Because I want chaos! Here's a politics thread

[Maggie_Mooo CLIPS]

16 hours ago, Deviant said:

It seems like you're coming from a good place, and you bring up a lot of serious problems with the prison system. The problem I'm having is it seems as though you're envisioning a world that you wish existed instead of the world we live in, and I don't mean to come off as calling you delusional or anything of the sort. It's just that the idea of anarchy and a society without need of a prison just isn't possible in this world. In every civilization throughout history, some form of a prison existed once it got big enough. If a prison didn't exist then people were banished from their tribe not to return, or something equivalent.  Bad people have existed. Bad people will continue to exist. Some people are too dangerous to be living among the rest of society, so something needs to happen with them. I think getting rid of the prison system entirely is a rather foolish and extreme idea. You had brought up the fact that truly terrible people do exist, but you stated "things are not always black and white." Well, that doesn't really answer the problem. That statement is true, but it's still pretty clear that some people just need to stay in jail. All of the problems you mentioned with the current prison system are completely valid, but I think a more appropriate solution is to figure out a much better way to restructure the prison system than to get rid of it entirely because prisons still serve an important purpose. I would recommend looking at how other prison systems are structured throughout the world. Your rehabilitation approach is clearly the right path as of right now. Germany has a pretty solid prison system the last I remember. While in the prisons, the people are given keys to their own cells. They're given resources to learn. They're given activities to grow in. It gives them purpose, and it helps them establish goals when leaving prison. Giving keys to the prisoners is also a very smart move because it gives them the responsibility of trust. That's a good way of seeing who is and isn't ready to return to society once their sentence is over. 

As for anarchy, that has never worked, and it will never work because people are flawed. There's a reason why governments (or some form of system) always develop in even every tribe that formed. People want to trade. They can trade. Eventually, one person feels that they're screwed out of a trade, so they screw the other person over. Things escalate until one person ends up dead. Well, the family with the dead person says "you killed a person in our family, so we're going to kill someone in your family." The former responds saying "you killed one of our guys? Well, we're going to kill 2 of your guys to put you in your place." Things then continue to escalate until mass murder happens. Then the ones on top are the only ones left alive. So, what do they do? They establish authority, so no one messes with them. As the tribe grows, more rules develop. Things begin to complicate. Eventually, you have a nation with an established government. I understand the idea of a world where we don't need this overseer sounds attractive, and it would even be ideal. The fact of the matter is it just won't work.

Like I mentioned before, you seem to be coming from a good place, but your stances here just don't seem all that though out. 

As for capitalism, I think it's the best approach to economics the world has established so far. With that being said, the biggest problem I'd say it faces is the laissez-faire approach the government has taken with it. Corporations have grown and monopolized every good in the country to the point where they have incredible government influence. I think the Scandinavian countries have taken a good approach to the free-market with a mixed economy, but I haven't looked that much into it. Anyway, I'm super tired.

Sorry man, but if your going to lecture people about anarchy and prison abolition, like maybe do your research, and check your assumptions that come from insulation from the "justice" system.  Like you flatten it so much that it's a wild abstraction of what the real world is like. How much of your opinion is formed by interaction with people affected by the prison industrial complex? and how much by how the institutions justify their own existence? 

So, like they only way you can say anarchy doesn't work, is if success looks like an empire to you.  cause anarchy happens and works every day all over the world. it was here before nations formed, and it will be here as nations crumble.  I'm just not sure you know how to see it and how many of it's shortcomings come specifically from the oppression of your established systems.

Why is capitalism the best system? Cause I'm not sure you understand what that system is. Capitalism is a system meant to extract wealth by those that already own capital. A man lucky in wealth can afford the factories and equipment, so he can take the surplus from the people working those machines and factories. The person who accrues excess wealth can hoard houses so that the working class (those who can only make money off their own labor) have to then pay the landlord's mortgage. Is filling the world and all it's creatures with micro plastics?

I'm not trying to be mean, but I went to school for philosophy, got a good amount of political science education. And what your saying, I've heard it a million times (I've probably said similar when I was a little shit), and you'll often hear it in classes, but it's so superficial. Just as a better world is possible, You can have better, more informed opinions, but it requires work. As someone who was trained to logic my way through any problem, I know what your doing and why you think it's the right way to approach it. But it's a lie, It's narrow minded, and requires closed ears and hearts to anyone who doesn't fit in the system. Cause this opinion really only works when you fit in that system and move through it with little friction. It's hard to find fault when you find the system working for you. It's easy not to see the sacrifices this system makes of the vulnerable - be it body, blood, limb, happiness, community, and liberty - when you're not among the sacrificed.

