For context:
Libre is a third party that was formed in 2011. They’re a coalition of leftist groups, and are democratic socialists.
In 2012 and 2013, at least 18 of their pre-candidates, candidates and staff were murdered.
In 2013, they lost the almost certainly fraudulent presidential election to the right-wing National Party candidate - Juan Orlando Hernández Alvarado, the narcotics trafficker who was just pardoned by Trump.
Of course.
None of this is or ever has been about crime, or even really about immigrants, undocumented or otherwise.
It is and always has been about establishing precedents by which to expand governmental authority.
What they’re building is a system in which anonymous federal agents will be seen to have the right to black-bag anyone, regardless of whether they can be charged with a crime or not, and disappear them.
They started with undocumented immigrants justifiably accused of other crimes because that was the easiest case to be made both legally and popularly, but they never had any intention of stopping there. They’re going to keep expanding until they reach the point that they can do it to anyone, any time, for any reason.
Never seen it.
Off to see why I apparently should…
…Ah. I see.
That’s a specific approach I’ve never seen before, though the broad strategy is tediously familiar.
I’m amazed and pleased. I almost never encounter anyone who shares my views, even among self-described 'anarchists."
Most of them carry around lists (figuratively at least) of all of the things that will be required and all of the things that will be prohibited in their “anarchism,” antagonistically immune to the fact that by doing so, they’ve already stipulated institutionalized, hierarchical authority and thus proactively eliminated anarchism.
I don’t think of it as a political philosophy but more just as a description of how I believe the world actually is when stripped of the systems we’ve laid on top of everything.
Very much yes.
My anarchism is rooted in my view that authority is a contrivance, and an ultimately unjustifiable one.
Tom lives alone on a desert island. That means that Tom, within the constraints necessarily imposed by simple reality (he can’t, for instance, flap his arms and fly) enjoys complete freedom of choice.
The only way that that freedom can be constrained is if another person is introduced and that other person acts to constrain Tom’s freedom.
So as you note, the state of affairs in which Tom’s freedom is constrained beyond anything determined by simple reality is some additional element that’s laid on top of the base state.
And as such, it’s the thing that must be justified. Tom doesn’t have to justify being free from constraint imposed by another - he already was so free, and would have remained so were it not for the fact that the other has chosen to try to introduce constraint.
Therefore, the introduction of constraint is the thing that must be justified
And there’s no possible justification for it that doesn’t ultimately establish a hierarchy by which the other person is seen to effectively be a superior being, such that their determination of what Tom may, may not, must or must not do is superior even to Tom’s
If the tacit presumption of innate superiority isn’t made, then any and all noninal justifications for authority over Tom’s decisions fail, since any argument by which any other party might justify imposing their will on Tom is also an argument by which Tom might justify imposing his will on them, and any argument by which they might claim to be rightly free of the imposition of Tom’s will is also an argument by which Tom might claim to be rightfully free of the imposition of their will upon him.
This is where and why institutionalized authority inevitably goes wrong, which in turn is why I’m an anarchist.
Without first hand knowledge, I couldn’t say in any detail, but I expect that ambitious, greedy, power-hungry psychopaths are already angling for Council positions, from which they’ll exercise tacit authority until such time as their positions and their authority can be institutionalized, at which point they’ll become the new generation of corrupt officials.
That’s not to say or imply I oppose the effort - if nothing else, they’ve gotten some breathing room. And hopefully the next time they throw off their tyrants, they’ll remember how they got their start and reject authority in and of itself and entirely, rather than deluding themselves that it can be constrained.
My anarchism.
Anarchism in general makes me the other when dealing with most people, but the specifics of my views on it also generally make me the other when dealing with most “anarchists.” (I oppose any and all attempts to institute anarchism - I believe it will arise organically or not at all - and I similarly reject any and all stipulations regarding what sort of standards, norms or systems may, may not, must or must not be a part of an anarchistic society),
Where can I say F*ck, respectfully?
