I don’t think Rossman is a leftist. He’s pro-consumer and sticks up for the little guy against big corporations, but he’s not anti-capitalist.

Abusers in positions of power use this as a means of protecting themselves. By making their victims engage in acts of abuse against others they force them into a catch-22 if they try to expose them. They achieve ultimate victory over the victim by making them adopt the ideology of their abuser, trapping them in a hierarchy within which they will do anything to maintain their position. By drawing you into their system of abuse they not only make you afraid to expose them, but rob you of your desire to do so.

When I come across someone IRL who loves AI I avoid the topic around them. My opinions on the topic are likely to offend them, so to avoid hurting their feelings or causing conflict I won’t mention them. Now, if it’s someone I care about I’ll find a way to gently broach the topic because I know that heavy AI use is causing them harm and I don’t want my family and friends to lose their grip on reality.

I was born in 1999 and am therefore completely qualified to talk about life in the 1900s. It was a lot of milk drinking and shitting in diapers.

I somehow doubt the owners of Anthropic are revolutionary socialists or even just pro-union.

My only gripe with this is that the state in its current form cannot be trusted to be an impartial judge of what constitutes hate speech. We see today that many states around the world are using anti hate speech laws to suppress criticism of the state of Israel. Giving the state broad powers to crack down on speech that it deems hateful will inevitably result in the state deciding that all criticism of its actions or the actions of its allies constitutes hate speech.

As an alternative, I prefer that hate speech be met with social consequences rather than criminal ones.

Alcohol has also just been more prevalent in human cultures dating back to prehistory. Some of the earliest evidence we have of permanent human settlements were breweries, theorized to have been built by people who still lived semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles. That would mean that humans first started making permanent settlements and doing large-scale agriculture only to produce alcohol, and still mainly relied on hunting and gathering for their caloric needs. Other drugs / intoxicants have been used by humans for at least as long, but none have been so central to the development of civilization and culture than alcohol.

dont know how web designer as a industry is doing now.

Bereft with AI slop following sweeping layoffs, so not well.

Modern states suspend the rights of individuals to lifer or liberty as a punishment for breaking a rule. Rules like “don’t rape people”.

They also do it for rules like “wrong skin color,” “wrong country of origin,” “wrong sexuality or gender identity,” “born into poverty and stole food,” “suffering from drug addiction,” or even “possessed a completely harmless drug like weed.” And the punishment is often the total depravation of rights and forced labor tantamount to slavery.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike from stealing loaves of bread.”

At least in theory, you can move to another nation or campaign for better treatment in essentially all modern states, exempting a small group of pariah states that still mostly don’t rape people as punishment.

This wasn’t a good argument in feudal society when peasants could leave and find another Lord or live on their own, and it’s not a good argument now. Choice is pointless when all your choices share the same constraints.

Not a single person I’ve seen has so much as suggested any mechanism whatsoever that would keep “self organizing collectives” from becoming fetit pools of bigotry and violence. We know that will happen because such groups arise in every nation already, but their impact is curbed specifically by the power of the state.

What mechanism prevents states from becoming fetid pools of bigotry and violence, and how has it been working so far? The power of the state does not curb this behavior, it curbs its rivals while engaging in that very behavior themselves by maintaining a monopoly on violence.

“Get rid of the government and we’ll all do the right thing” is libertarian bullshit to cover their glee at taking things away from others. If you aren’t a pro-rape libertarian, figure out how your proposed system would protect the vulnerable at least as well as modern states do.

Anarchy is not the lack of government, it’s horizontal governance. Hierarchy is not necessary for community policing or restorative justice. I’m not an American Libertarian which is an irrational ideology, as it wants capitalism without the state, which is impossible because capitalism is enforced by the state. Without the state protecting private property there can be no capitalism.

What stops a self-organizing collective from becoming racist, sexist, transohobic, and pro-rape?

What stops a state from becoming the same?

Modern states at least have the benefit of a basic theory that they cannot simply un-person people who live within their borders.

What are you talking about? Most modern states routinely strip people within and outside of their borders of rights, deport, murder, or enslave them.

Without the backing of the Israeli state they would not be so untouchable.

Anarchy is a great ideal, but there are some things governments do that we shouldn’t trust to self-organizing collectives.

What makes states more trustworthy than self-organizing collectives?

Nice, more instructions to send to revolutionaries in Myanmar.

If you want to explore classical Marxist ideas in an entertaining way, check out Michael Burns on YouTube. He used to run the channel Wisecrack and makes videos about philosophy, and he is a classical Marxist who talks a lot about Marx and Engels. That being said, these days you’re not going to find much discussion of Marx that doesn’t cover Marxism-Leninism in some way.

Congrats on your soft, velvety pubes. Mine are coarse enough to use as a scrub brush.

The very fact that the Trolley Problem exists as a thought experiment and there is still active discourse over the correct solution should tell you why people didn’t all feel that they had a responsibility to vote for harm reduction. You can’t expect an election that resembles a famously divisive philosophical thought experiment to turn out with everyone arriving at the same conclusion, and it’s pointless to dwell on the fact that everyone didn’t fall in line with what you think is obvious rather than adjusting to the reality and acting accordingly. That means getting candidates elected in primaries that aren’t going to put us in the same trolley problem come time for the general.

Maybe it’s friendly!

I agree with your broader point but the bit about supporting auth-left fighting Nazis is a risky bet. I don’t think we’re close to having a marxist-leninist vanguard party overthrow the regime here in the US, but historically when they have been empowered to enact violence against fascists they end up taking the state monopoly on violence for themselves and turning it on anarchists and other socialists with slight disagreements.

But Iike you said, they’re not the ones controlling the state at the moment. It’s just something to keep in mind for the future in case an ML vanguard party leading a revolution in the US actually ends up being on the table. Depending on how bad things get a lot of people might consider it worth the risk.

Late 20s, moved to lemmy during the Reddit API scandal like a lot of others, so it’s a deliberate anti-corporate choice. I’ve always been techy (I worked as a software developer at the time I made the switch) and I’ve always hated the corporate social media platforms. Reddit was the only social media that I ever used extensively and the API fiasco was the straw that broke the camel’s back. This may or may not be true for others who switched around the same time but it coincided with my political views becoming more radical; I used to consider myself a social democrat but by the time I fled Reddit I fully considered myself socialist and was on my way to becoming an anarchist.

I can’t help but be curious, what made you choose slrpnk.net - an instance for environmentalist anarchists - as a conservative? Did you misread conservationism or something?