"There are so many games out there that feature space travel and yet none of them really get it. The horror of an endless dark vacuum so intent on killing you that just 90 seconds in its inanimate presence is more than enough to freeze, suffocate, and explode you inside out. Space is literally the worst place in the universe.

People always think of space as above us, but it’s not really; you don’t have to look up to see space, you have to look away from safety to see space. Then, when you’re out there in the nothing, there are jewels; un-process-ibly large balls of fire and light held together by our own fucking anger, rocks that can range between husks of nothing or everything some life ever knows, and an endless amount of phenomena that would take our scientific knowledge and fuck it from arsehole to breakfast.

But video games just don’t get it. They just don’t get space. Video games set in space are either just men with big swinging dicks firing at bug-eyed monsters or fucking truck driving simulators. If exploration does happen to be the focus, you’ll find out that the main difference between the endless majesty that is life in this universe is the colour of the fucking grass. Yeah, you’re in space but it feels inaccessible like a fingerprint wouldn’t take on it; like it’s behind glass.

The Outer Wilds - fucking hell - the Outer Wilds gets space. It doesn’t care about scale or scientific accuracy, it gets the feel right. Yeah, your ship’s made from wood and the majority of planets are the size of of a badly stocked IKEA, but watching all the stars in the sky go out one by one like far off fireworks and knowing that each one could be destroying an entire history and having to do that fucking every 22 minutes – nothing. Nothing has made me feel like that before. No game, no book, no movie. It’s beyond extraordinary.

Its planets - fuck - its planets; each one a bizarre impossible place riddled with life and death and decay and nonsense. Each one dense in history and vandalised by time. Each one nightmarish and so, so beautiful and in 22 minutes, they’re gone

because the Outer Wilds isn’t even really about space, it’s about the question, the most important and terrifying and unanswerable question anyone ever asks: Why? Why bother? Why bother with any of this? People die, stars burn out, the universe will go quiet and dark and cold and in the longest run, nothing - absolutely nothing matters. Everything dies, the universe included. So why sit around the fire, playing music into a void that doesn’t care? Why huddle around the light? Why play?

Because, well - look at it. It’s mad, all of it. Life is a big stupid blob of meaningless nothing. Yet from that, we find meaning. People, things, animals, art, sofas, cereal, Rubik’s cubes, silly little games about space, whatever. None of it matters in the grand scheme but fuck the grand scheme! There’s no logical reason for life and nobody’s gonna mourn it when it’s gone, but that’s what makes it fantastic. Life is a little song that we hum to ourselves and, I wouldn’t want it other way.

The Outer Wilds is an optimistic game about nihilism. It’s a game with no invisible walls, you can complete it in ten minutes if you know what to do - which you won’t for hours - and the only limit is knowledge. It’s a game literally like no other. The universe is big and long and impossible and daft and you, you happen to be experiencing it at the exact same point that you can play the Outer Wilds as well. Embrace that coincidence. Come on, what are you waiting for? The sun could explode tomorrow."

• Daniel “NerdCubed” Hardcastle - 2019 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkA5a8ov8Dw&t=1655s

Which is my candidate for the most underrated youtuber, yeah he has 2.4 million subscribers but the videos bring in like 50k views, so it’s obviously wrong.

The only problem is your customer can post it online for free and there is nothing you can do about it.

Making money off of foss stopped as soon as the internet became widespread.

The two languages are polar opposites in this regard, Zig places the burden on the developer and makes it easy for them to produce memory safe software, whereas Rust places the burden on the compiler and makes it hard for developers to produce memory unsafe software.

The article even points this out. I personally think it’s very good to have these two languages for these separate use cases.The right tool for the job and all that.

No thanks. I like my theory to be from the current century. You know the one where we have stuff like the internet, imminent climate disaster and the hindsight of the soviet regime.

Also starting a cooperative is no individual solution. It’s a first step towards establishing a collective economy. Which could fuel the collective spirit and start a political movement.

I actually don’t care about the pay. As long as I can buy food and pay my bills I don’t care. I would be willing to work for less than minimum wage if it meant I could have a say in my workplace.

And honestly it doesn’t even need to be a tech syndicate. I would be willing to work for any syndicate, and most areas have some kind of IT.

Except tidal. That one comes from the moon.

