• Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.

            • Tak@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Lol “anarchistic country” If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You’re like asking them to find an incel that isn’t a misogynist

              • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Technically you can have an incel who isn’t a misogynist. Incel just means involuntarily celibate, most incels are misogynists, but some aren’t, and just don’t talk to people at all because of other mental health issues that don’t get treated making that person completely solitary and unable to communicate with others.

                The term incel was coined by a woman who has been involuntarily celibate and saught to create a supportive community for people like her. The problem arrose later.

                Edit: Spelling.

                • Tak@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Good point. I didn’t know the background or history of the word.

                  • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    No problem. I just thought it was an important distinction because an anarchist country cannot exist by definition, while there is nothing in the definition of incel that requires them to be misogynistic. Though considering how meaning of words change over time, you could make the case that by the modern way we use the word incel, we don’t mean to include all who are involuntarily celibate, but only the toxic people who blame their situation on external factors. Even then, there surely are at least a handful of gay incels who blame other men for not being interested in them, and therefore wouldn’t be necessarily misogynistic.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world’s treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          We literally didn’t have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao

          The human os isn’t ready for a borderless world my entire ass

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Humans have built societies with rules for forever.

            And banish people outside their society.

            I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.

              • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be “the zone of control of a government” and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.

                  • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.

                    The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?