I think it is important to add that even though no system is perfect and every system has it's pros and cons, that doesn't make them equal. As soon as we define goals, for example equal rights, some systems will be better equipped at achieving those while others might be actively hostile to them.
janonymous
joined 1 year ago
There are and have been a number of anarchist communities. It is feasible, but I agree that in our current globalized world state it is hard to imagine for anything bigger than a village to survive for long.
That is a misconception. Anarchism is a equal distribution of power among all participants. This will not change "naturally". It can be changed by either efforts from within to establish a single individual or group as a ruler over the rest, or by outside forces. Neither I would classify as happening just naturally.
In an anarchist society, that is a community without hierarchies and rulers, threats are handled by the community. So one person with a big stick would have to fight everyone else to establish their dominance.
Discovered them a few months ago, they're really great!
Absolutely, here is the part for the lazy:
I should add that, for all her cheerleading of gen Z, Foster isn’t above being irritated by them. “They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace. They’re like, ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or, like, in emails, I’ll tell them this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like, ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
There are already a lot of good tips, I just want to add that telling people to calm down never works. They are upset for a reason, even if it's a nonsensical one.
If you happen to become the lighting rod for someone else's anger it helps to remind yourself that they are not actually upset with you personally. You just happen to be caught in it.
Sometimes it is possible to use empathy to align yourself with them by agreeing that this situation is upsetting, validating their feelings. In the end they will have to deal with their feelings, you can't do that for them. All you can do is move out of the way and maybe redirect it. In this situation you could say: yes this sucks. I'm very sorry, I wish I could help you, but I will lose my job if I try. These regulations are there to protect our patients, but sometimes they get in the way. Unfortunately I cannot do anything about that. If I could I would.
In the end this might or might not work to redirect their anger. How they deal with their anger is out of your control. That also means it is not your responsibility and you don't need to take it to heart personally.
They look like siblings
Gifs that end too soon
Und sie ist der Grund dafür oder was soll hier der Zusammenhang sein? Als ob deutsche Medien sich sonst kritischer über frisch verstorbene, berühmte Deutsche äußern würden..
I've been looking forward to continue Jujutsu Kaisen, but I can hardly remember season 1. It seems to have been overwritten by Chainsaw Man and Demon Slayer in my head.
Watching season 2 was a bit confusing at first, especially because it's about events that happen before season 1. But now I'm wondering what I ever liked about the series. The characters are bland, the abilities and powers feel inconsistent. But most damning of all is the constant exposition. Every fart has to be explained by a character and it's somehow simultaneously unnecessarily complicated and boring. But the animation is great!
On the upside I gave Pluto on Netflix another shot. The first time I bounced off it after the first 15min. This time I made it through the first episode, which didn't quite hook me either. But after hearing so much praise about it, I immediately went into episode 2 and finally got it. Reminded me of sci-fi classics like Ghost in the Shell and Blade Runner. And of Watchmen, the comic in particular. Haven't finished it yet, but would also highly recommend it to anyone interested in dense, philosophical sci-fi!
There is a lot of confusion around anarchism, because it is a negative description: It's a collective without leader, without governing institutions. It doesn't say much about how this collective organizes instead. So you could call the chaotic state after a government coup Anarchy. But that isn't what anarchists are talking about and I don't think that is what OP meant either.
Anarchy as a deliberate system is when a group of people decides to work or live together without selecting a leader or any other form of government, instead resolving decisions that affect everyone together. In that sense it is not an interim state, a leadership-vacuum just waiting to be filled. Although of course Anarchy can transition into another system by various means, but so can every other system as well.