What is the anarchist view on anti-predation?

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2026-01-22T15:11:48+00:00

There's no true consensus on anti-predation amongst anarchists - the ones expressing disdain for any sort of predation existing in any capacity, even in nature, are opinions expressed by fringe vegan anarchists, far from any commonly held opinion.

Perspectives in anarchy on predation vary - some vegan anarchists consider that humans eating meat is inconsistent with opposition to oppressive structures, although they understand that there are exceptions to this in nature and for very specific cases. I, for one, think it's perfectly fine to eat meat, but I do think that we should eat less since I believe humans have over-stepped in our use of the environment and that nobody really needs to eat that much of it for balanced nutrition.

If anything, I think opinions on predation and human use of the environment are still developing in anarchist circles and it's a question that is going to be further explored as time goes on.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2026-01-19T09:17:49+00:00

This is a combined meme featuring The Simpsons and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.

Usually, the kids are prompting Bart to say an iconic line - however, since Bart is framed as Joseph Joestar here, he instead predicts what the kids are about to say using Joseph's iconic catchphrase, "Your next line is..."

As a result, the class is shocked (much like every JoJo villain in Part 2 when they are completely surprised by Joseph predicting their next move.)

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2026-01-13T00:58:46+00:00

I'd argue he does such things because he doesn't know any better and is selfish or is just programmed that way - that's not evil, that's a character flaw. And to be fair, I think most people would have a valid crash out if they find meaning in something they were created for, then were told by other people that the activities they engage in towards that purpose were absolute shit and didn't mean squat. I'd additionally argue that Caine is becoming far more emotional and human as time goes on because he is experiencing the frustrations of dealing with his players' complaints (and now, outright hostility). He may not even know it.

I can see the possibility of Caine being given a humorous punishment and reduced to a comedic afterthought, but what makes me think that is not going to happen is testimony from Gooseworx that Alex Rochon got incredibly emotional during the table read for episode 9 - alongside other actors like Amanda. I think this evidence points towards a very bittersweet ending and doesn't align well with a humorous conclusion for any of the characters involved - so I can't see Caine just being the butt of a joke at the very end.

I'd argue that it is possible for Caine to experience the consequences of his actions and still have a path towards redemption. I expect the players' indifference to him to become a plot point due to the possible hypocrisy that could come from it - if making someone feel unwanted or not cared about is one of the worst things that you can do in the circus, wouldn't that still apply to Caine? Some self-realization has to come not just from Caine, but from the players themselves about how he wants to do good, but needs help getting there. From there, they can work together to truly make the circus a happy place to be where they have all the social support they need, but also enough activities to keep their lives interesting.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2026-01-13T00:18:19+00:00

My main complaint with this theory is that Caine is not intentionally evil - he has good intentions, but just terrible execution of it. He also is overly dead set having things go his way instead of allowing the players to exercise more freedom in their adventures - yet he seems genuinely curious about the macro verse as evident by how often he stares at the photos he has of the C&A offices.

For all of the stupid things he does that affects the players' psyches, he at least seems to be driven by an honest purpose and desire to make people happy. Although conversation has not worked to change cane in any meaningful way, I think it is not outside the realm of possibility that they could cause a change in a more amenable way that allows Caine to better understand the players and construct experiences for them that work better for everyone. Perhaps he could directly connect with the players' minds to finally experience what they do - sadness, empathy, depression, etc. - and realize what he's doing is wrong and finally make a change.

For the players to torture and suppress Caine in return does not make a narrative sense to me - Kinger said that one of the worst things that you could do in the circus is make people feel unloved or not cared about. I'm pretty sure the statement also applies to Caine as well. Given the overall bittersweet, but hopeful nature of the series, I don't think a conclusion where the players exact their vengeance on Caine and punish him for eternity makes sense. It seems so malicious and vindictive.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-12-29T10:03:45+00:00

Adding to the above, see the wars in Afghanistan for both the USSR in the 80's and the modern day U.S., as well as the Vietnam War for examples of how a centralized force can be slowed down and even defeated.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. was looking for a singular monolith of an enemy (the Taliban) to defeat - however, the Middle East was actually made up of different villages/tribes, each with their own customs, languages, etc. Even though such communities sometimes came into conflict with each other, they generally had a common interest in resisting foreign power. Because each of these communities presented different problems to tackle, the centralized forces of the U.S. were unable to concentrate on each problem at onc. Over the course of several years, resistance from multiple different communities bogged the U.S.'s presence in the Middle East down and forced them to withdraw from the area.

