this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
924 points (98.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27162 readers
6278 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Remember to take shitposts seriously, it's what the cool kids are doing

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 93 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Anarchism isn't the absence of rules but the absence of authority. Some anarchist ideas even replace the centralized authority figure with rules that apply to everyone and of cause free association so you are not forced to follow them and can move on instead

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Without some kind of authority, how can those rules be enforced?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] NatakuNox 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Rules are enforced by the collective not by a small minority essentially. Things like direct democracy doesn't contradict with their philosophy. Essentially middle management and above in all aspects of financial and political life would be abolished.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Direct democracy doesn't only not contradict with anarchism, it is a core tenet of anarchism. After all, how do we get rid of unjustified hierarchy without creating a hierarchy free from rulership?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

There is a whole debate within anarchism whether to use the term democracy or not. People on both sides of this semantical debate will have identical utopias but call them differently. Zoe Baker has a video essay about that on YouTube.

I like the term Direct Democracy since it shows my disagreement with parliamentary democracy while still using a term that's regarded as positive. "Our democracy isn't direct enough" will resonate with more people than "Democracy bad, anarchy good".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

What Monopoly on violence

[–] Dozzi92 11 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Publicly shun people. You're a rule breaker? You've been shunned by society and people who associate with you will be known associates of the shunned.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Short answer: The community.

In small contexts, a mutual understanding is sufficient. There are "Radical Therapy" groups with no central therapist who decides who talks how much but instead have rules like fixed times for each person. I don't think people will break these rules but exclusion is always an option with very intransigent people.

In bigger contexts like the Commons, people deliberate on their own rules. Minor transgressions will have minor consequences and the worst is – again – exclusion. People are more willing to stick to the rules and watch others if they were part of the process that created the rules. If you want to dive deeper, I remember a podcast episode by SRSLY WRONG and a YouTube video by Andrewism about The Commons or The Tragedy of the Common.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

free (dis) association

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (6 children)

So is Lemmy (the platform) a case of anarchism at work?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's a very good question. It's as anarchist as modern social media gets.

The thing is the moderators. In an anarchist utopia, they would take turns, be recallable and have to justify their decisions.

The last point is true for some instances but not all (think of the vegan cat food debate on .world verses how .ml blocks voices critical of China and Russia).

The other two points – to my knowledge – barely happen. This isn't a huge problem, as I said, it's as anarchist as social media comes. But it contains the risk of a centralized power. Sure, you can always leave the instance (even easier than on mastodon where you lose your followers) but this resembles the Libertarian "freedom" to choose your oppressor. Internal equality is very important.

This isn't to criticize Lemmy. It's overall very good and as anarchist as realistically and practically possible. But to showcase the anarchist ideal of councils and to spotlight the minor flaws we should be aware of, even if there is no perfect solution.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GladiusB 2 points 3 months ago

Most grass roots societies are like that. It's "self" ruling so to speak. At least from what I have gathered and read. It's been awhile since I did deep dive on it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's always good to learn something from comments under memes. You make me think about libertarianism that sounds like a different (right wing) take on anarchism.

[–] kameecoding 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well you learned the wrong here, anarchy isnt the absence of authority it's the absence of hierarchy.

Some systems are clearly hierarchical, capitalism, dictatorship, feudalism.

Now I have a hard time imagining how you would enforce certain laws, or rules without authority.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Authority is usually understood by anarchists as a component of hierarchy. I'd be interested to hear your definition that doesn't make it hierarchical.

And there are ways of enforcing rules that don't require authority, like diffuse sanctions, essentially community-based enforcement.

There's a whole school of anti-carceral justice thought that deals with this.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure what makes you think of (right wing) libertarians. I specified the absence of authority. Libertarians are fond of the idea of voluntary contracts – or let's rather call it voluntary authority – which in effect is never voluntary. You can choose for whom to work but there is a ruling class you have to work for. All you can do is choose your oppressor.

Free association among equals on the other hand is a very common idea among (left/socialist) anarchists and I think very early on. You can choose and leave the community you belong to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Coercive relationships are adjudicated by the oppressors.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

That's why it's important to keep the rules non coercive

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] umbraroze 51 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Anarchists do believe in board game rules. Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.

Kinda. The most important part is that if someone disagrees with the house rules, they can choose to disassociate from the house and go somewhere else. There's no state to say "this open field that's not utilized is mine, bitch!" and then taze you.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.

I can think of one or two times where house rules were appropriate, and a couple of dozen times where they broke the game. I think that you should only apply a house rule where 1) the game is already broken and 2) you're reasonably sure that the house rule won't break it further. It's good for when an otherwise fun game is ruined by something that the game designers overlooked.

[–] LustyArgonianMana 2 points 3 months ago

Well, if you were someone playing a game with them, then you can incorporate this. The point is that it's not obligatory and is based on the people participating

[–] [email protected] 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Look y'all we can have decentralised worker cooperative communes with everyone contributing and things distributed as needed for the betterment of everyone's living conditions rather than the enriching of the few, but only if I get to actually be Hitler in Secret Hitler next time we play!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

we had to stop playing Secret Hitler because nobody would play the fascists

[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You got me. I'm taking rhis seriously :D Anarchy isn't against rules. Just against hierarchy's or unequal distribution of power. Which makes boardgames pretty anarchic since everyone can enforce the rules.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

playing board games is a form of self-governance and builds revolution

[–] jaybone 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it ironic if they play monopoly?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The whole point of Monopoly is to piss you off about unearned income.

[–] xenoclast 5 points 3 months ago

Developed by Quakers as a protest against capitalism. But like everything capitalism fucked that up too

[–] ummthatguy 38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
[–] AeonFelis 16 points 3 months ago

Anarchy is not against rules, it's against rulers.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I want to be a board game rule lawyer one day

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Reminded me of This

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I actually believe one day we'll need lawyers and courts for complex virtual reality worlds.

[–] jonkenator 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Does anybody know what game that is? It looks cool.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

Cones of Dunshire.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Looks like a 3D puzzle with some minis in front of it.

[–] DMBFFF 9 points 3 months ago

Most board games are based on consensus.

[–] ZILtoid1991 6 points 3 months ago

Tankies linking Engels' "On Authority" in 3...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

ITT: Frantic redefinition of what anarchism is. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Since this comment means its my turn now, I'll redefine it into "no rules except the ones I agree with, otherwise GFY" sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma that often clouds objectivity and the complexity of the reality.

[–] JWayn596 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not what anarchism is.

I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism

You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.

Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›