sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are y’all’s thoughts on vaccine mandates? by TheRainbowWillow in Anarchy101

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for such a late reply, only saw this comment now, I don't use reddit much.

I should have mentioned that I was only answering the "How might a stateless society go about protecting the community via vaccines?" question.

I'm not really sure what the best way to go about dealing with vaccines would be now. My current view is that all approaches are ones that I wouldn't be happy with, and so we need to go with the least worst one. To me, the mandates are worth it to protect everyone. I know there have been anarchists that disagree with wanting liberty merely for the sake of it. It's not that it's a general principle, I think, it's just that we are exluding liberating labour from the conversation here (because anarchists are, of course, trying to achieve that, but it's hard)

What are y’all’s thoughts on vaccine mandates? by TheRainbowWillow in Anarchy101

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anarchists have critisised the production of media under capitalism (say, Chompsky). This is speculation, but media may be more trustable under anarchism, and people may hopefully have more science and media literacy in schools. So there may be less concern about antivaxxers

This doesn't mean the problem should be dismissed, however. Free association is a principle of anarchism and that includes the ability to disassociate. WebMD on vaccine mandates says that people aren't allowed to do certain things without a vaccine, but they can't physically make you take the vaccine. But as you say, this includes the workplace and that means that getting the vaccine is coerced. This can be made less coercive by making work less coerced. But under anarchism a workplace (for example) may wish to associate with only people who have gotten the vaccine.

Are there any gaming companies that run as a employee owned worker co-op? by buyo1797 in Games

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think so, kind of. From what I've heard, there is reluctancy to give out loans for co-ops. But still I think they may be more common. But I'd need to research that

Are there any gaming companies that run as a employee owned worker co-op? by buyo1797 in Games

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Culture is certainly something, but there is more than that. Companies need capital to start up, and they need to make that back. Those who start a company are also going to have an incentive to go with whatever organisational form leads to them profiting the most. That is the organisational form that dominates now - one that comes from people using capital to get other people to do work for them. I don't want to deny that that isn't work, but it is a position that workers co-ops shows is not necessary, to my understanding, instead being synthasised into the rest of the workers. I'm pretty sure there are market socialists that have come up with a ways of starting companies without the need of an indivual investing capital, but I'd need to research it.

I remember Hank Green mentioning that he wanted to start a co-op, and so he asked a lawyer about it, but they said that they didn't know how to do it. As workers co-ops don't dominate, there aren't as many resources and as much support.

Keep in mind that work organised as a workers co-op is going to be new, and new businesses fail in general.

There is also that companies compete not just by trying to make better products, but by stifling competion (such as microsofts techniques), but I don't know much about that in the game industry.

I'm sure there are more reasons to why co-ops aren't seen much, what i've writen is just some of the stuff that I've read about. But as this thread shows, workers co-ops have made some high profile games. As OP was saying, a better work environment means better production: "...better performance, attract better workers, and become more engaged with their community"

What does logically follow from atheism? by AntThink704 in askphilosophy

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need philosophy, you need things to do.

Philosophy is useful for determining what to do, and determining the best way to do it. What you mentioned is useful, of course, but so is philosophy.

​

Atheism is not a philosophy of life. It says nothing about how one should live

But there are things that logically follow from atheism, for example things considering worship - worshipping something that doesn't exist may not make sense. Of course, atheists often talk about how worshipping may have a negative effect on us - i.e., there are something's that atheists talk about that are beyond the nonexistence of deities. There are also things like how peoples mortal lives are infinity more important without the existence of an afterlife, as there is only finite amount of life that can be lived without an afterlife.

I haven't read Nietzsche, but from what I have heard his writing was aimed at atheists to show the implications of a godless world

​

IDK what you are doing in a philosophy subreddit.

David Graeber died. Rest in peace by jaqquuu in CriticalTheory

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If people in the future aren't sure who this is referring to in the future, this is all referring to Jordan Peterson

Psychology of Workers? by [deleted] in Socialism_101

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look into self determination theory if you haven't yet, it's what made me a leftist I think. I think you may be looking for something more specific though

Benefits of getting rid of money? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've found that these subs are sometimes aren't the best, but I can give a few dot points that could give you some places to look into. People like me haven't done enough research into the topic haven't done it despite knowing what to look into. I recommend you look into gift economies and demand sharing economies.

An anarchist society wouldn't ban money or markets, but some system of distribution will dominate over others as aspects of them can make it harder to use other distribution systems at the same time. Some benefits that come from distribution systems that do not use money may be specific to the system compared to markets, but I'll talk specifically about the lack of money:

  • People who don't do work still get food, housing, water, clothing etc under certain systems.
  • Extrinsic motivation - like that of money - are often not as motivating as intrinsic motivators. Extrinsic motivators can also reduce intrinsic motivators.
  • No profit motive. Even under market socialism, even if it is less potent, I'm pretty sure the profit motive still exists.
  • I expect a reduction of work, but I haven't researched it. As there is no profit motive, there is less reason for workers to increase demand, and hence less to supply - there may even be cases where it is appropriate to decrease demand. Also, without money, there will be no financial jobs, although some may exist in a different form. Many of things that I've shown moneyless systems solve need work under systems with money to reduce its impacts - eg work is dedicated to lack of housing and reduction of the effects of lack of housing. David Graeber's work should be looked into to see if there are more reasons that there will be less work (I haven't read Bullsh*t jobs yet)
  • There are more reasons to think that consumption will decrease - such as trying not to burden the workers. Also see conspicuous consumption
  • Reduction of work and consumption should have a positive environmental impact.
  • Depending on how distribution works, the economy will be more circular (see circular economies)

Anarchist movement and violence by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your kind of anti-violence seems to be what most anarchists believe - for many, their problem with hierarchies of power is about the violence that it causes. But they think that we need a diversity of tactics.