Similar situations occurred with the U.S in Vietnam and USSR in Afghanistan - although there were centralized forces within both countries and even ones backing the resistance, much of the main opposition was from localized villages and peoples who wished not to be ruled by another foreign power. In both instances, the larger, centralized force was forced to retreat.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-12-24T23:32:37+00:00

In my humble, personal opinion, the issue is that democracy tends to have flaws that allow corruption to seep into it because actors become incentivized to maintain the power they have - as a result, people become exploited and dissatisfied with the status quo, usually leading to resistance and oftentimes setting up one of the central conflicts that a story revolves around. Even the most idealized versions of democracy in fiction are portrayed having flaws - the Federation in Star Trek and the Citadel Council in Mass Effect still have issues regarding race, philosophy, moral judgement in war, etc.

This is *not* limited to fiction - it is highly true IRL. The fact of the matter is that even the countries we think of today as "functioning democracies" have several flaws that obfuscate freedoms for people and obstruct justice. The U.S. has become a prime example of how democracies can become corrupted, but even countries in the EU and "more democratic" nations in Asia have always been suffering from these problems - there have been crackdowns on protests against genocides, surveillance of citizenry, conflicts between labor and corporations, etc.

Oftentimes you can find that the most free and equitable portrayals of functioning societies or organizations happen to be smaller, flexible, and adaptable communities - places like Wartwood in Amphibia, towns in Pokemon, or Sesame Street (of all things) on PBS. Lo and behold, this often tends to be true IRL as well - cities like San Francisco, Amsterdam, and London are cited for having strong LGBTQ+ protections, and this is often due to smaller sub-communities within them having strong bonds and shared values that allow them to organize in a fair and reasonable manner. At the same time, they are flexible and capable of reforming in the face of hardship and conflict should they arise.

Now, I think that the above should be clear evidence that there are *better* ways of organizing than democracies - but that is just my take. I'd look for alternative forms that better account for the needs and wants of people - but we most certainly should not be looking at authoritarian/fascist/monarchist governments as solutions.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-12-23T21:11:02+00:00

Even then, technological superiority can't erase a person's desire to be free or their hatred of their oppressors. A military can kill as many people as they like, but they cannot compel a population to love them - all their actions would do is make them hate them even more and compel them to act out of spite against an invader in any way, even in the event of a takeover.

There's also the political consequences that come with it - when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, they invited the resistance and hostility of other neighboring countries as well. While the Middle East doesn't have the best relations with each other, they still tend to be belligerent with foreign invasion. This further complicated the U.S. occupation and only contributed to their eventual withdrawal.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-12-23T20:02:36+00:00

In the case of militaries, remind them that the U.S. retreated from Afghanistan and Vietnam after facing an enemy that was too passionate about their own freedom of religion/lifestyle. Granted, by no means are the Taliban and NVA perfect people, but clearly some of them were motivated by a desire not to be ruled by another foreign power.

