Not quite an acronym but to complete the trifecta, sometimes nobody was at fault and you just haddalayerdown (because we all know steel and human flesh are much better at slowing a motorcycle down than wimpy old rubber)
Cue an extremely vivid memory of a rainy drenched Washington DC street awash with glare and sparkle from the street lights. Car in front of me lit the brakes, and I grab the front handbrake on my little 250 to.... nothing. No result. "uh" escaped my mouth as I grabbed a somewhat panicked handful of brake and slammed on the rear again to.. absolutely nothing except a lighter rear wheel. Finally had to just lean into a quick hard veer into the oncoming lane cause the wet and my small bike was just gliding. I learned that day that my last word will probably be "um"
When you say 'gliding' you mean the... what? I'm confused. When you lock the front in the wet, 'nothing' is the best possible outcome and even then doesn't last long enough. I'm assuming your 250 had ABS and the 'nothing' was it not dramatically flopping you onto the road. (As an aside, I used to hate ABS and I've now totally come around to it. New ABS is so incredibly much better than old ABS.)
Also there's no such thing as a quick hard veer in the wet, the road is like oiled glass.
Oh god, that quite literally figuratively literally gave me whiplash. I've heard that "had to lay her down" line and... there is no, absolutely NO situation in which you have to "lay her down". Well okay, maybe if you're trying to slide under a semi-trailer, Bollywood style. Exception that proves the rule, and all that.
Edit: You do definitely hear that, though. Not saying it doesn't fit, just that I don't like it. :D
All the goals you named are about literally removing tyranny and adding structured egalitarianism. Curious that you only mention leftist policy issues when rightoids are the ones whose entire ideology is about the will to power
Yes, I suppose you can summarize their positions as the right is in favor of self-determination, whereas the left appears to prefer to let others determine their fate.
Looking at it that way, though, I find myself concerned with the people who are setting themselves up as the arbiters of my fate. Regardless of party affiliations, they don't seem to think very highly of me or care about my personal happiness.
Seeing that is the case, I'd rather they stay out of the business of pursuing my happiness and instead support my freedom to pursue happiness. I can be responsible for my own happiness.
> Yes, I suppose you can summarize their positions as the right is in favor of self-determination, whereas the left appears to prefer to let others determine their fate.
I find this meme, in the original sense, rather odd. Speaking as an american, over the last 40 years the right wing of our political institutions have been extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. Right wing ideologies are almost entirely based on which group should obey which other group and why.
The term left-wing has gotten a little vague recently, but I think you could say that the common premise of most of their political theory is that there's already/always going to be a powerful government that everyone has to obey so we might as well make that government the best it can possibly be for as many people as possible.
(I have a personal theory that political power, much like energy, can never actually be destroyed, merely moved.)
> - 'Power over' (others, ultimately denying freedoms): a zero-sum game
You are being way to generous here. You are suggesting that no matter how much we deny freedoms and give some people power over others, the sum will not change? (And in reverse, no matter how much we stop denying freedoms etc, the sum will also still stay fixed?)
If you speak for the US, your political system has only 2 powerful entities, one on the far Right, flirting with corporation capture, and the other on the far Right going into fanatical Fascism.
Hum... You mean on the US? Except for the military products, telecom, fossil fuel production, automobile and aviation manufacturing, health-care and drugs manufacture, audio-visual industries, retail, information service, what industry ever captured anything?
>I suppose you can summarize their positions as the right is in favor of self-determination, whereas the left appears to prefer to let others determine their fate.
I mean, no I really don't summarize it that way at all.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect
Is a better, but much more politically charged saying.
Moreso, self determination is more of a libertarian thing rather than right directly.
> Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right?
Developers have to manually check a box to enable running the iPad version of their app on visionOS so it’s entirely out of Apple’s hands. Not sure why they took this approach
And it makes sense for some devs to not provide their app on the platform if they use unsupported APIs or if their experience is otherwise degraded for some unknowable reason. Though the side effect is Netflix and YouTube can just withhold their apps that presumably otherwise work.
