Upvoting bc I wanna.
Although I it’s (far) worse than that I fear - I genuinely believe it. There is no “hope” for me it would seem.:-)
I generally don’t engage this much with posts of these types, but you seem to be a person who is making statements in good faith. As such, I want to encourage you to look a bit more into those you might label the “alt-left” because I’m quite certain I fall into that category and there’s a lot more than “anyone can do anything they want at anytime” to what we (in the US) were taught in school about things like historical Anarchist movements.
Namely: “Anarchy means no rules and no one is in charge! Burn everything!!!”
If I were to sum things up as succinctly as possible I would say that the primary idea behind “anarchy” as a philosophy isn’t a “return to tribalism” but a flattening of hierarchies. (Not to be confused with anarcho-capitalism, which is in practice very different with regard to hierarchy)
Boiled down to key concepts:
- No one person is inherently better or more intrinsically valuable than another person.
- Every person should be allowed their own agency, to associate with whom they please, and have access to the necessities of life.
- Any decisions made should be made with the consent of everyone they affect.
There’s a lot of actual theory and what not you can get into, it’s all available freely online, because that’s another thing anarchists are big on, free access to education. The first read that springs to mind is “The Conquest of Bread” which lays out how and why an anarchy based society would work in practice. (Tl;Dr: technology has made it so that we can produce far more than we actually need, so we are capable of supporting everyone without starvation, homelessness, and man-made oppression)
Genuinely thank you for the correction. I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek there with the ellipses but that seems to not have been all that obvious and anyway you are correct in that it would have helped to have aimed to be more precise even in a flippant offhand remark.
I have no idea if you are Alt-Left or not but from what I see here that seems a firm “no”? I would say that someone who often resorts to using lies is, while someone who at least aims to use only truths is not. Alt-Left isn’t quite the same as extreme leftist, nor are either identical to “tankie”, although there are some who are one or two or all three of those and yet there are also huge schisms between those who merely “play” at being some of them while actually not being thus.
I may not agree with the extremist left (truly I do not) but I will defend your right to hold such an opinion, while the Alt-Left to me represents disingenuous crap that needs to be fought against harder even than capitalism itself - i.e. the Alt-Left is doing the extreme leftist movement no favors, especially by using such easily-debunked lies and false argument practices.
Fwiw, “Any decisions made should be made with the consent of everyone they affect” seems to fly in the face of putting up “memes” that say “we should kill people” (e.g. landlords), not only b/c of the people’s whose lives may be directly or indirectly impacted but also those who have to merely read such content. We did not sign up for such when we joined the community, and now we are affected by it, unless the mods choose to enact the rules that they previously agreed to. It’s not about conversations not being allowed, but about those conversations being held in a RESPECTFUL (& civil?) manner, i.e. not everywhere & everyhow that the poster chooses despite when that is explicitly against the consent of the recipient. Again, if someone wants to make their own instance and/or community… then they can post whatever they like?
Thus a poster knowingly posting out-of-bounds material and then whinging about it having been removed seems to me, admittedly from the outside mind you, not to represent “real/true anarchy”, but a child’s version of it? As if they are merely using the claim that it is “anarchy” as a cover, in order to attempt to win the argument by cowing the recipient into submission, borrowing from the genuine power of the word and thereby cheapening it in the process, which they do not care about so long as they get their way.
I am curious to hear your take though: would you agree with the premise as I have stated it here? Maybe even also the conclusion?
Thank you for both the shortened summaries and the link to go deeper elsewhere.
Yes and it’s excellent to discuss and think about. Actually implementing it is different though, and we’ve seen a lot of militant advocates that clearly do not appreciate the complexity in applying those theories and principles to an entire city, much less a state or nation. They get very up their own arguments and there’s not much point asking questions.
Yup, there it is. My family qualified for food stamps, I’ve been homeless myself for a time, yet I’m a wealthy elite now, b/c someone on the internet didn’t agree with what I said. Surely I never ever ever have to fear the rise of the “alternative facts” crowd here, b/c unlike Reddit we rise above such things on Lemmy.
Apparently I’m a dude as well - until someone decides that my tone isn’t “masculine” enough I guess?
I can be whatever you all want me to be!? But fuck all that noise, I think I’d rather just be me:-P. I’ll do it alone if I have to, but I’ll sleep well at night all the same.
Because I’m awkward and lack any originality, if I say something odd, probably it’s just me quoting some tv show/game/book/comercial/back of a salsa tin can.
I wish I had original thoughts, but too much TV as a child and my nickel licking passion killed enough neurons.
In the scale of masculinity I’ll say you’re between 3 and 75. I may say more, but may I need to see you struggle with a DIY repair enough that your pride may lead you to an early grave.
“His family built this country by the way” was a reference to an episode of The Office, where a character pretends his name is Buttlicker and says that line. Pretty sure it wasn’t about you being an elite or any of that.
