But there would still be a genocide going on with your tacit support, so if you can enjoy brunch while your tax dollars are murdering children then I guess we just have different standards.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
75 points (95.2% liked)
Anarchism
2259 readers
46 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Although it's not said explicitly, the article uses the "we'd be at brunch" sign as an example of rhetoric that uses the liberal "No Kings" framing. The writers of the article would disagree with the message of this sign, as would any anarchist worth taking seriously, because it argues that changing the figurehead (to Kamala Harris) would be a solution, instead of abolishing the figurehead at all.
I agree with that, but the sign particularly offended me and I felt like it needed to be called out on its own merits.
Well yes, but the people must be alienated from the decisions that shape their lives somehow. What is your proposal, if not aristocratic jingoist celebretism in the trappings if not official title of a monarch?
Feeding all of our conversations into a new llm, to be trained on the nsa's most recent surveillance data on the first of each year?
Or something involving dice?
Doesn't seem much better, if you ask me. Which you shouldn't; speak only to my attorney.
Flat, answerable governance. That's all. People only need alienation from terrible decisions. The insulation/alienation from the outcomes of their decisions are what allow them to make such horrible decisions easily.
people only need alienation from terrible decisions
But what if they get some amount of pride and start acting like mature adults!?
Read the fucking paper before commenting...
I did read the fucking article, but I dunno if you know this, people are free to engage with all or part of a post however they see fit; I chose to engage only with the sign itself.
Contextually, your comment did sound as if you were framing the article as the opposite of what it says based only on the thumbnail, instead of calling out libs. The heat made me twitchier than usual. My apologies.
S'all good. :)
To be fair you didn't mention what you were talking about
I s'pose that's fair, but I guess I thought it was self-evident. shrug
If i paid taxes, yeah. If somebody cute were chewing on my neck right now, i think id enjoy it, and i had to take a detour to avoid a buncha shit heads with assault rifles getting groceries this morning-i think military, not feds, but who can even tell anymore, right?