[FluffyButtLover919]

1 hour ago, Maggie_Mooo said:

Sorry man, but if your going to lecture people about anarchy and prison abolition, like maybe do your research, and check your assumptions that come from insulation from the "justice" system.  Like you flatten it so much that it's a wild abstraction of what the real world is like. How much of your opinion is formed by interaction with people affected by the prison industrial complex? and how much by how the institutions justify their own existence? 

So, like they only way you can say anarchy doesn't work, is if success looks like an empire to you.  cause anarchy happens and works every day all over the world. it was here before nations formed, and it will be here as nations crumble.  I'm just not sure you know how to see it and how many of it's shortcomings come specifically from the oppression of your established systems.

Why is capitalism the best system? Cause I'm not sure you understand what that system is. Capitalism is a system meant to extract wealth by those that already own capital. A man lucky in wealth can afford the factories and equipment, so he can take the surplus from the people working those machines and factories. The person who accrues excess wealth can hoard houses so that the working class (those who can only make money off their own labor) have to then pay the landlord's mortgage. Is filling the world and all it's creatures with micro plastics?

I'm not trying to be mean, but I went to school for philosophy, got a good amount of political science education. And what your saying, I've heard it a million times (I've probably said similar when I was a little shit), and you'll often hear it in classes, but it's so superficial. Just as a better world is possible, You can have better, more informed opinions, but it requires work. As someone who was trained to logic my way through any problem, I know what your doing and why you think it's the right way to approach it. But it's a lie, It's narrow minded, and requires closed ears and hearts to anyone who doesn't fit in the system. Cause this opinion really only works when you fit in that system and move through it with little friction. It's hard to find fault when you find the system working for you. It's easy not to see the sacrifices this system makes of the vulnerable - be it body, blood, limb, happiness, community, and liberty - when you're not among the sacrificed.

Can you be specific as to what friction you are talking about with criminals? I don’t think murderers, or rapists deserve our sympathy. 

[Deviant]

Me: Gives a polite rebuttal

Jersey: Gives a polite rebuttal

Maggie_Mooo: You don't know anything, and I'm better than you

Me: 

[ItsAName]

On 3/8/2024 at 7:28 AM, Deviant said:

It seems like you're coming from a good place, and you bring up a lot of serious problems with the prison system. The problem I'm having is it seems as though you're envisioning a world that you wish existed instead of the world we live in, and I don't mean to come off as calling you delusional or anything of the sort. It's just that the idea of anarchy and a society without need of a prison just isn't possible in this world. In every civilization throughout history, some form of a prison existed once it got big enough. If a prison didn't exist then people were banished from their tribe not to return, or something equivalent.  Bad people have existed. Bad people will continue to exist. Some people are too dangerous to be living among the rest of society, so something needs to happen with them. I think getting rid of the prison system entirely is a rather foolish and extreme idea. You had brought up the fact that truly terrible people do exist, but you stated "things are not always black and white." Well, that doesn't really answer the problem. That statement is true, but it's still pretty clear that some people just need to stay in jail. All of the problems you mentioned with the current prison system are completely valid, but I think a more appropriate solution is to figure out a much better way to restructure the prison system than to get rid of it entirely because prisons still serve an important purpose. I would recommend looking at how other prison systems are structured throughout the world. Your rehabilitation approach is clearly the right path as of right now. Germany has a pretty solid prison system the last I remember. While in the prisons, the people are given keys to their own cells. They're given resources to learn. They're given activities to grow in. It gives them purpose, and it helps them establish goals when leaving prison. Giving keys to the prisoners is also a very smart move because it gives them the responsibility of trust. That's a good way of seeing who is and isn't ready to return to society once their sentence is over. 

