I don’t think there is room for any more text.
I hope OP gets it right this time.
I don’t think there is room for any more text.
I hope OP gets it right this time.
While rules can exist in anarchism, they function as shared, agreed-upon guidelines aimed at maintaining mutual respect and cooperation, rather than as laws enforced through authority.
In other words, your distant cousins are here. And by your rules, we get a vote in the rules.
Perhaps you should read up.
So you want to follow the rules? Your rules?
I am confused; what community is this again?
I want your in my.
Predictions are turned off.
They are probably going to come in talking about how great they are for the planet. Spreading the gospel and all that; the Stone Age doesn’t produce as many greenhouse gases as the industrial age, after all.
I’m guessing it was prioritized by the amount of evidence, and the chances of getting a conviction.
I mean, I wouldn’t want to get attacked by a conspiracy theorist (that sounds wrong) either.
Downvoted, to show my support.
Maybe fix the structure - the whole voting system - rather than just putting more of the same into the never ending circle jerk?
Democrats had their chance to make reforms and ignored it. Both parties oppose election reform because it threatens their [current] control.
The people are to blame.
No, tell them how upset it makes you. Makes you cry.
Yes, it’s a flawed premise. Women who voted for Trump will sexy time the guys who voted for trump. The ones [not] getting fucked here are Harris supporters.
The core of the cognitive disconnect you are demonstrating lies in your attempt to impose your own interpretative “rules” on the discussion, using sarcasm as a way to frame anarchism in a narrow, dismissive sense. By doing this, you overlook the very principle I was explaining: in an anarchist framework, any guidelines or “rules” emerge from a collective, consensual process, not from one individual’s authority or interpretation.
In short, the disconnect is you fail to see your attempt to control the tone and meaning of the discussion runs counter to the very idea of consensus-driven participation in anarchism.