Who said that? No one said that refusing to vote is doing more damage than storming the Capitol.

You quoted it. Weird starting point to gaslight people.

I like that you asked. While I don't hold a strong opinion on it, I think you could argue that it is about consent.

I will argue more strongly than I feel because I think it helps to understand the point. (Assuming the person wearing makeup is a woman)

If you don't know the woman, why do you care if she wears makeup and how she looks without? It seems like there isn't a legitimate reason for it without it being a toxic reason, like "look! she isn't prettier than me!" Vibe. Which is toxic for both people. Now it was a man who made the app. Now there is the hating of women for wearing makeup reasons but let's ignore those. (Case: Unknown feelings of the woman)

If you know the woman and you don't know how she looks without makeup, then that is clearly a decision made by the woman. Why do you have the right to expose her in a way that she doesn't want to be. I mean some women don't care if you see their tummies and others would rather die. Should you have the right to expose a woman's tummy? (Case: Implied decision to not show herself like that)

If you know the woman and you want to argue that you have a justified interest in how she looks without makeup because she is a potential Partner (if she is a partner, you probably know already anyway). You could easily argue that you have the same legitimate reason to see her naked but obviously you wouldn't think that it is a legitimate reason.

In other words, you shouldn't care and it is kinda toxic to care; you don't have consent to see them like it otherwise you would; you have no right to know.

You think that is an argument? That is not an argument. It is mocking people. You should know the concept of mocking, considering your name.

That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn't have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok... Well think about it.

For those horrible enough to like this.

Sometimes each other too if my information is correct. So even if you are a bad person and want to harass innocent people, kiwi farms isn't the place to be.

Bad people are bad people towards you too if you give them the chance. Just don't be bad, much better. Don't hate!

Not really. It is the tolerance paradox.

Banning slavery might be authoritarian but it is less authoritarian than allowing it. So on the political scale, banning slavery is anti-authoritarian and allowing it is authoritarian.

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case...

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people... So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but... I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

It is true that I haven't really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.

Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don't want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don't have the time.

Honestly I am not well-read on leftist theory as in formal education. I look into things that I have encountered and think for myself. I would appreciate new ideas and things to look into.

I appreciate the call out on my vagueness in regards of authoritarian structures. Thanks for that.

It isn't as much a concrete point like "having a police", but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don't need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it. So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the "core" of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the "core". The "core" is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core. Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn't as similar and an "attack" on the "core" isn't an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven't paid them. In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.

So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it's people. Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and "sneaks" exploitation in. But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the "core". (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the "core") While any liberal state, enables the "core" to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn't. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the "core" and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the "core" in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by "small" actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables "small" local exploitation.

I just don't see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.

I don't see how to escape this shit.

Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.

Vanilla might not be good in a lot of things... Ice cream... Se... But here it is pretty nice!

But I like my libs... Often enough produced with a pretty communistic and anti-authoritarian mindset... (And too often, lack of support for the workers... Ups) But I like them.

They probably read 2 words that they don't like.

I like the idealism in communism and I have been thinking about how to implement communism without very authoritarian structures, and the anarchist way seems to be the only way, but I don't see how it would be able to sustain our current lifestyle and amount of people. Exploitation of dependencies without authoritarian structures seems unavoidable to me and avoiding dependencies would probably require that people provide themselves with the resources ; which requires more labor and resources. As of right now, I don't see a flawless system. (that includes capitalism)

So personally I think, saying that the other people have a bad systemic insight in the context of any general ideology is ungranted.