• melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah but we can’t use it; it’s why lots of anarchists like wh40k but none of us can play it.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        Just be Orks, its the closest to what a freshly developed anarchy would be… Power vacuum, warlords, etc

        • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Jesus you can’t even take me joking about myself, hierarchalists are so intensely actively too fragile and vicious to be any fun.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Nothing I said is wrong.

            Orks are lots of fun

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I’m aware that’s how they present in the dictionary. They are the same in real life.

                Attempts at anarchism always result in anarchy and as I said, power vacuums etc.

                Edit After the vacuum, a new hierarchical system presents.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Nuh uh! They’re participating in lively debate through which all parties can come to a ruling by consensus! They’re just really good at it. Um, what’s a ruler again anyways? 🤔

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Who enforces the rules if they exist? There is a difference between ruler and enforcer. The fact I have to point this out is sad.

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The game itself only exists while its rules are being followed. They don’t need to be externally enforced, the collective agreement to play the game implies agreeing to its rules.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          8 months ago

          That is so fucking stupid when talking about laws… Murder doesn’t magically become legal just because someone actually did it…

          • shneancy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            in the game of society, participating in society means you agree to the current “rules” of the “game” (laws). And one of those rules is murder -> jail

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Yes and who puts them in jail when the murderer doesn’t want to go? An enforcer. God, you morons are being led to water and then shitting in it… Holy fucking pathetic.

              • shneancy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I was talking about the society as we live in now, since you decided to create a metaphorical connection between board games and reality. I didn’t mean to comment on whatever else you thought people are talking about

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Police still don’t make up laws. Regatfless of how offensive qualified immunity and the police union are, police still do not write law.

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh my god dude books have been written about this stuff, youre not actually asking a question; youre trying to excuse tyranny by saying theres no other option.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          The fact you still do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic. Anarchy is literally beyond your comprehension.

          Rules HAVE to exist. In some form. They HAVE to be enforced in some form. If you assume any enforcer is a boot of a “ruler”, you are literally missing the entire point.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Yet you’re willing to mouth off with ignorance despite, “just getting here”. Fucking pathetic. Do better.

              • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Cringe, honestly dude all your comments tell me you’re 14. I just joined the thread with one comment and you start hurling insults. Actually child like behavior.

                You literally said anarchism is beyond my comprehension despite it being one of the hardest to define political terminologies. YOU don’t even know what it means because it means 100 different things to 100 different grouos of people

                One day you’ll get a 2 in front of your age and feel embarrassed about how fucking idiotic you make yourself look all the time.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            No I think you and most anarchists are.

            The moment you create rules and create enforcers those enforcers become the rulers.

            If they have the power to enforce rules then they have higher authority and therefore status.

            Don’t get me wrong I love the concept. The problem is the concept completely ignores that humans naturally develop hierarchy. We won’t deliberately pick the roles they’ll just naturally develop over time.

            • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              And theres no way to counterbalance or fix or even mitigateany of this, i know because i just thought about it for almost an entire half of a second!

              Obviously theres no way to do maintenance or draw someone back in from shitty behavior other than shooting them. Obviously theres no way to get someone to chill out other than shooting them. There are no human behaviors; ingrained or learned, that could possibly fix any of this or serve as levelling mechanisms.

              Unfortunately, we can’t stop things that ‘happen naturally’ and so we shouldn’t try, and that’s why I’m against the criminalization of murder and rape, and honestly pretty eager to die of cancer.

              so therefore we must have massive globe spanning potentially apocalyptic decades long pissing matches and everything must be grinding the weak into dust and delusional assholes totally disconnected from any material concern making the worst possible decisions must make every decision for everyone, even if it literally ends all life by ruining earth.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Enforcers only become rulers when they’re given both immunity and the ability to make shit up.

              The fact you fundamentally do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic.

              If you like the concept, then maybe understand how it’s actually supposed to function. Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist. How do you do that fairly? Yes, nature has tendencies, which is why humans create rules and enforcers to resist natural tendencies.

              Humans are supposed to be GREATER than “dumb animals”, yet all I ever hear is people whining about how it it’s unnatural… NO SHIT!! That’s the entire point!!