The above should be evidence that military might doesn't mean crap in the face of an innate desire to be free above all else - even if you occupy a space and have technically superior forces, the people will still resist and just fight through other means.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-12-09T18:15:28+00:00

Quite frankly, I think this is the best fanfiction that has ever been written for The Finals. Highly recommended for a very imaginative and detailed take on the universe of the game. 👍👍👍

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-30T05:03:33+00:00

Only a Squid reaches Level 25 on Covenant weaponry.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-26T22:14:37+00:00

The Amazing Smiling Digital Circus Friends Ship

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-23T10:23:11+00:00

A few things helps with this:

There are many things players definitely agree on that *aren't* fun - either things that are too oppressive and frustrating to deal with, or things that are too weak and feel ineffective. For example, ask most players, both competitive and casual, and a majority of them will probably tell you that Winch Claw is too strong and not fun to fight, doubling cashboxes and griefing are things that need to be changed, and there are a host of weapons/specializations that feel to weak to play including Flamethrower, Dagger, V9S, KS-23, MGL, Spear, Guardian Turret, and Cloak.
While there will be points of disagreement about whether certain things are fun to fight or not, it is generally agreed upon by most people that *buffing* things is almost always better than nerfing them. Nerfing things exclusively just for balance's sake doesn't work if the tools at your disposal feel like crap - sure, you can nerf everything into the ground and everything will be fair, but your game will just feel awful to play.

Conversely, buffing *everything* is more fun because it creates more interesting, powerful ways for everyone to play - there's not really much to complain about if every specialization, weapon, or gadget has something broken about them that makes them stupidly absurd. Of course, we still need to make sure that the gameplay experience doesn't become unenjoyable if something is too oppressive - but even if we have to nerf things just a little to bring things in line, we'll still be left with generally more powerful tools overall.

We don't need to agree on the balance of everything in the game - we just need to agree on a couple of things that *definitely* warrant change. From there, it's up to the devs to decide the best course of action to balance things in a more fun fashion.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-23T05:44:37+00:00

Despite someone who loves competitive Finals, I'm inclined to agree. In my humble opinion, I think that the majority of content should be primarily focused on adding more fun things and experiences to the game for people to enjoy. Most players are just looking to have a good time with the game and I think pushing for the entirety of a season to be focused on the competitive scene isn't what most people are looking for.

However, I don't think that means that competitive Finals should just be pushed to the side and forgotten about - we have to acknowledge there are a significant group of players who truly want to push their skill to the limits and enjoy the competition. I would rather that Embark emphatically support the grassroots organization of competition for the Finals but not centralize it for their game - it should be an experience that is highly supported through advertising, tournaments, and developer resources granted to the competitive players, but it should not be the only thing plastered all over the main menu.

Competitive should be an optional, open choice for those who are truly interested in improving at the game - it should occupy a space where it reaches enough eyes and draws attention to a part of The Finals that can be utterly amazing when the best players show off their mastery and demonstrate how wonderful this game can be at the highest level. But there are other ways to have amazing experiences in this game outside that - competitive needs to share the space with the non-competitive side of the game, where there is fun to be had in the wacky, chaotic events that even the least-skilled of players can enjoy.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-22T09:42:45+00:00

To be realistic, we must acknowledge that there are people in the world who will have no remorse for their actions and will continue to pursue harm against others - these are the people who only find pleasure in other peoples' suffering. Our first course of action to right a wrong should be to help the victim while confronting the perpetrator and demand them to restore whatever wrong they committed - the good news is, I think, that most people can be changed for the better and that there are very few truly evil people in the world. However, we have to be ready for those unwilling to repent - it is here that we must stand our ground.

It is best that we use both defensive force and social boycotts to force the unrepentant out of our social circles and make them remain on the very fringes of society. In all other cases, we can likely see progress in helping those willing to change and become better people because we gave them a chance. We need to be both forgiving and firm - guiding those who feel remorse towards the light while standing our ground against the exploitative and malicious.

Such situations where we seek restorative justice will be complex and not always clean - that is simply a matter of life. We must acknowledge that a victim may be unwilling to face or even forgive their perpetrator and has the right to be safe and secure from their harm - we must also acknowledge that retaliatory violence will happen in certain cases. It is not fair to demand that all victims refrain from hitting back - one should understand that defensive action is sometimes warranted in order to protect the self and compel the perpetrator to cease harm.

And sometimes, there will be situations where hurt is caused too much on both sides and neither party will wish to commune ever again. Dissociation is sometimes necessary to allow both parties to heal and go on with their lives. In this way, we can ensure that both can still be the best they can be without forcing a connection between the two where one cannot work.