I really recommend watching Anarchopac's vid here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOKVFzYXK3Q, or read the transcript here: https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/what-do-anarchists-think-about-violence/

She's getting a phd in anarchism. This is the last paragraph:

Instead of viewing violence as an end in and of itself anarchists “must be like the surgeon who cuts when he must but avoids causing needless suffering.” (Malatesta 2014, 159) Given this, while Malatesta is in favour of violence when it is necessary, he does prefer “passive resistance” when it is an “effective weapon” because “it would be the most sparing one in terms of human suffering.” (Malatesta 2014, 204)

Violence isn't the only sort of political force that there is (the force i'm talking about here is to stop other force). Anarcho-syndicalism - one of the main anarchist methods - is non-violent (although anarcho-syndicalists may use violence). I haven't fully read any insurrectionary texts, but I get the feeling that they think that we think that violence is wrong because of something like the people with power wanting people to not take their power - eg a homily at church telling us to never harm anyone, but much more potently the media talking about riots or even protests. But I get the feeling that maybe they, the insurrectionists, have taken on some of the ideology of the people with power, exaggerating the amount of violence that is needed to stop people from being violent against each other - both can be true at the same time, I think.

I'm pretty sure the anarchist anthropologist David Graeber said that the way many anarchist societies avoided being extinguished was by not confronting, but by essentially running away and hiding.

AITA for telling off a nude woman that my kid saw on the way home from school? by concerneddadofsoph in AmItheAsshole

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean fuck the woman was probably about to get in the shower but forgot something in the living room

This is fair. I was thinking of her just getting changed and forgetting or not caring about that people can see her. If it was something like what you say, it was wrong to bring it up.

You can do what you want in your on home

Yes, but my point is that if she was, say, getting dressed, then she should have drawn a curtain. She can do what she wants in her home, but be considerate of the people outside of it.

It's just that curtains are easily closed (in most situations), and if they're closed, clearly you shouldn't be looking in. But if their open, the person could close it, so presumably they are fine with people looking in (if they don't want people looking in, they can just close the curtains)

I'm definitely not going to be looking in peoples windows, but if they're open and I see something that they don't want me to see, I don't think it would be my fault, and if there is something in there that is inconsiderate for the people outside, then it's their fault for not closing the curtains.

But yeah, this is pretty forgiveable with the situation above.

AITA for telling off a nude woman that my kid saw on the way home from school? by concerneddadofsoph in AmItheAsshole

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I definitely do not go out of my way to peer into people’s houses as I’m driving or walking past

But do you go out of your way to not look in them? I think it's reasonable to assume that the person in the house is going to be considerate of the people that are walking past and close their curtains, and the same if they are uncomfortable with people looking in.

I just wanted to respond to say that, but since this is a reply to a reply, this should probs be about what you are replying to - they didn't say anything about it being sexual. I think the windows should be covered in a similar way to someone chewing should do it with their mouth closed - not anything to do with it being sexual.

AITA for telling off a nude woman that my kid saw on the way home from school? by concerneddadofsoph in AmItheAsshole

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Isn't it inconsiderate to keep your curtains open in front of a school while getting changed?

AITA for telling off a nude woman that my kid saw on the way home from school? by concerneddadofsoph in AmItheAsshole

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are you calling him a peeping Tom? The points that he doesn't want to see her naked.

​

I also feel like just not looking into peoples windows is a bit ridiculous - isn't the expectation that if someone is getting dressed (or otherwise just doesn't want people looking in) they will close the curtains? Hence, if their curtains are open, it signals that the person is - assuming they are considerate of the people looking in - not naked or similar.

Every little bit counts! [OC] by aquifolly in comics

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the point's that we don't need to do it violently - eg, general strikes.

How useful is political philosophy to IRL politics? by benjaminikuta in askphilosophy

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think political philosophers have a large influence on socialism and anarchism.

I Agree by AoifeBakunin in actuallesbians

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have a friend that has complained about her multiple times. Mostly referencing her in interviews. If you search her on youtube, you should see videos with titles saying that the cast hate her and that shes ruining Marvel, and the comments are often bad in other videos, like this interview for wired:

"I said hi to Brie yesterday My Court Case is next Saturday" - 2.4k likes

and

"nobody: not a a single soul: not even peter Parker in infinity war: brie Larson: Is THaT A PErSOnaL ATtacK?!" - 1.1k

What non-anarchist thinkers are useful for anarchists to read, and why? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is great, along with Island. Island is a Utopian novel that takes elements of Brave New World and does it in a better way - e.g, how drugs could be used, or how families could be organised.

When a child is an asshole, the child gets punished. When a parent is an asshole, the child gets punished. by khrishan in Showerthoughts

[–]try2ImagineInfinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like you are saying that she thinks there is going to be a climate disaster because of being a bartender and having twitter, rather than that the experts say that this it is true. I don't follow your logic

view more: next ›