It's not an entirely inaccurate in definition, it's just selective, and for that reason I don't like it. I'd need to read that whole... what is that? An essay? I'd need to read the whole Stanford entry to be able to criticize it further.

A lot of the sources in this article appear to be left-wing. I can't say for certain it's untrue, but the way it discusses science as being flawed because of the rules it follows, and how it implies "anti-LGBTTQIA" and "ageism" "smacks of hierarchy, domination, centralization, and unjustified authority" leads me to believe that whoever wrote this is far too left-leaning for me to fully appreciate.

It has some points I like, such as how ordinary human relationships tend to be anarchistic. All in all, though, this article may adequately summarize modern (or perhaps post-modern?) anarchist schools of thought. It's just I don't agree with the direction a lot of modern philosophers have taken the idea of anarchism. Their obsession with identity politics as a means to achieve global socialism and rejection of objectivity in relation to truth leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

ID pol seems like identitarianism just with a larger collective formed by minority groups instead of the collective majority groups, and then both sides of the far-right and far-left seem comfortable rejecting science when it doesn't agree with their agenda, only one side calls their denial of science objectivity and the other simply calls objectivity bad because it excludes the value of personal experience.

Anarchism as a whole is false. The problem is that inevitably, some group or some person is going to be ever so slightly better and gain power. While small interactions tend towards anarchism, as the population increases it rapidly begins to form hierarchies.

The Identity politics is the form that the hierarchy would take once the current "authority" is removed and also the mobilizing element to overthrow the current order.

That's what I tend to think about anarchism. I don't know that it's necessarily false, but I know that hierachies of power naturally arise and I think this natural tendency is best harnessed by structuring the order of society such that power ends up in the hands of whoever does the best job of using the power to benefit people.

I'd be interested to see how mobilizing ID Pol works in the long run, though I may not survive to see that. I figure the culture war is basically over whether or not 1984 or Brave New World is more disturbing and that in the end we'll get some dystopian amalgamation of both.

When I say mobilizing, I mean it's how the far left gets it's activists to stand out in the rain and yell and intimidate people into toeing the party line. It's how you get into institutions and organizations and turn them into your mouthpieces. It's how you inspire your activists to viciously attack anyone who might oppose your orthodoxy.

In the long run, identity politics is almost certainly going to tear everyone apart into separate feuding nations or groups or impose a new hierarchy within the western world based on race, sex and religion. Judging how it works with issues like trans rights and how it is treats the sciences, I'm very certain that identity politics will tend to rapid authoritarianism in imposing the will of the most intolerant (in the sense of the loudest, and most unified) minority.

Obviously, this is very bad. Pretty much everyone agree racism is bad, so why would we want to impose it via legal scripture (*a la* Affirmative Action)?

Now what would be great is if we could simultaneously tear everybody down into their individual bubbles, make sure they only see information that confirms their worldview, **and** ensure that none of them gather in groups large enough to oppose the world order, which keeps them all working and being useful to everyone else.

Now *that's* a good system, if you ask me.

"A great system is where I control what everyone thinks and stop them from gathering any power."

No, no one controls what they think but them. That way they don't realize they're playing the game that keeps them oppressed. They voluntarily pick the news that they agree with, voluntarily oppose the science they disagree with, but never actually do enough to control anyone else.

Truth be damned. Just let people consume the reality that makes them feel good.

That sounds like a recipe for totalitarianism of the highest order.

So...Mass-enforced Virtual Reality?

Doesn't have to be enforced, just presented as an option. Who would pick the dreadful real world over a virtual world of their choosing? Maybe some people... but then what would distinguish the 'real' world as being more real than the virtual world. Perhaps this reality is just a simulation too.

By any means, if you don't have challenge, you will tend to stagnation.

Well we don't spend the whole day relaxing, do we? Most people get depressed living like that. So they get jobs, work to be productive, then come home to the virtual world. Happiness from the challenge, happiness from the recreational break, and the world order is happy too because they don't have to worry about people rising up against them en masse.

I mean, if you only ever follow what you want to hear you'll probably never have to overcome challenges and do anything new. And that applies to society as well.
Most people work because they have to if they want to eat.

I think they get a sense of meaning and responsibility from it too. And society will always find new challenges to overcome. Maybe quietly cull the population and replace them with clones of the best workers so they can control people enough to combat climate change and move out into the stars. Whatever works, so long as you minimize infighting among the species.

Now this is getting outright dystopian.

If you had a choice between playing games all day, debating on the internet all day or pulling weeds, which would you pick?

I'd roll a die to make an arbitrary choice, then extract as much meaning as possible from my daily activity.

Pulling weeds? Oookay.

I think most of us would pick the 1st. The 2nd would be 2nd most popular and doesn't really work well under your utopian vision. The 3rd is what you would *need to do* to keep people fed.

I like a little manual labor. Video games and the Internet give me headaches.

You know sure Nancy Pelosi's tweets about Jussie Smollett presuming his innocence may be bad optics but I feel that she shouldn't be criticized for assuming innocence

Hol' up, fren. You're being reasonable.

If she was assuming innocence, she wouldn't have believed him in the first place.

anyone here know about gangstalking?

I know that the fbi is the ultimate gangstalker. Im suprised people who get upset over gang stalking arent protesting outside of google and facebook

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/02/u-n-proposes-initiative-to-ban-loli-shota-and-underage-drawings-and-cartoons/77229/ Okay, I can understand banning child porn, but to include drawings and cartoons into the mix does intrude on people’s freedom of speech. Besides the kids in these kinds of drawings and cartoons are fictional characters, FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

Id ban it just cause its degenerate. But its based on feeling and not logic.

No, I'd say it's based pretty firmly on logic.

How so? To me its depicting rape and should be banned.

Simple, the desire to engage in sex with prepuscent children is fundamentally disordered, so allowing the production of material for the purpose of sating that desire causes and worsens moral failing within the society.

That can be said about alot of things. Like violence in video games

Also i dont wanna be on this side od the debate lol i wanna ban it

I do not view violence or its encouragement as fundamentally disordered.

Youlls need proof that loli leads to child abuse. I had someone tell me once that people with child predator history had a good chance of having loli/shota but i never got a citation

Okay? I don't believe that I need that proof. I've already explained that, even without directly physically harming people, the proliferation of the material harms both the person producing it and the person supplying it.

Thats in the case of actual porn. Why dont you need proof?

Look, the desire to have sex with prepubescent children is disordered, we agree on this, right?

Disordered in what sense? What order is it disrupting?

People commonly have desires that could not be acted upon legally, but it doesn't inherently cause disorder just to have the desire.

Thats why we need a study into it. See how many sex offenders have that stuff in their hard drive

There's actually an interesting article which suggests pedophilic consumers of virtual child porn are less likely to make physical contact: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RLDqjHJH0q_a6Mg_nFS0jzAT6uX80IWH/view?usp=drivesdk

Had to download the PDF because Google wouldn't let me link it.