Loopholes are allowed for corporations and the wealthy.

The rest of us live under a draconian implementation of the law.

There may be overlap, but each of the three has features distinct from the others’.

The terms allow us to identify the features of someone’s position without an exhaustive elucidation, even if the terms function as tools that are imperfect.

Tankies in particular are in the extreme of authoritarianism within leftism. The criticisms of authoritarian leftists by anti-authoritarian leftists represent a quite expansive corpus of writing.

Your objection is very abstract. With each passing comment, I feel less hopeful of understanding your concerns.

Criticism of authority is central to anarchism because anarchism entails opposition to authority. Liberalism is incidental.

The anarchist criticism of authority is that it cannot occur except by coercion and deceit, and always produces exploitation and oppression.

All along I have been using the language “authoritarian leftism”. I am at a loss to imagine how anyone would think I am referring to other than leftism. We clearly have authoritarian leftism, anti-authoritarian leftism, and liberalism, as three distinct orientations.

I stand by my assertion that accessible and straightforward messaging is essential, even while not sufffient, for movements to succeed, and that some simplification becomes inevitable.

I understand you disagree.

Regardless, criticism of authority is fundamental and unique to leftism. It is not “liberal moral frames”.

I think we may assume corporations would still be allowed to operate VPN. The ban would target commercial services that provide anonymity.

Vote or not, and don’t judge others.

Anarchists waste too much energy debating electoralism, even while our numbers are too small alone to make any difference.

Progressive victories only come when the working class is organized well enough to press masses of workers to vote for progressive tickets.

Hasan showed himself in his stream roasting a litter of kittens on a bonfire and eating them for lunch. I no longer respect him or the streamer format. Animal cruelty is a serious matter.

I meant “consideration” in the sense of reaching decisions based on awareness.

I think you simply misinterpreted my phrasing.

The reality is that our movements may only succeed through expanding participation and improving unity.

Messaging plays a vital role in our movements developing along such a successful course, messaging that is accessible and straightforward even at the cost of completeness.

I doubt you will find a historical example to contrary, but it seems that on the particular matter we are simply in disagreement.

I have no power to stop Lemmygrad from existing, and it is unlikely that I would find cause to advocate against its being allowed to continue existing, as long as it operates simply as a site for activity that many would recognize as protected freedoms of expression.

Additionally, I am using an instance that is not federated with Lemmygrad. As such, my experience in the Lemmyverse is just the same as though Lemmygrad did not exist, which I find quite optimal. LIkewise, Lemmygrad users would not be receptive to my politics, as much so as I am not agreeable to its politics.

Among the virtues of a federated design is that we may choose the experiences we prefer, against the inevitability that others will exist who prefer experiences quite different.

It’s one more reason to find alternatives to calling the cops.

Taking someone to a mental hospital may feel like the only option in some cases, but only because society has not developed the capacities to help people, in a natural setting, to solve actual problems at the root.

I suppose. I feel the message is clear and accurate without the joke. With the joke, concerns about the anti-authoritarian left are being unduly exaggerated.

I feel your pure motives are in tension with practical constraints.

Messaging achieves efficacy through simplification. We pick the most important priorities, while still maintaining more rigorous discourse for anyone specifically able to engage more deeply. As movements evolve, and public consciousness develops, we find newer priorities, perhaps ones more favorable generally.

Being overly earnest in seeking a pure form of communication simply keeps the larger mass alienated that we rather need to be participants.

Regardless, state capitalism is not any kind of opposition to capitalism. We certainly should exclude opposition that is not meaningful.

deleted by creator

I acknowledge differences as well as commonalities, yet you select one particular facet of my explanation to insist I am “collaps[ing]… different projects”.

The situation we face is that much of the public believes leftism to be inherently authoritarian. The proposed “stethoscope” diagram is effective in separating the authoritarian versus anti-authoritarian left, keeping the latter close to rightism but not fully merged.

Breaking through the prevailing misconceptions requires us to emphasize specific relationships while keeping others as less prominent. We are not abandoning proper theory, only adopting messaging appropriate for the current circumstances.

Instances do have their own character. Such differences are an intentional and favorable feature of the Fediverse, but also demand a basic level of consideration, for effective navigation.

Everyone cannot read a treatise on every subject.

We need simple devices to break through entrenched misconceptions.

Such devices complement, not replace, properly nuanced discourse.

We seem to agree generally on the concepts, but for some reason you seem to be objecting, through the use of quote mining.

Lemmygrad is not for everyone. In fact, it is a heavily insulated corner of the Fediverse. If you do not belong, then you lost nothing by being made unwelcome. Many instances are not federated with Lemmygrad, and I am surprised slightly that federation is even maintained with Lemmy.zip.

Additionally, mental hospitals are overused.

When someone has a crisis, instead of receiving a meaningful intervention at the source of the crisis, the intervention will consist of locking them in a hospital and forcing them to take drugs, offering no other support. They may stay confined as long as an unaccountable judgment is maintained that they are not adequately stable, and they have essentially no rights in the interim. The whole system is farcical.

I think the concept is effective at lest in exposing the inaccuracy of horseshoe theory.