this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
108 points (97.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
787 readers
938 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Basically a neurological take on the age old "the ends can never justify the means" take.
I think it means violent activists are more likely to attack members of their community (i.e. people who live in the same city as you and are relatively close to you on the social-economic scale) than actual brownshirts
Maybe also, but I think the argument is rather that once the brown shirts nearby are gone they will find someone else to turn on, and historically speaking this was often their previous allies with some minor ideological disagreements.
??? This is about targeting the correct audience instead of what's easy.
??? It seems we do not understand each other at all.
But "make sure your motivation is to help the system" isn't related to "the ends justify the means" at all.
The OP is claiming that if done correctly, the ends justify the means.
I'm not criticizing your idea that the ends don't justify the means. It's only that your reply is a non sequitur to the OP.
Well, my understanding on the OPs text is that the means necessarily shape the ends, but instead of a sociological interpretation, it is an equally valid neurological one.
And this is in turn the exact same argument as that the ends should never justify the means, because if you use the wrong means you will never reach the ends you want.
The OP states it is justified to use violence against the right people to achieve your ends.
"The ends never justify the means." is a statement that violence is never the right answer.
Hmm, no? Where does the OP say that?