dismissed as a conspiracy nut.
The government and bad actors use this as a strategy to attack their opponents and control public opinion.
- 4 Posts
- 124 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: February 13th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Protests crack down on the internet has been going on for quite some time, don’t just blame it on trump but on the whole government and its infrastructure.
16·16 days agoI literally provided concrete examples of shows doing just that. There are plenty of other examples such as Mr. Robot or V for Vendetta. Some are more subtle than others, but the message is always that resisting authority should be done by lone rebels, and loose self organizing groups. Some shows name anarchism explicitly, others merely imply it.
The examples you provided are fictional movies popular for their alternative plot. If you are interested in anarchism read authors like Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Bakunin or Kropotkin. “Anarchism” is not a football team, saying anarchists have nothing to show in over a century sounds like a misinterpretation of anarchism and an insufficient knowledge of history.
Anarchism and anti-authoritarianism are used as release valves to funnel this discontent away from serious organizing that might challenge the system.
Organization does not imply authority or rulers. Authoritarian organizations can be used as a release valve too and one could argue they are easier to manipulate and control.
They are in fact dependent on central authority as history clearly shows.
A person can have discipline and be organized without a general or ruler.
That’s the reality.
I’ve been banned and censored before from this sub and lemmy.ml simply for challenging the narrative. I’m not going to reply here any further. You are welcome discussing authority in a less authoritarian sub where none of us will be silenced.
The promotion of anarchism within capitalist media, coupled with the suppression of Marxist thought, is damning evidence against anarchism as viable opposition to capitalist hegemony.
Over here capitalist media and state media are the same outlet and never in my life i’ve seen them promoting anarchism. They don’t even mention anarchists as such unless when it’s useful to portrait “anarchism” under bad light, they are usually referred to “extremists” or “antagonists”.
Meanwhile, history demonstrates time and again that revolutions require centralized authority to dismantle oppressive systems.
This sound like a generalization that isn’t necessarily true and one could argue that replacing an oppressive system with another is no revolution at all.
Capitalism tolerates anarchism precisely because it poses no systemic threat
I’m not sure where you live, in pretty much every country in the world self thought is discouraged and education is rooted in conformism.
while revolutionary movements succeed only by embracing disciplined, organized force.
Discipline and organization are not dependent on a central authority. State media is working hard in making sure you don’t hear about success from “others”.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best. Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities. I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
It sound like your diet was off, if you don’t eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Don’t waste your time with reddit. Search around and you will find servers with smarter mods than .world or .lm
Spreading war propaganda
None of them are good or private
not the same thing but this may be related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
It had value, but nothing close to 43 BILLION dollars.
43 billions is peanuts compared to the 3 trillions apple and microsoft market cap. Twitter is one of the biggest social network in the world and the one more used by politicians. It has plenty of value even if not making profits, everyone know how it works.
And now you read daily how much money it’s losing.
Last time i hear about him he was talking over the president, as expected from owning one of the biggest social networks in the world he isn’t losing much.
Literally the ONLY reason Musk bought it was because he got into a pissing contest
People keep saying he’s an idiot making stupid decisions, which is true because he’s a corrupted money addict but he’s the second if not the first richest man in the world and he’s now in the white house talking for the president. You are all getting fooled hard thinking he becomes more wealthy by accident.
Doesn’t look like a bad investment, look at where the ceo is at
Twitter is one of the biggest social networks in the world and the most used by politicians worldwide. It’s quite obvious that his position allowed him to get more votes to his party.
Doesn’t seem like he lost much, like you would expect by buying one of the biggest social platform in the world he got even richer and more relevant (enough to get a sit in the white house)
Why they didn’t want it?
Doesn’t make much business sense for megacorps to buy one of the biggest social media that allowed his new ceo a place in the white house?
The whole network is de facto centralized on Matrix.org
That’s not true there’s plenty of people using different homeservers
Because it’s nothing more than a trick to divide public opinion and control it.
Go ahead and send me your phone number. If you don’t want to do it please provide data that i’m compromised.
It’s much harder for the government and bad actors to hide backdoors in open source software than making a deal with a private company