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.
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.
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.
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.
Please check the rules before commenting. Rule 7 in particular.
Is there a rule against shaming people for making stupid rules?
Nope. Give it a shot, let’s see how those gears turn.
Mmm praxis
deleted by creator
For a community based on anarchy there sure are a bunch of rules on what you can and cannot say… 😂
Anarchy implies a lack of hierarchy, not a lack of rules.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
deleted by creator
The anarchism understander has logged on
you’re right. the philosophy of anarchy is equivalent to chaotic dungeons and dragons alignment.
Freedom of association
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
Online, you have no way of knowing what someone does instead of voting.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
You did say it isolation. You randomly shared this statement just to pile-in.
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.
deleted by creator
Who the fuck promotes “do nothing”, my man? This is not argument. You’re just hiding behind a strawman.
Just to clarify, I think that’s a stupid rule and you should be ashamed.
k