No, I don't.

By "prevent abuse by authority consolidating power", I mean "ensured that pirates could continue to maintain their fleets to maintain the re-exertion of control in the area by the British Empire" The U.S. in it's early years was heavily pro-pirate. In fact, the US navy began partially as a conglomeration of pirate ships that wanted more official recognition. Sadly, that eventually spelled the end for independent pirates.

Though you're definitely right it ended up also being used to put down slave revolts, but that wasn't the original primary point.

Kudos. Solid point.

I'll give you credit here. I was using the history of anarkos, not anarkhia. I was unaware there was an even earlier version of the word.

That's not what you implied when you said

And you didn't mention anything about the problems beginning before McCarthy in your comment, so don't you gaslight me.

Interesting how you seem to intentionally left off the last part of that paragraph:

However, these were the final split-and-divides.

The implication being that it was building up before that, but McCarthyism caused a near instant major switch, like a dam breaking. It was building up, but wasn't the dominant force. Then that happened, and it shattered.

Don't complain about implications that you make up when the text is implying something else.

learn what the word "owe" means. And no, "in large part" doesn't really mean anything if you're not being explicit.

You think you're so good at english, yet you don't know the phrase, "owe in large part", that means "the largest but not only contributor."

Or something along those lines.

I did. You even whined about the words not being good enough.

because if there's anything I absolutely hate, it's a privileged Western academic imperialsplaining to me

Tell you what. When my ancestral culture is restored and I don't have to deal with Catholic & Evangelical-bribed historians constantly trying to pretend my people didn't even exist despite the overwhelming evidence even in their own historical documents where they hunted us down, and somehow it's restored from outright oblivion that would be lucky to exist in the completeness that your culture does, and eventually rises to become the dominant force oppressing the world, then I'll accept that insult.

Until then, count yourself lucky your people were hit by the US instead of the British Empire. My ancestors specifically worked to turn the tide of British Empire to the far more muted American and less oppressive American version and instill in it some sense of values and respect for human dignity. Those anarchist ideals that exist in the U.S., in no small part, came from my people, and we've been fighting against Imperialism far longer than yours.

You think the US is some behemoth force, but you seem intent to be completely ignorant of the war for the future of this world that we've been waging since the freakin' 11th century.

You want the US to suddenly disappear? Then you've got China that will gobble everything you've ever loved up, and claim the Philippines have always been part of China like it did with Tibet and Hong Kong and more. With the US, it's got the seeds of a healthy anarchism, and there's a 50% chance in an interaction that it'll treat other cultures with respect, and it had a short time where it even realized anarchist ideals better than any other country, and those seeds remain for it to get back to.

But by all means, if you want to constantly bow to Winnie the Pooh, and have cameras monitoring your every move for social credit, then sure, don't learn how to prioritize your battles. The US, thanks to those seeds, is still salvageable, despite its sins, but a dictatorship can only be solved by revolution.

Not my fault if you forgot to brush too long.

Me:

Was [the US] a perfect anarchy? No.

You:

Sometimes I read a take so bad I have to read it twice to make sure it is real

You know, if you want to make the case that the U.S. was a perfect anarchy, go ahead. But I'm going to disagree with you.

That's a pretty low reading comprehension. At what point was I cheering for genocide?

The USA is and always has been ...

a slave state

Southern half, and kind of waged a war to end slavery.

theocracy

First country to ban state religion.

with not the slightest resemblence to anarchy

Eliminated Kings, Banned state religions: AKA No Gods, No Masters

founded by white supremacists

The Quakers, one of the two core founding groups, was one of the most pro-egalitarian and pro-equality groups of its time. Also, a lot of the US was involved in trying to establish equality.

religious extremists.

The majority of the founders were deists, the renaissance equivalent of atheists.

Please, if you're going to criticize the history of something, at least actually use history instead of making up nonsense.

Just a thought, maybe the danger was the settler colonialists who forced their own political system and economy on them...