As for anarchy, that has never worked, and it will never work because people are flawed. There's a reason why governments (or some form of system) always develop in even every tribe that formed. People want to trade. They can trade. Eventually, one person feels that they're screwed out of a trade, so they screw the other person over. Things escalate until one person ends up dead. Well, the family with the dead person says "you killed a person in our family, so we're going to kill someone in your family." The former responds saying "you killed one of our guys? Well, we're going to kill 2 of your guys to put you in your place." Things then continue to escalate until mass murder happens. Then the ones on top are the only ones left alive. So, what do they do? They establish authority, so no one messes with them. As the tribe grows, more rules develop. Things begin to complicate. Eventually, you have a nation with an established government. I understand the idea of a world where we don't need this overseer sounds attractive, and it would even be ideal. The fact of the matter is it just won't work.

Like I mentioned before, you seem to be coming from a good place, but your stances here just don't seem all that though out. 

As for capitalism, I think it's the best approach to economics the world has established so far. With that being said, the biggest problem I'd say it faces is the laissez-faire approach the government has taken with it. Corporations have grown and monopolized every good in the country to the point where they have incredible government influence. I think the Scandinavian countries have taken a good approach to the free-market with a mixed economy, but I haven't looked that much into it. Anyway, I'm super tired.

Ok, so, I hear the fear around what happens if we do nothing to prevent people who intend to do harm from carrying out that harm. Like, if you have compelling evidence to suggest that someone will hurt your community, it makes sense to want to try to stop it, rather than letting it happen. I also think there is information which might change your mind on this topic, and so I'm going to address a couple of your points and try to convey how your perspective might be missing something.

I think your argument about prisons is based on a misunderstanding of Jersey Ghoul's point, and prison abolition more generally. The prison abolition movement isn't about removing all prisons while taking no measures to replace them, but instead steadily downscaling prison infrastructure while developing rehabilitation infrastructure, to effectively resolve the conditions which push people to commit crimes. You don't need to worry about receiving violence from suddenly released prisoners - and a lot of (dare I say, most) prisoners wouldn't hurt anyone anyway. The US prison system disproportionately targets Black citizens (to say nothing of the ways other marginalised identities affect a person's relationship with law enforcement and incarceration), to exploit their labour for the benefit of businesses in a way which intentionally replicates the conditions of slavery. In other words, the US prison system exists as a replacement for chattel slavery. It isn't very hard to find resources about racial disparities in US prisons - just look up "US prison racism" or something similar and you'll find articles. I also recommend reading the wikipedia pages on the prison industrial complex and prison abolition movement, because they serve as effective starting points for research into those topics.

Regarding anarchism, I think you're misrepresenting what anarchism is and can be. You present hierarchical government as the logical conclusion to unrestricted, cyclical violence, as well as a solution to that violence, which makes me think that you think that anarchism is when people use violence to resolve disputes because they don't have an authority figure they can go to instead. That's not true. Maybe that happens sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable. Other options for anarchical societies include dealing with harm using radical accountability (in cases where the harmer shows remorse to the harmed) or a communally agreed-upon strategy for protecting themselves and dealing with the problem (in cases where the harmer shows no remorse and may do further harm). Things get more nuanced as you get more complicated situations, but I'm not trying to get into too much detail here; what I want to illustrate is that peaceful anarchism can work. Plus, it does work - if you've ever told someone they hurt you and they apologised, made up for it in the way you asked and haven't done it again (all without appealing to an authority figure), then you both handled that situation anarchically. That's anarchism, in a very simple form, and it's something people do often. There are lots of people thinking about how to form more anarchical societal systems online - I might start with the youtube channel "Andrewism" for that kind of thing.

As an additional point, I think framing hierarchical society as the solution to violence ignores that hierarchical authority depends on violence to function. This is what people mean when they talk about state-sanctioned violence, like the violence the police inflict upon dissenters and marginalised people. This video (by Andrewism) explains authority better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqosSdnZnsU

Lastly, I take enormous issue with your statements that "As for capitalism, I think it's the best approach to economics the world has established so far" and that "the biggest problem I'd say it faces is the laissez-faire approach the government has taken with it". Capitalism, by design, exploits people and natural resources on unfathomable scales. The situation in Congo (which you should absolutely look up) serves as a stark reminder of this. Capitalist governments and corporations work hand-in-hand to ensure the system keeps running - see, the War on Drugs (which feeds the prison industrial complex), Henry Kissinger, etc. To suggest that we've never had a better system is exceedingly disrespectful to everyone who has ever suffered as part of its workings, because it suggests that you don't think about these people when you consider the pros and cons of capitalism. I'd also question what you're even comparing it to - surely not communism, which has barely had the chance to get off the ground in most instances due to sabotage by capitalist nations (notably the US)?

