Some of these fanatics at Al Jazeera have even sacrificed their lives for the cause, dying as they carry out acts of journalism that threaten the Israeli government.” Netanyahu went on to defend his administration’s record of rooting out journalism, noting that since the war began in October, around 100 journalists had been killed.
If an israel commits Genocide but there's no journalist around to report on it, did the israel commit Genocide?
The fact you still do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic. Anarchy is literally beyond your comprehension.
Rules HAVE to exist. In some form. They HAVE to be enforced in some form. If you assume any enforcer is a boot of a "ruler", you are literally missing the entire point.
The moment you create rules and create enforcers those enforcers become the rulers.
If they have the power to enforce rules then they have higher authority and therefore status.
Don't get me wrong I love the concept. The problem is the concept completely ignores that humans naturally develop hierarchy. We won't deliberately pick the roles they'll just naturally develop over time.
Enforcers only become rulers when they're given both immunity and the ability to make shit up.
The fact you fundamentally do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic.
If you like the concept, then maybe understand how it's actually supposed to function. Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist. How do you do that fairly? Yes, nature has tendencies, which is why humans create rules and enforcers to resist natural tendencies.
Humans are supposed to be GREATER than "dumb animals", yet all I ever hear is people whining about how it it's unnatural... NO SHIT!! That's the entire point!!
In nature, the strong eat the weak, the end. Game over. We need to create rules and enforcers to make a better environment than is natural. Creating rules requires at least a temporary "ruler" (that doesn't 'have' to be a single person). If you claim ANY ruler is ALWAYS bad, you are quite literally forgetting how not-nature works in its entirety.
How do you keep the enforcers from becoming the rulers? Who enforces the enforcers? Other enforcers? What's to stop them from banding together just like cops do now? Eliminating hierarchy requires many other conditions be met to not just turn into authoritarianism or something similar.
Almost like the world we live in is thoroughly fucked and we need to change a lot to make it not suck, and if it were easy somebody probably would've done it by now?
Lol, okay so this is how you respond when asked for a citation on something you made up
Tells me everything I need to know about you
Can you tell me how asking for you to cite something is a bad thing? Or are you gonna throw another temper tantrum. And you say I'm the triggered 11 year old, but really dude, look at your comment. It's either a low effort trolling or someone so dense they are incapable of self reflection
Rules don't have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.
Your conception of "natural tendencies" and "the strong eat the weak" smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.
You are beyond stupid if you cannot fathom how my explanation of nature was to SEPARATE out the good intentions of societal rules ... right? The fact you take an allegory literally is just pathetic communication skills. Try to understand what I'm saying, not what some sub-selection of my words returns you from Google...
Do you have empirical evidence that societal rules are borne of good intentions and not complete fabrications, made up entirely to suit the needs of those in power? Social organization (including rules) are a human concept that are malleable and changeable. Can you prove that enforcement is needed to have a functioning society? You're so confident in your assertions, how about you put up some proof behind it?
Your allegory is used by social darwinists. It's a bad allegory. If it doesn't accurately convey the sentiment you were attempting to express it's your own fault. Write with intent and be precise
More than wrong, second order wrong, drawing the wrong bad conclusions from ideas that are themselves nonsense and wrong. So they have to reconsider not only a conclusion, but fundamental ideas. Its a big ask, I'm not sure its worth the interaction.
Look at it from an information theory (applied to organization it's called systems theory, cybernetics, or scientific management) perspective: when you put one guy in charge of too much stuff (and let's face it; its usually gonna be a guy, because misogyny ud a feature not a bug of these systems), you have to compress all the data coming to him, and all the orders will be based on increasingly shitty abstracted models as you try to make him in charge of more stuff. Even if that guy is the absolute best, he literally cannot have good information, and the more fine grained his control, basically the more its just a crap shoot.
So yes. Centralized authority is bad, and it can be proven with math. You can try to hedge it, you can try to optimize it, but its got a fundamental flaw, not just from a moral perspective, but a mathematical one. Please don't make me look up the actual numbers; I'm on mobile.
Got any reading suggestions for systems theory for people with little/no academic background? I want to read into it but people usually link college textbooks for advanced classes lol
So you should probably understand at least the idea of information theory, 'the information: a history, a theory, a flood' is a great conceptual explain/primer/pop-sci book on that.
'Seeing like a state' is a little specific, but its specific about this idea.
