Skip Navigation

User banner

riwo

@ riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts
16
Comments
173
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Today's enby feels

    Jump

  • i think "non binary" makes a lot of sense as an unbrella term for all those who are not (exclusively) man or woman. i don't know what could better express that... maybe "neither"? but i also personally don't mind the possible computer association of the word binary.

    with that said, i totally get feeling uncomfortable with certain labels. i personally also prefer "fuck gender. i don't do that shit" over "non binary"

  • "I don't want Politics in my Gaming!"

    Jump

  • calvin >>>>>>>> that conservative cunt

  • Linux Rules

    Jump

  • more like cum master, amarite??

    i am so sorry. please forgive me ;w;

  • Articrule

    Jump

  • people make games my beloved <3 <3

  • Deleted

    Deleted

    Jump

  • if you are looking for answers, your questions are probably better directed at a community such as c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com (how do i best link communities again?) they also have wiki there, that might already answer your questions <3

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • i do not believe stirner opererated on that definition.

    here is maletesta's definition of the state, which i find far more useful for critiquing states.

    “Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.”

    i would go as far as to say that the entire anarchist critique of states builds on such a an understanding of states, and in turn becomes less coherent with a defintion like the one you are using.

  • honarary rule

    Jump

  • this is vewy pretty

    did you make yourself? owo

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • you appear to maliciously misunderstand me, to avoid having your takes criticised. i find you unsufferable to interact with and really disingenius. i am going to block you but i still hope you will stop being this way for the sake of everyone else.

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • since you are not explaining what you are trying to say with this, i have to assume.

    i assume you are trying to imply that since all societies impose rules on individuals, states are no worse than any other way to organize a society, and criticising them (pointing out how they arbitrarily legitimize their own violence and criminalize that of individuals) is hypocrytical or pointless.

    if this is what you are trying to say, then i have to disagree. not all power structures are equal. states are a hierarchical way to organize societies, disempowering the many, to empower the few. rules are not imposed on people, by themsleves, but by a higher authority. they are authoritarian and oppressive. state violence is illegitimate and defence against it is likely legitimate. this is something states try to obscure and it is something people need to realise, so they will consider overthrowing the states ruling over them.

    if you did not mean to imply this. i am sorry for misunderstanding you. tbf i did try to get you to explain yourself. i would still like to read what you meant.

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • i do not want you to rewrite it in shorter form, i want you to explain with more words what you are trying to get at.

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • none. i am trying to understand why you said what you said. how is "all societies impose laws upon individuals" related to "states legitimize their own violence and criminalize the violence of individuals"?

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • your comment does not seem directly related to the content of the post. i assume you are therefore implying something with your statement. otherwise, what led you to comment it?

  • cr(ule)ime

    Jump

  • what are you trying to say?

  • Stages of Morule Development

    Jump

  • why are you so mad?

  • Stages of Morule Development

    Jump

  • i only got a few comments deep into in that reddit thread u linked, but i wanna respond already anyway, because it's past midnight and i'm too eepy to look deeper.

    the people in the thread seem to be talking about a kind of selfish egoism, which advocates for the abuse of other peoples altruism, attempting to domniate and abuse, without giving.

    i don't think this is the only egoism there is. i don't follow anarchist egoism myself, and i did not look super much into it yet, but according to the surface level information i have about it, it proposes that it is in peoples best self interest to cooperate, and practice solidarity, and to fight hierarchies and domination because it is the best way to ensure our maximal and sustainable freedom, as well as allow us to sleep at night.

    i think it can be argued that this is still not entirely internally consistent, but i think it is definitely a moral framework i can't say much against.

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    all i rule for xmas

  • ascended candles would rule [OC, background stolen*]

    Jump

  • hjhgjhlgkshaggjhjha

    thanky your clippy is also a very cute revolutionary icon :33

  • ascended candles would rule [OC, background stolen*]

    Jump

  • i think the issue then is, that social democracy is a bad system for keeping power from concentrating, because both parlamentary democracy and capitalism disempower the masse and empower small groups. we would need a differen system, where both economic power and political power are spread out horizontally.

  • PETA rule

    Jump

  • fuck peta, milk everyone who consents

  • i get a lot more practice with one

    Jump

  • hah, i can't handle either >:3

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    belgian tradition rule

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    chief ruler

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    pride rule

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    be your rule

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    no rules

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    yeahh gay sex rule

  • Anarchism @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    clⒶssic

  • ich_iel @feddit.org
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    ich📖iel

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    i made a queer xmpp space rule :33

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    rule month

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    trans day of ruleability :3

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    went to my first protest today :33

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    q:3

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    rulemotely funny

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
    riwo @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    rule