It's a lot to think about, and also, I think we have to do this thinking if we're ever going to get anywhere. Moreover, we have to centre those dispossessed by capitalism without leaving anyone behind, or else risk reproducing the systems of oppression we seek to dismantle. I hope I've provided the first glimmer of a new perspective, and that maybe this will take you places. Fundamentally, we are all in this together, my freedom bound up in yours. Let's all learn, grow and fight the good fight!

 

[ItsAName]

14 hours ago, Deviant said:

Me: Gives a polite rebuttal

Jersey: Gives a polite rebuttal

Maggie_Mooo: You don't know anything, and I'm better than you

Me: 

As a small addendum, I would look up "tone policing" if you don't already know what that is. We're discussing sensitive matters, and so I think it's a matter of course that people might get angry - let's try not to dismiss people because we feel uncomfortable with what they're telling us!

[Gregarro Ivinalititavitch]

• Capitalism is great.
• Men aren't women.
• Affirming the incorrect gender of a child is abuse.
• There aren't enough people in prison.
• Illegal immigrants should be deported.
• The United States is the greatest country in the world.
• The death penalty is needed.
• Child rapists deserve the death penalty.
• Antisemitism is bad.
• Hatred of Israel is rooted in antisemitism.
• Free speech includes so-called hate speech.
• The minimum wage should not be increase.
• Children deserve a mother and a father.
• Gun control isn't the answer.
• I don't support either candidate.
• All parties spend too much and it will get bad if they stop it.

[Gregarro Ivinalititavitch]

Correction:

• All parties spend too much and it will get bad if they don't stop it.

[litmus]

On 3/4/2024 at 8:27 PM, Guest IAmGivingGoodAdvice said:

My biggest hot take is people need to stop acting like American politics actually matter. From my understanding all American politicians are the same and just say they are different with their two party system. 

 

But alot of people act like oh the american 2024 election actually matters here. If anything I thought it was funnier to watch Trump than it is to watch Biden.

 

Again American politics shouldn't matter to you if you aren't an American 

You are repeating a really, really misguided trope.  Please educate yourself.

The stakes of the 2024 election are absolutely HUGE, not just for Americans, but for the entire world.

Ukraine and NATO:  Trump is in Putin's back pocket.  Trump has opposed funding Ukraine's effort to fight off the Russian invasion.  This is the first ground war in Europe since the end of WWII in which nearly 100 million people died.  If Putin is not stopped we will have Russian troops on NATO's border and a very dangerous situation that could start a nuclear confrontation.

Climate Crisis:  Trump and his party are completely subservient to the fossil fuels industry and committed to rolling back all efforts to mitigate climate change and reduce carbon emissions.  The results will be catastrophic for the entire globe.

Anti-Immigration:  Trump is a racist.  He is talking about mass deportations and completely dismantling the asylum process.  America needs thoughtful, pragmatic immigration reform not mindless xenophobia.  We already have labor shortages, Trump's actions would greatly increase the problem.

Authoritarianism:  If Trump wins, democracy loses.  Authoritarianism is on the march across much of the globe.  

There are enormous differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of the values and interests they represent.  Anyone arguing otherwise is poorly informed and very naive.  Politics isn't about "entertainment value", it is about power and whose interests will be served.  The stakes couldn't be higher.

[Gregarro Ivinalititavitch]

18 hours ago, litmus said:

Ukraine and NATO:  Trump is in Putin's back pocket.  Trump has opposed funding Ukraine's effort to fight off the Russian invasion.  This is the first ground war in Europe since the end of WWII in which nearly 100 million people died.  If Putin is not stopped we will have Russian troops on NATO's border and a very dangerous situation that could start a nuclear confrontation.

As I said, I do not support either candidate. But he is in nobody's back pocket but his own ego. Pretending he's some sort of brilliant Russian agent is bizarre.

18 hours ago, litmus said:

Climate Crisis:  Trump and his party are completely subservient to the fossil fuels industry and committed to rolling back all efforts to mitigate climate change and reduce carbon emissions.  The results will be catastrophic for the entire globe.

There isn't a climate crisis. And the only countries emitting enough to cause a difference are China and India. If you think this is such an issue, do you support going to war with them?

