As much? I don’t think ever. Breath of the Wild is still it’s release price despite it’s sequel, in the same world but with more content, being out and the same price. They’re insane.
Cethin
- 0 Posts
- 83 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 1st, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
1·8 days agoYour sources do a lot of dancing to avoid defining their principle ideas…
No they don’t. It’s just a very broad political viewpoint with a ton a varied opinions within it. No two anarchists will believe the same thing, and that’s true for all political beliefs, which is why they’re all like this and hard to define specifically.
Right away we have problems. The concept of free-association does mean there are no rules or protections. Not real ones anyway. Rules and regulations require an enforcement authority or else they are merely suggestions. You are free to make a rule and someone else is free to ignore it. What gives you the right to enforce your rule?
Mutual cooperation and direct democracy are ways to come up with agreed upon rules. Not everyone will agree with all of them, but it will be agreed that the majority want something. There will still be a need for enforcement, yes. That doesn’t require a hierarchy. Everyone will be equal in voting and equal in how it’s enforced.
If something does grant you the right or ability then that thing, whatever it is, is a hierarchy of power.
No, because everyone will be equal in its creation and decisions. A flat plane is not a hierarchy.
Yes, this is what I mean when I said "Anarchy [is] only possible if everyone engages in good faith.
No. People who don’t engage in good faith will be removed by the cooperation of everyone else. Just like the" Paradox of tolerance" is not a Paradox, because it’s based on a social contract and breaking it means you’re no longer protected by it. The same applies here. If you break the social contract then punishment must be applied.
You are coming to this conversation with prior assumptions, not an open mind. I’m not an expert on Anarchism, but there is plenty of information out there that can answer your questions better than I can. I would recommend being open to the idea that your beliefs of what Anarchism are are wrong or what’s the point?
Government is heirarchy
It is not. It can be, but it is not a fundamental aspect of it.
An elected representative has de facto authority. If someone can opt out of being governed in this way then there are no rules, just suggestions.
Sure. Not in opposition to Anarchism.
I recommend you visit the links above. You should be able to find the answers to your issues. For this case, this addresses some of it:
You don’t need an “elite” for there to be a heirarchy.
Yeah, someone has to be. That’s what a hierarchy is. Someone is above others and has control. That’s basically the definition.
The world is too complex, our choices have too many consequences, for individuals to make good decisions without ceding some responsibility of knowledge to specialists. This means regulatory bodies, lobbyists, and ideally a democratic means of appointing people to these bodies without being at the short-sighted whims of whoever is suddenly mad that they aren’t allowed to fill in a bunch of marshes to build a commune.
This does not rule out Anarchism.
To go back to this:
I know what anarchism is…
I’m not so sure. It can be a vast number of things. It does not mean no rules, no government, no regulations, or whatever else. In fact, I would argue those are essential to some degree or it’d be gone in an instant.
The media uses the term for any change of opinion. For example, I think I recall hearing some media saying Biden “flip flopped” from the position he held on crime 20+ years ago since he realized it wasn’t effective.
What the term should mean is you changing your opinion flippantly, whenever it’s useful. It shouldn’t be when you adjust your stance on a topic (for any reason) to a new one. It’s when you go back and forth and aren’t consistent with a new position.
People can cooperate without the need for a hierarchy. They can agree that some actions are bad and to punish people without an elite doing so.
If you want to learn more, there are tons of resources. Here’s a few:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-r-what-is-anarchism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
Our media now rails on politicians “flip flopping” if their opinion is different than it was in the past. I always get angry when I hear them say that because, to me, it’s a good thing. I want someone who has new experiences and changes their opinions with that. I don’t want someone who learns something and dismisses any information they gained because it doesn’t match their current beliefs.
Anarchism can. Anarchism is not the stupid “no rules” thing the media portrays. It’s a lack of hierarchy, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have government, rules, and protections. In fact, I think any Anarchist would agree they’re required or else people can be exploited and lose their freedom, or things like your example can happen. We should just do it in a more cooperative form, not with a ruling class making the rules for us peasants.
They don’t just think companies have the right to do that. They also think companies have a right to create restrictions that prevent you from doing anything. If you go to a protest you may be fired, for example. It creates a situation where the ruling class can prevent dissent because you need food, water, and shelter at minimum, and they can take that away if you are a dissident.
You might consider Anarchism ironically. It’s leftist libertarian basically, and is not “no government.” It’s about removing hierarchy, which destroys freedoms of people.
I used to call myself a Libertarian too, and I eventually ended up on Anarchism.
When I was younger I called myself a libertarian. This was progression from a somewhat conservative family, with my ideal that people should be left to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm others. I eventually progressed towards a leftist mindset and now consider myself an anarchist. Same idea, except libertarians mostly want no protections and are pro-hierachy, which leads to a lack of freedom not more freedom. If companies are free to do what they want they will use their position to remove the freedom of workers to make choices freely, for example.
I still hold most of the same ideals as I did then, as I’m sure Penn Jillette probably does too. I just have a better view of the consequences of the policies that they push for.
A sign from the future maybe?
2·10 days agoYou’re discussing revenge, not justice.
The issue is laws must be written to cover more than just a single case. I may agree it would be fine for this case, but the law must be written to cover other future cases. Then it’s up to the discretion of judges to rule on future cases and apply the law as they see fit.
The issue is that we can’t write perfect laws that will never produce bad outcomes. We can’t trust all judges to be perfectly moral and upstanding and also perfectly accurate in their judgment. In a world with perfections, I could maybe agree with it. That’s not the world we live in.
3·11 days agoYeah, but it’s evidence they weren’t going to be compliant and likely are not compliant in other places.
Also, I doubt it being recorded by a journalist is compliance either. The government needs to store it to be available later if needed.
2·12 days agoIn reality, they just couldn’t reasonably add the same markup, so they shifted to other products. Also, fuel efficiency standards based on weight made it more profitable to sell larger vehicles, so they had another reason to shift. We really got fucked from every side.
Sadly a lot of good people still live in red states. I’d prefer them not to suffer because of what they’re “betters” decide for them.
I saw something recently that was talking about how individualism has led us to this situation. Everyone is thinking what they can do. We lost our collectivist spirit. We don’t think about what we can do.
An individual has essentially no power. A group does. We need to get better at organizing. This is made hard because we are so separated from each other, driving individually to work, then back home, largely to houses where you don’t interact with anyone else. We have basically no third places anymore where you’d typically organize. This situation was designed, and it’s going to be hard to get out of, but we need to get better at forming groups and organizing.
More men have lost than women. Biden was losing worse than she was and he was a white man. You say
I dosnt say she lost because she was a minority…
and then
At this point in history, we need someone who the electorate will perceive as strong enough to stand up to our enemies, and a woman is probably doesn’t going to generate that perception.
So, which is it?
Women can be perceived as powerful. If you don’t then that’s your problem. I’m not going to say Harris did, but it isn’t because she’s a woman. Biden looked weaker and, again, he’s a man. I would say AOC looks stronger. It just takes someone willing to fight. It doesn’t take a man. Democrats tend to run non-fighters. That’s the issue. Not that they sometimes run women or minorities.
The trouble is, Nintendo games don’t even go on sale, so you can’t do that. Nintendo used to be the affordable accessible console. Now they’re the opposite.
I haven’t had a desire to play their games luckily, but the emulators are good. I tried Pokémon Arceus with one and it ran flawlessly. The game was boring as hell from what I played, but I wanted to see how it functioned compared to the older games I know.