this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
363 points (94.6% liked)

196

5190 readers
1399 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The image is a bit of circular reasoning, as it’s very close to one of the definitions of what a state is.

But it’s good to be reminded of it once in a while.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 week ago

I find that most people are not actually familiar with the definition of a state. And it helps remind just how brutally direct that definition is

[–] Kasane_Teto@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thats such a spook lul (Stirner quote)

[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This spook?

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

I’m afraid I’m not really understanding what he’s getting at. It seems like some weird cross of superstition and social construct, but I’m not sure what makes it different from either of those things.

Also, I really hate 19th century prose for anything but fiction ;)

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Social construct would be a more nuanced less derogatory modern term. 'Bullshit we just made the fuck up' is good too and a little closer to what he meant

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago

Catboy Stirner catboy Stirner

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 21 points 1 week ago (4 children)

All societies impose rules on individuals.

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

since you are not explaining what you are trying to say with this, i have to assume.

i assume you are trying to imply that since all societies impose rules on individuals, states are no worse than any other way to organize a society, and criticising them (pointing out how they arbitrarily legitimize their own violence and criminalize that of individuals) is hypocrytical or pointless.

if this is what you are trying to say, then i have to disagree. not all power structures are equal. states are a hierarchical way to organize societies, disempowering the many, to empower the few. rules are not imposed on people, by themsleves, but by a higher authority. they are authoritarian and oppressive. state violence is illegitimate and defence against it is likely legitimate. this is something states try to obscure and it is something people need to realise, so they will consider overthrowing the states ruling over them.

if you did not mean to imply this. i am sorry for misunderstanding you. tbf i did try to get you to explain yourself. i would still like to read what you meant.

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

what are you trying to say?

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That you deserve it and that no society was about you, because the elites deserve their privileges of causing everyone else pain for their own profit.

[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

“All the other kids do it too mom!”

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly what I wrote.

What did you think I meant?

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

your comment does not seem directly related to the content of the post. i assume you are therefore implying something with your statement. otherwise, what led you to comment it?

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which particular word confused you?

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

none. i am trying to understand why you said what you said. how is "all societies impose laws upon individuals" related to "states legitimize their own violence and criminalize the violence of individuals"?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Every society has rules. Anarchists advocate for rules.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Kasane_Teto@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

what’s ur fav boot flavour, you seemingly enjoy licking the dirt off them

[–] 73QjabParc34Vebq@piefed.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

A state is just a group with a monopoly on violence.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah ghastly is essentially just being definitional here

[–] riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i do not believe stirner opererated on that definition.

here is maletesta's definition of the state, which i find far more useful for critiquing states.

“Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.”

i would go as far as to say that the entire anarchist critique of states builds on such a an understanding of states, and in turn becomes less coherent with a defintion like the one you are using.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 week ago

I don't understand why those 2 definitions are excluding; if the last thing that enforce everything is the collective force, it means that everything has been built to be protected by the collective force. Legit violence is what is structuring everything else. It means that when justice have to choose between defending the police and the army (the wole institutions), it will defend it.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It is when the people are in charge of the state.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. It is so there isn't civil war. No duels, vigilantes and non state actors who profiteer of e.g. drugs, fossil resources etc.

[–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Exactly. If people wield that power they can use it to stop people profiteering off of drugs and fossil resources.

But instead the rich wield that power so they use it to keep people starving on the streets because they don't care about the well being of everyone, only that they remain wealthy so they'll crack down on anyone who gets out of line.

[–] Egonallanon@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago

I do enjoy stirner. He was very weird in many ways and had some baffling opinions on things but he also had some intresting insights.

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago

Translation needs work, its 'terrorism' now

[–] llmbot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

bro thinks he's a philosopher who drops crazy one liners