18 hours ago, litmus said:

Anti-Immigration:  Trump is a racist.  He is talking about mass deportations and completely dismantling the asylum process.  America needs thoughtful, pragmatic immigration reform not mindless xenophobia.  We already have labor shortages, Trump's actions would greatly increase the problem.

It isn't racist to want to deport illegals. Illegal immigrants have not right to be here. Would you let someone who broke into your house stay?

18 hours ago, litmus said:

Authoritarianism:  If Trump wins, democracy loses.  Authoritarianism is on the march across much of the globe. 

He didn't govern like an authoritarian his last term. Again, I am not a fan of his. But that's a flawed argument.

18 hours ago, litmus said:

There are enormous differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of the values and interests they represent.  Anyone arguing otherwise is poorly informed and very naive.

You're right. One party can't define women and wants to carve up children.

[1wayforce]

• A reason why people can't retire at 65 anymore is because the best this country can do for presidential candidates is either an 81 or 77 year old. I'm not expecting some 30 year old fresh out of grad school for a candidate, but can we at least have a president that wasn't born before the Cold War began?
• People should be fighting for a better cost of living than a pay increase. It's already to the point where people are spending $20 just to scarf down a Big Mac and acting like $25 an hour is still not enough to live off of despite their grandparents easily being able to buy a house with half of that pay rate.
• Anyone with the last name Kennedy should stay far away from politics. You'd think after the last two generations, they'd take the hint.
• The United States is that one friend who rarely pays their bills on time, can barely afford rent, yet spends half their paycheck on their other so called "friends" who should learn to fight their own battles and pay for their own expenses. And to quit using their friend as backup when sh*t hits the fan.
• If I see "would you like to donate to _____'s campaign" one more time when trying to fill out a form, I'm voting for Afroman out of spite.
• Nothing's worse than election day where old people end up hounding you over "don't forget to vote for ____" like stfu, that's why I've absentee vote the moment I was able to.

[Maggie_Mooo CLIPS]

Every time I think about posting clips with my face exposed, it's good to remember there's nazis and other fascists on this site.

[Deviant]

2 hours ago, Maggie_Mooo said:

Every time I think about posting clips with my face exposed, it's good to remember there's nazis and other fascists on this site.

People like you throw around the words nazi and fascist like they're nothing because it's easy for you to sit comfortably in your ideological bubble by painting everyone who disagrees with you as the absolute worst person ever.

You put yourself on this pedestal and absolutely refuse to engage in any reasonable discussion. All you have done is insult others and brag about how much you know.

If there is to be any society unified despite moral and political differences, it cannot exist with absolutely wretched and irrational narcissists like you. Everyone else has volunteered in polite discourse or just stated their views, while you have just been belittling others. You have given no one a reason to engage in conversation with you or even listen to you by being so absolutely full of yourself.

You are not smarter than everyone else here. No matter how much you think you know, there will always be people who believe differently than you. You can accept that, politely rebut opposing views, calmly display your views, or shut up. There have been others that I have disagreed with such as Joursey_Ghoul who have been nothing but polite. Once again, you are nothing but bitter, egotistical, narcissistic, and intolerable. That is why you are disliked.

[fatowl]

The essays above have clearly defined the opposing sides in the upcoming 2024 election.  The outcome will have huge consequences at home and abroad.  It is a showdown between conservatives and progressives; realists and conspiratists; an evolutionary enlighten approach and the same old approach that embraces greed and corruption; and privacy with individual freedoms and extremism filled with prejudices and ignorance.  It is a clear choice.  Do we want a place to live or do we want greed and corruption to plunder the planet for a few in the name of capitalism?  What is wrong with fair and equitable with those contributing to the success sharing in the returns and rewards?  Do we regress with an oppressed workforce that have few opportunities or give them their inalienable rights:  Food, Medical, Education, Housing, Sustainability, and Justice?  Without a sustainable and liveable planet, we as a species are endangered to perish.  The answer is not to go and plunder other worlds.  That is not sustainable for all.  Interestingly, science fiction is very accurate in predicting the future.  All of Jules Verne novels have become reality!

I fully agree that the majority of candidates for both parties are weak and acting out of self-interest, which is fueled by greed, corruption, and unbridled egos.  For example, Elon Musk's ambition has been both productive for humanity and destructive on individual levels.  Our leaders should be the people's employees and act in our best interests.  Name one who does these days!  We need to return where our voices are heard and our government is "of, by, and for" the people!!

