Absolutely! He simply has a very original take on “freedom”, but we all know that’s a tricky word to pin down, so don’t think about it too much, and leave it to the big dogs to tell you when your freedom is being protected.

I’m confused

How are you defining authority? My understanding is it’s specifically referring to “power over”; via implicit/explicit coercion, threat, manipulation, and so on. I don’t see why opposition to such uses of power, and the desire to build alternative systems which don’t rely on such means, has to be a negative or “naive” or “unrealistic” thing.

What about dyslexic people?

Are there no anarchists on hexbear?

Say what you want about marxist-leninists but they’re not “very extreme right fascists”. Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you just doing your part in decreasing political literacy?

Ohh, I see

Equality is everyone being treated the same way regardless of differences.

Generally, equality is just about equality of freedom or “power to –”. If someone needs support to achieve their goals (as long as this doesn’t involve “power over” others / oppression) then of course it is important that there be societal structures/networks in place to help them, or at least “meta-structures” that can facilitate the organisation of such supporting networks.

Of course, “freedom” is a poorly defined word in itself, but imo the “everyone treated the exact same” (or worse, “everyone should be the same”) interpretations are not in the spirit of “freedom” and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were constructed in bad faith (not to promote “equity” but to discredit “equality”).

But ultimately it’s just semantics, and if you like calling it equity that’s cool, it’s just good to keep in mind that people who still use “equality” can easily be referring to the exact same thing.

Ohhh :/

As far as I can tell, they physically present as masculine (albeit non-traditionally), perhaps with elements of femininity (I mean when it comes to specifics that kinda stuff is subjective), rather than butch/masculine femininity or smthn.

I just checked their reddit acc (u/anarcho-stripperism) and they still have their preferred pronouns as they/she/them, and seeing that they’re anarchist, perhaps they are going for a more subversive breaking-the-gender-binary thing (which I think is cool!) rather than something specifically about gender identity.

Do you know why? I’m curious because she presents as masculine and doesn’t seem to have any hangups presenting as such so it leaves me a bit confused. Like, with gender being a social contruct and all, gender neutral pronouns for all is my personal ideal, but yeah I don’t get why someone would choose pronouns associated with the gender they don’t actually “traditionally” present as. Is it about being intentionally subversive?

Only if the amount of wug is a prime number.

This is because non-prime numers of wuggi are highly unstable and will split into separate prime factors of wug if there’s enough space (and in most atmospheric conditions).

You could share this sublemmy’s pinned post, or the megathread it links to:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/10901

https://rentry.co/megathread

Ik it’s only anecdotal, but I played Brawl Stars when it was in beta and witnessed almost all its updates until global launch (and have caught up with some more recent updates here and there). It went from a genuinely fun mobile game with character and potential to a plastic husk primed for whatever monetisation and “engagement” strategies analytics says needs to be shoved into it next.

At the time I couldn’t fathom how all those updates that often made gameplay and progression less fun could ever be more “engaging” (the change from portrait to landscape in particular felt like straight up poor game design, trashing its unique mobile control schemes in favour of digital twin joysticks and “autoaim”), but in hindsight it’s clear what that really meant.

…and it was all a dream.

Peertube?

Is noone else gonna point out the absurdity that if the guy had been 1 year older, legally speaking there would’ve been nothing wrong?

The problem here is the grooming (which I think it’s worth noting that adults can be victims of as well), the abuse of power dynamics, and particularly in this case the exploitation of another’s inexperience for personal gratification.

But the article instead focuses on how the kid was “affected” by the teacher’s “criminal actions”, but then essentially just describes the kinds of consequences caused by the social stigma of student-teacher relationships. But this also happens in university, where it also carries negative social consequences, but not legal ones.

My point is simply that the legal system is a flimsy caricature of morality/ethics, and in articles like these it really shows.

The deregulation march you’re talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn’t just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism’s response to regulation.

It’s not that regulation doesn’t work per se, it’s that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.

For democracy to truly represent the people it’d need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the ‘top’ through processes we’re lead to believe are necessary for ‘order’ (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - “hierarchical realism”).

Can we please stop pretending “regulation” is all that effective. It’s been tried, and has resulted in corrupt bureaucracy or given way to neoliberalism (and corporate bureaucracy).

What we need is a radically different system where the power truly is in the hands of the people, and not just nominally like in representative democracy (and which is completely lacking anyways in most workplaces). And what this requires is the construction of fundamentally different modes of production and human interrelation that will not resemble what we’ve got now, neither economically nor politically nor socially. Regulating capitalism won’t get us there.

Capitalist realism mindset