Antifáwen /Ï\🍄🧙‍♂️

Watch Gwen get back to find him smoking the *FATTEST* doob.

Yes, that is the type of person this post was intended for.
It's meant to reinforce your point.

The sheer naivete of someone acknowledging they are looking down the barrel of an authoritarian dictatorship, and *still* thinking the solution is "...just VOTE BLUE..." is absolutely mind boggling.

If you can't accept that more extreme resistance is now required, you are a liability, not an ally.

This happens for me on some strains, some even slow my perception down even further to where 10 minutes feels like 30.
Especially Memory Loss if you can find it; but I haven't tried it in edibles.

A few historical examples of your kind of "big tent" approach you might want to look into: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the Munich Agreement, German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, German-French Non-Agression Pact, the Havaara Transfer Agreement, and Operation Paperclip.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fascism is and how it comes to power.

American foreign and economic policy has actively suppressed anti-fascism both domestically and abroad; prefiguring and enabling our current situation since 1865. Yes, even under democratic presidents.

This response is absolutely irrelevant to the point of the quoted skeet.
Who wins the primary doesn't matter when all the candidates suck; and the fact that the worst ones consistently win primaries only demonstrates how completely useless the Democrat party actually is.

The GOP has no need of divisive tactics as long as Democrats refuse to acknowledge their own failings and complicity.
You are doing the job for them, simply by failing to recognize reality.

If "don't support a genocide" is an impossible standard, then what you have isn't worth saving. It isn't even worth trying to save.

How is that not grounds for a mistrial?

Yep. 💯

Idk what's worse.
The fact that this fuckin' weirdo is trying to deconstruct these media to fit his predetermined narrative, the fact that he has done so in direct contradiction to the creator's own statements about their work, or the fact that he has the details of the work factually incorrect...

If you see this QRP with a game that released the year you were born.

Testing a theory:

reskeet if "every ICE agent will be unmasked and tried for their crimes" would get your vote

Maybe don't willfully sobotage your actual current support if you're actually trying to take back the government.

It's painfully obvious you haven't spent much time in anarchist spaces online.
@infernatrix isn't just an internet rando; they are one of the most active, ideologically grounded, and well-read anarchists on this platform.

If they are calling you out, it's worth taking the time to understand why.

Nah. Any activist absolutely gets to decide who aligns with them; anarchists in particular.

If you want to know why go read up on Nestor Makhno or the fate of Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

This person is a fed.
It's literally in their bio.

Those terms seem closer to the concept you are trying to describe.
Neither of them are exact, but they should at least get people in the ballpark and avoid confusion with labels used primarily for specific systemic features.

I understand that.
It's not even a bad way to describe it.

However, because of the context and the existence of an established definition; using the term to refer to decentralization causes a lot of confusion.

Have you looked at the terms 'Decentralized' or 'Distributed' democracy?

Agreed; but this whole thread is an excellent demonstration of why these terminologies and maintaining a shared lexicon are important.

This is the source of the confusion in terminology.
When you say Direct Democracy, anyone familiar with systems of government and their labels immediately has a very specific concept in mind about the system you are proposing, and assumes that your advocacy is focused on implementing that system.

This is true, but the definition of the term describes a government system with specific features.

There is no such thing as a 'Democratic Government'; but there is definitely a system of government we label 'democratic'. Direct Democracy describes a specific form of this type of system.

And this is the problem with using specific labels interchangably.

I understand that you were talking about organizing direct action; but the context of the specific label you used framed it as a reformist movement that retained institutional hegemony by definition.

Anarchist theorists in particular details many of the issues with trying to reform systems that are inherently antagonistic to socialist goals, and proposes alternative methods of organizing and resistance that bypass the inertia of established systems.

The terminology is part of it.
To be honest, (not intended as a dig, just a hopefully constructive critique) it seems you could benefit from a deeper study of political theory, particularly in material analysis and social systems.
A lot of the synthesis you are attempting has already been done.

Direct Democracy has a very specific definition.
In particular, it describes a system of democratic government that does not use representative proxies (i.e. elected officials) in the political process.
That's it.
It does not define the demographics, enfranchisment, or actions of a voting base.

Then why are you not calling it Direct Action?
Those are two very different things.

There is an extensive body of theory defining concepts and terminology that deliberately avoids reinforcing hegemonic frameworks. In fact, it describes in detail the problem of trying to frame the goal of liberation in those terms.

The concepts you describe already have terminology for them.