Anti-Semitic incidents in US up about 400% since Israel-Hamas war began: Report
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
straitstimes.com
Antisemitic incidents in the United States rose by about 400% in slightly over two weeks since war broke out in the Middle East after Palestinian Islamist group Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, advocacy group Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said Wednesday. Read more at straitstimes.com.
You are viewing a single comment
Anarchism literally has the most dissenters, as the vast majority of humans want some form of state
Got a source for the idea that most people like to be stepped on? I myself believe most people have more self respect than wanting to be ruled.
Aside from the English. We seem to have a serious dom fetish.
Yes, most people want someone that stops the guy they have in front of them from brutally killing them
Three questions:
Why is there a guy trying to kill you?
Why is no one else helping?
Why must it be a state, rather than any group of people?
Answer them as honestly as you can. You may find your mind changing.
1.because he wants my stuff
2.because most people don't want to take the risk
3.because it is above people fighting each other. That guy could have called his gang and impose himself over the rest
Interesting. What stuff? Food, house, shiny car? Be more precise.
If food or housing - why does he not already have access to these? This is allegedly an anarchist society, which would offer these things freely to people who need them. Why has this person not been given them? Your story is inconsistent.
Are you sure about that? Do you have a source proving that most people don't want to help people because of risk, inherently, as a part of human nature itself, rather than as a result of our hyper individualist and hierarchical society that operates on zero-sum rules - helping others means you lose something of your own.
A state is not "above people fighting each other". States are the entities which enact the most violence in this world, and have been for all of history. States rely on violence - at the local level with police, to keep citizens in line, and on the world stage using wars to get what they want.
You cannot say states are above violence with a straight face if you have any knowledge of history and society.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1028258032000055612
1."If I make up an utopia he'd have whatever he likes"
Yes, self-preservation is the most natural instinct
if the state (that has been chosen by voters) uses violence against you, you might be worth the effort
Easy to say I "just made it up". Try actually reading anarchist theory, please - this is directly in line with any libertarian socialist society. Now please acknowledge it instead of just saying I dreamed it after smoking pot, thanks.
Why would he be trying to steal things from me that he already has? Answer this.
"The most natural instinct" is a complete hodgepodge of words. There is nothing that is "most natural". If we are going to appeal to human nature, though, what about empathy and co-operation? Things we see crop up time and again when people are in times of crisis, or are left to their own devices. Humans are social, and this cannot be denied. Seeing others in pain triggers our empathic response to help. Not doing so simply means there are barriers to our helping them, like the aforementioned hyperindividualism and zero-sum economics.
Now you're showing your true authoritarian colours. You simply agree with what the people with the most guns say. At the risk of falling into Godwin's Law, you literally would side with Nazis if you lived in Nazi Germany and they came and took your neighbour away.
Also - remember that you said the state "is above violence"? Because I do.
1.You didn't make it up, obviously. It was 19th century idealists that did
2.Self-preservation is literally what makes the world go round. Preys run from predators out of self-preservation, survival instincts exist out of self-preservation...
3.this is just full of slandering, strawmen and accusations
Again, please do your research. These were not idealists theorising out of thin air. These ideas have been put into practice, studied and expanded upon.
But you're still not answering the question.
You are not arguing in good faith. You are providing no reasoning, just statements. Give me one good reason not to block you right now for wasting my time.
Again, your whole ideology is based on quite questionable assumptions
I see you've given up even trying to respond, so you're resorted to vague pseudo-intellectualism devoid of any concrete substance.
What assumptions? And, indeed, what ideology? You have no idea what ideology I identify with, if any at all, and thus, you have no idea what "assumptions" I may have made, if any. I have only provided you with reasoning, and you have failed to engage with any of it. I gave you a challenge - give me absolutely any reason to take you seriously on this topic. You have failed to do so.
Let's say I'm actually an anarchist - I'd hesitate to pin myself down so concretely, as I'm more of a socialist, but I have my problems with the notion of a state. But let's say I am. What assumptions are questionable? You haven't stated any, or why they are questionable.
How are we to move forward from that statement? Am I to say, "Oh, indeed, those assumptions you didn't mention are, as you said, questionable, in quite the way you haven't described. How fascinating."
Absolute psuedo-intellectual trash. You have, instead of making a point, cowardly disguised your lack of one as a rebuttal of mine.
But, I'm feeling charitable. Once again:
Why would he be robbing you for things he already has?
I can easily pluck examples of cooperation making the world go round, and in far greater numbers than selfish self preservation. Mutual aid is a factor of evolution; survival of the fittest operates on a species level, and species that cooperate survive better than those that don’t. Darwin himself noted this in his research.
Please point out the alleged slander, instead of just claiming it with no evidence.
Wall of text≠argument