This is the topic of absolute or relative morality, here is my take.

In that groups moral reference frame they would be morally right, but it wouldn't change how I'd react. I wouldn't agree with them or share their morals but I also know I couldn't change their morals. Instead I would do whatever I could to remove any POC from the grasp of the group and arm them for protection. They would consider that morally wrong. I consider it morally right, because I believe everyone has the right to live. After that I'd probably try and build a barrier around them to stop them from hurting others.

At the end of the day actions matter a lot more than beliefs. It doesn't really matter what I believe, only what actions I take.

Or to but it differently I also believe those people are morally wrong. I also believe they think they're morally right. And as I don't place my own opinions over others I cannot say who is right. I can only act in the way I believe is right.

To reiterate: I believe those people are wrong. They are claiming another persons right to exist and that goes against my beliefs. I would to anything I could to stop them. But I also know that's my moral position. It's not theirs. But it doesn't matter, I do what I believe is right.

But in the end it doesn't matter. My actions would not change even if I believed they were morally wrong. I still act according to my moral position. So what difference does it make whether I believe it's the only one or one of many?

Desperately trying to phrase this in a way that makes my point come across because this is a very delicate topic, and communicating in text isn't my strong suit.

Morality is the cultural baseline of acceptability and culture isn't dictated by the majority. If a culture diverges it is two separate cultures. Nighter could be considered the majority. This is the point I'm trying to make, instead of having a single group of people and trying to find compromises why not just have multiple groups living their lives and cooperating when needed? Why do you need this single entity to manage these wildly different people?

But my question stands: If the majority of people in your country voted to have you killed, would you let them kill you?

Fuck this. I'm out. Disengage(https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-disengage-rule). Hope someone else has the energy to explain this to you.

Representative democracy is beholden to the majority. if they majority voted to kill you, would you just accept it and let them?

Also who are the members? what chooses who is and isn't a member of this body that has the right to your life? A made up line in the sand? Why do I have to rely on the opinion of someone who could be half a continent away? The only people I want to be held accountable to are the ones that I have to interact with, because others don't know me, and they shouldn't have any say on whether or not I get to live.

Anarchy is exactly what you say: being held accountable by other members of your society. It just doesn't try and mash millions of people with different viewpoints together and shrug when they inevitably start killing each other. It allows for dynamic formation of groups that think alike and uses the overlaps to build a network of people.

but they are all very small scale made up of people who share the ideology, and WANT to be a part of that kind of society.

1. The reason they are small scale is because they all existed during times of conflict. All of these societies had to fight against much larger states and the fact that they managed to survive as long as they did is a testament to the viability of anarchism.
2. Federation of small groups of people who share an ideology and want to be part of a society is how societies should exist. All societies should be made up of people who want to be there.

You show those communities to certain types of people, and they see dollar signs and opportunities for exploitation.

Yeah and if they try and exploit them they'll be told to fuck off. Any anarchic group capable of holding their own against external forces, will also be capable of resisting exploitation from internal ones.

That’s what humans are. You need to accept this.

If by this you mean some humans are inherently greedy and selfish: No! Never! I would rather die than accept that every person cannot be kind.

Everything a state guarantees they can take away. Do you want to give your life to the state?

Instead you could build a network of people, a community, to guarantee life and well-being of yourself and those around you. You don't need a state to do that. In fact believing in the state will actively hamper you as you look towards it for solutions you could make yourself.

People aren't selfish or greedy. People are ambitious and in the current society those people are raised to believe that to be the best you have to be selfish and greedy. They aren't traits you are born with, they are learned.

But anarchy still is the best way to deal with greedy people as any kind of hierarchy will just allow the greedy people to get to the top. Hierarchies don't punish the greedy, they elevate them to the highest positions in society as those that aren't concerned with other peoples well being can always find a way to gain authority over them.

There needs to be something to try to prevent and/or punish that.

Anarchy has that something. You can counter abuse without being abusive yourself. We can build social structures that prevent greed without hierarchy. The solution isn't to give some people a monopoly on violence because that position will always attract the most violent. It's to build a social networks that sees problems before they happen and provides support. Punishment isn't a productive method of preventing harm. It's vengeance, not prevention.