              In nature, the strong eat the weak, the end. Game over. We need to create rules and enforcers to make a better environment than is natural. Creating rules requires at least a temporary “ruler” (that doesn’t ‘have’ to be a single person). If you claim ANY ruler is ALWAYS bad, you are quite literally forgetting how not-nature works in its entirety.

              • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution

                Rules don’t have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.

                Your conception of “natural tendencies” and “the strong eat the weak” smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.

                You’re wrong, plain and simple

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  More than wrong, second order wrong, drawing the wrong bad conclusions from ideas that are themselves nonsense and wrong. So they have to reconsider not only a conclusion, but fundamental ideas. Its a big ask, I’m not sure its worth the interaction.

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  You are beyond stupid if you cannot fathom how my explanation of nature was to SEPARATE out the good intentions of societal rules … right? The fact you take an allegory literally is just pathetic communication skills. Try to understand what I’m saying, not what some sub-selection of my words returns you from Google…

                  • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Do you have empirical evidence that societal rules are borne of good intentions and not complete fabrications, made up entirely to suit the needs of those in power? Social organization (including rules) are a human concept that are malleable and changeable. Can you prove that enforcement is needed to have a functioning society? You’re so confident in your assertions, how about you put up some proof behind it?

                    Your allegory is used by social darwinists. It’s a bad allegory. If it doesn’t accurately convey the sentiment you were attempting to express it’s your own fault. Write with intent and be precise

              • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                How do you keep the enforcers from becoming the rulers? Who enforces the enforcers? Other enforcers? What’s to stop them from banding together just like cops do now? Eliminating hierarchy requires many other conditions be met to not just turn into authoritarianism or something similar.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Almost like the world we live in is thoroughly fucked and we need to change a lot to make it not suck, and if it were easy somebody probably would’ve done it by now?

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Yes exactly. That’s why anarchy is a little more complicated than, “lol no rulers”.

              • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Look at it from an information theory (applied to organization it’s called systems theory, cybernetics, or scientific management) perspective: when you put one guy in charge of too much stuff (and let’s face it; its usually gonna be a guy, because misogyny ud a feature not a bug of these systems), you have to compress all the data coming to him, and all the orders will be based on increasingly shitty abstracted models as you try to make him in charge of more stuff. Even if that guy is the absolute best, he literally cannot have good information, and the more fine grained his control, basically the more its just a crap shoot.

                So yes. Centralized authority is bad, and it can be proven with math. You can try to hedge it, you can try to optimize it, but its got a fundamental flaw, not just from a moral perspective, but a mathematical one. Please don’t make me look up the actual numbers; I’m on mobile.

                • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Got any reading suggestions for systems theory for people with little/no academic background? I want to read into it but people usually link college textbooks for advanced classes lol

                  • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    So you should probably understand at least the idea of information theory, ‘the information: a history, a theory, a flood’ is a great conceptual explain/primer/pop-sci book on that.

                    ‘Seeing like a state’ is a little specific, but its specific about this idea.

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  I AM NOT DEFENDING CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY!! Holy fuck, you idiots literally cannot understand the concept that distributed authority is still authority…

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                8 months ago

                Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist.

                Yes, that’s the fundamental contradiction of anarchism. Rules need rulers.

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Anarchism IS NOT about “no rule makers”. It is wholly about JUSTIFIED AUTHORITY, not NO authority.

                  • Meatballs
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Can you cite a source that says this that isn’t Wikipedia please? Or are you just making it up to fit your own personal beliefs about the subject

                    Or are you just going to continue to call people stupid without backing anything up, huh?

                  • Meatballs
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    So you’re not willing to cite a source? Typical for your types

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          By not having immunity from equitable rules and by not having the ability to just make shit up and arrest people for it?

          This isn’t rocket science. Enforcers CAN be subject to rules too, regardless how much US police are not.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’s only delusional if you assume what kind of enforcer I would approve of.

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Not talking about the real world. Talking about what anarchists would want. Not what they’d get.

                  • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You don’t even understand the premise of what youre talking about and I’m too tired to try explaining to someone who probably doesn’t want to know.