this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
839 points (100.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

1366 readers
25 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And not voting Dem was going to change that, how exactly? Where I'm sitting, it looks like you saw all that indirect power and thought "He should have the power of the executive too :)".

It's like saying "Hey, that sandwich doesn't have every single necessary nutrient in it, might as well eat fishtank gravel instead". My strategy being limited in scope doesn't make yours any less impotent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

so you know your strategy is impotent

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The intended effect was to keep Trump of the Oval Office. It was quite effective in 2020.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

but it failed twice. it has a 33% success rate, and even when it supposedly succeeded he continued to weild power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

33% > 0%, so still the most effective.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it was the least effective strategy, since he seized power twice. it totally failed twice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For it to be the least effective, there would have to be strategies that were more effective. You've yet to present even one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

every other society that has kept trump-like figures from seizing power....

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They used the strategy I'm advocating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

there must be some difference, since they didn't get the same result

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Well they didn't let their leftists splinter into ineffective factions for one. Maybe you could provide a specific example so we can do a proper methodological analysis.