The Trump administration will resolve this by ending teaching of geometry.

Look we just need to get the enemy to walk in front of it. I don't see the problem.

And, er, what are "the terms of the debate"?

always with the ad hominem

...Triangle of Confusion, Rhombus of Terror, Parabola of Mystery...

So... yes, in practice, because you can't create equality of means, resources, or power.

Even if you could (for the sake of argument) make all other things equal, you can't redistribute human bodies to be equal (in age/mass/height/arm reach/strength/etc), and you can't redistribute willingness to kill for personal gain to be equal.

There will always be individuals who have both the means and the will to do violence in order to enrich themselves. Without some system of enforcement to prevent this (e.g. the state) the outcome is always might makes right.

Well, ok, I get your point, and I'll admit I didn't read the rules before I commented - so let's have a discussion here in this public forum...

1. In the context of rule 6: "You don’t have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is" the term "post" usually refers to top-level content added to the community, and not to comments made in reply to the content. So are you considering comments to be included within the term "post"? That's not necessarily wrong per se, but I think it is different from the generally understood meaning.

2. I thought it was pretty clear from the way I wrote my comment that I wasn't making an argument about the academic definition of anarchism. I don't need you to "educate" me. My comment is a somewhat flippant (if you will) description of what anarchy means in a practical sense.

3. (more flippancy) Should I comment on the irony of an anarchist community having rules which they expect users to follow, written by an exclusive group of community leaders, enforced by moderators who have power over other users? or would that comment get me banned? Does this joke write itself?

I get that you want to have a community that is somewhat focused in topic and style, and in that context it makes sense to enforce some restrictions on the top-level content that is added to the community. But if you enforce strict guidelines on the conversation that happens in the comments especially to the point of excluding disagreement or criticism, then you are guilty of creating the "echo chamber" that @Halosheep@lemm.ee mentioned.

It means nothing.

It means "I'll change my definition to exclude you from my 'in' group if I feel like it."

It means might makes right.

It means whatever you want it to mean in the moment, and probably nothing consistent from moment to moment.

Mostly, it means fickle.

This has been coming since they announced Manifest v3. Anyone paying any attention at all knew this was going to happen.

or not enough

This is why I buy used appliances &etc and learn how to repair and recondition them. I hate seeing useful devices go to landfill.

I object!

White men voting for trumpism is also the issue.

Yes, it matters.

Even if for no other reason than to make the nature of the oppression clear. Not talking about it normalizes it, gives tacit permission for it.

The problem is that the billionaires perpetuate the system that supports them, and they effectively have all the power.

A fecal transplant is cultural appropriation.

I second this - virtualization is the easiest way to branch out and try new things. You can keep the working system you already have, and also experiment with other systems.

A further advantage is that you can run services in separate VMs, which helps if you need isolated contexts for security, privacy, or stability reasons. And, if you break something while you're learning you can just delete that VM and start over without affecting your other working services.

I know, it feels... disturbingly prophetic. I share it in the hope that more people will think about the direction our society is headed, and make different choices.

Yes, more sharks!

The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.

Therefore, in the context of this thread, it is valid to point out the existence of self-styled anarchists claiming that other self-styled anarchists are "not real anarchists". The existence of this thread demonstrates the truth of the statement, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not.