this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
718 points (98.6% liked)
Flippanarchy
2463 readers
1106 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The people complaining about the border crossing thing are logically equivalent to the people getting killed for somebody else's children, rather than the people doing the killing for their children.
So that tweet is not a like to like comparison and it IS logical that some people both and at the same time would kill for their children AND dislike people crossing borders for theirs - not the same side of the action and not the same kids.
The beliefs of the anti-immigrant crowd are Logical if they genuinelly believe that the downsides of immigration for themselves outweigh the upsides. Where these beliefs are open to dispute is in the truthfulness of the "information" which they used to reach the conclusion that immigration is bad for them and in the Ethical and Moral aspect of how they think immigrants should be treated.
PS: And I just want to add that it's a personal peeve how the whole Immigration subject has been reduced (probably by slimy Politicians and Think Tanks) to one-dimensionality by both sides of the Identity Politics theatre in broken "Democracies" and then parroted by unthinking simpletons, when even putting the whole "should there be nations and borders or not" aside, I can think of at least 3 different Moral principles that should inform one's views on the subject of people from some other country coming to live in one's country: The Duty to Help those suffering (which yields the concept of Refugee), the Duty of a Host to invited Guests (which applies to the treatment of Legal Immigrants) and what is acceptable to do to uninvited outsiders (which applies to Illegal Immigrants who came to improve their personal upsides, not because of "suffering") all of which yield way more moral conundruns than the one-dimensional take (for example, how bad one's lot in life needs to be to trigger the Duty Of Help of others), introduces the question of were are the limits of one's capability to help (the Duty Of Help takes in account on how far one is capable of helping) and even introduces an additional Active element (should we activelly seek the worst off to help them?)
Without the slimy fake left (or just plain incompetent) politicians doing their loud performative "moralism" on top of the Think Tank created hyper-simplification of the subject of Immigration, the Far-Right would have way more trouble engaging people with their simpleton anti-immigration slogans, because for example only the worst of the worst kind of people would deny the Duty Of Help or the Duty of a Host to invited Guests - this shit should be discussed in the context of a Moral framework, not dealt with with sloganeering.
I think that your third principle has also been largely damaged as a moral question at least in America. "What is morally acceptable to do to an uninvited outsider?" In a lot of people's minds the answer is whatever you want. Things like castle doctrine have led to a "shoot first, don't bother asking questions, just assume the worst" ideology propagating through our culture.
Well, in all fairness that one specifically isn't really a principle and more of a slot were you fit one or more principles, for example the principles behind Human Rights and Justice.
But yeah, people for whom other people have no inherent rights and whose view in general of what is Just (and hence of Justice) reflects that, will have abhorrent ideas about what is acceptable to do to uninvited guests, so it is entirelly logical for somebody who thinks somebody entering their house uninvited should be shot to also think extreme force should be used against illegal immigrants.
However, my point is that even such people might be made to have a different views towards Legal Immigrants and Refugees if the take on the whole subject of Immigration also includes the Duty Of Help and the Duty Of A Host Towards Invited Guests.
As it stands now, such people are simply against "Immigrants" as one big blob.