I don't believe we should have nation elections. I believe in horizontally organized systems, not hierarchical ones. So that seems to be the misunderstanding.

Yeah you are right, I am living in it right now and it fucking sucks and doesn't work. I am watching it descend into fascism because that is the inevitable cycle of capitalism and liberal democracy. If you want examples of anarchism working internally you can look at the CNT-FAI of the Spanish Civil War and how they organized, or the currently existing Zapatistas. Fact of the matter is anarchism hasn't failed because it doesn't work as a method of organization, it hasn't worked because they haven't been able to defend themselves when they end up having to fight a war on multiple fronts. Which if you are going to criticize anarchism, that is where you do it. In its ability to defend itself when its being attacked on all sides and its tendency to end up in that position in the first place.

I do not think centralizing control and decision making is the answer to that. What little decentralization America has rn is exactly what is protecting states like Maine from being completely in the pocket of fascists. The answer is further decentralization to the point people do not have power over others.

I've never seen someone explain how liberal democracy and capitalism can work on a large scale with billions of people. The issue with your logic though is it doesn't need to. Billions of people do not need to work together all at the same time and don't need to all be included on every plan, decision, or whatever. It doesn't need to work on a scale larger than it is able to work at because the foundation of power originates from the bottom and stays there, it is organized horizontally. Hierarchy is what isn't scaleable as it requires deeper and deeper layers of bureaucracy the more it grows.

I recognize democracy (particularly democracy as we have it) sucks, and I do recognize you aren't disagreeing with me about how we can't take rights away. I just don't like the idea of using the flaws of democracy as an excuse to take rights away from people. That is and was the strategy of fascists, authoritarians, and bigots.

And I do believe being careful who we quote is important because "separating art from the artist" is a flawed and problematic rule. The only way you can separate "art" from the "artist" is by removing it from context, and that is a dangerous thing to do. For example if I wanted to make an anti-war point I wouldn't use this quote,

"Sir, it is true that republics have often been cradled in war, but more often they have met with a grave in that cradle. Peace is the interest, the policy, the nature of a popular Government. War may bring benefits to a few, but privation and loss are the lot of the many. An appeal to arms should be the last resort, and only by national rights or national honor can it be justified."

That is because this is a quote from Jefferson Davis. In the end my point is its probably not the right move to use a quote from a racist (Churchill) in response to a comment about how voter restriction is used by racists and bigots

Or you could juat make it so no one has the right to govern others. Then you wouldn't have to take people's rights away just cause they have beliefs different than yours, like you are suggesting. A problem in this world is people only seem to think about taking things away and punishing people to solve a problem, which doesn't work.

Everyone deserves the right to have power over themselves and things that affect them personally, no one deserves the right over others. Thats the issue. We insist on using methods of organization where there are those that govern and those to be governed.

Also maybe Churchill isn't the best person to be paraphrasing in this context considering how imperialistic and racist he was.

This was literally used as a way in the south to prevent black people from voting. Yall failed history, maybe you shouldn't vote. Or maybe we should remember laws that restrict rights tend to affect more than their target and will be used in bigoted ways, and so we just shouldn't restrict people's rights and shouldn't give anyone the power to restrict others.

Me and my friends were literally just making jokes about this tonight and its the first thing I see when I boot up Lemmy

To the people complaining Windows has an aggressive method. Sure but I didn't know about it till now. Task manager didn't make it obvious to me and so I didn't know about it till now (and everyone keeps talking about commands and shutdowns so it doesn't even sound like you can do it through task manager). Linux's system manager did and I have known about it since first using Linux (about half a year ago now)

I'm bookmarking this for the next time I see Private Asswipe (what me and my friends call the sergent who oversaw the destruction of the local tent city)

Exactly. I remember in Conquest of Bread when Kropotkin talked about freeing up more time by automating creative and intelligent pursuits so we can focus more on menial labor.

Obviously /s

Good, get the corpos and cops out of Pride. They never velonged there to begin with. Queer liberation, not rainbow capitalism

How does the state/police/etc protect me now? They are reactive, they only come after the crime is committed. The time I needed protection and help was 10-20 minutes ago. It would be a lot more efficient to take the resources that go to police and instead put them to use addressing reasons for crime like access to food, shelter, education, and healthcare, breaking down toxic societal issues like misogyny, ableism, queerphobia, toxic masculinity, racism, etc, and establishing effective conflict resolution. And as a last resort having a community defense, where everyone participates in the protection of the community, not just a militarized elite.

That would be my response.

It feels like they are getting new photos more often lately. When the scam first started they used the same like two photos a lot. Now it feels like there is multiple new photos just this week.

To me it sounded like you were just defending why we work more hours than a medieval peasant.

Edit: plus peasants worked fewer hours in a day for a few reasons. Yes part of it is just the seasonality of farming, but reaping and sowing are not the only aspects to that job. They worked fewer hours for reasons like the fact the clock hadn't been invented yet and so the owning class had a harder time enforcing strict schedules and work was built more around a natural rhythm. Also medieval peasants had a lot more housework and upkeep they needed to do outside of work. Repairing and mending clothing, the house, prepping food, washing clothes and dishes, and all without things like sewing machines, washing and drying machines, and modern ovens.

https://youtu.be/hvk_XylEmLo

We CAN work more, we do not NEED to work more. We already overproduce everything. What you want is growth for the sake of growth, which is a self-destructive economic philosophy. We could easily drop to a 4 hour work day and still meet demand.

Facts. I live in Maine. I dare anyone that says to ban cars to come live here without one. The only form of public transportation here is a very shitty public bus system. If you live outside of its route, you are shit out of luck. Its why you have a lot of old people driving here that honestly should have had their license revoked a decade ago. Can't take their license away cause they will have no way to access the resources they need to survive. But shouldn't let them keep their license cause they are a major danger on the roads.

I mean there are some other shitty stuff feudal peasants had to do or had it harder than us, but it is kinda sad that there still are things peasants had that we don't (like shorter working hours and longer breaks). You'd think with the technological advancements we've had since the "death" of feudalism we would have more to distinguish ourselves from feudal peasants. I feel like the only major differences (at least in America) is the mass consumerism and that the feudal lords are capitalists rather than nobility.