yeah, it does kinda feel like satirical exageration of a real scenario
riwo
- 43 Posts
- 555 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: July 4th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
it’s interesting that you are using “guy” as “man”, because the next person is gonna say, that “you guys” is also gender neutral
loss of agency? that sounds quite political… i knew this comic was inapropriate
11·9 days agoit would be quite something, if the links actually went to/through malicious sites…
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
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;
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.
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”?
damn
i don’t live in the us, i just use y’all because its a useful language feature that honestly should be the default ;w;