There is no rule against anarchism, why was I banned?

Also I don’t support the unibombers methods, I am just an anarchist. This goes against the ideas of 196, where the only rule is that you have to post before you leave. @[email protected] and other mods, I am very upset

      • Knighthawk 0811@lemmy.one
        91·
        2 years ago

        yeah, but if you’re an anarchist then I just don’t get it. how can you hold someone to a rule or have any opinion on the quality of the rules when you’ve already decided that all rules are stupid and you’re not following any of them (unless you maybe are just following some in order to stay out of jail because reality exists outside of our internal priorities)

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          61·
          2 years ago

          What a stupid fucking take.

          Anarchism is a stateless society without hierarchy. It’s not a society without rules, people can mutually agree to live within a social framework.

          • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
            22·
            2 years ago

            like how we’re all mutually agreeing to live within the social framework of the lemmyverse? I’m no anarchist but this is about as anarchist as voluntary organization of people gets

        • loiakdsf@discuss.tchncs.de
          21·
          2 years ago

          that point doesn‘t really hold its worth. a murderer‘s house cannot be searched without a warrant just because he is a murderer, he still has a right to privacy, which police need to keep.

          according to your take, police are allowed to search every self proclaimed anarchists houses.

          • Knighthawk 0811@lemmy.one
            2·
            2 years ago

            what? no. That would require that the governing body of the police were itself anarchist… which is a paradox.

            however, if the police did that then said anarchist would have to follow the establishment’s rules in order to fight back and win. If said anarchist were always 100% true to their beliefs then they would not go the route of abiding the laws because they are against the establishment in every way. they would want to fight back, but not by following the rules.

            in your scenario, you made the police out to be anarchists themselves which is a bit backward. the police are fascist, or any other totalitarianism or similar.

    • Ostrichgrif@lemmygrad.ml
      13·
      2 years ago

      195 was a subreddit based off the mods dorm in college, the main gimmick is that if you visit you have to post something before you leave. The original sub shut down and 196 replaced it and became a very popular meme sub which then transitioned to Lemmy.

  • faceless@lemmy.worldOP
    164·
    2 years ago

    I don’t agree with terrorism, I’m stupid but not that stupid. Ted kazinski was an awful man who bombed post offices, why would I ever agree with that?

    There’s also no way to message mods to talk to them about this, they dont have an email or anything.

        • Quit_this_instance@sh.itjust.works
          17·
          2 years ago

          Well, this c is specifically for discussion of this instance, and you’re having problems on a different instance. If you’re getting nowhere talking to the mods of that specific community you could try looking for a meta community on that instance to talk about it. Lemmy.world has nothing to do with moderation in a different community on a different instance.

        • eric5949@lemmy.world
          12·
          2 years ago

          Probably on the instance the community is on. See if that instance has a chat or general community.

    • indite@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      25·
      2 years ago

      I agree with terrorism if its funny

      Like imagine blowing up a building and having confetti come out after

      Comedy gold

  • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
    72·
    2 years ago

    Ted fucking sucked by the way

    I get the frustration with liberalism, I deeply, truly do, but they were spot on, supporting Kaczynski is extremely reactionary and as a queer person it’s extremely alienating when I see other “leftists” into him for what are basically cosmetic reasons because “muh industrial revolution bad” without even digging an inch below the surface in analysis.

  • iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml
    63·
    2 years ago

    Horseshoe theory is real and it’s communists and anarchists both getting kicked out of 196. Welcome to the club comrade

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    12·
    2 years ago

    For starters…for an anarchist it’s strange you’re a stickler for the rules

    But also it’s always going to be an unspoken rule that the mods can ban you from a site at their discretion. That’s why moderation is done by people and not automated (mostly), because there’s always going to be exceptions and things that weren’t accounted for.

    As others have said you just kindof have to read the room sometimes.

    • iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml
      53·
      2 years ago

      Ridiculous. That community got completely taken over by anti-communists. They ban every so-called tankie they see.

  • half@lemmy.world
    2035·
    2 years ago

    Try not to take it too personally: the commies are extra sensitive at the moment because they have to share the fediverse with a giant influx of liberals. You’d probably be upset if they were pouring into your space. Not that anybody owns it, but we all take things for granted. It’ll cool off.

    edit: the gears of this sarcasm machine are lubricated by Marxist tears

    • faceless@lemmy.worldOP
      233·
      2 years ago

      I’ve been reading the modlog (something that Lemmy does really well is make modding transparent) and people have been getting banned for stupid reasons like this

      • half@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 years ago

        I suspect we may be operating on slightly different definitions of communism.

              • half@lemmy.world
                22·
                2 years ago

                Only if being “entitled to the fruits of labor” does not preclude the state (or any state-like entity, don’t even start with me) from seizing and/or arbitrating the value of that fruit. If that’s the case, what is the value of the so-called entitlement?

                The reason private property is vital to a just society is that we do not know the ultimate purpose of society. We can not even estimate the size of the universe; claiming to understand the role of mankind without knowing its position in the cosmos is like claiming to understand a blood cell with no knowledge of the circulatory system. We all have exactly the same right and cause to determine the purposes of our own lives. Different life goals lead to different evaluations of goods and services. I do not eat flesh, listen to K-pop, or ski. To appropriate the value of my labor for the benefit of these systems for which I have no use is a violation of my natural right to determine the purpose of my own life

                • WhatWouldKarlDo@lemmygrad.ml
                  31·
                  2 years ago

                  I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue with me about? It’s your fruit. Do with it as you will, and pass those rights along.