What is that?

Tbh I feel like this is sometimes the case. Whenever I’ve looked for really cheap basic one-color t-shirts, the lowest cost ones usually have a brand logo on them.

Maybe a word which likens it to how water flows in a river? How about rivering?

I agree with that, it’s important to consider what’s being advertised and in what way.

“Here, eat a caterpillar, you’ll feel better.”

I considered it before I switched from 7 to 10, but since 10 still makes it possible to create an offline account and disable most of the spyware and other bloat, I opted to stay with Windows for another generation of OS. 11 is different though, it’s several steps too far into proprietary hell.

I’ve been dipping my toes into it over the years, I’m just not ready to make it my daily driver quite yet

The second Win 10 stops receiving security updates, it’s Linux for me.

I’ve seen their ads in Sweden before IIRC. They don’t seem to be very common though. Why don’t you like that they’re advertising?

Since when is Joe Rogan bad enough to warrant getting shot in the first place? I feel like the guy has said some bad (and far more dumb) things but it’s not like he poses any kind of danger to anyone does he? I know this is besides the point, but murder is far from proportional to anything (that I am aware of) that Joe has been known to do. With that said I don’t really know much about what he’s been up to for the past 5 years or so.

Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism. As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies. Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.

On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.

Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word “liberal”, for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems. There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn’t a very strong one imo.

Being an anarchist capitalist really just stems from having a different definition of anarchism than most anarchist denominations (I’m not one btw, I’ve just spent a lot of time speaking to different types of anarchists in the past). I know it’s just a sidenote and not your main point, just wanted to point it out.