Audible Anarchist is great. Anarchist Library is another great resource depending on what you can hyperfocus on.

Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.

Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.

Learning to explain math to a computer has been a major blessing.

I agree. Legal and ethical are not the same. Legal does not imply just.

I assumed you are familiar with American history. You assumed I want mass killing. I will simplify my question. When is it necessary to kill another human?

For education, John Brown was an American Abolitionist. That means he did not think anyone should be enslaved. To keep it simple, he attempted to spur a slave rebellion. He killed slave owners.

Killing another human is not ethical. Domination can make killing another human necessary. Your death could be necessary if you are dominating other humans.

What are your thoughts on John Brown?

Why would anyone choose to rent provided an option to own and sufficient funds? Who owns new construction? If landlords, why not manufacture scarcity to drive up prices?

I agree that united we can push back. Creating horizontal power structures provide the push. Ideally, dismantling hierarchical power over merely scaring it.

Voting does not change the whims of the powerful. The powerful continue to push their will. Currently that will is massacres and genocide. Genocide Joe does have a nice ring to it. Vote or don’t. The powerful will get their way.

Voting is easy in my state, so I will. My current amusement is voting against incumbents. Preference is Third Party > Democrat > Republican.

Beyond the entertainment of voting: keep building mutual aid networks, be a good neighbor and use a pokeball if 2025 gets ghastly.

I referenced a news story in which the parachute on an air dropped aid package failed to deploy crushing people underneath.

Genocide is not ethical. Voting for genocide, but less, does not change the ethics of genocide. Part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020 will not vote for him again due to his support of genocide.

The options for such voters are:

1. Being complicite in genocide
2. Voting third party or not at all

I understand the two party system created by first-past-the-post. I understand third party candidates are unlikely to win. I understand Democrats are rightfully nervous. If Democrats are nervous enough, they should do something to change the minds of voters that will not vote for genocide.

There is a flaw in making a collective choice individualistic. Helping others is a moral thing to do and I was there in 2020 even though peanut butter sucks. Individually, I will get a sandwich, probably with peanut butter.

However, this crate landed on Palestinians. Helping the people under the crate seems important.

I understand needing to eat the sandwich. I also understand making a collective first-past-the-post choice individual is a flawed argument.

However there is an individual component to saying I really can’t eat peanut butter. The decision then becomes stand your ground (no peanut butter), compromise (just a little peanut butter) or protest (full peanut butter; see you in the ER). The claim is the compromise is best.

How do we reach a point where we no longer need to compromise on peanut butter?

Offering a sandwich with more and less peanut butter when I am allergic to peanuts still means I will be sick. I’m hungry and I want a sandwich with no peanut butter. There are third party candidates providing sandwiches with no peanut butter. I am sorry demand decreases for the sandwich with less peanut butter, but I am unable to stomach peanuts.

Lemmy is a federated platform run by instance owners. Owners have full power regarding moderating their servers including delegating that power to others. The owners can decide which other owners are censored through defederation. Lemmy, by design, is not free from political struggle. Lemmy handles power better than platforms like Reddit where server ownership is centralized.

Denying crimes against humanity is foul. Owners decide which ideas are promoted and which are denying history through federation with owners. Spaces for denying crimes against humanity will continue to exist. I would like to be in those spaces as a thorn to remind others of their awful ideas and possibly present better ideas.

Under present conditions someone must own the hardware to run the server. The owner cannot reasonably allow all content. Constituents of an instance place trust in the owner to censor in a transparent and responsible manner. Those same constituents can leave an instance for violating trust with regard to censorship. Freedom of association is an important component of Lemmy.

Far right and far left are a spectrum. I describe myself as an anarchist which is considered far left. As an anarchist, I see the fediverse as a possibility space for democratic control and power distribution over horizontally aligned hierarchies. I am excited for the possibilities to end domination heirarchies. My political alignment is tangent to the systems for power established by Lemmy.