There were settlers who were with the natives, and those who opposed them. The former were actually more common (though not enough, imho), but memories favor times of blood over times of peace. And you look at the documents hostile to the natives of the time period, they were nearly always from the religions still trying to exert control.

Was it horrible? Yes. I'm not saying it wasn't. Even if someone is given a hundred gifts from a hundred people, the one person who kills them will still have a larger impact. And those powerful few were from family histories and lines still drunk on the hereditary power of british colonialism and their lines of thought. If you look at the history of the US, it's been steadily mellowing out and becoming more humanitarian over the centuries. Heck, the limited of monarchies after WW2 wanted war reparations, while the US pushed (and won) for helping losing countries rebuild instead, and didn't expand to Japanese territory.

As much as there is reason to be upset at the US as there has been with every major empire through history, it's the first one that has at least partially continued to allow self-governance in those it defeated. Not to mention the creation of the U.N. and a lot of it's actions has cut down wars around the globe by 9/10ths than before the World Wars. And, of the current super powers in the world, it's the least genocidal.

In other words, don't toss out the baby with the bathwater.

As much as it's done wrong, it's also done a lot right, and we still, as human society, need to keep moving forward, and don't toss the rights when we're correcting the wrongs.

no way are you actually trying to prove that the states were born from anarchist thought.

Freedom of religion, effectively destroying direct religious empire in its territory: In other words, No Gods

Actually not a monarchy, heavily restricted power on representitives initially, and initially no central banks allowed: In other words, No Masters

"No Gods, No Masters" ideology? Check.

The second amendment was created specifically to prevent abuse by authority consolidating power, and even (and especially) protected pirates.

Arming the company people against a central power? Check.

Stated purpose of the U.S. "Allow pursuit of life, --> liberty, and the pursuit of happiness <--"

Peoples' ability for self-direction? Check.

Was it a perfect anarchy? No. Was it the closest the world had to an anarchist paradise for a specific time period at least? Yes.

FUCK YOU!

I don't even know if you're my type. You haven't even bought me dinner.

Ah yes let's totally ignore the fact that the U.S. had overseas colonies before McCarthy was even born

Or are you going to say that the Americans colonizing the Philippines, my damn country, and massacring countless numbers of my people, was not an act of imperialism?!

Why would I say that? It absolutely was an act of Imperialism, and that is a very valid point. I mentioned McCarthy turned the imperialism and control up to 11 but as I had mentioned, the problems began before that.

Yes, actually.

Stoic stone-cold bitch when I'm sober, complete party girl when tipsy.

I fail to see how there being some people in the past who were friendly and not racist to natives makes it so that the USA was almost a anarchist paradise.

That's not the reason. The westward expansion was started initially by the British, intent on taking more territory, and imperial movements within the nation. The US has, throughout its entire history, been a social conflict between those who want freedom, and those who want the 'freedom' to oppress others. Started with the Puritans vs the Quakers, became the Whigs vs Tories, so on and so forth, a constant struggle of freedom vs tyranny.

No, the U.S. was far from perfect. But it almost was. It almost got the recipe right. And that's why it rose in power like it did, because people unoppressed are always more powerful than a people oppressed. Remember, it was founded in a time of kings, lords, and religions that claimed authority over it all. In this era, the U.S. did do many things right initially.

One, it restricted power of leaders (the problem was, not enough, representation was used in part due to logistical issues of the time) that was subservient to the people (sad that gerrymandering and the apportionment acts screwed that up).

Two, it banned central banks (sad that didn't last)

Three, it established a bill of rights creating lines which could not be crossed, part of which completely nerfed the power of churches.

For the time of its founding, it was the world's epitome of "No Gods, No Masters". You actually read about people's actions at the time, the people who weren't assholes weren't the outliers. The problem is those who were typically sought the positions of power that did exist, and consolidated more power in them. Many of the settlers got along well with the natives, despite nonsense of later highly sensationalized cowboy propaganda flicks.

Who the internal sides are that were anarchist, which ones weren't, which ones were hostile to the natives, and which ones weren't.

Thing is, not everybody was bad to the natives. In fact, many became friends. The biggest dangers to the natives came from the least anarchist parts to the US: The military.

