you know you can correct me instead of just denying my interpretation.
is the answer is yes to both then there can be certain authorities on certain issues in an anarchist society. if the answer is no to either of those questions you either think it’s lawless (no for Q1) or effectively lawless (no for Q2). tell me which part of this is a strawman.
not having any enforcement of the law is effectively lawlessness. idk how that’s putting words in your mouth.
you either think anarchy is lawlessness or accept that am anarchist society would still have a way to enforce laws.
yeah. anarchy doesn’t mean lawlessness.
so you think murder is or should be free in an anarchist society?
no it doesn’t. not necessarily, anyway. authorities don’t need to automatically vanish in an anarchy. instead they may need to prove the purpose of their existence. there is literature on non-state justice systems. communism and anarchism comes from thinkers, economists and philosophers. it’s not like they didn’t just think of crime at all.
i don’t know man, some sort of social worker takes them away. you’re asking me specifics like I’m going to build my own society right now.
i don’t agree. if you’re an aggressor, it’s not inhumane to require you to stop. a free society doesn’t mean you’re free to hurt people.
i didn’t mean to imply you said capitalism is natural. i meant there’s nothing natural about it yet the entire world revolves around it and has been for quite a while. if you put a system in place human nature is irrelevant. murder is “natural”. we have laws against it. anarchism shouldn’t be just total chaos, it just removes unnecessary hierarchies.
things like jealousy and violence are usually linked to economic and social hardship, and in a fair economic and free social system it should either go away or be the result of psychological problems which should have remedies in an anarchist system as well.
I’m using communism as a bit of a catch-all term. the specifics are not my concern so long as the people hold the power.
and i disagree with your statement there. human nature is whatever we do with it. there’s nothing natural about capitalism.
on the contrary, communism is the final form of democracy.
capitalism != democracy because capital owners have a disproportionate amount of social, economic and political power, if not all. in a capitalist society the laws and police are there largely to protect and preserve capital and not you.
i appreciate this format except it’s so high effort it will unfortunately never become a meme.
that’s the thing that set it apart. AAA games don’t do this because it’s a ton of extra work and most players won’t even see it. this is only achievable by a creatively independent studio that respects the medium as an art form. if you think in pure bang-for-buck value, it’s literally insane to even attempt to do what they did.
yeah it depends i guess. saying “gays and lesbians” in passing is usually fine. but still, while you could say something like “this policy is discriminatory against gays” and not get much protest, the preferred use would still be “gay people”.
language conventions are rarely conscious. they just happen. every now and then there’s a campaign for our against using certain words or phrases; sometimes they stick and sometimes they don’t. but those are conscious i guess. mostly though it just happens organically.
like a perfectly normal word becomes vulgar in time if enough people just say it a certain way. it’s not like people suddenly hold a meeting and decide this word is bad now. it just starts to feel like it after a while, so it eventually becomes so.
wow #notallinvaders. i said kill or help kill. they fall into the second category. they still volunteered for unjust, illegal wars, unless you’re talking about WW2 or something… the US had no right to be in any foreign country in the last few decades.
i just suggested it as a shorthand. the actual distinction is whether the word is generally used as a noun as well as adjective, and when it is, usually it’s used as a plural noun.
it makes sense because plural nouns usually are a quick way to refer to a section of a population that share an aspect. but using an adjective as a singular noun has the connotation of reducing someone to that one aspect of them, which is the adjective. and so using an adjective as a noun with an -s pluralization implies there’s also a singular form which is usually offensive.
language is fluid and it evolves, so nothing here is a hard rule and there will be exceptions, and things might change with time. this is mostly based on observation and convention.
yeah, you’re right but they’re two different cases. notice how when it’s right you don’t pluralize it with an -s because some adjectives have a form of a plural noun, so they don’t have a singular form: “a poor” or “a black” is just yikes. you can find words like “rich” as plural nouns apart from the adjective forms in the dictionary. you might find “female” and “black” as a noun for people too, but they should be marked offensive either directly or in usage notes.
so that’s the distinction. “black” or “female” don’t exist as plural nouns like “the rich” or “the blessed”.
interestingly enough there are exceptions. there is no plural noun “the gay” but “gays” usually isn’t offensive as a noun, but also “a gay” is weird and offensive. language is complicated.
first of all, i didn’t call them psychotic. read it again.
second of all, you literally say they’re broken. i don’t know what to tell you.
and finally, fuck veterans, like I give a shit how they want to be treated. maybe they shouldn’t thought of that before they volunteered to kill or help kill as many brown kids as they can. unless they were drafted or something then they get a pass. sort of.
sounds like you’re just avoiding