Breaking down walls, tearing down barriers and abolishing borders.
All 3 of these are stealing the money right out of the mouths of struggling CEOs.
All three stand on the field…
@db0 Could we get some moderators for this community, to kick out the low-effort trolls?
Same ideas, worded differently: https://lemmy.kya.moe/imgproxy?src=i.redd.it%2fx6q4jkkc43xc1.jpeg
All 3 can see the game without supports or accommodations because the cause(s) of the inequity was addressed. The systemic barrier has been removed.
(original post: https://old.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/1ceonlj/a_cool_guide_equality_equity_and_justice_breaking/)
“I have always been a liberal radical, an individualist and an anarchist. In the first place, I am an enemy of the Church; in the second place, I am an enemy of the State. When these great powers are in conflict I am a partisan of the State as against the Church, but on the day of the State’s triumph, I shall become an enemy of the State. If I had lived during the French Revolution, I should have been an internationalist of the school of Anacharsis Cloots; during the struggle for liberty, I should have been one of the Carbonieri.” - Pío Baroja, anarchist and novelist. To stand on equal ground everyone needs to adapt to the ever shifting ground in cooperation, to help each other and themselves to stand on it equally.
I wanna slip one good comment in here: they do need a little fence to hide behine if a ball comes
What Is Politics just made an episode about this, incidentally.
Wait…what’s the kid in the red shirt got his hands on in the Anarchy picture?
Even though it’s now transparent, the barrier is still there. The problem only appears to be solved.
Most barriers are only mental, in people’s minds
Anarchy is when whoever is the physically strongest beats up everyone else.
Every anarchist envisions themselves as the strongman.
I am an anarchist and I do not want to be a strongman. You sound like you don’t have even the most basic understanding of anarchism as a political concept <.<
What I know is sociology and group psychology. I know what people can’t do, and what people are compelled to do in groups. Human psychology and ego simply does not allow for anarchy, regardless of how you feel politically. Reality does not kneel to your desire - and your egotistical belief that it can is exactly the reason why it doesn’t.
Ahh, the “human nature” argument. Never heard that one before /s
Then why do you stubbornly rebel against it, like a child who won’t eat their vegetables?
Because it’s not correct, for a lot of reasons. Even the idea of “human nature” is pretty questionable, at least unless your conception of it is extremely broad and conditional ^.^
People are capable of cooperation and non-hierarchical/coercive organising and natural disasters and shit demonstrate this. This is just one example of proto-anarchistic organising among many.
It is correct - not that you care about “correct”. To you, words only mean what emotional reactions they get.
My conception of “human nature” comes directly from psychology, sociology, and anthropology textbooks, and the experience I have with humanity which has been exclusively abusive.
People are only capable of cooperation in the service of protecting their social groups from external threats, real or imagined. While that does include protection against natural disasters, it’s primarily used against innocent people believed to be threats solely because they don’t already belong to the social group. If they believe they can get away with it, any group will butcher any random person like a hog simply to show dominance.
Look up social dominance theory and recognize that all social groups try to dominate all other group and people. Human beings literally define their identities by who they or their social groups dominate. That’s a fact.
I feel sorry for you that your experiences of fellow humans have been so unrelentingly negative. To clarify your position, are you saying groups of humans are incapable of altruism?
You engage in anarchism every day, and since you’re here on Lemmy, it’s statistically unlikely you’re beating people up.
The hell I do, and it’s the people beating me up - that’s how I know you’re full of shit. People beating people up is a permanent facet of humanity - it’s what makes them animals.
You don’t engage in anarchism? At all, ever? So in your group of friends, you have clearly established hierarchy? Do you go on a date with the assumption that one of you is in charge? Have you never gotten together with a group and discussed what’s best for you all, without one person being the leader?
Anarchism isn’t a lack of rules, or the strong beating the weak, or every person for themselves. Anarchism is rejection of cohersive authority. Anarchism is a thousand little things you do every day with everyone around you. You’ve definitely participated in anarchism, whether you want to admit you have or not. And no amount of protestation is going to change that.
So in your group of friends, you have clearly established hierarchy?
I don’t have friends because assholes like you coerce others not be my friend - even threatening them with death if necessary.
Do you go on a date with the assumption that one of you is in charge?
I don’t go on dates - or even get near people - because you are all bloodthirsty bastards who enjoy torturing the “other”.
Have you never gotten together with a group and discussed what’s best for you all, without one person being the leader?
I’ve never been allowed into any group, because the leader of every group ordered his followers not to accept my humanity, and they slavishly obeyed. Because that’s an inherent facet of humanity - blindly believing and obeying what you’re told.
Anarchism is rejection of cohersive authority.
So, anarchism is being dead? Because that’s what happens when you reject authority - they fucking kill you. No exceptions; barely any delays.
The only way an individual does not die is to submit to a group that will protect the individual, and the minimum price for that protect is their free will. If the individual isn’t willing to be the group’s slave, why would the group ever accept the individual, when the only value any individual has for a group is their slave labor?
So anarchy - lack of coercive hierarchy is when there is coercive hierarchy? Nope, you are just not especially smart person.
Anarchy is one of those leftist ideals that has extreme rightward pressure (i.e. it is inherently unstable). Anarchy will always devolve rapidly into feudalism or other right-wing/authoritarian structures.
Anarchism only exists because hierarchy exists plus power that reinforces the hierarchy. That’s the part you don’t seem to understand. It’s a dialectic. Anarchists are not against working in teams. They’re against being subjugated by hierarchies and powers that keep hierarchies in place with the rationale of “just because we’re in power.” Anarchism questions authority and its existence is dependent on the existence of authority and power structures. Remove the power structures and there is no need for anarchy. You only seem to comprehend one side of the anarchist’s rationale, the one that says, “screw you, I’m not going to obey you.” You seem to not understand the other side of the anarchist’s rationale, which is, “you just want me to be obey because you say so, and I have all kinds of reasons why your say so is irrelevant to reason and logic, because all you’ve done is construct a reason that justifies your authority, which is not natural or even essential to the organization of society.”
Anarchism is against coercive hierarchies, so not really. Look at Zapatistas or Rojava, they I would say falsify your statement.
The pitcher needs to be shooting the red one just because there’s no rules.
You’re confusing anarchism with anomie…
Anarchism is not the absence of rules, but rules agreed between everyone outside any form of authority.
Rules without authority: impossible to enforce. Rules agreed by everyone: impossible to exist.
Once again, you confuse authority with discipline. What is ruled by consensus don’t need to be enforced by authority.
And when did this thing called consensus ever happened in the past 10000 years?
Haha ! good question, probably never happened…
That’s precisely the nature of progress: to create what doesn’t yet exist.
But it cannot be created; human nature makes it impossible. In particular, there will always be narcissists and other Cluster-B personalities to fuck up everything anarchists “create”.
Read on Zapatistas or Rojava.
