this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
64 points (88.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36919 readers
1506 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 43 points 5 days ago (19 children)

In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There is a difference between Anomie and anarchy

Just because there are no leaders/rulers, doesn't mean there are no social rules or morale values.

A law doesn't keep one from doing bad stuff.
Else we wouldn't have murderers.

But society must grow and develop. At the current state anarchy probably wouldn't work...

[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago (4 children)

a law doesn't keep one from doing bad stuff

that's true, they need to be enforced somehow....

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They're enforced now but murder still happens.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

That doesn't prove that not enforcing them would somehow make murder disappear, it just proves that you can't absolutely eliminate a behavior. Every action has diminishing returns.

I can remove some of the heat from an object by putting it in the fridge. I can remove more by putting it in the freezer, but that requires more energy. I can remove even more by using more and more sophisticated scientific equipment, but I can never reduce the temperature to absolute zero. That doesn't mean the soda in my fridge isn't colder than one on the counter.

Perfect results aren't obtainable except in trivial cases.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

ITT: Nobody has any idea what any anarchist philosopher ever said or believed and simply thinks it means no rules

They then strut victoriously, thinking they are smarter than every anarchist philosopher who has ever existed because they know that rules matter in a society, not realizing that no anarchist thinker has ever said "let's just have no rules or organization and just see how it goes based on the vibes"

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

How’s about this: name me one functioning country of significant size (i.e. not just a commune) that functions on an anarchistic model. Demonstrate via examples that this system actually works in practice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (10 children)

Anarchy sounds good to me then someone asks "Who'd fix the sewers?"

edit: This is lyrics from The Dead Kennedy’s “Where Do You Draw the Line?”

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My experience organizing non-profit events have shown that most people actually have no problem doing dirty jobs for no material compensation. If the following things are true:

  1. They understand why the job is important
  2. They feel responsible for the job (usually comes from being given autonomy and trust)
  3. They get recognition for doing it (social rewards are actually very powerful)
  4. No one else is getting compensated either.

I understand that this seems foreign to a lot of people, because this is not how work is generally motivated in capitalist society. You are used to your job being rather unimportant, with little autonomy, little trust, not much recognition from society and some people definitely profiting more than others. Your primary motivator is the threat of violence (via homelessness, starvation etc.), so it's hard to imagine what would happen if that was removed.

That to me is the core idea of Anarchism, to base your organization on volontary cooperation rather than coercion.

An interesting side-note is that the people who do the dirty jobs in these circumstances often take great pride in it, forming an identify around doing what others are not willing to and calling attention to it as a way to get more recognition.

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

non-profit events and mucking a sewer are very different.

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I assumed it was just a very dirty, tough job requiring some specialized equipment and skills. Are you saying it's somehow fundamentally different from other human activities?

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes I believe organizing and doing are very different and sewer work falls firmly into an area of work that most wouldn't do without substantial gain for that work. Humans are not inherently altruistic on that level

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, when I said "organizing" I meant everything required to run an event (with thousands attending). From planning and programming to picking trash and cleaning toilets.

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Having cleaned many toilets it is nowhere nearly as unpleasant as the life risking work that can take place in a sewer system.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Anarchist response would be "people who want functioning sewers, which should be everybody."

Yeah it's a dirty job. So is wiping your ass. Does someone need to threaten you to wipe your ass? Take a shower? When your toilet breaks at home do you shrug and just shit on the bathroom floor?

No, you fix the toilet. Same with the sewers.

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Ok and who does that end up being?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 29 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (16 children)

I think that if humanity can manage to survive long enough, anarchism is inevitable.

It's essentially the adult stage of human society - the point at which humans collectively and consistently, rather than just individually and situationally, can be trusted to generally do the right thing simply because it's the right thing and therefore the most reasonable thing to do.

For the time being and the foreseeable future though, humanity is nowhere even close to that. Through the course of history, human society has managed to advance to about the equivalent of adolescence. There's still a long way to go.

