Absolutely! He simply has a very original take on “freedom”, but we all know that’s a tricky word to pin down, so don’t think about it too much, and leave it to the big dogs to tell you when your freedom is being protected.

Instructions unclear, am currently chilling in a hot tub with three big hairy men… when do the bears show up?

They can use the state to do that for them

and the company

Surely the company would never be just as authoritarian as the state!

~ [cue anti-consumer subscription models and user policies]

Say what you want about marxist-leninists but they’re not “very extreme right fascists”. Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you just doing your part in decreasing political literacy?

Ohh, I see

Equality is everyone being treated the same way regardless of differences.

Generally, equality is just about equality of freedom or “power to –”. If someone needs support to achieve their goals (as long as this doesn’t involve “power over” others / oppression) then of course it is important that there be societal structures/networks in place to help them, or at least “meta-structures” that can facilitate the organisation of such supporting networks.

Of course, “freedom” is a poorly defined word in itself, but imo the “everyone treated the exact same” (or worse, “everyone should be the same”) interpretations are not in the spirit of “freedom” and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were constructed in bad faith (not to promote “equity” but to discredit “equality”).

But ultimately it’s just semantics, and if you like calling it equity that’s cool, it’s just good to keep in mind that people who still use “equality” can easily be referring to the exact same thing.

Ohhh :/

As far as I can tell, they physically present as masculine (albeit non-traditionally), perhaps with elements of femininity (I mean when it comes to specifics that kinda stuff is subjective), rather than butch/masculine femininity or smthn.

I just checked their reddit acc (u/anarcho-stripperism) and they still have their preferred pronouns as they/she/them, and seeing that they’re anarchist, perhaps they are going for a more subversive breaking-the-gender-binary thing (which I think is cool!) rather than something specifically about gender identity.

Do you know why? I’m curious because she presents as masculine and doesn’t seem to have any hangups presenting as such so it leaves me a bit confused. Like, with gender being a social contruct and all, gender neutral pronouns for all is my personal ideal, but yeah I don’t get why someone would choose pronouns associated with the gender they don’t actually “traditionally” present as. Is it about being intentionally subversive?

Only if the amount of wug is a prime number.

This is because non-prime numers of wuggi are highly unstable and will split into separate prime factors of wug if there’s enough space (and in most atmospheric conditions).

You could share this sublemmy’s pinned post, or the megathread it links to:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/10901

https://rentry.co/megathread

Ik it’s only anecdotal, but I played Brawl Stars when it was in beta and witnessed almost all its updates until global launch (and have caught up with some more recent updates here and there). It went from a genuinely fun mobile game with character and potential to a plastic husk primed for whatever monetisation and “engagement” strategies analytics says needs to be shoved into it next.

At the time I couldn’t fathom how all those updates that often made gameplay and progression less fun could ever be more “engaging” (the change from portrait to landscape in particular felt like straight up poor game design, trashing its unique mobile control schemes in favour of digital twin joysticks and “autoaim”), but in hindsight it’s clear what that really meant.

Such is class war in the 21st century

Peertube?

The deregulation march you’re talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn’t just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism’s response to regulation.

It’s not that regulation doesn’t work per se, it’s that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.

For democracy to truly represent the people it’d need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the ‘top’ through processes we’re lead to believe are necessary for ‘order’ (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - “hierarchical realism”).

Can we please stop pretending “regulation” is all that effective. It’s been tried, and has resulted in corrupt bureaucracy or given way to neoliberalism (and corporate bureaucracy).

What we need is a radically different system where the power truly is in the hands of the people, and not just nominally like in representative democracy (and which is completely lacking anyways in most workplaces). And what this requires is the construction of fundamentally different modes of production and human interrelation that will not resemble what we’ve got now, neither economically nor politically nor socially. Regulating capitalism won’t get us there.

Communism is by definition moneyless

But yes anarchy is less prescriptive

Personally though I’m sceptical that money can be without hierarchy, or that the distinction between necessities and luxuries is all that meaningful, since it’s all very relative

cyberpunk af

We’re in the age of the technofeudalists