• 5 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle


  • bitsplease@lemmy.mlto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The less centralised things are the less vulnerable they are

    I’m sorry, but how do you arrive at that conclusion? If I roll in with a giant, powerful military from my centralized state, how does being less centralized make your position easier to defend? The less centralized you are, the less capable of a coordinated defense you are, and the more likely it is that your territory will be conquered without being able to present a meaningful resistance.

    And if you were referring to an internal threat from a populist leader, then that’s assuming that the individuals involved don’t let said populist leader make them more centralized for easier control - if you’re just relying on the individuals always making the right decisions, then frankly you’re doomed.

    they’re guaranteed to hold on to it for very long

    Absolutely, and judging by history the typically dont. But a wannabe tyrant can do a lot of damage through their rise and fall, and tyrants have descendants.

    , if you’re interested then there is a lot of ink spilled on the subject. Either from the perspective of actually existing anarchists or theoretical books.

    And I’m sorry but “just devoted weeks/months of your life to read anarchist literature” isn’t a replacement for an actual rebuttal to my points, I have done some reading on anarchism, hence why I understand the concepts well enough to talk about them, but of course I’m not going to spend huge amounts of time reading up on a political system that I think is fundamentally flawed, and I’ve yet to come across any argument in your comments or others that actually negates any of what I’ve already said, most of it boils down to “we’ll just figure it out bro, trust us”

    The history of the Spanish civil war might be quite interesting to you, as the anarchists had to fight the strongly backed fascists, obviously eventually they lost but they did pretty damn well! lots to learn there.

    Completely irrelavent scenario (and if it was relavent, the fact that they lost would support my point), the Republicans of the Spanish Civil War weren’t from an anarchist society (nor were they all anarchists). They were residents of a non anarchist society who rebelled, using existing infrastructure created by the existing non-anarchist society.

    The closest real analogue is what happened to the native Americans during the colonization (though even that is a very loose analogue, as many tribes were very very far from anarchic, though some were very very close to it), and we all know how that ended from our history books.


  • bitsplease@lemmy.mlto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ultimately this is the core problem as I see it - a hierarchical society will always be militarily stronger, practically by definition - and if history has taught us anything, it’s that weak neighbors get eaten by their stronger neighbors.

    Additionally I think most of these idealized community structures are overly optimistic about the likelihood of a charismatic leader coming along and getting people to follow them, and then not letting them withdraw that power. Anarchists talk about hierarchies without formal power structures, but what is actually stopping someone whose already effectively in charge from turning that power into something more permanent, especially if they’ve convinced the populace that they want that?

    Its happened an endless amount of times all throughout history, and I really don’t see why it wouldn’t here. Ultimately it just seems like a fragile system that relies mostly on every single individual being perfectly rational and immune to the draw of populist leaders. Aka - completely unlike actual humans


  • Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.

    So you’re advocating for him to break the constitution he was elected to uphold, to hold an election that would have to be incomplete and unfair - all so that you, a person who isn’t even a Ukrainian can feel better about the situation? Despite the fact that there’s no call for this from the actual Ukranian public?

    That’s certainly an opinion to have lol


  • So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution? And he should be allowed to do this unilaterally? And this would make him not a dictator? He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.

    The foundation of democracy is the idea that our elected officials have to abide by the rules of law that are already in place, including (and especially) those laws that concern how other laws are made. Otherwise any elected official could just declare themselves the new supreme ruler and toss out every law that limits their power.

    And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol


  • What exactly is the process for a complete replacement in the constitution in Ukraine? Is it something that can feasibly be accomplished during wartime?

    Edit: apparently the process is “you can’t” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text (Article 19 Section 1)

    So basically there is no way for Zelensky to change anything about the situation without just fraglantly breaking the law (or declaring an end to martial law during wartime, which would be beyond stupid). Pretty hard to argue he’s a “dictator” when literally all he’s doing is following the law that was out in place well before he was elected.

    Now, if the war ends and he still refuses to hold a election, I’ll be right with you in calling for action, but I fail to see any fault with his current course on this specific issue


  • bitsplease@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldUpdates
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m pretty sure the whole “iPhone as a status symbol” thing is a thing of the past - I literally can’t remember anytime in the last 5 years that anyone expressed envy at someone owning a iphone.

    I’d argue that yearly upgrades regardless of phone brand are more of the status symbol now


  • bitsplease@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldUpdates
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    on this site at least - you’re absolutely right, and the fact that you’re getting bombed with downvotes is pretty solid anecdotal evidence of that if nothing else lol

    Don’t get me wrong, I get just as annoyed by those who insist Apple can do no wrong as those who insist they can do no right. I just find it weird how pseudo-religious people can get about Apple. It seems like you’re not allowed to just view them as another tech company. You have to either crusade against them, or else you’re a paid apple shill



  • bitsplease@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldUpdates
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    They 100% did

    Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to gripe about with apple, just like every tech company, but I swear half the complaints I hear about Apple products on lemmy are either outdated or just plain wrong

    For some reason the anti-Apple circle jerk is supercharged on Lemmy. I’ll never understand why people get themselves so worked up over a brand they never have to do business with










  • If actual aliens are here it basically means travelling faster than light is possible.

    Not just possible, but dirt cheap, otherwise why would they be constantly dropping down into Earth to see what we’re up to.

    Really, the whole notion is a bit silly when you think about it rationally. If a society was advanced to the point of cheap FTL (which, I feel the need to point out, isn’t just “advanced technology” but “technology that operates in complete defiance to our most fundamental understandings of physics”), why on earth would they be dipping into the actual atmosphere, doing landings, or flying by private aircraft? Surely a society with such breathtaking technology could drop a single spy satellite into orbit and get every piece of info they could possibly want about us, especially now that we’re in the digital age.

    I have no doubt that alien life of some sort is out there, very possibly it’s even prolific (though that doesn’t seem to be the case based on our admittedly limited observations of exoplanets), but there’s no rational basis for thinking that an advanced alien society would have either the means, nor the motivation, to constantly pop down to earth to screw with pilots, farmers, etc.


  • Or when they extropolate from America the country being shit, to every individual American being shit for having the audacity to have been born here.

    Most of us would also rather it wasn’t like this, but our families, friends, and livelihoods are here, so generally speaking it’s not practical to just up and leave. And our political system is to broken for us to really fix via voting

    Trash on the country all you want, I’ll join in with you - but don’t blame the folks who are just trying to live the best we can in this fucked up country