CrocodilloBombardino

at most, such things are an expression of frustration and desperation. there only resistance is organized resistance. also you have to build the alternative you want to see, otherwise it’s just destruction

we are all forced to do unethical jobs to survive because capitalism itself is unethical

preppy, Ivy League, business-casual style these aesthetics come from early & mid 20th century style worn by wealthy “aristocratic” (not literally, they weren’t nobles) American families. they rode horses, played tennis, rugby, and polo, wore school uniforms, etc. and their clothing reflected that. that style was pushed into the mass market by Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilifiger, and other brands. this meant everyone could afford those aesthetics. the old cars used to be much more expensive because they were imported and hand made, but modern production and shipping has changed that. rich people now differentiate themselves in other ways.

it's hard to keep your brand new society when the tanks show up immediately. this is not a weakness of anarchism or any political system. you can look to rojava and the zapatistas for an example of defense that has worked for years despite long odds.

they did it for years in a significant territory. the state had no power there during that time. that was a success, even if it was rolled back by a nationalist military (supported by nazi Germany) and undermined by authoritarian communists. also, again, there's rojava & zapatista Mexico currently, plus other historical examples. why are you demanding an impossible standard of perfection before you are willing to fight for a better life for yourself and everyone else? that's just doomerism and it serves the capitalists.

the point of anarchism is not to control the state, but rather to stop having one. for the territory that made up anarchist Spain, that was successfully achieved. it's no weakness of anarchism itself to be defeated militarily; all kinds of societies have been defeated militarily.

anarchism rejects nations, so why should its success be judged based on national borders? a successful society is av successful society

not every direct democratic system is majority rule. there are lots of ways to make decisions! remember, we don’t need perfection, just something better than the tyranny of the minority we live under now. we can improve from there.

anyone seeking to sabotage decision making in bad faith can be handled however a given commune has decided to handle antisocial behavior (rehab, restorative justice, offering therapy, etc).

read some of the links OP helpfully posted to clear up the misconceptions about anarchism you display in your comment

Google maps for navigation in unfamiliar places. i really want to switch to OSM apps (and I have comaps) but (1) it's not nearly as good at understanding addresses (e.g. "123 first avenue" when it has my gps coords instead of "cityname, First avenue 123 zipcode") and (2) doesn't have nearly as many businesses mapped (e.g. i want to type in "Joe's Restaurant" instead of the address bc i haven't memorized it)

avoid red pill influencers and communities like the plague if you ever want to date in this lifetime

agree with @agentTeiko@piefed.social and also we are likely to end up with a period of multiple competing reserve currencies before a single dominant one emerges (which itself is not guaranteed in the near future)

censorship is when you can actually stop people from saying things. berating or complaining is just more speech

people who focus on trump’s rudeness and lack of dignity instead of actual policy that affects people’s lives

it’s impossible to change them from the inside. the capitalists own them and can fire you if you do anything to change them (and will reward you if you further their objectives)

All of them, as long as we have capitalism

Good translation work is difficult and can take a long time. In the past, it was either done as part of academic research or if a publishing company was willing to invest that much. At least as far as works of fiction, history, plays, and anything else with nuance and cultural context go. Now, machine translation is OK for straightforward factual works and can convey the gist of a story, but still do not measure up to a studied, thoughtful translation. I disagree that a bad translation is better than no translation, since a bad one will give the wrong impression of a text or kill its magic or imply things about the culture it came from that aren’t accurate. AI slop translations threaten to make what’s left of the cultural differences in this world bland, bias them based on the mostly English language works that AI is t trained on, and who knows what else. AI doesn’t understand meaning, it just provides a plausible answer to the input prompt. What would it do with Ulysses or The Bible if translations of them didn’t exist?