Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
view the rest of the comments
How do you even reach decisions with (I'm assuming complete) consensus? I would expect that someone or the other is always opposed to practically anything that is being attempted to be passed.
Given that, in many places where homophobia is the norm, most people would push for anti-gay laws, wouldn't that keep gay rights at an impasse, at best?
So we're going to have to split this into a few parts, and to be clear I am not proposing that anarchism immediately leads to utopia.
anti-gay laws. Ok so what is a law? In our societies a law usually ultimately means that a piece of paper has some words on it, and if your actions are contrary to these words then men armed with guns and torture implements will hunt you down and hurt you until your actions comply with the words on the paper.
This is entirely incompatible with anarchism. Fundamental to anarchism is that coercive force will only be used when there is a pressing and immediate need to do so. If someone can hurt you for not complying with their rules you don't have anarchism.
Ok though, you live somewhere were for some reason people are mean to you, don't invite you to events, and otherwise bully you because you are gay. You have choices, you can stay and try to change their minds or you can leave. Leaving is easier, as you have no rents or mortgages, no passports, nothing that can be withheld from you to force you to stay in pain. Is this ideal? No, but I challenge you to come up with a system of living that will be ideal in all circumstances. At least under an anarchic system of organisation leaving is always a choice.
On someone always disagreeing: why do you think this will be the case? Is this your experience when you make decisions with more than one person? When you go out to eat is someone always adamant the choice is wrong? When you assign roles in a project is someone always unhappily complying only under threat of violence? It is not my experience that consensus is difficult to achieve except on the thorniest of issues. Under our current systems consensus is almost never achieved, any increase would be a meaningful improvement.
It's not merely about social exclusion or bullying, but actively being hate crimed. Gay men are frequently targeted in violent attacks, lynching, often killed in sadly a significant portion of the world (Africa, the Middle East, South Asia). That is what I'm concerned about.
I'm not sure if simply leaving would be a realistic solution given that the nearest safe place could easily be several countries away, and international transport is very expensive
On disagreements: If you look at political discourse and voting in parliamentary discussions, there is always disagreement. It is rarely the case that everyone agrees 100-0 (numbers arbitrary) in favour of any decision. Leftists are infamous for their constant disagreements and splintering into different factions
There is no magic bullet that can make everyone get on. All anarchism can offer is that no organ of coercive violence can be used against people.
If an individual or conspiracy desires to hurt someone they can act and try to do that. Nothing can ever prevent that, all you can do is try and stop it happening. No king or emperor can stop a lynching, only punish people after. Historically however these acts have often occured because of support by those weilding power.
Murder is illegal and yet it happens, to prevent it you have to remove incentives and shift culture.
disagreements: It seems we both agree that current parliamentry systems are highly disfunctional and don't encourage or train people in consensus building to everyone's detriment.
Laws against hate crime significantly lower their rate of occurrence. Compare countries where it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexuality, or in housing, or where hate crimes are taken seriously by the law versus countries where it isn't taken seriously by the law.
It's intuitive to know that if you can kill a minority member and routinely get away with it scot-free, you will be seeing it more often than if it was appropriately punished.
You're mixing a few things here. It is precisely the law that makes discrimination at your place of employment possible. The law means you must put up with it or starve and be homeless, the law means you must follow your boss's orders, the law means that people can withhold the stuff you need to live or prevent "their" property.
None of this would be possible