“If trends continue…”

So much stupidity hides in those 3 words.

Anarchy just means without heirarchy. I only brought it up in passing that humans are actually pretty cool and it takes a lot for us to be violent and horrible. Like in societies with no central government people are usually pretty fine so the sort of lockeian “red in tooth and claw state of nature” argument as a defense of this shitty compromise governance apparently holding us back from chaos doesn’t actually stand.

Cards on the table I am an anarchist, I think humans are broadly awesome and wonderful apes. I think we do bad stuff when faced with very non ape-compatible choices like whether to deploy militaries but most of those are only enabled by supressing our anarchic tendencies.

When we have to resolve disputes like taking out the garbage, who’s round is it at the pub, should we support a school’s project etc we’re really cool and sensitive. It’s why I believe in proper democracy, even stuff like the mondragon corporation do so much better because of democracy.

I don’t really know what you mean? anarchy can involve centralised decisions but only by consent.

E.g. agreeing to follow to plan of someone for laying out a community garden is anarchic if you are not obligated to do so.

Actual anarchy in the real world often involves lots of committees and community groups both explicit and customary. It’s hard to do much without organisation, but the difference is bottom up “we want a garden so we form a committee to plan it” vs top down “We are building a garden here for your community enrichment” “but we want a sports ground here” “silence peasants”

Why you gotta come after physics dorks :( most of us just like the universe and helping people.

Just 'cause we get a brain disease and become horrible if we get fame doesn’t make us bad. It’s a serious condition: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21

Elites when proles gain even the slightest hint of power: Ohshitohfuckfuckfuckohshitshitfuckshitfuck

It’s always the same. Orgs love diversity as long as you’re leashed and muzzled.

Much easier to look like you’re bringing others to the table than actually make any concessions to other views.

That sort of arterial congestion explains the piss drinking.

16 ounces of “electrolyte water” every day huh?

I want some of whatever you’re on, this is incoherent. The gov system you’re defending can be fired by the GG or through a DD resolution. Mechanisms to fire governments are in all non totalitarian systems I’m aware of.

Suppose you vote me in on my platform of not killing you, but surprise! I lied! you can’t hold me accountable for 3 (or 6!) years. That is obviously messed the fuck up, if you have no power to recall me I’m not representing you, I’m just someone who convinced you to give me some power for a while.

why do you dream so small? why are you convinced that it’s this pathetic little dribble of political power or we murder each other in the streets. Fuck dude, anarchic societies are usually pretty peaceful even in the case of zero external government. Anthropologists have spilled a lot of ink on this.

Are you high? They’re just an example of Democratic governance that’s all.

Don’t put words in my mouth, democracy has nothing to do with getting what you want is has to do with participation and voice in the decision making process.

We have almost no representation in government, no choice as to whether or not we are bound by it, we have no democracy at work, deciding economic priorities anything like that.

You’ve been told you live in a democracy but aside from being told that what evidence is there that you do? Can you even fire the government? Your boss? Do you really have a voice?

here’s a Democratic government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

You guys are like mid 20s you’re not youths. You’re old news now.

what do you mean? Any number of things… The system you have with your friends to decide who hosts the next movie night, your community astronomy club annual meeting, your Union, idk what are you involved in? What is this question even? Democratic decision making is as old as time and as varied as the seasons.

It’s a higher standard than tabloid rags but I feel like they’re doing this a massive disservice by repeating it at all, especially without adding context such as the number of times various senators have mentioned religion, the mandatory religion in Parliament, and consequently that this is obviously an islamophobic smear campaign.

Their own stats say that very few people read more than the first paragraph (I can’t find them but they had this whole campaign on it using their metrics). It’s obviously inflammatory and most readers won’t remember the nuance, they’ll remember vague concerns of scary Muslim god stuff and not supporting Israel.

Yeah maybe, again though zero context and dubious evidence.

She might just not want a two state solution. That’s a reasonable stance, whether or not you think it would shake out nicely I can understand feeling like Israel is an illegitimate nation. At this point regardless of how it was founded I feel enough reasonable people ended up there either through birth, feeling persecution, exile or sale (yep… countries sold Jewish people to Israel. Fucking horror show that is) that not allowing them to stay in at least some of the claimed area and self govern is naïve. Although I would probably feel differently if the state killed my parents, gaoled my spouse, and blew up my kid so my opinion is questionably neutral.

Would labour MPs support a 2 state solution of the second state was to be founded in Australia’s sovereign territory? maybe made up of fragments of their houses?

Giant fucking mess of a sitch.

Really? I got kicked out of Christian Education in highschool for eating a bible and I’ve said “It’s in God’s hand’s now”. Admittedly as a humourous way to sum up “I’ve done what I can, now we see how it shaked out” but all the same.

It’s just an idiom. No doubt sometimes people literally mean it as handing off responsibility to a supernatural, interventionist entity but I would not assume that without seeing evidence someone was a fundie.

That’s not the context she appears to have said it in. The quote appears to be in the context of whether she would support a bill requiring a two state solution as conditional for recognition. That is relayed by a third party and a reasonable assumption is the context being “It’s not up to me if this bill passes or not, I don’t know if I’d support it at the moment. Let’s see what happens”.

Remember, you are hearing a fragment of something said by an unnamed source who has the incentive to portray her as bad, and is likely trying to cover for labor continuing to absolutely nothing for Palistine while tacitly supporting crackdowns on protest.

Ain’t that the truth.

Depending on what you mean that might be naïve. As it stands something like half of us are religious and many people who are religious would say it significantly shapes their views on things.

It’s not even clear where the boundaries between religious and nonreligious views are sometimes.

I think it’s reasonable to ask for a politics that’s reasonable, earnest, compassionate, and understanding. I think it’s also true that fundamentalism can be awful and used to make frothing bigotry seem more reasonable than it is.

But idk, if someone says “a fundamental creed of some system I believe in is non violence and helping the weak, and I meditated on that in my appropriate cultural building last night, so I will be voting against the ‘kill the target minority’ bill proposed” is that such a bad or unreasonable thing?

I think there’s some nuance, and it doesn’t seem that much more silly than standing before an ocean storm, feeling the sublime, and that moment triggering a reduction in ego or whatever.

Millions of addicts can’t be wrong!

yeah fair actually