this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
313 points (96.4% liked)

Greentext

7088 readers
1442 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works
313
Anon has a problem with Bioshock (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 5 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DonPiano@feddit.org 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

1
a: absence of government
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the war zone
b: absence of order : disorder

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

1 : in a literal sense or manner

2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, those are definitions when used as a literary term, or an extreme example. You're not wrong that anarchy can refer to no rules at all, but social contracts and agreements can exist and it still be anarchy just fine.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

This is both a literary term and an extreme example, idk why you're here arguing it if you agree on that usage.

Social contracts without enforcement are worthless.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, because things in practice are often different than the extreme end of the definition, and I'm arguing because I enjoy it and it exposes me to other perspectives. Like how you see no benefit to anarchy tells me about your lived expieriences and/or how you would plan to act in an anarchal society.

Also, social contracts are enforced in anarchy, just not by an entity emposed by a governing body. I'd say social contracts are more worthwhile when they flourish without the need for enforcement. E.g. people watching what they say in public around children. You won't get arrested for swearing until it's "disturbing the peace".

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 0 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Also, social contracts are enforced in anarchy, just not by an entity emposed by a governing body.

This has yet to be demonstrated.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

You should read about the Frontier days in America after the Louisiana Purchase. Might I suggest the testimony of Dee Harkey?

Harkey continued, “Each person pretty much enforced the laws as he understood them. If the strong imposed his gun on the weak, or became ruthless in his dealings with his fellow man, there was always the posse.”

Were the majority of the posses which lynched accused men justified in their actions?

“Regardless of how men are tried, except by God alone, there are possibilities of mistakes. Those people who had to dish out punishment themselves instead of having someone dish it out for them, as is done today after sentence is pronounced, were usually pretty sure of the guilt before the punishment. Naturally, the formed posses were never considered a means to an end. They were just about as unpopular with the law as the lawless.”

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

See: the zapatistas and revolutionary catalonia for examples of anarchist societies.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The literal day they became public they declared war. They also had a literal constitution and literal laws posted on the signs entering their territory, and you can be damn sure they had enforcers.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you mean the zapatistas... duhhh? They were an anarchist movement within a country, they were attacked by the country they were founded in, and their enforcers were held in rotation and decided on by a fully public discussion that anyone in the community could attend, this is fully anarchist.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Lmao Zapatistas are still around and they were NOT on defence.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 4 days ago

They are absolutely on defence and i'm aware they are around, but the mexican government is actively trying to destroy them

you really didn't realize that the fact that they're still around undermines, not strengthens your argument huh?