New Lemmy account: @email@example.com
On second thought, I don’t think I adequately addressed your concerns, although I realize that your concerns are valid. So I added a line to the sidebar explicitly stating that anarchism is anti-capitalist, since that might not be clear from the community name. I also replaced the “inspired by r/DebateAnarchism” line with something that clarifies more that this community has the same purpose as that sub, but shouldn’t necessarily be exactly the same — I want to be safe since I didn’t really check that the community of that sub is the type of community we want to foster here. I worry that I might’ve come across as dismissive; I’m sorry.
Thanks again for your feedback, it was helpful 😄. I think I’m being a bit obsessive over the sidebar now haha.
Yeah, this could be a problem. But the only other place that I know of for interactions between anarchists and non-anarchists is !firstname.lastname@example.org, I think there are some important differences between this community and that one that warrant creating this as a separate community.
If someone is not quite convinced of anarchism, they may want somewhere to post their specific concerns, and they might believe that they might change anarchists’ minds. While they technically could post those concerns in !email@example.com phrased as “what would you say in response to this?,” that would basically be an admission of being wrong because it implies that the poster is the one who needs to learn more about anarchism. Generally, the anarchist communities on Lemmy are centered around anarchists, which makes sense, but non-anarchists may also bring useful perspectives that might not be seen in !firstname.lastname@example.org.
You’re right that online debates are often very toxic (thanks for bringing this up!). So I edited the sidebar to “rebrand” this community to emphasize the educational aspects rather than the debate aspects. I also think this community should ideally have strict moderation, although I an a single person would probably have trouble doing so.
In the very worst case, this community can just serve as a “trash bin” to contain debates and prevent them from spreading elsewhere, so that people who don’t want to see these debates can block this community.
I think Jo Freeman made a similar argument in “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,” which has been responded to in Cathy Levine’s “The Tyranny of Tyranny” (the link also contains the text of “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” in its addendum). I haven’t fully read either, though, so I could be totally off.
Yeah, it’s useful sometimes. I guess I just mean that Lemmy (and other fediverse sites) sometimes feel way more addictive than they should, and there may be some non-obvious choices (not necessarily the upvote system) that cause it to be this way that just wouldn’t be made if mainstream social media didn’t make those choices. There are choices in the scoring system that aren’t necessarily obvious (e.g. that downvotes are worth exactly as much as an upvote, or that users can vote on their own posts) that might be reflecting e.g. Reddit, but these examples aren’t really necessarily undesirable or addictive.
I don’t think comments like this are very useful. I have no idea what you’re trying to say in this comment besides expressing a general dislike of Xi Jinping (at least that’s who I assume the person in the meme is), but if you want to criticize him you should criticize things he did rather than his appearance or whatever.
The mods on !email@example.com passed a rule to ban debates against anarchism itself. This rule addresses the issue of non-anarchists expressing fundamental objections to anarchism under almost every post, derailing conversations and starting unproductive debates. The rule thus reaffirms that the community is a space that belongs to anarchists.
But it can sometimes be useful to have a space where anarchists and non-anarchists can express their disagreements in good faith. I’m not too confident in how productive internet debates can be, but ideally, good debates could cause people to change some of their beliefs. I made this community after someone said some stuff in !firstname.lastname@example.org that veered kind of close to debate territory. I wanted to direct them elsewhere but there was nowhere to direct them, so I created this community.
I’m also not very well-versed in anarchism and I’m curious about anarchist replies to common objections.
Can you give examples? I didn’t see any right-wing “anarchist” posts when I glanced at it, though I didn’t look too hard. But it seems to me that the anarchists there are left-wing. For instance, one of the top-voted posts is titled “Anarchists spend way too much time caring about Ancaps,” which explicitly implies that ancaps are not anarchists.
There are probably some right-wingers there, including anarcho-capitalists, as the subreddit welcomes people of all political ideologies. But I think those right-wingers are debating against, not for, what the sub defines as anarchism.
I guess what I meant by including that sub in the sidebar is that the intention of this community mirrors that of the subreddit (i.e. a place for non-anarchists and anarchists to debate), but I guess I don’t care as much about the actual content in the subreddit as long as it’s not egregiously bad (as you’re claiming it is).
Yeah, some of the stuff on that instance seems kind of toxic and bigoted, so I guess I won’t go there since anything about anarchism there is likely to devolve into a significantly worse shithole than anywhere on lemmy.ml, lol.
I think (though I could be wrong) that any instances that aren’t explicitly blocked can federate. Both https://email@example.com and https://firstname.lastname@example.org show up, so hopefully that means people from those instances can post there.
Actually, it looks like gtio.io is literally meant for this kind of stuff. And it doesn’t block any instances.
Created — !email@example.com. If anyone here wants to be a mod, let me know.
See the SEP’s reply to the objection that “anarchy will always evolve back into the state”.
anarchists might argue … that rational agents would choose to remain in anarchy rather than allow the state to evolve. Some anarchists may argue that each time a state emerges, it would have to be destroyed. But others will argue that education and human development (including technological development) would prevent the reemergence of the state.
This argument can probably be applied to capitalism as well.
Fediverse sites often have cleaner UIs and load faster than traditional social media. And there’s none of that “create an account to view this post” or “this looks better in the app” stuff.
Also, traditional social media often makes changes that alienates users (because e.g. those changes prioritize profit over the happiness of most users, or because those changes are out of tune with what the users want). In fediverse social medias, this type of change happens less because the developers are often more in tune with their communities and don’t have as much of a profit incentive (and anyone can always create a fork if any changes are unbearably bad).
I think most of that entire discussion was pretty wholesome, especially considering it was a post in !firstname.lastname@example.org with 70 comments.
Looks like this has been a problem for at least a year now: https://lemmy.ml/post/68017
Even though I don’t often browse other instances, I think lemmy.ml would lose a lot since some of the most active users are from other instances.
Honestly, I don’t think it really matters so much. People who use she/her or he/him pronouns would only leak slightly more than a bit of entropy doing so, while people who go by other pronouns online might still not lose too much privacy. At most, a user’s pronouns may strongly suggest that they are nonbinary, but attackers may still have problems using this information, since for example some people may identify as a binary gender but still go by gender-neutral pronouns online, or some nonbinary people may not be “legally” nonbinary and thus might not have written records associating their real-life identity with their gender.
In general, (I assume) people normally leak way more information online, and I guess people who care about privacy should just make up inconsequential information about themselves.
Because of Elon Musk?