Look back on my profile at the recent comment where I mentioned Johnny Depp being a disgusting drunk rapist who groomed a woman half his age and sued her for defaming him when she spoke about the backlash she received for speaking out against his domestic abuse.

I seem to constantly interact with people decrying the 'transmedicalist perspective'

No they use rocket propelled grenades.

So a common misconception about property is that private property means personal property. This couldn't be further from the truth. When leftists discuss private property we are referring specifically to property owned with the purpose of producing capital for the owner. This essentially means businesses. Your house is not private property it is personal property because you own it for personal use. This changes if you own 50 houses and extract rent from them. A hammer is personal property until you own hundreds of thousands of them and distribute them amongst laborers who use them to create economic value that you now "own". Communists want you to own things, we just don't want individuals or small groups to own production and have legal entitlement to the value of worker's labor.

When people talk about private property, they generally aren't talking about personal property: your desk, your refrigerator, your home. They mean private ownership of eg. farms, factories, cyclotrons

I know plenty of people on the Left who want to ban guns, European-style. They think anyone who owns one is partially psychopathic and have a fetish about killing things. You're right, they're probably in the minority, but I question by just how much. I don't think they're as fringe as some people would like to believe.

As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether that is infringing (not stealing). Based on my understanding, AI is transformative and would fall under fair use. That being said, claiming fair use and then selling the output is problematic to me.

Every single model should be open weights and uncensored. I wouldn't have any issue with companies adding value or supplying the compute to run the model.

In this particular case I'm okay with it but I don't see it as stealing. Human artists are influenced by the art of other artists the same way. It's only stealing if you're selling copies of the original piece as your own. I wouldn't have any problem with someone copying my entire photography portfolio to train an AI to generate pictures with my style because it takes nothing away from me. Just sell them as your own then instead of claiming they were taken by me.

Lemmy wants the baby without the labor pains.

"Destroy Capitalism!"

"But what about the millions who will die in the ensuing chaos!?!"

"Well dont do it that way!"

"Which way then?"

"DESTROY CAPITALISM!"

Yeah the system is fucked and definitely needs change, but its either gradual or violent and as someone who came up with rough crowds in rough places. Most people arent cut out for when the actual violence starts.

IT degree

From my experience, that's giving the average lemmite way to much credit.

I'm amazed and pleased. I almost never encounter anyone who shares my views, even among self-described 'anarchists."

Most of them carry around lists (figuratively at least) of all of the things that will be required and all of the things that will be prohibited in their "anarchism," antagonistically immune to the fact that by doing so, they've already stipulated institutionalized, hierarchical authority and thus proactively eliminated anarchism.

I don’t think of it as a political philosophy but more just as a description of how I believe the world actually is when stripped of the systems we’ve laid on top of everything.

Very much yes.

My anarchism is rooted in my view that authority is a contrivance, and an ultimately unjustifiable one.

Tom lives alone on a desert island. That means that Tom, within the constraints necessarily imposed by simple reality (he can't, for instance, flap his arms and fly) enjoys complete freedom of choice.

The only way that that freedom can be constrained is if another person is introduced and that other person acts to constrain Tom's freedom.

So as you note, the state of affairs in which Tom's freedom is constrained beyond anything determined by simple reality is some additional element that's laid on top of the base state.

And as such, it's the thing that must be justified. Tom doesn't have to justify being free from constraint imposed by another - he already was so free, and would have remained so were it not for the fact that the other has chosen to try to introduce constraint.

Therefore, the introduction of constraint is the thing that must be justified

And there's no possible justification for it that doesn't ultimately establish a hierarchy by which the other person is seen to effectively be a superior being, such that their determination of what Tom may, may not, must or must not do is superior even to Tom's

If the tacit presumption of innate superiority isn't made, then any and all noninal justifications for authority over Tom's decisions fail, since any argument by which any other party might justify imposing their will on Tom is also an argument by which Tom might justify imposing his will on them, and any argument by which they might claim to be rightly free of the imposition of Tom's will is also an argument by which Tom might claim to be rightfully free of the imposition of their will upon him.

This is where and why institutionalized authority inevitably goes wrong, which in turn is why I'm an anarchist.

Without first hand knowledge, I couldn't say in any detail, but I expect that ambitious, greedy, power-hungry psychopaths are already angling for Council positions, from which they'll exercise tacit authority until such time as their positions and their authority can be institutionalized, at which point they'll become the new generation of corrupt officials.

That's not to say or imply I oppose the effort - if nothing else, they've gotten some breathing room. And hopefully the next time they throw off their tyrants, they'll remember how they got their start and reject authority in and of itself and entirely, rather than deluding themselves that it can be constrained.

I largely agree, but I don't think people actually need to have an "other" to hate. I suspect it's an easily activated community-level defense mechanism, if that makes sense. One that's easily a used by manipulative people.

I'm just trying to figure it if there's an evolutionarily-selected use for having manipulative power-seeking types in our populations, or if they truly are more analogous to a parasitic mutation of a more conventional personality type.

I can't say that I disagree with anything here. What bugs me about it is that at an idea at the core of many religions is that all us humans are of one kind, some particular expression of the universe (however that's conceptualized), and can/should act in that fashion, towards each other and the world around us.

But it's almost always turned into a footnote among a bunch of other bullshit that perpetuates tribalism, subjugation and violence. Going to use words that are easily poked apart, but I hope the idea comes across: we all contain something of the divine. It's a miracle we exist at all, and maybe it's possible we can all act like it and set aside meaningless divisions. One 'tribe', the world over, created by mutual recognition and respect rather than force and othering.

Literally all the bones are there, you just have to cast out the outdated divisive bullshit. But doing so also involves actively rejecting some ugly facts about humans as a group, which is, well, hard - to put it mildly.

Idk - this is all why I don't talk about my beliefs (such as they are) too much, and just try my best to act with the good stuff above in mind as much as possible.

The trick here I think is parenting in a way that passes along whatever good you may have to your child. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in some cases) the moral compass and general ethics of the parents don't always translate to the kid. How to do that effectively is a whole other psychological debate. Either way, congrats and best of luck!