I know, each time I heard some toxic dudebro complaining about how people treat him differently, I was rolling on the ground laughing XD

so just leave the psychiatrics to topics that actually concern it.

Considering psychology is the study of how people's thoughts words, and communication involves engaging people who likely have thoughts, literally every communication ever involves it.

I think if people are telling you you're being obnoxious, then you should take a moment to reflect

Yes. And I took the moment to reflect, and figured it was pointless to worry about it. Raddle anarchists are already demonstrating group-think, blind obedience to group ideals, and echo chamber tendencies. As such, there is no valid ground to actually make a reasonable judgement of character. When groups are founded on misconceptions, they're going to view everyone outside their perceived group boundaries as "obnoxious".

To put it bluntly, I have no reason to care what they think of me, so why should I? Get in, get the truth told, get out. If people don't like it, well, echo chambers aren't going to like it anyway. I know that going in. But if even one person has a "wait a minute..." and manages to put 2 + 2 together to de-echo themselves, I've potentially turned a life around, and turned someone in a self-defeating spiral onto the path where they can be better, and make a difference in the world.

Anarchism, at it's core is a good idea, if not one of the best ideas in history, and seeing people just turn it into an excuse for pointless destructive behavior is just useless to themselves and the world.

History has more nuance than you think it does. I suggest you dig deeper.

Anarchist traits doesn't mean it's been fully realized. Representative Democracy will never be able to fully realize anarchist ideals. Direct Democracy is where that begins. Look where decisions come from in history, watch small undercurrents of patterns, not just the wide brush swaths.

I disagree.

Well, there's the ancient Greek Stoics whose writings are literally are the etymylogical origin of the word anarchy, which was literally a synonym for government by the people instead of a tyrant and encouraged the people to overthrow the tyrants and instill Athenian democracy.

Then there was the French Revolution, which overthrew monarchy to instill democracy, championed by groups such as the Enrag`s. Not to mention nearly every revolt against the British empire, and there were strong aspects of it in the U.S. revolution and the Early U.S. (heck, the 2nd amendment was originally included largely to protect pirates that were siding with the U.S. over the British Empire).

In fact, this particular breed of Anarchism was the primary form of anarchism up until WW2, and was the fastest growing form of political ideology. However, nationalistic furor following WW2 and the following Cold War was used to effectively divide and conquer anarchists world-wide, by driving a series of wedges into the movement. For one, the once-near-anarchist-ideal country that was the U.S. became statist, imperial, and almost theocratic overnight, owing in large part to McCarthyism and related similar efforts around the globe, turning it into the behemoth we know today. However, these were the final split-and-divides.

The initial use of anarchism to include lawlessness didn't come about until James Fitzjames Stephen in the late 1800's, where he first suggest that anarchism (at the time synonymous with an idealized fully direct democracy) would lead to "breakdown of social order and rule of law".

This was further emphasized by Henry Main, who basically started equating anarchism with lawlessness. However, final solider there was none other than Karl Marx, who staunchly believed that people needed to be controlled to function morally, and pushed that anarchism and lawlessness were effectively synonyms. This is most clear during his conflict with Bakunin during the First International.

In other words, conflating anarchism with lawlessness instead of a fully distributed and consenting self-governance is actually a recent invention by statists from a historical perspective.

So it's a good thing I don't care about looking worse.

If someone lets the opinions of others be their primary motivating factor, they'll never be able to make a difference, because public opinion nearly always prefers keeping people the same. But nobody has ever made progress by not moving.

Well, nobody that you know, plenty that I know have (in fact, the majority). To me, the only ones who have not viewed it that way are a few random people on the internet.

It feels that's something people online often forget... is that people online often have their own real-life situations backing up where they're coming from as well.

True, they would have used a different word for it because they spoke Greek, not English.

I just want to see people happy and healthy and self actualizing. Both my parents are psychologists, so honestly thinking about things from a psychology & sociology direction is a common thing to me.