Is it? Is it really hard to tell? This isn’t about what you’ve “heard from both sides”. Which actual rights is the left seeking to take away that would make you so confused about which side is being referred to?
The left is not angelic in this regard. The right to self-defense. The assault against merit in hiring and education. Large parts of the left are explicitly pro-violence and anti-women as long as it is perpetrated by Islamists.
Yes, it's hard to tell if you're capable of objectively viewing the absurdity of modern politics.
The left is very clearly attempting to curtail the right to free speech, free association, and economic freedom.
The right is very clearly attempting to curtail the reproductive rights of women, and freedom of movement across borders.
Sure, if you're inured to the "my side is angelic, and the other side is evil", it's easy to tell. But stepping outside of that, it's pretty clear that both sides are gunning for their own specific versions of tyranny.
This is actually a good breakdown of the two sides. There is an additional thing that the divergence between the people at the top of the two parties and their respective bases is far larger in the case of the left. And the inclusivity of the left has brought together several groups that are highly antithetical to each other and makes for far less predictable and unstable leadership.
Jimbo is a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, and as such I find it unsurprising that he has created both a wonderful, decentralized, communitarian project as well as a capitalistic nightmare. Libertarians are essentially anarchists who selectively turn their brains off when they see dollar signs.
Depends on whether you think it’s possible for property to be used as a means of curtailing individual liberty, or whether individual liberty is fundamentally rooted in private property. I believe the former, and as such I find libertarianism to be ideologically inconsistent.
I think you're talking about the other wikipedia founder, no? Jimbo might have some libertarian tendencies too but they haven't been super visible in the way he directed the wiki. But yeah, his involvement with wikia is a huge stain
Nope, I am talking about Jimbo. From that website he founded:
> Wales has previously referred to himself as an Objectivist, referring to the philosophy of writer Ayn Rand in the mid-20th century that emphasizes reason, individualism, and capitalism.
That's interesting. I wonder if that was more due to the fact that everyone on the internet back then seemed to have an obsession with Rand, and he might have moved on since. But maybe he's still like that, I just didn't pick that up from the more recent stuff I read from him. Thanks for the info though!
I’m an anarchist too, and I would also take offense to being lumped in with libertarians! I only meant to say that they often seem to have the seeds of an anarchism in some of their thinking e.g. individual liberty and volunteerism, but then immediately embrace contradictory positions due to their inability to critique property.
I was an anarchist as a child because I read a short dictionary definition, maybe describing it as meaning "without rules", and I figured that was what I wanted in life. Then I graduated to libertarianism as a teenager. Then in my 20s I encountered people who really called themselves anarchists, and they were all basically socialists with a sprinkling of individualism, which seemed incoherent because the socialism is all about taking people's property away for "the public" (which definitely won't ever turn into for the state, right?) ... so I sadly had to stop using the word "anarchy" since the dictionary had apparently misled me and nobody is just purely against being ruled.
But, I must say, I'm increasingly easy-going about the whole thing. I don't claim to know how things should be arranged, tax me if you must, assign me to clean the communal latrines, do what you like, such is life. I will generally assume that we're all getting it wrong, regardless of viewpoint.
> I was an anarchist as a child because I read a short dictionary definition, maybe describing it as meaning "without rules", and I figured that was what I wanted in life.
I was an anarchist as a teenager. Then I stopped thinking about politics until recently, when I rediscovered it, with a much more critical look. Then I read the Tao Te Ching, fell in love with its positive view of humanity and nature, and more importantly because Laozi can be described as the first anarchist but more grounded, as a large part of his work was advising actual monarchs, not academic posturing that's prevalent today.
