it just goes 'round & 'round & 'round, again.
Until one has fundamentally altered one’s own unconscious-mind,
altering one’s own nature,
then the same nature as what created the problems we’re caught-in, is all one has to wield.
“physician, 1st heal thyself” is the key, but nobody’s got the guts to enforce the deep transformation.
( & I’m saying that while having failed to break unconscious-ignorance from this-incarnation/life, thus-far, myself, for decades.
It isn’t easy, but if one never tries, it’ll never have more than 0% chance of happening.
it’d be easier in a culture which accepted such transformations as valid, fersure, but that got eradicated by materialism, didn’t it? )
aka Spot-on, Voidan@lemmy-dbzer0.com , spot-on.
( :
_ /\ _
“If everyone just has a Buddha epiphany then we can finally break free from authoritarianism” is certainly a take
Aannndddd… yeah. The “round and round” is what happens when we mistake performative rebellion for actual change. Most of us know the system’s broken, but we’d rather rage at the symptoms than admit we’re part of the pattern. You’re dead right about the “physician, heal thyself” bit, except nobody wants to do the boring work of actually examining why they crave control, whether it’s over a Lemmy community or a state. Easier to just slap a label on the ‘enemy’ and call it a day.
True rebellion against fascism starts with the self.
Toddler thoughts
It’s true.
Just try having a discussion about Age or ID Verification or the Brave Browser and see how quickly you get dogpiled and downvoted to hell if what you think isn’t the accepted orthodoxy.
Which 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.
But even in this context, who were you degrading and why?
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”.
Lol I literally tagged you as a user who generalizes groups of people unfairly.
I just copied from the link you shared. 🤷🏻♂️
SuperEars
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.
( :
_ /\ _
