Prunebutt @ Prunebutt @feddit.de

Posts

4

Comments

429

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sorry I won't come on your livestream and debate you, Vaush. /s

I know that I can get carried away sometimes. No shame in that and never claimed anything else.

You however just admitted that you are "extremely rude" yourself. So I guess you can imagine why people like to disengage with you (yes, it is because of your awesome 1337 haxx0r debating skills with your based galaxy brain /s)

Instead of being rude, you could just - you know - engage a bit here? Or are you jpst here to dunk on people's beliefs?

unsolicited idiocy

I never was that rude. Bye, paranoid bully.

I'm not even sure why you keep responding to me

I'm bored at work and easy to distract (ADD).

you've just been combative and rude.

I guess you won't be surprised to read that I'd say the same thing about you.

Ok, how can I prove to you that I don't use alt accounts for your stupid arguments? Furthermore: what would I gain from it? You're already ridiculing yourself by claiming it. No one else cares. Do you think I want the respect of a bully?

You can't prove a negative, smartipants.

As I've said: I can't prove to you that's not the case.

The only thing I can tell you is that sadly: You're not really worth the effort to do that.

I'm sorry for you. :(

Lol, do you think I have but 3 alts? I wrote every single comment on this post!

Seriously: Do you still think that I use 3 different accounts just to argue with you? Cute.

Sorry, I'm afraid I personally can't. But I know an essay that can.

Sure, buddy.

So how do/did these societies oppress women and children?

Sorry, didn't study that stuff. I only have a birds-eye view of that era. I do know the anarchist critique of Lenin, though.

Look at the timestamps, Sherlok. You didn't disprove shit.

"Objective/y", lol.

Edit: You kind of missed when you "disproved" me how these societies had police or supressed women/children.

Sorry, can't porperly parse your comment anymore without further structure.

We disagree on fundamental definitions. Furthermoree you accuse me of bad faith by "hedging", so I see less and less reason to carry on arguing with you.

If you want, you can think that you "won" by slam-dunking some anarkiddie on the internet. Have a pleasant day.

Is that you, creator of the TV Show "Black Mirror", Charlie Brooker?

All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.

Why do you think I always specify "command and control", when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.

Controlled by a generaltariat

A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers' self-management.

and lasted less than a year. Why is that relevant? Do you know why it lasted for such a short period? Is "being able to win against fashists on several fronts" now something we want to require every social system to have, because I have some bad news about parlamentary democracy concerning Weimar Germany.

Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.

Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)

who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.

They refuse to follow the european tradition, since "anarchism" is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.

Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel

Again: I don't think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.

As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don't actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee "conflict is rare" doesn't mean absent

Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.

"pygmy" aren't a thing, that's Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.

Ok, didn't know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.

Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below

What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don't want to play with them anymore?

Prisons don't work.

So, what is in your opinion the major reasonS for people committing crime? Or do you think it is evenly distributed, so you can't properly study that stuff.

And how would you personally prevent crime?

It is the easiest thing in the world to defend the status quo by pointig out that alternatives haven't been formulated to the most minute detail.

There is not a single society without police that doesn't oppress it's children and women.

That's simply not true. Counterexamples:

• The CNT/FAI in 1930s Cathalonia
• Anarchist Ukraine after the1918 revolution
• The Zapatistas
• Many pre-colonial native American tribes, e.g. The Wendat
• Pretty much any immediate-return hunter gatherer people, e.g. the Hadza or the Pygmy

The only thing that is stopping them from enforcing their believes is that the country I live in decided that it is wrong to treat people that way and to enforce this believe they have laws and police.

So, if a country can "decide" this, why can't a community "decide" it? We both know that there are bucket loads of precedents of countries oppressing minorities both in the past and now. So obviously, a state doesn't guarantee that people aren't oppressed. I'd even claim that most countries still oppress their children (to raise them as "productive" workers).

I don't want to have to fit in to be free

You have to do so today. If you don't notice that, that's because you fit in.

and I don't want to be scared of my neighbours all the time.

Ever heard of racism in the police? And you claim that I don't acknowledge my privileges.

Anarchists just seem like a bunch of spoiled privileged people to me who's only concern is that someone doesn't allow them to consume drugs or whatever. I just wish they'd try living in a place without these structures in place for a while they privilege off but don't acknowledge.

Anarchists are acutely aware of the injustices that don't harm them directly. One rallying cry is "no one is free until we all are free" after all.

I guess then the people with red hair will be burned. I don't think that's a realistic scenario, though.

If a state claims that a minority group deserves less/no rights and can be harmed without repercussions, what happens then?