It’s hard enough to shatter victus glass that I legitimately don’t care about this anymore and would rather have the scratch resistance, maybe making it that shatter resistant and also foldable is impossible, in which case I would just not get a foldable

Fingernails currently scratch them… and I have those

There’s also creating an extremely thin hard layer ontop of a soft one

Yeah I’ve heard this argument, I don’t think we can be completely certain, willow glass by corning is an interesting proof of concept at the very least, crazy tech thought to be impossible has happened before

no crease and a screen hardness of at least 5 is the minimum before I get one

no I’m just saying that didn’t happen and I’m not a tankie… you’re making tankies look good with this nonsense, it’s embarrasing

That isn’t what happened.

you stated this probably had an impact on the number of users, I stated I doubt that, you have no idea what’s going on do you?

My avatar is the anarchocommunist flag

I did not defend hexbear, I just said they likely didn’t have much impact on user count… you sound like a conspiracy theorist

Dude what I just said it probably didn’t have much to do with user count

I’m an anarchist… literally the opposite of a tankie…

Tbh not a chance

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/3102

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/749

here’s your issue trackers.

I must say though, this seems like a strange feature to draw the line on, is it really that important to you what image format is used?

Probably the nearest ones

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

edit: I also think it’s important to mention that this system has not been given a fair shot, we would not do science where variables aren’t controlled, and there are outside forces that desperately want this system to fail.

Every single powerful person, every single wealthy person wants anarchism to fail desperately, because it would invalidate their reason for existing. It is impossible to name even one settlement that wasn’t attacked by very poweful outside forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

please just read the first paragraph aloud and try again

And also Mikhail Bakunin was a Russian Anarchist, so how exactly were his ideas suppressed by capitalism?

I said by the people in power, not necessarily by capitalism… capitalists are just currently the people with power, anarchist is a very anti-people in power ideology… duh.

again, which anarchist philosophers agree with you, name them. Name just one and you will prove me wrong.

also, you linked statism and anarchy and fundamentally don’t understand that the state is separate from the government in anarchy, because you again, have no formal education on the topic but a lot of opinions.

We were taught about political systems in 7th grade, so it’s quite stretch for you to claim people need to read philosophers to understand them.

If you don’t read primary sources then you don’t know what they actually say, this is how you end up being propagandized into believing the absolute nonsense you believe about what anarchists believe.

Here’s an example:

Buffalox firmly believed that all races other than whites are inferior and hates democracy because he hates democratic systems except fascism.

See how I can just say you said anything? That’s what a secondary source does for you. That’s why they aren’t used in any serious academic analysis.

But i actually have read philosophers, but it wasn’t very big reads and it was long ago, doesn’t take much to recognize when you are confronted with bullshit.

which ones?

OK that’s not anarchy. maybe someone calls it so, but that has NOTHING to do with what anarchy actually means.

Bakunin, proudhon, literally every single founder of anarchist thought would COMPLETELY disagree with you, can you point to a single one that agrees with you? You can’t, because you have no idea what anarchism is, just some nonsense your teacher told you in 7th grade. Orwell would also completely disagree with you, I literally can’t even name one anarchist thinker who would agree with your definition.

I’m sorry but are you really claiming that the FOUNDERS of anarchism don’t know what anarchism is and what they’re doing has nothing to do with anarchism? Is that really what you’re going to go with here?

Maybe your definition is just not what any anarchist thinkers actually believe, again, simply name one and you will prove me wrong. Don’t you think it’s more possible that you’ve simply been lied to about what anarchists believe?

just as an example, why do you think bakunin did this:

“By organizing and heading Czech and German secret societies to instigate a revolttionary movement in Bohemia, he made extraordinary efforts to help German democracy which, at that time, was preparing for the struggles of 1849.”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/maximoff-the-political-philosophy-of-bakunin

I’m sorry but you don’t know anything about anarchism and are confidently asserting you do. Read ANY anarchist philosophers and then get back to me.

Have you ever read a philosopher on democracy? If not, how can you have such strong opinions without doing your research?

Yes, I have, I wouldn’t if I didn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t have strong opinions if I was unread on the topic. It is hilarious to me that you thought this was a gotcha, this is just embarrassing on your part tbh.

It’s not like Anarchy is some very complex concept, Fundamental political ideologies are not that hard to understand, like theocracy, dictatorship, communism, democracy. It’s all pretty simple, and so is anarchy.

The notion that you think they’re simple is my proof that you are completely unread on them. Explain mutualism to me, I doubt you can. Political philosophy is one of the most complex fields on the planet, the idea that these things are simple and easy to understand is actually hilarious, and could only come from someone who knows very little about the topic.

And of all of the above, democracy is the best we have, but in that context, it’s important to notice that USA is NOT an actual democracy!!! It’s a flawed democracy, and the flaws are very fundamental.

I agree, democracy is by far the greatest system ever created, that’s why I maximize it, I want democracy in the workplace, democracy for every single law, I want democracy everywhere. The flaw is that we don’t actually have a democracy, our democracy lets us elect representatives, but not choose laws that actually benefit us. Democracy is entirely core to anarchism, such that they cannot be separated, in fact, anarchism may be the very most democratic system… but you seem to believe democracy is a separate idea from anarchism, communism, capitalism, etc, it’s not, you can have a democratic anarchist society (in fact, i don’t think there’s such a thing as a non-democratic one), communist, capitalist, these are economic systems that have no bearing on whether or not they’re a democracy. You don’t even seem to know what democracy means, this is why i’m saying you shouldn’t have strong opinions if you’re unread.

PS: Descartes was strongly in favor of anarchy, but even he ended up admitting that it cannot work. That was about 400 years ago, when philosophers were very busy trying to rethink models for how society can work. But the fundamental idea of Anarchy hasn’t really changed since then. If it had, it would be called something other than anarchy.

The notion that descartes couldn’t figure it out and therefore it must be fundamentally flawed is actually legitimately hilarious. that was before even PROUDHON. 90% of anarchist thought hadn’t even happened at that point, descartes was not some god that could figure out every detail of everything. Furthermore he was highly influenced by the church and there’s a ton of evidence that he was forced to give up on research that hurt the church orthodoxy. They did y’know, burn people alive for heresy back then.

I reestablish that none of these are good critiques, they all reek of being uneducated on the topic. Learn to be humble and learn humility, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t have strong opinions. You certainly shouldn’t be insulting things you haven’t even done preliminary research on.

There are tons of actually valid ways to criticize anarchism, but you don’t know enough to do any of them. Research comes before strong opinions.

I stated only facts. You can’t even name an anarchist philosopher you’ve read but have strong feelings about the ideology.

if you want to have a valid, useful opinion on something, do the bare minimum of research.

Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.

There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.

I should not have to change that i’m an anarchist when I know what the word means, just because people are using it to mean something else, it’s the political philosophers that established it that get to own the term, not colloquial speech.

There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.

Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.