you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S, M] 7 points 2 months ago* (16 children)

Please check the rules before commenting. Rule 7 in particular.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    apologies if this isn't the place for this, but after bernie lost his nomination, I had become disenfranchised and sat out 2 elections. Now I'm seeing all the work that went into making me feel disenfranchised as mechanisms to control my vote; I don't understand it, but if so much work is going into controlling peoples ability to vote... it must matter more than I can comprehend.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Online, you have no way of knowing what someone does instead of voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    my saying “revolution is actually better, proceeds to never do revolution”

    Saying this in isolation, is painting all anti-electoralists with as do-nothings and paints non-electoralist praxis as ineffective. If you don't want to violate rule 7, word things more accurately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You did say it isolation. You randomly shared this statement just to pile-in.

    maybe I would have been better to say “dual power is better, proceeds to never attempt to build dual power”

    It's the same thing with different phrasing. So not better.

    Obviously it's hyperbole, one that violates rule 7, given that it shames anti-electoralism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Who the fuck promotes "do nothing", my man? This is not argument. You're just hiding behind a strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Is there a rule against shaming people for making stupid rules?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Anarchy implies a lack of hierarchy, not a lack of rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well, I suppose not if we elect mods and can revoke their mod status. Anarchy also doesn't imply a lack of representation, broadly speaking, so much as it usually implies a revocable delegate model rather than a representative model. I'm not an expert though, if I'm wrong someone else please feel free to correct me or articulate this better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)
  • Lol think something along the lines of "we give you permission to do X on our behalf, unless and until we vote that your right to do so is revoked," as opposed to "we elect you to do as you see fit in the name of our interests for X years." Oversimplification obviously, but hopefully that clarifies it a bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)