What is currently destroying the US isn't libertarianism, it's bad education, mass media manipulation and a bunch of people following orders.

Learn some history

OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina

If you are actually curious here's some links:

• Andrewism: https://www.youtube.com/@Andrewism/videos
• Anarchist FAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html (maybe take a look at J.5)

This is an anarchist comm. We aren't masquerading anything. We fight against all injustice: state, class, gender, sexuality. You know. Liberty for everyone equally.

Your sentences inspired me to make my own.

If your quest for kindness leads you to violence, remember to use violence with kindness.

If your quest for kindness leads you to violence, remember to use violence with kindness.

The state is 100% something. It's 100% useless and harmful. source: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionB.html#secb2 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PV02IzWpo

This comment got me thinking about what an anarchist solution to school shootings is unsurprisingly crimethinc have an answer: https://crimethinc.com/2018/03/20/gun-control-no-youth-liberation-mass-shootings-school-walkouts-getting-free

or in shorter poster form:

simply put the solution is to reform education and let the students themselves build networks to protect themselves from violence, just like every other group.

or anecdotally: the solution to school shootings isn't to get rid of guns it's to get rid of schools.

The reason I actually responded to you're comment is because it was long and interesting so I thought I could get a nice discussion out of it. I'm glad to have been correct.

I didn't come across as you trying to police AI. You were just being very critical of a tool that I think has a lot of uses. I was trying to bring an alternate point of view to the discussion.

I also don't believe in artistic disability, my example wasn't about being unable to make art, it was about making art being just difficult enough for someone that they don't want to try. Perfection only exists in tightly defined systems, art most certainly cannot be perfect. But I do think some people have who are capable of art don't wish to learn how do make it to the degree that they can express what they want. I'm not saying they don't have ability. I'm saying they don't have the desire.

And even then you can use GenAI do only to small parts of your piece. An artist I follow used GenAI to create videos for their music. The creator of this meme uses it to create small intro pictures for their blog. GenAI has uses in the hands of creative people as well.

I'm an anarchist. As soon as you talk about corporations and value I point to the meme this discussion is under.

Also I don't use GenAI. I made a couple of pictures and did try to touch them up in order to actually be presentable but in the end it just didn't work out. I do have a drawing tablet and use it to make drawings. I've posted them in my community lemm.ee/c/anaval. I also know the basics of playing a bass guitar. I'm not defending GenAI out of my own need, but because I see potential in it for others.

and like I said previously It's made some stuff that I really love.

Good. I'm used to filling in the entire canvas but with this one I just wanted to move on so I just though. "Ok I guess it's done".

Your technique is so cool (/sincere), but a lot of people do not have the time, persistence or passion do develop skills like these. If they get a good idea for something I want them to be able to express it, to enrich the world with the chaos of their mind, and sometimes GenAI is the only tool they have for that.

Everyone has the potential to create something cool, and I don't want to take away what might be their only tool.

The core of my opinion on the topic isn't based on anti capitalist rhetoric, it's a lot simpler than that. I like the things GenAI makes so I like GenAI. If you don't consider that art I'm fine with that. I still like it and think it has value.

GenAI does have a place in art. Computer generated art gives people a chance to express themselves in a way they otherwise never could. Some people lack the ability to imagine shapes in their minds. This would obviously hamper their ability to draw but with a Image generator they could just write something and have the computer imagine it for them. They then could take a part of that image and add something to it, generate something else that fit with it. This is art. A human using a tool to create something, something that would not have been created otherwise. Or "AI gives a voice to those that don't have time, dedication or ability to learn a medium"

A practical example. The primary form of art I interact with is music and so when I hear this: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=RYJAUfCkIaQ I think "Wow this is good", and it wouldn't have existed without AI.

But there is always a place for human created art and as long we have enough computing power to use AI there will be a place for AI Art. They are both important because they are both different.

No. But I bet I could. After all, prisoners do it every day.