Das eklige Gefühl im Bauch, dass du Google freiwillig nach den ganzen Daten auch noch in Geld bezahlen musst, was die Spinner in Silicon Valley gerade treiben?

Ich glaube, du überschätzt, wie weit Politiker*innen in die Zukunft blicken, wenn es um negative Auswirkungen ihrer Politik geht.

The improvements were a result of labor struggle, not of the increased productivity.

Taste is always subjective - more news at 11. /s

It looks incredibly like slop.

Not only that. He was an anarchist anthropologist who was very involved in the Occupy movement (he supposedly coined the “99 percent” phrase.

You can also read his stuff on the anarchist library

Anarchy is authoritarian, anarchists just don’t know it.

I’m sorry, but you prove you have no idea about anarchism. The whole philosophical field of anarchism is based on power analysis, so it’s quite the feat for you to prove such a wild claim.

Yes, some people have natural talents in In general, the thing you call “leadership”: coordination or persuation of others. Or they have a talent in tactics and strategy. (Although people do like to have a say in the things your leaders decide - they just dislike the burden of responsibility)

But anarchists don’t deny that fact. Quite the opposite: they aim for social structures where people with these talents can’t accumulate structural hierarchies and monopolize decision making power.

Hate to be that guy, but you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

That’s the entire reason so many people are attracted to fascism.

Umm…no. People are drawn to fascism, because they have a nationalistic worldview, where their nation is constructed for their benefit and their natiod is superior to other nations. That belief contradicts with a real-life lowering of living standard: “If the nation is there for my benefit and it should be at the top, why is my life still so miserable? Must be the weak people which sleazily spoil the true glory of our nation: the queers/transes/foreigners/Sinti/Roma/jews.” Additionally, there’s the belief that democracy wwakens the glory of the nation, so it needs a supreme leader which brings it back on track.

So, no: People not wanting to take “leadership” (or rather: responsibility) is **definetly not “the entire reason” why people are attracted to fascism. That makes historically absolutely no sense at all.

Leaders will emerge in your anarchist paradise, and people will follow.

I’m not talking about a utopia, but of strategies to achieve a more liberatory world. And these strategies prevent such monopolization of power.

Without liberalism as a check on their power, the very first crisis that comes along will turn anarchy directly into fascism.

What exactly do you mean by these words? I don’t believe that you have a coherent definition of any of the terms “liberalism”, “anarchy” and “fascism”. And if yes: how is “liberalism” supposed to keep power in check. Last time I checked, liberalism guarantees the power of the powerful by guaranteeing private property and the continued accumulation of wealth.

For reference, I point to all the people in HOAs.

I’m not really too familiar with that concept, since I don’t live in the US. But aren’t these things more or less only liked by people who want to maintain/improve their property value and universally hated? Or at least universally hated if they’re not democratically managed?

Even to get to anarchy in the first place is going to require authoritarianism.

sigh Please define what you mean with “authoritarianism”, because we definetly don’t agree on terms here. Authoritarianism (by my definition) is a social structure that tends to monopolize decision making power. That is contradictory to anarchism.

You don’t make massive societal transformations without forcing it on people.

You don’t keep the current societal order upright without forcing it on people. You’re not talking about authoritarianism, you’re talking about violence, i.e. the imposition of one’s will over another. But violence will always exist. You’re just morally justifying a cop’s violence in favour of the status quo. Liberalism doesn’t have a problem with people starving because they don’t have any bread.

If I don’t want to live in anarchy, how are you going to force me?

You can always chose to subjugate yourself. But if you want to enact nonconsensual subjugation on others, they have the right to self-defence.

As if you have demonstrated evidence of any sort?

That’s literally what you said, my homie: “Those two things happeded at the same time” means it’s a correlation. Scientifically it’s your burden to proof that it’s actually a causal relation afterwards.

Yes, we have established that you disagree. Not that you have provided any evidence whatsoever that a lower minimum can be reached by another path

Yes. Better living standards have been reached outside the framework of liberal democracy. In fact: All significant improvements in living standards have been fought for outside the system. Examples are: Any successful, liberatory revolution. (Like the french one, or the German one.

And yeah, the totalitarian path to a better minimum has been tried multiple times. It didn’t work out so well.

I agree. That’s why I’m not an authoritarian, but an anarchist.

When a country gets apathetic about liberal principles, that’s when fascism rises.

Even if I’ll humor you and accept that: That would still be correlation, not causation.

Liberalism is generally positive, but it isn’t sufficient. Liberal principals are a good starting place, not an endgame for Utopia.

Right from the moment liberalism was conceived, there were already voices that wanted a more egalitarian world. You make it sound like liberalism is a necessary requisite for a more egalitarian world. I disagree. It’s a local minimum which humanity is yet to escape.

The man point is that it’s not a hardware lockout. The open-source userspace driver is a working proof of concept that the hardware will still work if you ditch steam.

Would I prefer it if they severed steam-input from the steam client and made it open source? Sure! But the community is not completely dependent on Valve.

POSIVID

Fascists and repression are on the rise in all of europe, including the “socialist” northern countries. Stop looking at the world purely in an American way.

It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.

Way to go taking a joke literally.

Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same

No. But their degrees of freedom are limited by the way the system is set up.

and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?

Yes. Btw: remember rule 6 and 7.

It conveys the message that you actually had a say in politics.

Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.

Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.

Vote if you want. But don’t act as if it actually solves anything.

Because liberal democracy enables fascism. Capitalism condes nationalism as legitimization. When the people emiserate, they look for a reason outside of the nation as culprits instead of focusing on class.

You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.

How about rejecting the vote outright and not accepting the premise?

I think it’s showing the issue quite clearly: Vote and then shut up when it comes to political participation, because you exhausted all the ways you can influence policy.

Jein. Soweit ich das verstanden habe, macht Youtube takedowns nach deren AGBS und DMCA, nicht nach deutschem Recht. Und das kennt widerum fair use.

Sieht das ZDF offenbar anders.

99 zu eins macht keine Werbeeinnahmen. Das ist entweder aus Prinzip, oder weil die keine Kritik vertragen.

Reaction und Kommentare. 99 zu eins macht recht häufig Reactions zu z.B. Markus Lanz und die rechnen mittlerweile bei ZDF streams dass sie früher oder später den Stream gekappt kriegen.

Sowas hier z.B. (wird danach immer hochgeladen, weil eindeutig fair use)