This is an america vs Americans definition issue. Americans litigate when its useful or required usually. America litigates every chance it gets. The mish derstanding is easy as america is full of Americans, but really america is a collection of wealth holding entities known as corporations that give zero shits about Americans except for when it comes to extracting wealth.

Of course there are a lot of Americans that participate in this cause those corporations pay to put food on the table. You too will dance when your corporate overlords snap.

Yep, I am agreeing with you. The statement was never snap and deb are identical, its that canonical is making them do identical things.

You are missing the attribution. The person you are replying to is making a joke that Canonical says they are the same, not that they are actually the same.

You are missing the attribution. The person you are replying to is making a home that canonical says they are the same, not that they are actually the same.

Thats something I find fascinating. People hear anarchy and assume the end of commerce because it would inherently mean an end to capitalism, presuming we arent talking about some weird ancap philosophy that I can’t make sense.

Commerce has happened for forever, and changing forms of government will not change that.

Thats not the part I find fascinating though, its that people discussing anarchy tend to cede this argument without a fight.

If you do so, an implied argument of anarchy gets lost: “there is no such thing as unskilled labor.”

This isnt generally considered a point for anarchy, but it is. In an anarchist system, you have the agency to decide your role in your community. This means you WILL specialize, as we all do as humans; even the generalists of us aren’t generalists at everything. I for one would make a shitty translator, as i only speak English.

There would need to be some means of getting labor done by someone who knew how to do it, this ought to feel natural to most of us anyway… I mean I assume you guys try to help your friends at stuff you are good at that they aren’t. I similarly assume you’re generally compensated for this behavior, even if it isnt with currency as we generally consider it.

I’m of the opinion that an anarchist society is probably the wrong way, but incorporating anarchist ideals into things, such as “no really you actually are responsible for everyTHING (not everyone) around you” and “you are the only person who is capable of being responsible for your own choices, opinions and decisions.” and “consider the consequences of your actions before doing what you are told” and “a just hierarchy is one you are free to join and leave as required, and without coersion”, we can actually improve even our current system.

I think you may underestimate the impact of sewage backing up into your home :D

You are right though. Tragedy of the commons is a catch22. When everything is everyone’s problem, nothing is anyone’s problem. This occurs in EVERY political system though, and they still function.

It would. An anarchist system requires participation at all ends from just about everyone. If you forfeith your vote once, you’ll forfeight it again, not because of a conscious choice, but because you empowered others to make your choice for you in the first place.

Anarchy is not about comfort. Its about freedom, as nebulous as that term is, and freedom, as has been said many many times, is not free.

Sick! Context is king and I can pickupwhatyoure putting down here.

Understood. “Do not interact with Pooptart, they are incredibly stupid.”

Lesson learned.

My argument, which has ready been made twice, is computer decision making is not immoral. Thats ridiculous. Its incredibly useful in thousands of ways. All of this is AI.

You ACTUALLY make no argument. “AI is bad. If you use ai, you’re evil.”

That is not an argument, just an opinion, and has no support.

I’m using spellcheck as an example because its relevant.

If you continue to believe I’ve made no argument, well, I guess your reading compression isnt up to where it would need to be to understand basic human interaction.

You are of course welcome to have and express your opinion, but when its just a shit take and its unsupported dont get pissed about getting called out.

Use of ai is not immoral in and of itself. That argument is made in my response. I supported that argument by explaining why AI isn’t immoral, in that its a useful tool.

“I don’t use spell correction because I don’t need it, as I understand the language.”

Run-on sentence. You are using a comma as a seperator between two fully separate thoughts. Thats the wrong punctuation to accomplish the task you want.you should either use a semi-colon or a conjunction, or just make them separate sentences.

Your understanding of the language is clearly perfect and any tool that provides feedback when you make mistakes is clearly unnecessary.

This is ALSO a garbage tier take. You have assumed your opponents opinion is based on AI making people dumb. You’re providing them with ammo. There are many possibilities for why they think this. As far as you know, your statement is entirely irrelevant to the person you’re responding too.

This is a garbage tier take. You use spell correction. Thats a form of computerized decision making, which is artificial intelligence. You MAY have a point if you’re referring to LLMs but thats incredibly arguable, and you hasn’t stated any reasoning behind your opinion.

Point taken, and I dont disagree. What I’m saying is though, there ARE governments that clearly state what they are. You shouldn’t discount self description in full because of the DPRK or whatever. Of those governments that do accurately self describe, I dont think any of them explicitly call thselves socialist or communist.

Lol “them damn commie Scandinavians!” Nah

Im not disagreeing here. That is one way to interpret “how communism with no capitalist boot on your neck?” Note though, those states dont self identify as communist or really even socialist in most cases, which leads to muddy waters, and does no favors for socialism as a political system… As an economic system its arguable, but not relevant.

I am far from making an argument for auth; it is however important to point out the context in which the most famous example of authy socialism are taken from. I feel that being aware of the strategy of the propagandabeing consumed is important.

No answers in this reply, just stating that the sky is blue except when its not.

Couple considerations: what is a nation to do when it constantly is on the verge of civil war, hasnt had breathing room to get its feet under it after a political revolution and is beset by brand new, world power level enemies doing everything they can to make sure your new nation fails?

Followup: when has this not been the case for a new communist nation? How many coups has the US backed? How many times did we try to assassinate Castro? Vietnam?

Finally: what does it look like when none of the above is true?

We tend to think of nations in a vacuum, but they exist along side each other and they have people like us inside them. Stupid, greedy, lying, shitbags that are full of empathy, love and curiousity, just like us. That makes them messy by definition, but its easy to forget.

You’ve got it, really. The difference between stalin and hitler is largely one of rhetoric. There’s definitely political differences, but gulaging that many people, in the name of “saving up for the house” of no more oppression… Both used a political system that had nothing to do with authoritarianism and perverted it to their own ends. Both called it socialism, both lied.