It's one reason you don't see me being bothered when people are ganging up on me in these forums: I recognize the tell-tale sign differences between people correcting me because I actually am wrong versus a group-think situation where people are trying to protect an echo chamber.

Also, don't feel bad about having mental issues. Nearly everyone has mental issues they struggle with, but society has given this stigma around it that it really doesn't deserve. I struggle with some of my own, it's not just me. But there's a little bit of a silver lining. Investigation has found that your run-of-the-mill average person on the street is actually struggling with 2-3 mental issues.

In fact, not having mental issues is so rare that it has its own name: Supersane, and generally they need help from counselors as well because they're stuck in a world where no one actually makes sense, which causes its own kind of problems.

So yes, political opinions aside, I saw what you were doing, and it sparked the "this person needs help". And you don't need to return the favor, just take care of yourself, okay?

Except by the original Greek definition (the definition used with things like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism, and every other anarcho- ) it does mean another political system, just one that has no leaders. (And no, having no leaders doesn't mean there's leaders.)

Speaking as a fellow sapphic/lesbian spectrum trans woman.

Are you starting at a girl's boobs, locked on like laser sights, or are you appreciating the whole person, body, mind, and personality, and respect their wishes and value as a person rather than only as a sexual object?

The former is toxic, the latter is normal if done respectfully.

And it's not technically a man vs woman thing despite the name (although there is that very strong trend), it's a patriarchy vs feminism thing. To put it simply, women are not objects to be used.

A relationship is not a task in order to achieve a goal of sex (unless mutually and respectfully agreed on since aromantic sexual people exist, but that shouldn't be a surprise later in the relationship, but something openly discussed early on).

A relationship is a goal in its own right. Don't date a girl to get in her pants, date a girl to get to know her, and enjoy eachother's company, and laugh on the couch while telling stupid jokes and throwing popcorn at a bad B movie, and ticking-off-bucket-list-items together. If sex happens, fantastic! But if it doesn't, you should have still had fun with someone and hopefully want to hang out with again in the future regardless.

I'm reminded of my wife mishearing (accidentally improving) the Spice Girls' song "Wanna" which was...

If you wanna be my lover, you gotta be my friend, Make it last forever friendship never ends

I've found this view is key. If someone who toxically patriarchal is told "You're a good friend", they whine and complain about being 'friend-zoned'. But someone who has a healthy relationship with women will sit there and say, "Yea, you're a good friend too!"

And it's worth pointing out it's almost stereotypical that lesbian relationships begin with both being friends, or staying friends if romance doesn't work out.

And toxic patriarchy versus respectful feminism doesn't make you a man or a woman. That said, if you're the former, you really should try to be the latter instead.

No, seriously, I'm worried about you.

You complained I didn't say something right after quoting me saying it, just not using the exact words you wanted to hear (if all power is distributed, it is the same thing as no leadership, the difference is merely word choice).

However, you didn't actually get that. and you seemed upset that I didn't use certain words, even though I suspect you know what power and distribution mean.

This means you're struggling with one of several mental health problems. I haven't seen enough to tell which symptom (and thereby which mental health issue) it could be.

It could be Semantic Interference (OCD or Anxiety), or Linguistic Rigidity (OCD or Autism), Language Processing Difficulties (SLI or a Developmental Disorder), Cognitive Inflexibility (Autism), Pragmatic Language Impairment (Autism or Social Communication Disorder), or Anomia (Either Aphasia or a Neurodegenerative Disorder).

This is not me being snarky, or trying to insult or anything. I'm serious here. Even if we're disagreeing on something, I still don't want people to suffer.

You're displaying symptoms of a mental health issue, and you need to get it looked at before it gets worse and hurts you in the long run, so you can get it under control before it takes over your life.

Decades long grassroots effort to decriminalize by nearly ever state that has a public referendum process in the U.S., and then after that trying to convince the oligarchs in the gerrymandered states that it could be good finances.

US was the one pushing criminalization on everyone else, so once they dropped it, so did everyone else.

Helped that research showed alochol was more dangerous, making the grounds for criminalization very shaky.