it would be quite something, if the links actually went to/through malicious sites…

deleted by creator

oh, no, im fine with pronouns. at least some universal pronouns, that can apply to any being, like “they/them” are fine. i just dont like labelling myself

damn 2017… that’s… ALMOST A DECADE AGO??? ;w;

i think “non binary” makes a lot of sense as an unbrella term for all those who are not (exclusively) man or woman. i don’t know what could better express that… maybe “neither”? but i also personally don’t mind the possible computer association of the word binary.

with that said, i totally get feeling uncomfortable with certain labels. i personally also prefer “fuck gender. i don’t do that shit” over “non binary”

calvin >>>>>>>> that conservative cunt

more like cum master, amarite??

i am so sorry. please forgive me ;w;

people make games my beloved <3 <3

if you are looking for answers, your questions are probably better directed at a community such as c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com (how do i best link communities again?) they also have wiki there, that might already answer your questions <3

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.

this is vewy pretty

did you make yourself? owo

you appear to maliciously misunderstand me, to avoid having your takes criticised. i find you unsufferable to interact with and really disingenius. i am going to block you but i still hope you will stop being this way for the sake of everyone else.

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.

i do not want you to rewrite it in shorter form, i want you to explain with more words what you are trying to get at.

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”?

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?

what are you trying to say?

new pipe is great for watching youtube on andoid without ads (tubular is a fork with sponsorblock), and kodi is a great home entertainment system with plugins that allow streaming youtube without ads :3

why are you so mad?

i only got a few comments deep into in that reddit thread u linked, but i wanna respond already anyway, because it’s past midnight and i’m too eepy to look deeper.

the people in the thread seem to be talking about a kind of selfish egoism, which advocates for the abuse of other peoples altruism, attempting to domniate and abuse, without giving.

i don’t think this is the only egoism there is. i don’t follow anarchist egoism myself, and i did not look super much into it yet, but according to the surface level information i have about it, it proposes that it is in peoples best self interest to cooperate, and practice solidarity, and to fight hierarchies and domination because it is the best way to ensure our maximal and sustainable freedom, as well as allow us to sleep at night.

i think it can be argued that this is still not entirely internally consistent, but i think it is definitely a moral framework i can’t say much against.