Anarchism today means everything and nothing. One thing I have learned to loathe in my adult age is any form of anarcho-communism, as communism is nothing more than dictatorship of the proletariat. The much maligned anarcho-capitalism, and even early American libertarianism is more compatible with the ideas of freedom and "don't tread on me nor impose any rules on me" than any anarcho-communism that has been so popular in the past 100 years. Why should proletariat decide that I cannot have any private property?
On the other side, Randian and modern day libertarians are just conservative republicans with a different name, but libertarianism at the end of the 19th century had its root firmly in anarchist ideals.
> Why should proletariat decide that I cannot have any private property?
The whole point is they don’t, there is no state to enforce this, you are free to go off and enjoy your private property. Anarcho-communism means believe that our communities are better organized around sharing and collaboration than striving for individual gains, and that pursuing private property is fundamentally hierarchical in nature.
Have any of you “anarcho”-capitalists actually read any anarchist theory? Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc?
There are sub-families of anarchism, and you would be correct that the predominant form at the moment is a flavor of socialist anarchy. The purported relation to anarchy is that the world would be split into tons of small, self-organized communities that individuals are absolutely free to join and leave at will.
I tend to agree that it makes far more sense to call it socialism with some individualist facets than anarchy with some socialist attributes.
What you’re describing would be closer to individualist anarchy or philosophical anarchy. Individualist anarchy believes the right of the individual is paramount, excepting when the rights of two individuals clash. Philosophical anarchy is the general belief that the desires of individuals should not never be co-opted because one person can never morally justify forcing another to do something and thus governments can never be moral as their entire reason to exist is to wield the monopoly on violence against individuals to override their will. Individuals are of course still free to join groups and abide their rules if they choose, but those groups would not be able to enforce any kind of agenda against its members.
Thanks! Anarchism is about removing hierarchy, of which the most potent in our modern times is the hierarchy of capitalism. Anarchism is also opposed to the state; you’ll find there’s a lot of us at protests of police brutality and other instances of the hierarchy of the state.
The word has potential to mean "without rule", following its etymology. Once in a while, especially in art criticism, it can be unambiguously used that way. If a review of Dude, Where's My Car calls it an anarchic comedy, that doesn't mean it attacks hierarchies. It just means it defies established rules, such as "a successful movie must be any good". But historically, early anarchists were class-struggle types (maybe Irish or Spanish?) with those round cartoon bombs with the lit fuse sticking out, so it's always going to carry both meanings.
I notice this raises the question of the similarities or differences between hierarchies (of people, not html tags or whatever) and rulership. Certainly management, or government, or the church (going etymological again), has a hierarchy of higher-up hierophants issuing commands to lower-down losers, and it's all full of stinking rules, and there's some connection. And, say, HN, has a hierarchy which consists of Dang, and us, and below us, noobs, and that's about enforcing the rules, which I have to admit might not stink in this particular case. But sometimes there can be a hierarchy without a connection to rules. For instance, how fancy is your hairstyle? Do you shave it off as irrelevant, or just let it grow like a hippie, or cultivate dreadlocks, or have a bowl cut, or trim it with clippers, craft it with scissors, or perhaps opt for dye, a perm, a beehive, or Roman braids? In the hair hierarchy there are people, the owners of the hair, but no chain of command or enforced rules. Capitalism, seen as simply people having money, has potential, perhaps, to be as benign as people having hair.
> If a review of Dude, Where's My Car calls it an anarchic comedy, that doesn't mean it attacks hierarchies. It just means it defies established rules, such as "a successful movie must be any good".
Yes, just like “conservative portion” doesn’t talk about politics. The political ideology of anarchism, the mention of which is what triggered this entire discussion, is by definition about resisting power hierarchies, so your hair example is a bit contrived.
But why would I expect genuine political discussion on HN instead of semantic navel-gazing? Read some Kropotkin.
First thing I thought of seeing the title was the wonderful Old School RuneScape wiki! Whenever I have to use a Fandom wiki I think longingly of the OSRS wiki. I would love if the GTA wiki migrated to you.
reply