Cross-posted from "No, it's not 'normal'." by @DougHolland@lemmy.world in !aiop@lemmy.world
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.
Appeal to nature is not a valid argument.
Can't believe this stupid shit is being upvoted. We are perfectly capable of designing our own social structures using our brains.
She's an anthropologist, she's referencing what was normal during much of human history/prehistory.
Its worth pointing out it wasn't always this way, its not inevitable. Its all optional. We designed these social structures with our brains.
Normal where? When? Surely every community in earth was not using the same social construct and survival strategy, no? She's a shit anthropologist then.
You somehow completely understand her point without understanding her words.
We didn’t design them though. They evolved. What people (economists and politicians) thought they were designing is not how things turned out. The end product was a result of social forces.
Like a bunch of bees inside a beach ball, all flying in different directions: what happens to the beach ball?
Wait, does it matter that they're bees and not just flies? Are they stinging the inside of the ball or something? Wouldn't the forces cancel out when flying? Can they have a dance-off to decide which direction to roll the ball by crawling?
The forces don’t cancel out completely. You get a sort of random motion, effectively Brownian motion.
Why bees and not flies? Because bees are cute.
But if a bee is flying inside a ball and pushes against the side, what's causing the ball to move relative to the earth? None of the wind can escape, it's just air moving around inside the ball.
When the bee bops into the wall of the ball, it transfers momentum to the ball. It’s no different from a hamster in a ball, just smaller.
But the hamster is rolling the ball, not flying, so it can take advantage of friction with the ground times the normal force. If a flying bee hits the wall of the ball, then it's pushing back on air and the net momentum of the ball and its contents is unchanged.
I think the ball filled with bees would just fall to the ground.
Sure but nobody said the ball could fly? It could definitely jump though, as well as roll around.
How would it jump?
By a bee bopping into the top of the ball from below, assuming it was flying upward fast enough. The ball is sitting on the ground otherwise with no vertical momentum.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
The post appears to be an overall response to the idea that modern society as we know it is "just how it is." The point isn't "be like our ancient ancestors" so much as "the system we have now isn't the only way things can be." That is, we've all grown up in this society with the work grind as our default. Some people will defend the way things are on the basis of it being some aspect of "human nature" to always compete and work hard, but societies of the past survived through co-operation and sharing resources. It's pretty much the opposite to what is expected today.
What's a valid argument in favor of today's system? Wouldn't that be a recency bias?
People generally like working i.e. creating stuff and even if we had all resources met I'd argue that majority of people will continue on creating. In fact the universal basic income experiments prove exactly that every time.
Right. Working of our own volition, on projects of our choosing. Not high-pressure "grind" lifestyles that serve to enrich a small few while we overwork ourselves just to scrape by. I'd love to make art all day, for my own enjoyment. Not commissioned, not hired to do it, so not as "work." The post isn't about hobbies, though, it's about being pressured into a stressful lifestyle.
I understand that "normal" is a confusing term by nature and isn't the same as "natural". The norm is pretty much what we can observe (plus bias), which might be natural or not (plus bias).
Here, i suppose it's just a shortest way of saying "I think it doesn't have to be this way".
And yet we never designed a leisure society with all the resources we have.
That's a you problem. Somehow people are very happy and leisury around me.