Absolutely! He simply has a very original take on “freedom”, but we all know that’s a tricky word to pin down, so don’t think about it too much, and leave it to the big dogs to tell you when your freedom is being protected.

Instructions unclear, am currently chilling in a hot tub with three big hairy men… when do the bears show up?

They can use the state to do that for them

and the company

Surely the company would never be just as authoritarian as the state!

~ [cue anti-consumer subscription models and user policies]

No, you just made a likely bad faith argument he couldn’t be bothered to engage with.

There has been a rise in far-right parties in many countries, many of which don’t officially label themselves as fascist for plausible deniability, while spouting clearly fascist rhetoric. Their current scapegoats of choice include (but are not limited to) immigrants and lgbtq people.

But if you’re not being disingenuous, what do you think fascism is?

Our justice system might not be perfect, but it is the best option we have.

This was said about every system throughout history to justify injustice.

Say what you want about marxist-leninists but they’re not “very extreme right fascists”. Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you just doing your part in decreasing political literacy?

Ohh, I see

Equality is everyone being treated the same way regardless of differences.

Generally, equality is just about equality of freedom or “power to –”. If someone needs support to achieve their goals (as long as this doesn’t involve “power over” others / oppression) then of course it is important that there be societal structures/networks in place to help them, or at least “meta-structures” that can facilitate the organisation of such supporting networks.

Of course, “freedom” is a poorly defined word in itself, but imo the “everyone treated the exact same” (or worse, “everyone should be the same”) interpretations are not in the spirit of “freedom” and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were constructed in bad faith (not to promote “equity” but to discredit “equality”).

But ultimately it’s just semantics, and if you like calling it equity that’s cool, it’s just good to keep in mind that people who still use “equality” can easily be referring to the exact same thing.

Thanks for the info.

My concern is less about the reliability of the provided info and more the bias of the voice/language being used, and the choice of which facts get reported on. To me, this Politico article reads as rather sympathetic to the right wing.

Ultimately I don’t think “unbiased” reporting truly exists, it’d be better if journalists (and their editors/employers) were transparent about conflicts of interest, like in scientific publications (even though it’s not like that’s likely to happen, so the reality is that anyone seeking such info has to find it out by themself). Not to mention how the left-right spectrum is pretty subjective and vague.

Does anyone have an alternative source?Politico Europe is owned by Axel Springer SE, and Axel Springer was apparently like Germany’s Murdoch.

Not my photo and I don’t entirely remember its context but I’d saved it back then because it really struck me how blatant the Bernie censorship was

I’m not surprised one bit

Ohhh :/

As far as I can tell, they physically present as masculine (albeit non-traditionally), perhaps with elements of femininity (I mean when it comes to specifics that kinda stuff is subjective), rather than butch/masculine femininity or smthn.

I just checked their reddit acc (u/anarcho-stripperism) and they still have their preferred pronouns as they/she/them, and seeing that they’re anarchist, perhaps they are going for a more subversive breaking-the-gender-binary thing (which I think is cool!) rather than something specifically about gender identity.

Do you know why? I’m curious because she presents as masculine and doesn’t seem to have any hangups presenting as such so it leaves me a bit confused. Like, with gender being a social contruct and all, gender neutral pronouns for all is my personal ideal, but yeah I don’t get why someone would choose pronouns associated with the gender they don’t actually “traditionally” present as. Is it about being intentionally subversive?

You could share this sublemmy’s pinned post, or the megathread it links to:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/10901

https://rentry.co/megathread

Ik it’s only anecdotal, but I played Brawl Stars when it was in beta and witnessed almost all its updates until global launch (and have caught up with some more recent updates here and there). It went from a genuinely fun mobile game with character and potential to a plastic husk primed for whatever monetisation and “engagement” strategies analytics says needs to be shoved into it next.

At the time I couldn’t fathom how all those updates that often made gameplay and progression less fun could ever be more “engaging” (the change from portrait to landscape in particular felt like straight up poor game design, trashing its unique mobile control schemes in favour of digital twin joysticks and “autoaim”), but in hindsight it’s clear what that really meant.

Oh I don’t doubt that those in power are complicit in the exploitation (I disagree with calling it feudalism, however). Ridding themselves of responsibility by blaming colonialism sounds akin to Israel deflecting criticism by claiming anti-semitism.

The statist perspective is unable to properly address these inequalities and injustices because it cannot reject the hierarchical power structures that caused them in the first place. Foreign intervention is just colonialism 2.0, but the more “reactive” alternative is just leading to a situation where measuring immigrants by their worth as ‘skilled workers’ and ‘ease of integration’ is pragmatic. I’m not gonna deny that there’s a kind of sense to this, because that’s exactly what makes it so worrying. At least with the old racist pseudoscience we can point and laugh at how nonsensical it was.

Ah, fuck, I usually at the very least skim things before I share but this time I just assumed from the title… my bad, the article has nothing to do with this topic.

Still, my general point is that European colonialism in Africa can’t be considered a “solved” issue, because of capitalism’s (and ‘western’ capitalists’) roles in continuing to exploit its natural resources and perpetuating systemic wealth inequalities. I think that profling populations by nation/culture is a fundamentally flawed way of approaching the difficulties of (mass) immigration, plus it’s an even more dangerous road to go down. Whatever the qualities of cultures and hegemonies that persist in whichever regions, populations aren’t homogenous, and states fail to represent their peoples.

Of course, there are many factors and actors involved in the many social instabillties / conflicts plaguing the world, and anything I might value as an anarchist (e.g. open borders and mutual / humanitarian aid) would be nonsensical to apply as government policies. I don’t have a ‘counter’ solution to propose.

lf all this is “thought terminating” in the sense that I’m unwlling to go down the path of ‘pragmatism’ in which peoples’ worth is profiled and measured and weighed, then so be it. As I see it, that kind of thinking as part of problem, not the solution.