Finally, there is a difference between anti Zionism and anti Semitic.  Dislike of Israel methods is anti Zionism.  Dislike of Jews is anti Semitic.  

Thank You!!  for this forum and robust discussion.  That is how we learn about other viewpoints and opinions.  

Now go do your tax return!!  Each one of us will pay more than Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos!

[Maggie_Mooo CLIPS]

lot of words for someone not engaging in a conversation with me. Is the name calling a super secret technique of only the most illogical men? wasn't even calling you the fascist, but weird that you're so upset about it.

[Avataг]

Now we're talking! The tone finally seems to live up to the intentions of the thread title... 

[Gregarro Ivinalititavitch]

14 hours ago, fatowl said:

Finally, there is a difference between anti Zionism and anti Semitic.  Dislike of Israel methods is anti Zionism.  Dislike of Jews is anti Semitic. 

Anti-Zionism means you don't believe Israel has a right to exist. Which is antisemitic. You are a Zionist if you think the Jewish state has a right to not be destroyed.

18 hours ago, Maggie_Mooo said:

Every time I think about posting clips with my face exposed, it's good to remember there's nazis and other fascists on this site.

Who? I'm Jewish, so I am no fan of Nazis.

[Maggie_Mooo CLIPS]

"It's a hate crime if you don't let me have an ethno state and do lots of genocide" is a fascist ass opinion.

[fatowl]

I am not a Nazi or a Fascist.  Israel has every right to exist.  So do the Palestinians.  Both were given a homeland by the UN in 1947, but the parties rejected the compromise.  At that time, Gaza was 3 times larger as shown and discussed on an Israeli website.  Israel is similar to the US, that is a melting ** of peoples from different nations and cultures, including Palestinians.  

Being anti Zionist is not anti Semitic.  There is a clear distinction.  Criticism of Israel's actions is not anti Semitic.  Just like criticizing Congress is not anti American or unpatriotic.  

This is a forum to discuss ideas, opinions, and viewpoints.  Not to slip back by attacking and judging people, but critique their opinions and viewpoints.  I can respectfully disagree with your viewpoints or perspectives without attacking you.  We can agree to disagree and say Aloha.  We can enlighten people by contributing other viewpoints or points of view and providing validations for our position.  I will respect yours, eventho I may not agree or endorse it.  Thanks!!  for your perspective.  

[fatowl]

I do not know who said that.  All of us are entitled to our opinions and perspective while living in glass houses.  Let us not cast the first stone.  I look forward to more rational discussions that consider more balanced arguments.  

[Jersey Ghoul 666 CLIPS]

On 3/10/2024 at 6:17 AM, ItsAName said:

Ok, so, I hear the fear around what happens if we do nothing to prevent people who intend to do harm from carrying out that harm. Like, if you have compelling evidence to suggest that someone will hurt your community, it makes sense to want to try to stop it, rather than letting it happen. I also think there is information which might change your mind on this topic, and so I'm going to address a couple of your points and try to convey how your perspective might be missing something.

I think your argument about prisons is based on a misunderstanding of Jersey Ghoul's point, and prison abolition more generally. The prison abolition movement isn't about removing all prisons while taking no measures to replace them, but instead steadily downscaling prison infrastructure while developing rehabilitation infrastructure, to effectively resolve the conditions which push people to commit crimes. You don't need to worry about receiving violence from suddenly released prisoners - and a lot of (dare I say, most) prisoners wouldn't hurt anyone anyway. The US prison system disproportionately targets Black citizens (to say nothing of the ways other marginalised identities affect a person's relationship with law enforcement and incarceration), to exploit their labour for the benefit of businesses in a way which intentionally replicates the conditions of slavery. In other words, the US prison system exists as a replacement for chattel slavery. It isn't very hard to find resources about racial disparities in US prisons - just look up "US prison racism" or something similar and you'll find articles. I also recommend reading the wikipedia pages on the prison industrial complex and prison abolition movement, because they serve as effective starting points for research into those topics.