Fucking anywhere. If you feel some fucking need to self-censor like a little bitch, that’s on you.
Where can I call women sl*ts and wh#res when they disagree with me on opinion?
Wherever the fuck you want. You’re just likely going to end up facing some sort of consequences for being a sexist piece of shit. If you’re too much of a little bitch to deal with that, then maybe you should rethink the idea.
Where can I call men bitch*s, when they try to correct me?
Anywhere you want bitch.
Where do femcels, Andrew Tates and wizards talk here?
They mostly don’t because they need an echo chamber so they can pretend they’re something other than weak, pathetic little cowards, and Lemmy won’t give them one.
Where is the place where we say things we couldn’t say elsewhere?
That’s Lemmy
What you’re looking for is a place where you can say things that you could say elsewhere - where you can post the same sort of cowardly, bigoted, noxious crap you can spew on Reddit or 4chan or X or Facebook. You can do that too on Lemmy if you want - you’re just not going to get a safe space to do it in free from consequences. And again, if you’re too much of a little bitch to face the consequences you deserve for being a bigoted piece of shit, you should maybe rethink the idea.
It’s weird and disturbing that the headline is probably true.
If the world made sense, it would be more than enough that he is, right now, moment-to-moment, obviously deeply mentally ill and wantonly destructive - a grotesquely corrupt pathological liar, vindictive narcissist, and raging sociopath who blatantly has done and is doing more harm to the US than any president at least in the modern era and quite possibly ever.
How has that not already been enough? I don’t think I’ll ever really understand that.
Too many to list, dating at least back to 99 Luftballons.
This is the most recent one: Pacifica - Soltame
I think Platner isn’t as skilled at avoiding establishment Democrat smear campaigns as Mamdani is.
Oh look - it’s the Toddler-in-chief throwing another tantrum.
One of the many things I’ll never really understand about this whole Trump thing is how he manages to get so much support from the right-wing choad demographic when he’s such a gross, flabby, pathetic, whiney manbaby.
I think ATProtocol is doomed, so no.
Bluesky got too big too fast and has too many greedy corporate weasels already involved. For the time being, they’re pretending to actually prefer an open protocol, but I think that’s just a marketing ploy and it will never last. They’re going to EEE it sooner or later.
That too.
Of course he can, though it"s exceedingly unlikely that he will be, since it’s a process that would require integrity, courage and determination, all of which are virtually non-existent qualities in Washington today.
Which is unfortunate too, since as I have cause to point out daily, the man is quite obviously a deranged lunatic.
I really don’t think he’s ever been particularly attached to reality, but the combination of losing the 2020 election and stewing and lying for four years then lying his way to winning the 2024 election appears to have completely broken his mind. And the upshot of that is that the world in which he now lives and makes important decisions is not the real one - it’s entirely a product of his own warped perceptions, as filtered through an emotionally stunted mind that’s slaved to the task of protecting his grotesquely bloated and fragile ego and has completely lost any ability it might once have had to distinguish between reality and delusion.
That’s my reaction broadly to hate.
Even beyond the fact that it’s destructive and ugly, it just seems like a pointless waste of time and energy. I don’t get why anyone invests that much time and energy into being miserable, and especially over something that can’t possibly really matter in their lives.
Alternate headline: “Supreme Court Yet Again Just Hands Trump What He Wants Without Even Bothering to Try to Justify It.”
And that will also serve as the alternate headline for every Trump regime ruling yet and for all future ones as well
We actually live in a world now in which the President of the United States explicitly states his intent to overtly violate the first amendment and the media just repeats it as if nothing of any note is going on.
If Miller had his way about it, they’d already be bulldozing leftists into mass graves.
as political violence becomes normalized online, particularly among ideologically extreme left in America
That’s the current version of a power fantasy he’s had ever since he was the nerdy kid getting picked on by the mean kids on the playground.