Of course not all anarchists vote, but those of us who are most committed to doing all we can, care about voting. We recognise that it's incredibly easy compared to arrestable actions, so it has a very good effort to effect efficiency. Those of us who believe in doing everything in our power are inclined to treat people who don't bother voting with suspicion, since it's so easy and it could have prevented the impending trans genocide if enough people had done it.
Me representing my own anarchist views isn't strawmanning, even if they're different than yours. And I will repeat myself: claiming your views as the only legitimate form of anarchism is a toxic form of infighting.
I was being funny when I said they made a good point, I already knew that anarchist infighting over whether to vote is pointless and that certain anarchists claiming their political disengagement as representative of anarchism is toxic.
Yeah, if you voted for Harris, then you're not actively fucking up the revolution by making the secret police bolder, so you don't have to make up for it by hucking bricks at ICE. You've proven that you have the long term thinking required to participate in organisation through safer methods like unionising, rallying, helping organise, weapons training, and recruiting.
But if someone didn't vote for bullshit reasons, they let Trump escalate the ICE deportations and concentration camps. They made things harder for the revolution. They're not a useful member and they should go remove themself from the situation with a glorious final stand.
A lot of people agree with you. In fact, so many agree with you that a lot of people in firm red and blue states didn't bother voting. Because of that, Trump won the popular vote, and people said it wasn't the electoral college's fault that he won. But it was. The electoral college made people like you lose hope that you could have an impact.
If more people like you had voted, then Kamala would have won the popular vote. If Trump had won without the popular vote twice, it would be obvious to the layperson than the electoral college needs to go. We'd have much more fuel for a popular revolution to dismantle the electoral college. Right now, people are hopeless. They think most Americans want Trump. Because of people who thought like you.
Bytemeister didn't say they don't have to do any direct action. You made that up out of nothing.
You have to do both. That's what Bytemeister is saying. If you didn't vote, and you're not actively in rebellion, then claiming you're the side who does direct action is an obvious lie. And they're right, you are lying. You're tanking our chances of overthrowing the government through revolution.
On a tour of Mr Wonka's chocolate factory, a little girl is shown Wonka's experimental gum and has some. It turns her purple and makes her swell like a blueberry. Vance did the same thing.
Humanity is too ignorant to recognise bad AI art on sight, every time. The trends are only easy to see in mass aggregate. That's why individual action can't stop it. We need aggregate action. We need to ban AI art.
Oh, they can make something useful. I can watch Flunky make images with two very different checkpoints, and they have the same artistic style. And the breasts are enormous and heaving. It's good for gooning to.
I just don't believe we should have to put up with 99 average AI art users for every Highborn Flunky. I'm willing to give up gooning to Flunky pieces if it means I don't have to see those awful sepia comics with the dot eyes on Lemmy.
And I'm concerned by men like Sam Altman and Elon Musk. I'm concerned by the energy cost of training, the economic costs to artists, and the effect on average people's creativity. I would be willing to ban AI art in order to solve those issues. If 99% of humans can't be responsible with the technology, then we shouldn't have it. I feel the same way about automobiles, nuclear bombs, tanks, and plastic packaging.
I'm not saying an idiot with a pencil will produce good art, or art that's worth anyone else's time. But they will always have the potential to draw something worth their own time. Anyone can engage in a worthwhile artistic endeavour using a pencil. It's not about quality, or originality, or theming. It's about intention. Any idiot can communicate what their own ideas with a pencil, on some level.
For example, take Adolf Hitler. He was a terrible artist. He had no understanding of proportion. His paintings don't make logical sense. And you know what? That suits the man. Hitler was an idiot who couldn't make logical sense of the world. His paintings reflect his terrible mind. There is that much value in them as an endeavour of self-expression. I can look at a painting by Hitler and say "that's a Hitler".
I can also look at an AI generated image by Highborn Flunky and say "that's a Flunky", but Flunky is a good artist. Hitler is not. That's the difference I'm talking about. A painting reflects your soul even if you suck.
The difference between a camera and Stable Diffusion is that a camera makes it hard to convey artistic intent, while Stable Diffusion adds artistic intent that isn't yours. Making art with a camera is hard, but anyone can know it when they see it. Making art with Stable Diffusion is an endeavour complicated by the fact that the AI is using mass manufactured intent to pass of intentless creations as art. If you fail to convey your intent with a prompt, you don't get a dull scene, you get trendy bullshit.
And people are way more offended by being shown trendy bullshit by bad artists than boring scenes.
Of course not all anarchists vote, but those of us who are most committed to doing all we can, care about voting. We recognise that it's incredibly easy compared to arrestable actions, so it has a very good effort to effect efficiency. Those of us who believe in doing everything in our power are inclined to treat people who don't bother voting with suspicion, since it's so easy and it could have prevented the impending trans genocide if enough people had done it.