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.
License (as always): CC-0, No rights reserved.
Hello m@tes. I have immigrated from lemm.ee following the imminent closure, (and needed to but ana in front of my name because the one I used on lemm.ee was taken.)
Here is just a small thing I made after skimming the comments of a recent popular post. As it is a small image and I'm getting better with Krita this one only took ~35 minutes. Improvements. Yay!
Fine, replace it with "reducing harm". Y'all very well understand what I mean by the term in this context, and if you don't, I'd be happy to clarify.
If that's all that article has to say (which it doesn't) then it'd simply be clearing up some semantic confusion.
voting Harris didn't reduce any harm, but it did prevent real alternatives from gaining traction.
How does anti-electoralism prevent alternatives from gaining traction? Nobody in this thread has yet advocated for voting 3rd party, if that's what you're implying.
I didn't say it does. you are arguing with a strawman
It's a question, signifying I have no clue what your actual position is. If you don't care to elucidate, I've got no argument for a non-position.
I said what I meant: voting is not harm reduction, and voting for Harris didn't reduce any harm
Disengage