cacheson

You say that like we wouldn't see similar results if lemmy.world went down.

This community would still be up to meme about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You have provoked a gang war

For example, a thief steals a loaf of bread and the owner of the store can gather a mob to lynch a thief. Anarchy has the great potential to administer unproportional justice.

You shouldn't come into an anarchist community and start answering questions about anarchism when you clearly haven't done your homework.

But hey, since OP is interested in how anarchy would work, let's go over how such a society would respond to the scenario that you've painted. Vigilante justice is never impossible in any society, but that doesn't mean it would be tolerated. The requirement to have disputes arbitrated by a neutral third party is pretty universal. What differentiates anarchy is that arbiters are freely chosen by (possibly delegated) mutual agreement, instead of the state forcibly inserting itself into every dispute as the supreme arbiter.

Let's say the thief was a member of a commune. Since the thief is dead, their dispute with the baker and the lynch mob can be claimed by their next of kin, or closest equivalent. Either way, we'll say that the dispute gets delegated to the commune as a whole, which collectively handles security and dispute resolution for its members.

The baker has a contract with a company (probably organized as a workers cooperative) that offers security and dispute resolution services. For simplicity, let's say that the members of the lynch mob also use this company's services.

The commune and the company might have different sets of rules that their members agree to, but it's reasonable to assume that they both recognize:

• The thief should not have stolen the bread, as it was a product of the baker's labor and was not being offered for free. While the commune functions primarily via gift economy, they defer to local norms in these situations.
• The baker would be entitled to restitution for both the stolen bread and the costs necessary to secure that restitution
• Killing the thief to stop them from stealing in the moment would have been a wildly disproportionate response
• This was not merely done as an act of immediate defense, but an act of retribution
• The baker made no attempt to resolve this dispute through a neutral third party
• The members of the lynch mob all acted as accomplices to the murder

From there it's just a matter of negotiating what restitution is owed to whom. Perhaps the commune and the company can't come to an agreement on what exactly is owed, so they agree to defer to a neutral arbiter of their own. They may both be members of a local federation of dispute resolution bodies, which would simplify handling this.

Agreed. Anarchists often find US liberals incredibly frustrating to deal with, for some good reasons. A lot of that comes from them being one side of the status-quo ideology, in that both US liberals and US conservatives are descended from classical liberals. They've tended to resist scrutinizing most of their received wisdom because they largely haven't needed to.

However, they're currently more likely to be receptive to our ideas than they've ever been before. Some will end up being "go along to get along" Good Germans. Many others, possibly even a majority are somewhere between nervous and terrified about the future right now, and would welcome new ideas on how to deal with the situation.

They may not be ready to fully switch ideologies, but that's something that depends on a more gradual background process. If we can refrain from anarcho-purism and meet people where they are, we can make a lot of progress and put ourselves in a much better position to survive and resist.

The electoral system is so focused on the specific immediate task at hand, the election these people were hired to win (and working people to the bone doing it), that there’s never any room to step back and build something long-term. No one is planning for the Democratic party five or ten years from now (at least, not in a way that affects local organizing) because that’s ten or twenty times as long as the average staffer is expected to last. The feeling seems to be that every minute spent planning for something further out than the next election is a minute not spent working on winning the next election.

So, when I get on my anarchist high horse now and talk about how we need to spend our time, energy, and money on something other than electoral politics, it’s not the voting part that upsets me. It’s all this bullshit. Every election, we have to burn out all our most promising organizers in six months because there was no infrastructure for them to build on, and they have to make it all from scratch every time. It’s like we’re working extra hard to pay off our last payday loan, then taking out a new payday loan at the end, ensuring we’ll have to do the same thing over again next time.

I feel like this part bears emphasizing, given the arguments over it that I've seen recently. I'm aggressively neutral on the question of whether or not anarchists should vote. The hour or less per year that an individual anarchist may spend on voting just doesn't matter. Almost all the waste of electoralism is in the time, energy, and money spent on campaigning, and having nothing to show for it afterwards if your candidate loses.

On the other side, if a fellow anarchist doesn't want to vote, fighting with them about it isn't worth the social cohesion cost. Even if you see value in voting as a rearguard action, we're not a big enough bloc for their non-voting to really matter.

I'm surprised no one has tried to give any dating advice here. OP, regardless of the virginity thing, do you want to find a romantic partner? It's entirely reasonable to want both romance and sex.

Here's what's worked for me:

• Figure out what kind of person your ideal partner would be, what their interests are, and where they would hang out.
• Put yourself in places where you're likely to meet that kind of person. For example, if you're looking for someone that likes the outdoors and staying physically active, maybe look for a hiking group in your area.
• Be confident, and be chill. If you're neither, fake it until you are.

That's the basic outline. If you're meeting people that are sort of like what you're looking for, but not quite, that's an indication that you're on the right track and should keep at it. Dating is a grind and requires patience.

In terms of confidence/chill, that means:

• Assuming that someone you're interested in could also be attracted to you, instead of just assuming they aren't.
• Handling rejection gracefully.
• Not keeping your desires a secret, but also having the patience not to dump everything on them all at once. If you want to be sexual, be lightly flirty with them, and see if they respond in kind. If they do, then you can gradually escalate along those lines.
• Not requiring constant attention from them. Give them a chance to miss you. Don't feel the need to respond to that text right away, for example. Wait 10 minutes or so, then respond. This lets them know that you don't expect immediate responses, and they can get back to you later if they're busy. It also slows the pace of conversation down, so that you don't run out of things to talk about.

The problem is that I am very, very lazy.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

...

It wasn't me. I'm still hairy. q_q

Are the liberals going to stop being annoying if anarchists write enough impassioned comments about how voting is in fact NOT infinitesimally good, but is ACTUALLY infinitesimally bad?

Seriously y'all, move on. This doesn't matter. You definitely have better things to do with your time, even if it's just idle leisure. Go, be free. Let anarchist voting discourse chain you no more.

At what point will anarchists stop bikeshedding about voting?

Funny enough, the highest concentration of actual anarchists I've seen is on hexbear

Good joke, comrade.

Meanwhile, corpos scrambling to take down their "we ❤️ [profiting from] open source" banners.