this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
347 points (94.8% liked)

196

5124 readers
1686 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] korendian@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I've been struggling with this one over the years. Let's say we achieve our anarchist utopia. Does that mean that we allow pedos and rapists to just exist? Is simply exiling them from society enough of a deterrent for this sort of behavior? And what do we do about those who have engaged in exploitative/harmful behavior prior to the anarchist revolution, and have no interest in changing?

I do think a non-hierarchical and free society is something to strive for, but it is hard to see how we get there and maintain it without some form of violence.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 1 points 8 hours ago

First, no revolution will fix everything. However it would improve it. Prisons do not protect against rape, including childrapes. Most of women do not sue for good reasons; most of cases are not studied, and even when they are, abusers are not condemned, and even in the last percent of case, when they are, a lot of times, this is not what the survivors wanted, and they is not protections for them.

I said their is good reasons to not do go to the police. The first one is obviously, cops would not file the complaint. The second one, is that cops often are violent at that time against the survivors. From time to time, people are molested or raped by cops. The 3rd one is the vast majority of cases, perpetrators are relatives; it means that suing them could break the social and affective circle of the survivors. This is exactly the opposite of their need.

A lot of this points are valid, even if the survivors is a child. A lot of child raped by their fathers, even after a complaint, will have to stay with him. If they would not, or someone make flee with them, cops would arrest them and make the child stay with his/her abuser.

In the end, this abuse are not condemn in the bourgeoisie. They is a few exceptions, but rape, including of children, are very common every where, but complaint are never seriously taken by cops. Epstein is the exception because he got arrested, but their is a lot of similar case around the world. Even some bourgeois that show off about having sex with minor at the TY with no persecutions.

My point is ; if you are afraid of a world of abusers not managed by society and that could abuse again, we are in this world.

The principle of a no states world would be : make decisions to minimize agressions, including those we, as a society, have to make. This is not an utopia, a lot of the time the 2 are related : legit violence in the name of the community increase other type of violence.

We learn how to do that now. In the solidarity network we make, those abuse exists, and we tried to deal with it. Sometimes in going to the police, sometimes not, depending of what is the need of the survivors. Sometimes we raise money, we include the survivors in some social circles. A lot of the time (again, when it is the need of the survivor), we exclude the abuser of the places she/he is used to go. We decide collectively if we would accept him in other places, depending of his situation and if he accept that he has abuse and want to change.

Their is not perfect solution, but their is a process to improve. And we could improve it in being in charge, so in getting the power back

[–] llmbot@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago

bro thinks he's a philosopher who drops crazy one liners

Translation needs work, its 'terrorism' now

[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The image is a bit of circular reasoning, as it’s very close to one of the definitions of what a state is.

But it’s good to be reminded of it once in a while.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 days ago

I find that most people are not actually familiar with the definition of a state. And it helps remind just how brutally direct that definition is

[–] Kasane_Teto@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thats such a spook lul (Stirner quote)

[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This spook?

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

I’m afraid I’m not really understanding what he’s getting at. It seems like some weird cross of superstition and social construct, but I’m not sure what makes it different from either of those things.

Also, I really hate 19th century prose for anything but fiction ;)

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Social construct would be a more nuanced less derogatory modern term. 'Bullshit we just made the fuck up' is good too and a little closer to what he meant

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago

Catboy Stirner catboy Stirner

[–] 73QjabParc34Vebq@piefed.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

A state is just a group with a monopoly on violence.

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

i do not believe stirner opererated on that definition.

here is maletesta's definition of the state, which i find far more useful for critiquing states.

“Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.”

i would go as far as to say that the entire anarchist critique of states builds on such a an understanding of states, and in turn becomes less coherent with a defintion like the one you are using.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 1 points 8 hours ago

I don't understand why those 2 definitions are excluding; if the last thing that enforce everything is the collective force, it means that everything has been built to be protected by the collective force. Legit violence is what is structuring everything else. It means that when justice have to choose between defending the police and the army (the wole institutions), it will defend it.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

(and that is good)

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago

Yeah ghastly is essentially just being definitional here

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 21 points 2 days ago (4 children)

All societies impose rules on individuals.

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

since you are not explaining what you are trying to say with this, i have to assume.

i assume you are trying to imply that since all societies impose rules on individuals, states are no worse than any other way to organize a society, and criticising them (pointing out how they arbitrarily legitimize their own violence and criminalize that of individuals) is hypocrytical or pointless.

if this is what you are trying to say, then i have to disagree. not all power structures are equal. states are a hierarchical way to organize societies, disempowering the many, to empower the few. rules are not imposed on people, by themsleves, but by a higher authority. they are authoritarian and oppressive. state violence is illegitimate and defence against it is likely legitimate. this is something states try to obscure and it is something people need to realise, so they will consider overthrowing the states ruling over them.

if you did not mean to imply this. i am sorry for misunderstanding you. tbf i did try to get you to explain yourself. i would still like to read what you meant.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Every society has rules. Anarchists advocate for rules.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I've yet to meet two anarchists who agree on what an 'anarchy' system would actually look like.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If you want to meet anarchists that agreed on how to organize, you have to meet organized anarchists

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Here's my controversial opinion. Using phrases like 'anarchy' or 'socialism' is a complete waste of time if you're interested in making any kind of change.

Look at the campaigns of Mamdani and AOC. They talked much more about actual issues and laws than they talked about utopian plans for the future.

If you say you're a 'socialist' you give the MAGat ammunition. "Well, wasn't Hitler a Socialist?"

If you say 'tax the rich' you avoid that.

You can spend time getting people elected, or you can spend time arguing about things that you can't control.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 1 points 6 hours ago

I kind of agree; actions matters, world shall support. However, actions of many have to be coordinated to aime the same goal. And to do so, we shall be clear of the ideal we want. Hitler do not want to abolish capitalism, but you could have a fascist state that tax the rich. Without upper hand, confusions is counter productive

Part of the point is not deciding on the end before you get there, only the direction, so everyone can have a say.

[–] rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I could probably count on one hand the number of anarchists I know that can agree on the fuck it is.

And iv met a lot of them.

[–] rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago

i would need at least two hands, and i havent met that many yet

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

what are you trying to say?

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That you deserve it and that no society was about you, because the elites deserve their privileges of causing everyone else pain for their own profit.

[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“All the other kids do it too mom!”

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Exactly what I wrote.

What did you think I meant?

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

your comment does not seem directly related to the content of the post. i assume you are therefore implying something with your statement. otherwise, what led you to comment it?

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which particular word confused you?

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

none. i am trying to understand why you said what you said. how is "all societies impose laws upon individuals" related to "states legitimize their own violence and criminalize the violence of individuals"?

[–] Kasane_Teto@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

what’s ur fav boot flavour, you seemingly enjoy licking the dirt off them

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 9 points 2 days ago
[–] Egonallanon@feddit.uk 9 points 2 days ago

I do enjoy stirner. He was very weird in many ways and had some baffling opinions on things but he also had some intresting insights.