Regarding anarchism, I think you're misrepresenting what anarchism is and can be. You present hierarchical government as the logical conclusion to unrestricted, cyclical violence, as well as a solution to that violence, which makes me think that you think that anarchism is when people use violence to resolve disputes because they don't have an authority figure they can go to instead. That's not true. Maybe that happens sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable. Other options for anarchical societies include dealing with harm using radical accountability (in cases where the harmer shows remorse to the harmed) or a communally agreed-upon strategy for protecting themselves and dealing with the problem (in cases where the harmer shows no remorse and may do further harm). Things get more nuanced as you get more complicated situations, but I'm not trying to get into too much detail here; what I want to illustrate is that peaceful anarchism can work. Plus, it does work - if you've ever told someone they hurt you and they apologised, made up for it in the way you asked and haven't done it again (all without appealing to an authority figure), then you both handled that situation anarchically. That's anarchism, in a very simple form, and it's something people do often. There are lots of people thinking about how to form more anarchical societal systems online - I might start with the youtube channel "Andrewism" for that kind of thing.

As an additional point, I think framing hierarchical society as the solution to violence ignores that hierarchical authority depends on violence to function. This is what people mean when they talk about state-sanctioned violence, like the violence the police inflict upon dissenters and marginalised people. This video (by Andrewism) explains authority better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqosSdnZnsU

Lastly, I take enormous issue with your statements that "As for capitalism, I think it's the best approach to economics the world has established so far" and that "the biggest problem I'd say it faces is the laissez-faire approach the government has taken with it". Capitalism, by design, exploits people and natural resources on unfathomable scales. The situation in Congo (which you should absolutely look up) serves as a stark reminder of this. Capitalist governments and corporations work hand-in-hand to ensure the system keeps running - see, the War on Drugs (which feeds the prison industrial complex), Henry Kissinger, etc. To suggest that we've never had a better system is exceedingly disrespectful to everyone who has ever suffered as part of its workings, because it suggests that you don't think about these people when you consider the pros and cons of capitalism. I'd also question what you're even comparing it to - surely not communism, which has barely had the chance to get off the ground in most instances due to sabotage by capitalist nations (notably the US)?

It's a lot to think about, and also, I think we have to do this thinking if we're ever going to get anywhere. Moreover, we have to centre those dispossessed by capitalism without leaving anyone behind, or else risk reproducing the systems of oppression we seek to dismantle. I hope I've provided the first glimmer of a new perspective, and that maybe this will take you places. Fundamentally, we are all in this together, my freedom bound up in yours. Let's all learn, grow and fight the good fight!

 

Damn I love what you’ve said here, thank you for building on my points so eloquently ! 

[I have a fat fetish]

Foucault made some good points about modern states being like Medusa controlling and manipulating the citizen into conformity, taking to mean that violent behaviors or behaviors not conducive to capital are uprooted from them which goes into like the whole clockwork orange narrative right, any sort of effectual dissidence is uprooted, where as states in the past were like Zeus with a trident striking in distinct absolute spots; I sorta belive that but I don’t really buy into the concept of like abstract states there’s good states and there’s bad states

 

Elections, the presidency etc doesn’t really matter in any real sense, the winner just gets to dictate the tone of the administration but in the day to day thing changes the state still states. 

[1wayforce]

Adding on to the previous point of better cost of living, looks like the Bay Area is already laying off thousands of delivery drivers/fast food workers before the mandatory $20 an hour wage begins. Every politician who's barking for higher wages clearly never studied economics when you're paying $18 for a footlong and it's cheaper to live on a cruise ship than rent an apartment.

[Guideline2]

Does anybody else think this place has a higher proportion of right-wing posters than other places online? 

If you want my chaotic opinion (that may or may not be true... haha)

The         wing is composed of two elements. You have the useful idiots that are guided/manipulated by the actual intelligent folks that seek to exploit others for their own ends. The sad reflection is that most of us fall into the useful idiots category, and I include myself in this lol.

[Gregarro Ivinalititavitch]

11 hours ago, Maggie_Mooo said:

"It's a hate crime if you don't let me have an ethno state and do lots of genocide" is a fascist ass opinion.

A) Israel is not an ethnostate. It's 20% Arab. And they have full rights.

B) It is not committing genocide. How do you think a country should react when a neighboring government murders, rapes, and kidnaps its citizens in the worst antisemitic attack in 80 years? Should they just roll over and take it?

If anyone wants to have a good faith dialogue or wishes to ask questions, I am more than willing to do so in DMs (or if you agree and are afraid to say so). I am not going to attribute motive, but too many people just do not understand.

[FluffyButtLover919]

I think it’s funny that people think trump is a republican. He’s a 1990’s democrat. The democrats in power right now are so extreme that they make normal liberals appear republican now.