In spite of that, I do identify as an anarchist, but my advocacy is focused on the ideal and the steps humanity as a whole has to take to achieve it. I think it's plainly obvious that it cannot be implemented, since any mechanism by which it might be inplemented would necessarily violate the very principles that define it. It can only be willingly adopted by each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference), and that point will come whenever (if) it comes.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Genuinely thought that said "anachronism" and was ready to go on a tirade about how cool cloaks are and how they should make a comeback

[–] waz@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Fuck yeah, I'd wear a cloak.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

That it's basically the lefty equivalent to a libertarian. Both of those philosophies seem juvenile to me in a "I don't want to, and you can't make me" kind of way. Call me old fashioned, but I like structure as long as it's not totalitarian. I'm happy to pay taxes as long as they're going toward the benefit of society. Granted, that largely hasn't been the case, but I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

Recent events have also highlighted how much my taxes actually were going toward the betterment of society (though still not nearly enough), and that I had taken them for granted until they were recently axed/defunded.

Anarchists aren't against government, or even taxes, they're against the state, which is different.

you defeated a strawman, no anarchist philosopher would disagree that that would be stupid

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NaNin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 5 days ago

A lot of people think it means total chaos, but it really just means an opposition to hierarchy.

People living comfortable lives will rationalize any critique of the system away, even if that comfort is built upon emiseration and exploitation.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It depends on the definition

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

It was the way for most of human history. And I’m not saying that in a good way, like “it’s totally normal, we should not be afraid of it.” I think the past was a uniformly awful time that’s slowly been getting better.

Anarchy working well depends on the people involved. Though at this point, we live in such a rules based world that I wonder if anyone would be able to function entirely without.

[–] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 days ago

People calling themselves anarchists seem to reliably be less of a red flag than when they call themselves communists.

I think there's a lot of sentiment to sympathize with and a lot of ideas to learn about.

Implementation of anarchism seems hard and maybe sometimes a bit naïve, but on the other hand I don't actually understand the specifics nor is there any one opinion.

Anarvhism refers to a vlass of ideologies moreso than any one in specific.

The end goal of civilization.

Stateless, Egalitarian societies.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 9 points 5 days ago (5 children)

It seems foolish and young to me. Same as libertarian rules or rule by religious doctrine. None of that shit works. Just shiny little playthings to keep people distracted from real and genuine problems that cause an existential threat to all species living on earth.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 days ago

When I was younger, I believed that it was an ideal worth striving for. Now I don't have that much faith in people anymore and I think that the best you can ask for is to try to live life your way and stay true to your beliefs and morals as best you can, according to whatever circumstances that you've been given.

[–] banghida@lemm.ee 10 points 5 days ago

Pls no anarcho capitalism. A good breakdown of the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g&t=1

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I think it's one gun away from a dictatorship.

For power to be safely devolved to the people there need to be resilient structures in place to prevent a bad actor from simply wresting control by force.

Also, I think that while it solves societal issues well for the most personal of personal liberties it fails to properly add in protections from the liberties of others that may be imposed on you... i.e. a spouse trying to escape an abusive relationship will find sparse services to support them.

Lastly, I like trains. Trains don't happen in a reasonable time-frame without a strong centralized government. In the UK a coop recently opened a new train line... I think it took them 30+ years.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

I don’t think practically you could end up with a state of anarchism because it implies that humans can exist in a power vacuum. Something will always fill that vacuum. Now, the question is what is that thing? It can take a lot of forms. The goal should be to make it serve the qualitative needs of most people - food, shelter, well being, safety. People advocating for true anarchy are usually doing so from a naive idealism. Idealism is often good, but sometimes ignores other factors that make the ideal impossible to achieve.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Technically the whole world runs on pure anarchism. No rules, only those created by local groups. With agreements between some of the groups. Most of it enforced by violence.

Laws only exist because most people believe in them. For the rest they are enforced with violence. I believe that anarchy would result in a similar system. Most people would behave but some would not. To protect everyone eventually some kind of police and laws would form again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frankenswine@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

coupled with communism it's the real shit

load more comments
view more: next ›