I’m inclined to agree with this. Jones doesn’t seem like someone trying to sell a bunch of crazy conspiracy theories which he doesn’t believe himself. He seems like he’s just genuinely batshit crazy.

What is that?

Fair point, albeit a different one from the one I was making.

Oh, I’m not blaming you at all, I’m just commenting on the article

Misleading title. Not incorrect, but it is based on what the source of income is, it is not about how rich you are relative to the rest of the population. The title makes it sound like if you make a certain amount of money, your tax rate is lowered. Alternatively, it sounds like the richest Dutch are evading 12% worth of taxes. But neither of these are true statements AFAIK, and either way they aren’t made in the article, so the title is misleading.

Edit: Changed “the top 1%” to “the richest Dutch”.

Tbh I feel like this is sometimes the case. Whenever I’ve looked for really cheap basic one-color t-shirts, the lowest cost ones usually have a brand logo on them.

The past tense of yeet is yöted

Maybe a word which likens it to how water flows in a river? How about rivering?

“Here, eat a caterpillar, you’ll feel better.”

Lamest take

Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism. As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies. Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.

On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.

Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word “liberal”, for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems. There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn’t a very strong one imo.

Being an anarchist capitalist really just stems from having a different definition of anarchism than most anarchist denominations (I’m not one btw, I’ve just spent a lot of time speaking to different types of anarchists in the past). I know it’s just a sidenote and not your main point, just wanted to point it out.

Got my first Reddit account in 2012 (which unfortunately was hacked in 2020 and got shut down). So I have used Reddit for 11 years at this point. I have been sick of the direction Reddit is going for a while, and when I realized Lemmy had started seeing some traffic I thought it was time to give this place a shot. So far Lemmy feels a bit like Reddit used to, which isn’t a bad thing.

Since I started using Lemmy, not much. I am mostly on here now.

It’s definitely not worth it. Zuckerberg is the bigger fish here, at least within the social media domain. Meta’s threads replacing Twitter would make them even more powerful than they already are. I don’t like Elon, and it’s crazy that he somehow managed to make Twitter even worse than it was, but we really don’t need Meta to grow even larger.

Thanks for the update. Can you update us on whether or not you are planning to block threads.net?

Has anyone heard any comments from them on this? Reconsidering my choice of instance unless they block threads.