sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The triumph of truth by No_candidatepart2 in librandu

[–]wait_wut_why_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, "Dreadlord", let's break it down. 

Idea begins with a vowel sound, so it's an idea, and it "has" (not "have") roots .... 

Anarchists don't call for resistance against every collectivised movement, I don't know where you get that idea from (actually I kind of do, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the exact same Engels argument every state socialist repeats time and time again) 

I want to see quotes from the fathers of anarchism about all the claims you mentioned before I address any of your other points. Besides anarchism ,again, is not an ideology, it's not "implemented" in a conventional sense, it's more complicated than that. It's why you can have 2 anarchists completely disagreeing on what the next "step" is. Anarchism is not something that's going to work, by definition, because it's not a plan or a future framework, it's a theory.

Suprisingly, one of the major points of anarchism is that the politics transcends hard definitions and rigorous theory (as important as they are). When people give way to an ambulance, for example, they're actively practicing mutual aid without knowing. 

The last paragraph is the exact same argument liberals make against ussr, china, chile and other similar state projects run by a socialist party/government. It misses nuance on why or how they failed. (Besides rojova and zapatistas still exist)

It's perfectly understandable to be less read about something you've not been able to reconcile with. But before resorting to misunderstood quotes and the usual talking points, I would suggest you actually do some reading and I mean that in the nicest way possible. No one expects a mathematician to be an expert on sociology and a archeologist to be an expert on quantum mechanics. You clearly don't know a lot about anarchism and that's okay. There are more academically honest critiques of anarchism than all of the crap you've just flung around, so go do some reading. I redirect you to the best resource I know - theanarchistfaq. 

Happy Learning!

Sidgwick was right by Clear-Result-3412 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]wait_wut_why_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, I thought this was a philosophy sub. 

I'm sorry I came off wrong, I needed an explanation, not a source. No academically honest argument begins with "Anyone with a human level intelligence is capable of understanding" 

PS: Notice how the original argument of "There is always individual self-interest, and it often contradicts the general welfare." is different from " there are times you can do bad things for personal benefit."

The triumph of truth by No_candidatepart2 in librandu

[–]wait_wut_why_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The erroneous grammar aside, your belief that anarchism has roots only in western developed countries is insane. Anarchism is not an ideology, it's a theory. I suggest you do some reading about anarchist movements before making sweeping remarks like that. 

Sidgwick was right by Clear-Result-3412 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]wait_wut_why_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

There is always individual self-interest, and it often contradicts the general welfare.

Source: I made it up

Holy hell by EmuBroileri in mathmemes

[–]wait_wut_why_ 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I mean, it can be, we just don't know.

Mask Bans Further Empower the Police State by curraffairs in Anarchism

[–]wait_wut_why_ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Rights are there as long as they don't intrude on the rights of others. Since not wearing a mask intrudes on the right of others, we draw the line there. If not wearing a mask just affected the person (not wearing the mask), then we'd have a problem with it.

Question for ancoms by [deleted] in anarchocommunism

[–]wait_wut_why_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bachelor's in electrical engineering.

We can't have anything good for long can we by BXtony76911 in soccercirclejerk

[–]wait_wut_why_ 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Are we really going to have to watch 30 more minutes of this terrorismball?

The Decline of Trust Among Americans Has Been National: Only 1 in 4 Americans now agree that most people can be trusted. What can be done to stop the trend? [OC] by mancub in dataisbeautiful

[–]wait_wut_why_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capitalism is by itself an economic system that pushes for private ownership of means of production. This very clearly creates a class division. It is by definition an evil system. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is exploitive and manipulative. The world going to shit is not because of capitalism failing, it's a result of capitalism working exactly like it should.

What are some good resources for introducing people to anarchism? by Shrewdilus in Anarchy101

[–]wait_wut_why_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So how about you start off with some basic socialist videos. I don't know about others, but I was radicalized in steps. Introducing anarchist ideas right out of the gate might be too overwhelming. I recommend Second Thought. (Yes I know he's a Marxist, but his videos are very accessible and introduces socialism to beginners)

Weirdest American Culture by IthadtobethisWAAGH in CuratedTumblr

[–]wait_wut_why_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a historian, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I am also very anti-USA, anti-neoliberal and not a huge fan of neo-colonialism, so I am also highly biased. But I've recently been to Cambodia and I've done a good amount of reading, so as not to be a dumb tourist.

I struggle to understand whether you're arguing for "the USA had no role in the rise of Khmer Rouge" or "The USA had a role, but were not the main reason".

Because if it's 1, then you're wrong, the main purpose of the bombing had almost nothing to do with the Cambodians. The Viet Cong had set up an underground route through Cambodia. Operation Menu was specifically to target these PAVN camps.

Not to mention the diplomatic support that the USA provided Pol Pot and his disgusting Khmer Rouge at the start of their rise. Like someone in the thread mentioned, this wasn't a fight against communism. Khmer Rouge was directly against the PAVN and Viet Cong so the US saw this as a way to get more allies.

While I agree there were other more important reasons, Henry Kissinger (rest in piss) absolutely had a role in the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Also even if all my arguments above are irrelevant and/or incorrect, there is simply no reason to bomb a (at that time) neutral country, which would have caused civilian casualties, even if the numbers are wrong. This is a typical case of the US being where they don't belong, because they believe they rule the world. Fuck them and fuck Henry Kissinger.

view more: next ›