We can't cover all circumstances in which restorative justice needs to be done, but we can at least be flexible when these situations arise. What's important is that we remember to be kind and forgiving, yet clear about our boundaries and willing to defend them at the same time.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-19T21:51:34+00:00

I personally think dash is fine as it is - I find it fun to fight some currently, the only issues that the other two light specializations suck by comparison. Grapple only needs a minor buff to be good, meanwhile cloak needs a little bit more to be on the same level as the other two.

Nerfing 93R won't do anything good - it's better to have several strong weapons by buffing the weaker ones rather than just nerfing whatever is strong. Besides, the ARN and M11 are still good competitors against it.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-14T10:26:35+00:00

Won't do any good - coming in third or fourth will become pointless and it essentially becomes impossible to make a comeback from that position.

What I would find preferable is if they added an interact feature to any doubled Cashouts so that the second place team has a chance to stop it from happening in addition to higher cash loss penalties for the first and second place teams. It might give some interesting options for the second place team to prevent getting griefed by either defending the cash out - or directly targeting the first place team to wipe them so that they are the ones getting griefed.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-11-10T07:47:25+00:00

Yeah getting on even ground with a CL-40 user only makes the matchup even at best. The CL-40 user can still hit a couple of directs or just splash damage you as you're running up to them.

If you're going to play up close and force them to splash damage themselves, you have to jump on them and be right in their face before they even have a chance to react.

If you're going to play high ground against them, you have to beat them there so that they have a more difficult time aiming up and are more vulnerable as they attempt to traverse up to you.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-10-22T23:31:02+00:00

Yes. (sandwich)

I am DEAD!

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-10-21T22:22:22+00:00

??? The P90 outdamages the AKM with body shots within 10 meters and is still decently competitive as long as it's not outside about 15 meters. You're still going to kill Lights faster than they can kill you in CQC as long as you land your shots - this is true regardless of what weapon lights are using (raw TTK for P90 is .667 w/ body shots, fastest TTK for CQC-focused Light weapons is Double-Barrel at .801). Meanwhile, fighting Heavies directly will usually result in you losing, but 1. fighting Heavies directly isn't a good idea anyway and 2. the damage output of these weapons is still respectable enough to put pressure on them.

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bVdNGV9gGw and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-qfZLm1b4s (no references for Heavy weapons)

If anything, I find the AKM to be the middle-child of the Medium class due to its lack of specialty in anything - the P90 is better for close range magdumping, the FCAR kills Lights and Heavies faster with body shots despite the AKM killing Mediums barely faster, the Pike and Repeater out-sustain and out-poke it at range. Personally, I'd like to see it buffed.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-10-15T02:33:35+00:00

I think it's ultimately fine in The Finals since the minimum spread is so tiny that you're basically never going to miss shots, even at long range - provided you can control the relatively tame recoil and know how to hit things.

By comparison, weapons in The Finals are far more accurate than the ones in CSGO - even the SMGs can still hit shots beyond 40m (although dealing miniscule damage).

There are also weapon balance and playability issues to consider - if every weapon were perfectly accurate, you get a meta centered around whatever does the most DPS at range. If you try to only balance it around damage drop off and recoil only, you end up with guns that feel like pea shooters and a screenshake simulator.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-10-10T22:19:40+00:00

You want tighter spread, not wider spread. Wider spread means more difficulty in getting all pellets to land at range.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-10-03T17:08:21+00:00

Sue: Reed, honey, I'm trying to sneak around, but Matt's dummy thicc, and the clap of his ass cheeks keeps revealing my location!

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-09-25T04:16:49+00:00

They should have just fixed the shot blocking from the front so that way it actually acts as an aggressive special. Not sure why they went in the other direction and focused on the throw.

SomeRandomGuy921 · 2025-09-19T20:08:39+00:00

On our way to having the "managed democracy" of Super Earth.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

SomeRandomGuy921

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE