Humans spent thousands of years without rulers.

orly? which thousands?

i think people not knowing how to actually win an argument against a bigot is exactly the reason there are so many these days

shit's easy. not that they'll admit defeat but getting them babbling irrational nonsense takes very little debating skills. and when they inevitably start throwing ad hominems, then the mods have legitimate grounds to kick them out.

If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.

it's not that people can't, but spaces which have unlimited tolerance for sealions suggesting that it's necessary to argue about that are likely to have less interesting discussions than spaces which do not 🙄

and what happens when a mod or admin abuses their power? If the answer is only people whine about it, all you have is a minor step in the right direction and not an actual solution.

Make an alternate community on another instance without abusive admins.

Then be clear about the rules. I have 0 problems with people creating communities with very clear rules on what is allowed and what isn't. I wholeheartedly welcome that. What I take issue with is when people claim to have open discussion, or the space is for "rational discourse", or "anarchist" discourse etc. but then ban everything that doesn't very exactly align with the mod ideology.

If most people waving the anarchist flag would admit they're just doing it because it's cool but actually, they just want to be the authoritarians in place of the authoritarians, that would be fine. I'd happily avoid them. Problem is that when they don't admit it, they drag down the whole anarchist ideology because they are misrepresenting it.

Just to let you know before I block you, I didn't read your "reasonable disagreement" of a wall of text

You mean the direct quote of Popper that you yourself referred to? You didn't read the very piece of text you told me to read?

Okay, that's just funny. Hi friend

>"look up paradox of tolerance UwU"
>"ok, let's look at what it actually says"
>"i didn't read it UwU"

that tracks

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

One problem with bigots is they dont care about truth or logic. Its a waste of time to continually argue the same points over and over again with people who refuse to learn or think.

for some percentage of the population, morality isn’t a guardrail

There's more to human behavior than expressing ideas of correct behavior and violent enforcement of those ideas. Both of those are very limited, rely on oversimplified abstractions of how people are, and often have adverse side effects. What we are like and how we live is a complex product of how we engage and relate to our environment and the people around us; the best overall solutions to problems will be holistic improvements to that environment.

To extend your medical analogy, sometimes serious threats to your health call for antibiotics, but it is not the case that scouring your body of foreign organisms will make you healthier in the absence of an antibiotic-treatable threat, it's actually important to have those.

Bringing it back to how online spaces are organized, I think it's important for most people to feel like there is a way to express their genuine thoughts because if it's all just people finding different ways to repeat a dogma, that's a failure of communication, communication is not meaningfully happening, and an environment where you are unable to communicate is a shitty and dysfunctional one. That doesn't mean all spaces must accept all points of view, but sincere and open communication should generally be a priority, protecting that is what free expression is about.

You personally don't have to. Always plenty of people out there willing to do it for you.

You can hope all you want that I'm not a pedophile, and coincidentally I'm not, but some people are. For some people, the only reason they're not doing it is because they're in jail for doing it.

And that's my problem with all of these explanations of anarchy that I've heard. They all rely on people being fundamentally good and choosing to do the right thing together as a society. And most people are like that. But a not insignificant amount of others aren't.

How would anarchy handle those people?

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24695927

Responded to someone else.

I think "being able to select which community(ies) one is part of and having the ability to opt out" vs being born into it is a key differentiator.

Fwiw, I'm not part of any moderating teams.

But remember, be sure that your point is logical and truthful, and not parroting talking points in spite of them being repeated all around you.

Being truthful and logical is not always a popular position. Some would say it's not even often the popular position.

The anarchist code of conduct

so I guess you have an intolerance to intolerance?

"If everyone just has a Buddha epiphany then we can finally break free from authoritarianism" is certainly a take

Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?

Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy.
Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar.
Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted?
While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a "Nazi bar", so is the internet or any "platform".

Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power.
It doesn't discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could.
It's also a disservice to better ideas

• it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
• instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.

Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.

Paradox of intolerance?

The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.

Only cowards fear words.
Words are not the danger.
It's the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.

[^popper-source]: Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper

That doesn't actually answer the question. You make some very good points about the futility of our current mode of criminal punishment. I very much agree. But you offer no solutions that would require anarchy or benefit from it.

A centralized institution to implement all the changes that you mentioned is absolutely something a government would be more capable of.

in misanthropy we call this being human

It's all about powerplay and finding the best rhetoric that plays best with your level of charisma to try to whitewash it with. Sometimes it's also used as a filter because it inherently attract a certain type of person in those communities sort of like r/conservative in reddit attracts a certain type of person. The modern social network is a lot about being able to create and grow your own cults on demand.

Say what you will about reddit, lemmy has plenty of brain dead people as well, and in some ways they are even more cultified.

Start building what works now, where you are.

Every reform you like started as people organizing. The second the state touches it, it turns care into control. Prisons, cops, "rehab", all began as community ideas. Now they’re cages.

Anarchy isn’t "no system." It’s systems we control. Local, adaptable, replaceable. The state just standardizes failure.

Yeah that's fair.

Being an administrator is different, you don't volunteer for that task because you like the attention.

I’ve done it for decades and right now I’m not doing it at all because it’s too exhausting to have as a background thread with the rest of my family life.

I feel this. I used to volunteer for some local groups but don't presently as I have a young family and it's all consuming.

Anybody who sees Authority as a responsability is naturally averse to having it because they would feel the weight of it and would feel bad if, whilst holding Authority, they made a mistake and others got in some way hurt because of that.

Those who see Authority as power to advance something (be it their own personal upsides or some idea they believe in) with little or no feeling of responsability towards others (be it not all directly or they've suppressed it by convincing themselves their actions are somehow "for the greater good" hence any bad they do with the authority has that grand excuse to salve their conscience), have no such aversion to holding authority.

That posture towards authority of people of the second kind applies more broadly to all manner of things which serve to pressure, convince or manipulate others (Authority is generally power force something on others) so of course they also have no aversion to using other such tools, including using ideology to manipulate others, and sometimes that means passing themselves as somebody who holds a certain ideology, and that includes Anarchism.

So yeah, you're going to find that certain people who parrot Anarchist talk aren't in fact people whose Principles mean they're naturally Anarchist but rather people being Performative Anarchists in order to fit-in and manipulate others driven by entirelly different Principles, and such people are absolutelly pro-Authority as long as they're in control of it.

In summary, there are two types of people who seem Anarchist:

• Those whose personal principles means they are averse to people controlling other people. There are naturally against any form of Authority.
• Those who want to control other people and are in a specific situation where Theatre Of Anarchism can advance their objectives. These are against forms of Authority which hinder their objectives but are in favor of forms of Authority which advance their objectives.

IMHO, the best way to spot the second kind from the first is to look for the often repetition of common slogans and having a superficial level of ideology with no actual tracing back to personal principles since they learned the ideology at an intellectual level rather than being drived by their Principles - i.e. what feels Right and what feels Wrong - to finding that formal ideology as something that fits them.

By the way, this method to identify the real ones from the performers also works for all other ideologies and even things like Faith - start paying attention and you'll spot all manner of teatrics around ideologies all across the entire political spectrum as well as in people professing some faith or other.

i mean, seems you're also conveniently skipping over the part that says:

as long as we can counter them by rational argument

it's right there in the text:

popper states outright, that there are some ideologies and by extension people, that straight-up cannot be argued with. these, therefore, must be excluded from the community, and thereby form the limit to tolerance that must be enforced.

people really love to misinterpret popper...

what goes along nicely with the tolerance of paradox is the quote about anti-semites being entirely aware of how absurd their position truly are:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

take both popper and sartre together into consideration of a larger context and it becomes abundantly obvious that a certain minimum of intolerance is strictly necessary for a functional society.

what happens when all checks on speech are removed can be clearly seen in the rotting corpses of facebook and twitter... it's disastrous.

Not true for everyone. But sure, I understand the idea. Its just that i know people who hate authority and because of that, they know how to act with compassion instead. They dont speak bad of others and they dont have a lot of ego to defend.

The best leaders are reluctant to even have power. And they see it more as a responsibility to do right by the people.

I dont see that type of leader in America at all, but they exist in real life in Europe.

Are you really comparing a completely optional forum to a society where people can and will point guns at you?

Nazi instances nuke Tankie viewpoints because they’re nazis (see feddit and piefed)

Can you tell me what nazi viewpoints are promoted on Piefed please? Be specific.

Lemmy/Piefed is far more resistant to bad actor community capture by a capricious moderator. Instance admins are usually far closer to the day-to-day operations and thus have their pulse on their communities in a way that reddit admins do not. Secondly, the federative nature of it means that any community can be replicated elsewhere.

key words there are discourse and discussion.

As is explained in a few responses to your paradox of tolerance reply (that you seem to have conveniently not replied to so far), the kind of discussion or conversation they are referencing requires both parties to be working in good faith.

from your own reference

as long as we can counter them by rational argument

If one party can't or won't provide logic or reasoning to their side of an exchange, that's not a discussion because there is nothing to discuss with someone not willing to engage in good faith.

There are absolutely places that are ideological echo chambers, despite claiming otherwise, but banning someone for the inability (or unwillingness) to engage in good faith isn't a removal based on ideology it's a removal based on not adhering to the basic tenets of how discussions are supposed to work.

If it just so happens that most of that kind of banning happens to people with ideologies you subscribe to, perhaps it's worth considering how you can help these people understand how to have an actual conversation.

That all being said, from what i've seen here I’d guess you're on the purposeful bad faith side of things so I’m not expecting any reasonable consideration, but feel free to surprise me (or block me, i suppose).

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to."

Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.

Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.

They exist in the US you don't hear about them because those leaders don't make good headlines.

You're making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.

Find a single line from me where I'm saying that people who don't engage in rational discourse shouldn't be kicked out.

In fact, have a honest think. How much of your response is based on a knee jerk reaction instead of actually looking at what I've been saying in this thread?

You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.

I've clearly stated what i'm referring to and how i got there, if you think there is an unsupported statement then reference it directly and i will respond.

That being said, fuck, i think i've seen two posts next to each other and missed where it changed from them to you.

That's entirely my bad and i apologise, my response was supposed to be for the other person.

No hard feelings :)

Not sure what theme you're using but at least for me the default one makes it a bit hard to separate replies. I still like it most of all for just lurking.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, I’m on the default but i'll explore the other ones now, see if there is anything i prefer.

And what I'm saying is "local" systems will lead to "local" pedophile cults. Which absolutely has happened in America already, and which I think any society should have a mechanism to stop.

"They don't let me spread transphobic rhetoric in this optional community online, literally 1984!"

Isn't a tankie an authoritarian communist or am I getting wires crossed here? I thought the term was coined from the 56 stamping out of the Hungarian revolution with tanks by authoritarians.... Not sure that's something I'd be proud of but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean this may be decentralized but its still social media. Its gonna be a cesspool by nature of social media.

The fact that they still exist in an authoritarian system hardly argues in favor of them.

The same people who rage against authority and advocate prison abolition seem to love becoming "dungeon masters."

This reads like a freeze peach kinda thought.

You know they exist because when they're found they're punished and it's not normalized.