this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
496 points (97.9% liked)
Flippanarchy
1072 readers
700 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree with most hierarchical forms of authority, so at least statistically that seems like an adequate definition.
I dunno if you've noticed this, but conservatives don't seem to care much about where they get the words they turn into weapons or what they might've originally meant, so I wouldn't use them as a yardstick for the general meaning or utility of a term.
I think you might've missed my point. You replied to my joking comment about authoritarianism by asking who would win between an authoritarian and an anarchist. I was countering by pointing out that we obviously care a lot more about things like justice than merely who would win, otherwise we would all back capitalism because it's winning like gangbusters right now despite being pretty unjust. The fact that it might stop winning some day really doesn't have much bearing on the point about only backing winners though, does it? I choose to assume that you've misunderstood, because the alternative is to assume that you are acting in bad faith in trying to distract from the original point.
Dismissing a whole-ass rich and nuanced political philosophy as 'vibes' - twice now - is not making me terribly inclined to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt for much longer though.