Flippanarchy

344 readers

3 users here now

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.

founded 7 months ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

521

Averages (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 1 month ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I already spelled it out to you several times, but here you go again:

If you go back to my original comment, it was in response to someone saying, “The US army won’t drone strike a community meal,” and “the heinous acts were only possible by othering the foreigners.” If you agree that the state does sometimes successfully employ force to stop peaceful community building, then we are in agreement.

I don't see what's unclear about that. You might not have said that being right was a protection against force, but I didn't think that that was at all clear from what the other person was saying.

There wasn't really a need for any of this to be an argument. It was just a reminder that it's not always safe, and not to rely too much on ideology for protection. If you think that's valid, I mean, that's what I was saying from the start and I'm not sure what I could've said or done differently that would better communicate that.

Yes, my point is broadly speaking about, "Revolution is hard" - in a certain, specific way. Is it not valid to look at the history of people trying to build community power and identify various unexpected dangers they encountered? It's like, "Hey, be careful, there's a spike pit after this jump," "So what? You're telling me this level has things that can kill me? No shit." If we both agree there's a danger there, then I don't understand what I actually said that you take issue with.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not taking an issue with anything. I just thought you were making a point more salient than "the capitalist state is dangerous and hostile to anarchist praxis" which every anarchist recognizes.