this post was submitted on 30 May 2026
158 points (86.2% liked)
Flippanarchy
2521 readers
863 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.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good demonstration of the idea. You dismissed it without even addressing it, just by attacking the source! Great distraction method. Good ad-hominem on the fly.
A+ work, citizen! You will get a gold star on the camp's board!
Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it's own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc...
This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn't make it bad for them to have done.
This post isn't a source of information. It's just somebody's opinion. We either agree with it or we don't.
And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.
Calling out the source's potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter's sensitivity to context is higher than your own that's their choice, but it's not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it's wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.
That's what they do with content they like. When they don't like it they do exact as Teslekova said. How they treat with information from Al Jazeera is also a good example of this.