this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
479 points (90.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
980 readers
44 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“We sometimes think that technology is essentially neutral. It can have good or bad effects, and it might be really important who controls it. But a tool, many people like to think, is just a tool. Guns don’t kill people, people do. But some philosophers have argued that technology can have values built into it that we may not realize.”
Sure, but Abigail wasn't really advocating against transhumanism or technology generally... The critique of that video is that technology isn't really the focus of the disagreement between transhuminism and anti-transhumanism, but rather the 'dressing' around a deeper phenomenological belief (for transhumanists it's the belief that technology will save us from the inequity and suffering created under capitalism, and for anti-transhumanists it's the belief that technology and progress will subvert the 'natural' order of things and we must reject it in favor of tradition). Both arguments distract from what is arguably the more pressing issue - namely that technology does nothing to correct the contradictions of capital and it may even work to accelerate its collapse.
I would really enjoy a discussion about how AI might shape our experience as humans - and how that might be good or bad depending - but instead we're stuck in this other conversation about how AI might save us from the toils of labor (despite centuries of technological progress having never brought us any closer to liberation) vs how it might be a Trojan horse and we need to return to a pre-AI existence.
It might be more productive for you to argue the case for why the effects or harm you're pointing to are somehow 'inherent' to AI itself and not symptoms of capitalism exacerbated by AI.