My main reason is ideological. Why should I waste my precious time working in a job that doesn’t advance my goals of creating a freer society? while also making pennies for some shareholder at the top? on top of that I get bored of doing the same thing over and over again. I want my work to have more variance.

And I guess while being truly international is kinda difficult it seems that it’s a lot easier within the EU and USA.

I’ve reached that point where I’m good at programming but require to explain my ideas to someone or I just give up because it seems like too much effort for no benefit. So even someone who doesn’t really know any programming but can listen and think along would be a important.

Yeah. You’re right. There couldn’t really be that hard of a line between citizens and non-citizens. And because the hierarchy wouldn’t really be based on violence and more just deferring of skill and effort it wouldn’t really be a hierarchy at all.

But I still think that having anarchist-friendly states is possible. Maybe by having a border that can get moved as the demographics change or through territories voting to join either the anarchist side or the state side.

Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.

Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It’s a very general definition and doesn’t necessarily require money.

But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don’t wish to be part of this “state” then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.

Actually It’s very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.

I used country because I couldn’t use state as “without the threat of violence it is no longer a state.”

Isn’t anarchy specifically managed bottom up? What if this state still has elections, government, ministries, state-run education and the like? Would that still be anarchy? I wouldn’t call it anarchy, I’d call it minarchy. Because by being voluntary it is fundamentally minimising it’s authority.

Borders and land ownership would be dynamic. If a citizen lives on a piece of land or citizens manage a company that land and company become part of the state. As soon as the people/companies move the border moves as well.

Fitting money into a minarchist state is tricky as even if participating in the state is voluntary money could still be exchanged outside of it. Unless you make the state currency digital and ensure that those who revoke their citizenship also lose access to their funds, but that’s probably going to create a secondary “unofficial” currency. money is tricky.

And does a state need to have an elite? If the minarchist party is comprised of influential and trusted community figures that are focused solely on the benefit of their community would that make them an elite? Could a state function with a benevolent elite?

I guess all of this is describing less of a state and more of a voluntary elected bureaucracy. But isn’t that what minarchy is? And couldn’t we transition a state to that?

So what do you call a country that has voluntary membership and community policing? One that doesn’t have a police force or a justice system and is instead maintained by the will of all of it’s citizens, as those who don’t wish to be a part of the country can just leave.

Anarchism doesn’t have law. It has customs. Law is a specifically worded series of commands that must be followed and if broken be interpreted by the legal system in order to determine the punishment. You cannot have law without also having the justice/legal system. Crime in anarchism is handled not by the courts but by the surrounding community on a case-by-case basis.

That is at least how I see it. What is the point of writing down pages and pages of commands if the only ones that enforce them are the people themselves. I think with law people will just start arguing semantics or interpretation instead of the actual severity, effect and consequences for the crime.

Here is the AFAQ section on law: I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci73

What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an alternative law system based on religious or “natural” laws) is custom – namely the development of living “rules of thumb” which express what a society considers as right at any given moment. However, the question arises, if an agreed set of principles are used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?

When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist in my eyes.

We need a new name for them. I call them oxymorons but sadly I don’t think that’s distinctive enough. Totalitarian Capitalists/TotCaps? Fremcs (shortend from free-market capitalist)? Kinda hard to say. Maybe something with yellow or gold or money? golks? Dollups (from Dollar) (I think that’s a word already)?

whatever they are they are 100% archic. no an- or min- in sight.

Are we really going to let them decide our terms? If you’re letting others decide terms then anarchy means “The Purge”. Socialism means state control. and communism means gulags and secret police or social scores.

When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist.

how exactly you define a state

I’m seeing that from these comments. I consider the state a top-down managed structure with some form of governance and control/management of “it’s people” aka citizens. A state has clear ruling class who dictate the customs or laws of the population.

It’s at this point the enforcement of those laws comes into play and things get tricky. Having a separate group privileged with enforcement allows that group to decide how to enforce laws. As we’ve seen that wont do. 1312. The anarchist solution is security culture, making the enforcement of customs ¹ the responsibility of every person. However couldn’t that work with a state? It does requires more involvement and confrontation which is why I think anarchists should try and help out with this whenever they can. As any good anarchist would be used to de-escalation and conflict resolution.

¹: using laws in this context doesn’t seem right as laws are too specific to be enforced by everyone. Which would require some form of justice system which has the same problems as the police. they 1312 too.

