tell you that violence is a terrible thing that can never be excused or condoned.

aha! but they say violence has no place in the so-called United States (if you ignore wage slavery, prison labour, the police, and the entire capitalist system). violence overseas always serves their interests, until it doesn’t.

checkmate tankie /s

i think it would be more symbolic to extend the rainbow peace flag over it.

growing up, the most common ‘counterargument’ (read: dismission) to ‘global warming’ i heard was ‘great, i love summer!’

i had to become a singer before i had the lung capacity to sigh hard enough.

I’m not disagreeing, but it seems to me I’ve known of white supremacist groups that do want other races to exist, but as subjugated classes.

not OP, but at least in Europe the raceless racist trope is more common, particularly among liberals. in one breath they’ll say that the concept of race is pseudoscience (true), but then conclude that this means racialisation doesn’t happen (uhhh). then in that same breath they’ll say that people from Muslim countries are destructive radicals who are ‘incompatible’ with European culture, which is almost neo-racist, until you realise that they don’t know what a ‘Muslim’ ‘looks’ like, and that in practise it’s ‘anyone with dark hair and/or a von Luschan index higher than 20’.

it’s not that they want to subjugate brown people: it’s that they wish they had never existed, and that they could never see them again. but the people they vote for to accomplish this do want to subjugate brown people.

before you know it: the group of ‘incompatibles’ has grown to encompass 2/3 of the world’s population by hair colour and skin index alone, and antisemitism is back on the table. but they believe in nonviolent democracy and the ‘rule of law’ and eat organic so it’s ok.

sidenote: this is why a lot of far-right supremacist groups in Europe tend(ed) to be more about (national) ethnicity than race. historically, even people from neighbouring countries were parasitic ‘others’ to be corralled and expelled.

Did you look for a nest or another bird in the original shrub?

i didn’t see anything in the bush at first glance. i tried to see if it was leading me somewhere, but it didn’t seem like it. i didn’t want to stress them out by approaching them too quickly or digging thru the bush.

they did seem very small, so it’s possible they don’t know how to feed themself. it’s not too far, so i can try checking on them sometime soon. i don’t want to invade their home, tho.

my guess is it was trying to get you to help one of its friends or something.

that was my first guess, but it didn’t seem like it was leading me anywhere.

i’m a little worried now.

I’d have had a good search around the area befriending crows can actually bring you some benifit like shiny gifts

when i was homeless, i shared my food with a crow. i got them to bring me coins by feeding them double portions when they brought monies.

or in some cases crow bodyguards as they actually recognise individuals as friends etc.

that’s my current relationship to the corvids in town. a long time ago i rescued a magpie from two seagulls, and since then all the corvids no longer fly away when i come near them. the magpies even defended me from a seagull one day!

but they otherwise don’t approach me, and we don’t ‘communicate’.

that was my first guess, but after i tried getting back on the path they only kept putting grass on my feet. i tried holding still, backing away, moving toward them, moving back into the grass, making noises, and checked in the bush — it just kept putting grass on me. i didn’t immediately see anything. i was afraid of scaring or upsetting them, so i left.

someone else suggested they’re a juvenile that doesn’t know how to feed themself.

but what about these posts that are like:

ah right, yeah. i updated my original snippet with the styling for hiding posts also.

It is good though that we don’t have republicans groups here, so half the problem is solved on Lemmy by default.

there are neocon and alt-right instances, but they don’t normally federate, or they’re quarantined very quickly (usually for posting CSAM… hmmm…).

some apps and frontends let you filter posts and comments.

if you’re in the browser: blocking an instance from your account settings will block postshide communities from that instance. this also has the benefit that you don’t get notified when someone from a blocked instance replies to you or sends you a message.

to hide comments and other posts in the browser on the default frontend, i use a userstyle:

/* hides posts */
.post-listing:has(* > .person-listing[href$="@lemmy.world"])
{
    display: none;
}

/* hides comments and replies */
.comment-node:has(* > .person-listing[href$="@lemmy.world"]),
.comment-node:has(* > .person-listing[href$="@lemmy.world"]) + .comments
{
  display: none;
}

/*
* hides post separators in feed.
*
* (a) it's more compact this way.
* (b) they get left behind when hiding posts.
* 
*/
.my-3 { display: none; }

EDIT: corrections. more code. put inside a details block.

la oficiala lingvo de la Eŭropa Parlamento estas ‘neresponda’

yeah.

that’s all i’ve got to say, but i have a strong urge to say it.

if i had a penny for every time a neocon accused me of being ‘uncivil’ right before and after casually dropping a slur…

It was a revelation to me: to have flat structures, you not only need to make it possible to organize without hierarchy, but you also need a process to constantly weed out emerging hierarchies.

i’ve noticed this is a common source of disagreement i keep having with nonanarchists.

where someone thinks that i’m advocating purely for the organisational aspects of anarchism, but not also materially, socially, culturally, and politically. they’ll dismiss my criticisms of the current system or proposals for alternatives as ‘that would never work today’, and instead cite monolithic, mythological essentialisms like ‘human nature’ at me which is just their opportunity to mansplain capitalist logic to me and throw down some ‘might makes right’ moral argument. people who think tool libraries would never work because one time their underpaid coworkers kept stealing other persons’ food from the breakroom fridge or something and well that’s proof of the greed inherent to all human beings and no we will not interrogate what leads them to stealing food. material conditions? what’s that?

anarchism to me isn’t simply a worldview or a form of organisation: it’s a lifestance, a lifestyle, a way of being, a way of thinking and a way of acting — and i believe it works best when it is all of those things. social change is cultural change is political change. when i advocate for change, i’m advocating to change both the system and the people who recreate it.

‘but how will you prevent [insert consequence of hierarchical conditioning] from happening under anarchism?’

this assumes that:

1. all workers are ‘producing’ anything.
2. all workers are serving real needs.
3. the difference between supply and demand is really so low that any dip in ‘productivity’ would harm anything more than an executive’s RoI.
4. that the threat of this financial ‘harm’ necessitates more work.

with the increase in ‘productivity’ over the last century, if we reduced our expectations, and stopped letting monopoly money run our entire society, and stopped burning surplus resources because it’s ‘unsold’ or would drive down prices: we wouldn’t need to work even 20% what is expected of us now.