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.
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.
_ /\ _
Anarchism is not about zero enforcement of rules. Especially wise ones like don’t dittle kids…
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.
When I said that morality isn’t a guardrail, I meant there are people who avoid chopping others up because they don’t want to be interfered-with by enforcement, but they have no intrinsic problem with chopping others up because others are only meat-marionettes ( broken mirror-neuron-system people )
It isn’t a question of being wholistic, it is a problem that they can’t understand why anybody would have any problem with butchering human lives … and that’s a different-category.
Please read “Snakes in Suits”.
The stuff I’d read was of other books, but the quote I saw from that was perfect.
_ /\ _
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.
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.
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.
( :
_ /\ _
lol
If you’re losing the battle of wisdom against a toddler, perhaps there is a reason to listen to that toddler…
You seem to not understand how anarchy works. It is not, “no rules and everyone is equal amd does what they want”. It’s, “nobody is given de facto authority over others with which they can cudgel their compatriots”. Not having de facto, unquestionable authority is a long ways away from, “there are no rules for society”.
Archy means hierarchy.
AnArchy means no-archy/nohierarchy.
It is shameful that I didn’t clue-in that anarchist-sects each have their-own unquestionable-definition for “anarchy”.
The ones who hold that anarchy means they have the right to butcher others, the ones who hold that anarchy means no-hierarchy-socialist-consensus-archy, the ones who mean libertarian-independence-and-no-coherent-action, etc.
It’s sickening.
YOU hold-to A definition of anarchy.
YOU hold that nobody is allowed to have contradictory-definition of anarchy.
YOU are boss of that-meaning, then…
Good for you.
The “anarchy means there is no boss, no bossed” sect ignores that the parent-child relationship is that.
Good for them.
I’m fed-up-with being gaslit by ideologues, both left & right.
As vertebrates prove, hierarchy allows complex-organism to be more effective than non-hierarchical-organism ( sea-sponges have 2 types of cells: interior & surface, so they’re the least-complex multicellular organisms I know-of ).
As complex-civilizations also prove, hierarchy is prerequisite to effectiveness.
That doesn’t mean class-based-validity, it does mean that decomposition-of-problems/obstacles/work into smaller problems, done by smaller-teams, etc, is intrinsically required for civilization-effectveiness.
Having more-experience be in charge of less-experience is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
Having greater-responsibility in charge of less-responsible-ones is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
Having the most-domain-competent people in charge of things is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
It’s making hierarchy arbitrary in the eyes of all who reject that domain-experience means anything, isn’t it?
IF common-goals cannot be found, THEN congruent-action cannot be/result.
IF common-values cannot be found, THEN harmonious-operations aren’t going to result.
Etc.
Nick Yee discovered that there is a category of people who enjoy breaking social-worth, because that is the buzz/pleasure they’re wired for.
I expect “griefers” are in that category.
& rigging society so that nobody would have any authority to stop such abuse, unless perhaps some event-consensus were to happen…
but then you’ve got a “consensus-group” ruling over the griefer, arbitrarily, haven’t you?
What happens when the majority are the abusers, & the minority the abused?
I’ve read that in a traditional American Indian community-justice-circle, if the majority decide with the abuser…
the only choice left is to leave the resrvation: there’s no appeal-system, once it’s decided: you’ve lost.
< shrug >
Whatever…
Just downvote everything I say, anywhere: I’m not going to begin pretending that YOUR magical-definition of anarchy is identical with the other magical-definitions of anarchy that people put in my face…
& therefore, I ought not be allowed, by ANY anarchy, to be affecting, or harming, your-ideology’s world.
Make your-world happen.
_ /\ _
Nowhere did I say people should have the right to “butcher” others.
No, experienced people having authority over inexperienced is not anti-anarchy, unless they always hold authority even in the face of a good idea.
Of course consensus is important in ANY socially-bound system, and the indians were correct. When the majority decide to be fucking morons, it’s time to go. Or worst case, take a nice trek deep into the Paradox of Tolerance and kill the belligerent ring leaders.
Yes, there always has to be some hierarchy… the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of “anarchy” is that authority has to be JUSTIFIED, preferably at all times. Only stupid children think anarchy literally means zero authority.
You’re only being gaslit successfully because you’re clearly too stupid to pull the obvious axioms out of such an ideology…
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.
( :
_ /\ _
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.
“If everyone just has a Buddha epiphany then we can finally break free from authoritarianism” is certainly a take
It’s not possible, because anyone who realizes “I am the nazi” and enforces justice, is dead, or worse. You won’t be hearing these voices of reason, unless they did well from the start.