And objectively it isn’t that much more difficult to maintain a state, but because it’s those same “jobs” and “culture” that are going to keep a lot of people back and I think we need to account for them and try and coexist and cooperate with them instead of just yelling “statist” and excluding them.

I’m not saying we try and turn the state into something anarchic. I’m saying we try and work alongside people who need² the state to make sure they consider us if they get in power. It’s a lot easier to oppose a state that doesn’t try to control you.

²: read “aren’t willing to let go of”

I’m just trying to have faith in people and think that even when they aren’t willing to live like me they can still accept me, I feel like the right thing to do is accept them in turn. I’m probably very naive but that’s why I’m an anarchist in the first place.

For the anarchist side, absolutely. But what about the rest? Those who aren’t willing to let go of the “old ways”? Those who have been raised to believe that law and order must be maintained? There should exist some mechanism through with they can be allowed to engage with the social revolution, otherwise they turn against you. Allowing them to federate would ensure they have a place and could help instead.

what does this “culture” actually offer the rest of the working class?

Anarchism. Although I understand that that term means different things to us so I’m going to use the meaning you gave it a few comments back:

Anarchism consists of a critique of hierarchy

And this cultural anarchism is taking that critique and applying it to culture. To everyday situations. To the way children are being raised and workers are being hired. To song, writing and all the other arts. What it offers to people is anarchism. A way to live your life without archy. Or as AFAQ calls it: “social revolution” https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj7

This is what I mean when I say revolution: A complete change to the entire social structure. The biggest driving force in any society is culture. While economic forces to play a part they can only exist as long as they are reinforced by culture. The value of money exists in culture. The concept of property exists in culture. An anarchist culture is about looking at these concepts in a way that consciously opposes archy.

Also participating in capitalism does not yet disqualify you from acting anarchically. It’s not a all or nothing scenario. You do what you can, where you can. Obviously you should be on the lookout for better alternatives and constantly keep in mind what it is your participating in every time you shop, but as long as your thinking about it, considering your actions in an anarchic framework, you are acting anarchically.

And the more people keep doing this the more they start considering alternatives, at which point anarchic spaces become a vital component to in the process to collectivise the economy. You connect people with skills who don’t like having to shop for food and some of them might start their own farm, and because they already have connections to other people in that space they start being able to benefit from that venture as well.

The social/cultural isn’t separate from the economic which isn’t disconnected from the political. Society is a collection of all and in order to effectively dismantle one we need the help of others. And culture is the easiest by far because all you need is for people to listen and consider the things you say. Culture is nothing more than the ideas we hold and ideas are a hell of a lot more easier to change than political or economic realities.

But that’s just the framework that I use to think about anarchism and society at large. You probably have your own.

counter-culture there’s the word I was looking for when describing punk. That’s what I meant with “only one side of it”. Counter-culture is only one side of anarchist culture. The side called punk. But there are so many other facets to anarchy that punk doesn’t cover. I agree that counter-culture can’t build up social systems, which is why I don’t call anarchist culture counter-culture. It’s something different. Not simply about opposing what exists but also building and imagining what can.

I know the teen who made it doesn’t know what it even means.

Are you sure of that? They might not know the theory but just by drawing it they showcase a willingness to act against the established rules. That’s a good first step towards learning about anarchy, and while they could “grow out of it” they could also find actual anarchist movement and go deeper into it.

The person who drew it also doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what I think when I see it. It doesn’t change how much it matters to me. The symbol lives it’s own life and even if the person who drew it didn’t know that, the people who see it might. Some more curious might find anarchism because of looking up what the deal with them is.

perhaps you should reconsider your conception of “normalcy.”

My “normalcy” is the direct result of the environment I was raised in and the people I interacted with. It is an idea that changes and evolves constantly as I interact more. I don’t only reconsider my conception of “normalcy” but of every word I use as I grow and learn. But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.

There is a big difference between merely rebelling against “normality” and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.

Which is scary, which makes it unappealing, which makes it actively detrimental for outreach. There are many ways to fight battles, many ways to oppose the status quo and culturally is most certainly one of them. It’s not inferior to military action just because people don’t die doing it, but I also know it wont be enough on it’s own. Just like militancy won’t be enough.

One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong. Being able to dictate what you do and how you do it. I am a pacifist. My aversion to violence is one of the foundations of my anarchism. I could never be on the front lines. It scares me. But I know I can do other things, help out in other ways, and that me being able to do that is foundational to anarchism.