The non-pedophile obviously? How is this a question? Are you genuinely asking if I’d rather be gay or a sex offender?

This would put me on suicide watch if I was having a bad day

I actually use my middle and ring finger depending on the angle can be more comfortable

Please don’t call him that. It isn’t his preferred name

Give up military occupation of Sahrawi territory and we can talk

Eating your young but tbh I made it the fuck up. Probably not a real word

also it wasn’t invented, it manifested itself out of chaos.

So like javascript?

Yeah I am drinking tonight

Socrates circa 400 bc

-cannibalism

-pedophagia

You know the lesser evil is also ripping families apart right? What part of organize directly did you not understand? You don’t have to just watch.

Honestly, it’s very difficult to imagine and while there is plenty of literature on the subject I don’t think any of us can truly say. I personally have not read the literature and for me to speculate on it would do more harm than good I think. The reality of a stateless society seems so far off from my lifetime that discussing how it might look feels like fantasizing to me. My focus has always been on getting to a point where one is possible and studying how to do so as this is far more relevant to my conditions.

Stateless societies absolutely have existed. The state had to arise at some point. Foraging and horticultural groups are examples of this but neither can sustain our current human population so no they are not practical in the way you are asking. There were also attempts at utopian communism that were internally stateless but ultimately subject to the whims of whatever state they resided in so their status as stateless is debatable. You won’t find a largescale stateless society in the modern era primarily because it would make them incredibly vulnerable. Proposing, hypothetically, you eliminate class within a large industrialized society and therefore internally remove the requirement for a state, that society is still beholden to the global dynamic of imperialism. The state is still required to protect the interests of their society from the contradicting interests of capital abroad. This is why communism must be an international struggle.

I would consider authoritarian a useless word for describing them. Sure, you could call them that and it would fit, but it says very little about them and fails to distinguish them from other states.

All states are authoritarian. Holding and exerting authority is the point of a state. The state exists as a tool for a class to express its authority over the other.

This same issue applies to the term dictatorship as well. When we hear the term authoritarian we must ask authority for whom. When we hear the word dictatorship we must ask what group is dictating and to what end.

Until the state is abolished every society is authoritarian and a dictatorship. So what’s the point of the descriptor?

Edit: if I have been too vague I’m happy to elaborate further

Makes for great justification of hierarchy

I envy this tag function

Holy shit I forgot you were the moth guy

Was honestly under the same assumption until I saw your comment lol

Did not take this to be homophobic at first glance but I’ve now had 2 people mention it. Should I remove?

I saw it more as like, open submission to fascism.

Also can’t believe I just got called a liberal

Definitely not how I understood this. Saw this as more representative of submission to fascism

It is