I'll check that out, thanks. Funny you mention seeing like a state, I just finished it last weekend. I was kind of getting that vibe from it, having watched/listened to stuff about complex systems before. But Ive been intimidated by the nature of most writing on complex systems
I AM NOT DEFENDING CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY!! Holy fuck, you idiots literally cannot understand the concept that distributed authority is still authority....
And theres no way to counterbalance or fix or even mitigateany of this, i know because i just thought about it for almost an entire half of a second!
Obviously theres no way to do maintenance or draw someone back in from shitty behavior other than shooting them. Obviously theres no way to get someone to chill out other than shooting them. There are no human behaviors; ingrained or learned, that could possibly fix any of this or serve as levelling mechanisms.
Unfortunately, we can't stop things that 'happen naturally' and so we shouldn't try, and that's why I'm against the criminalization of murder and rape, and honestly pretty eager to die of cancer.
so therefore we must have massive globe spanning potentially apocalyptic decades long pissing matches and everything must be grinding the weak into dust and delusional assholes totally disconnected from any material concern making the worst possible decisions must make every decision for everyone, even if it literally ends all life by ruining earth.
Cringe, honestly dude all your comments tell me you're 14. I just joined the thread with one comment and you start hurling insults. Actually child like behavior.
You literally said anarchism is beyond my comprehension despite it being one of the hardest to define political terminologies. YOU don't even know what it means because it means 100 different things to 100 different grouos of people
One day you'll get a 2 in front of your age and feel embarrassed about how fucking idiotic you make yourself look all the time.
You all the ones confusing rule makers with rule enforcers, yet you accuse me of not understanding. Stop being so fucking dumb and maybe your claims of me not understanding would have any merit.
Oh my god dude books have been written about this stuff, youre not actually asking a question; youre trying to excuse tyranny by saying theres no other option.
The game itself only exists while its rules are being followed. They don't need to be externally enforced, the collective agreement to play the game implies agreeing to its rules.
Yes and who puts them in jail when the murderer doesn't want to go? An enforcer. God, you morons are being led to water and then shitting in it... Holy fucking pathetic.
I was talking about the society as we live in now, since you decided to create a metaphorical connection between board games and reality. I didn't mean to comment on whatever else you thought people are talking about
Nuh uh! They're participating in lively debate through which all parties can come to a ruling by consensus! They're just really good at it. Um, what's a ruler again anyways? 🤔
As opposed to disciplinary action carried out by a central authority, rule breakers just get slapped by every community member in a revolving door fashion.
You use the old ladies on the balconies. They see everything.
Or whatever means you wanna do, there's no hard and fast rule on how the system is structured - just that hierarchies be limited and only exist as long as necessary, and authority remain as evenly distributed throughout the community as possible.
Old ladies on balconies, or any form of social enforcement of traditional laws, are known for being fair judges of character, egalitarian, impartial in their rulings, and open to people being themselves.
That's social libertarianism. Doesn't work any better than fiscal libertarianism because you have to trust that everyone will put aside their own best interests and work for the group as a whole.
Even if the majority of people do it, It only takes a few outliers to crash the system and become dictators.
I think you're assuming I mean "there are no fast and hard rules, period", when I mean "the structure of each group is mostly up to what the internal community decides is best".
There is no system that is perfect, but we've had the entirety of human history to show that authoritarian systems are consistently bad for the humans, like flesh between the cogs. I'd much rather a web of communities in solidarity and negotiation, using their collective knowledge to forge onward.
My son has a Mazda 3 hatchback and is often bringing stuff to work sites because the guy with the big truck and the bed cover can't fit tall boxes in the bed
When I was a teen, I think pickup looks super cool and would definitely buy one if I could.
Now as a more practical adult, I don't think I'll ever buy a pickup because I have no use for them and there's a lot more downsides to it (higher tax in my country, higher maintenance, bigger footprint, lower fuel efficiency). But I still think they look cool.
Most vans have a greater payload than a lot of 4 door duel cabs, they offer more storage, more security，a lower loading floor height, more accessibility with side access and greater resale.
There are certainly practical reasons for them, like if you do a lot of ATVing, you can negate the need for hauling it in a trailer and just drive it up into the bed. It can definitely be nice to have a truck bed for certain things, but many people buy trucks for stuff they do once a month (if that), and not something they do every day, like commuting.
As a homeowner there are shit ton of times that it is really nice to have a truck. There are a lot of things that I would prefer to throw in the back of a truck rather than the back of a van, SUV, or car. Dangerous chemicals, gas cans, gas equipment, anything that might be bug infested, anything that is significantly cheaper by the truck load (mulch, dirt, stone, ect.), anything loaded by heavy machinery, anything that won't fit in a van (furniture, appliances, ect), things that stink, things that are muddy, ect, ect, ect.
And if I had the money to have a spare vehicle, I would probably get another truck. But right now a minivan hauls a lot more people and I can do most of what I need with it and a small utility trailer. But don't think that the utility trailer isn't a huge pain in the ass all by itself.
When I was much younger, it was fairly typical that when a family needed a 3rd vehicle for their kids, they would buy a cheap beater of a truck for the kids. The trucks were slow, could take abuse, limited the number of other idiots you could pack inside, and had all the utility of being a truck when you needed it.
The problem is that those kids got used to having a truck. It became a personal image thing. Trucks got faster, the ride improved, they got not just more comfortable but fucking luxurious inside. They went from utility vehicles to overpriced status symbols.
Even worse is that the same shit is happening with minivans. I went to buy another minivan this year and they are not only all luxury lined on wheels, but there was a shortage and they wanted more than MSRP for the stupid thing. They had plenty of every other vehicle on the lot, but they can't make minivans fast enough to meet demand.
I read somewhere that farmers have started to buy very tiny Japanese pickup-trucks, because for most of the work they have to do during their day these small ones are much more practical. But American car manufacturers only make these oversized mob atrocities anymore, so the only solution is these Japanese ones.
In size they're basically these little busses where there's no space between the two front seats.
I'm in a slightly more....redneck(?) area and the benefit to open bed trucks tends to be things more akin to landscaping, logging, wood and stone moving, and for those with hobbies; moving smaller vehicles (if they don't own a trailer attachment).
Basically the ability to throw dirty things into a hauling vehicle with good suspension on non-paved areas with easy cleaning capabilities.
It comes down to what you're doing is and what is required for a vehicle. HVAC, House work, some masonry or such you could use an enclosed vehicle for sure.
To your point, handymen and tradesmen will usually use a van or similar. And way more people own a truck than actually utilize it for the proper use cases. But there are valid reasons for open bed trucks too
I used to be a tradie, most of them don't need them either, and unsurprisingly, there are always tradies around whining their tools got stolen from the back of their Ute.
The funny thing is that the biggest badasses I met don't drive these kinds of cars. In fact, I can't recall any guy here in Australia who has demonstrated an ounce of courage who does drive a larger ute, and its generally a reliable indicator imho that they need fashion accessories to impress people.
Also yeah, they always suck at parking. Not because they can't, but simply because they don't care
I saw a giant lifted truck the other day at Home Depot and I realized that these things only really impress pre-pubescent boys.
Ergo, the only reason to drive a giant truck like that is to attract and impress pre-pubescent boys. Can't think of any other good reason for them to exist.
I got my ears blasted by a lifted diesel truck that clearly did something to kneecap their muffler that was...excellerating from stopped in a bank branch parking lot. It was seriously louder than most semis, and significantly louder than most tractors (my father in law restores antique tractors, so I've ridden on several tractors) and could compete with a diesel train with 3 engines lashed together hauling 2 miles of freight up a grade
I think everybody agrees that there's nothing wrong with owning a large truck to use regularly for things that need a large truck. It's when people buy a large truck to haul a 5th-wheel RV for vacation for 2 weeks a year, and then use it as a daily-driver for the other 50 weeks that we mock them.
I still don't see a problem with that. Most sportscars are worse for fuel economy and utility but because they're not trucks they get a pass. In the end, what's the problem with letting people drive what they want without judging them? It's just a weird.
Get out of my fucking lane you big dumb asshole I'm just driving down the road and you're big ass truck can't fit in your lane, and then i see you parked like an asshole in a parking spot, just get something that fits on the road
I understand that this article is satire, but people should stop using "liberal" as a pejorative. It really doesn't make sense within the contexts that it's most often used, and only creates linguistic confusion by messing with previously understood definitions.
In Australia the "Liberals" are the centre right capitalist centric party. We do have better terms like social progressives, socialists and social-democrats, but even with this, it's all relative terms. Everyone's different in their own ways.
Do take note of the lowercase L in the term that I used. I am not referring to the name of any particular political party that happens to have the name "Liberal". I am specifically referring to "liberal" as in reference to the political science concept of "liberalism".
The Onion
Hot