Fedi is so interesting for me as an anarchist because it's an experiment in choice & cooperation.
-
Fedi is so interesting for me as an anarchist because it's an experiment in choice & cooperation.
We see the specific struggles that come with decentralization & individual choice & how that interacts with building safe & caring communities.
It's not always fucking easy, & we can see major issues (like harassment of POC) that require solutions for community safety are not easily solved & put to bed.
But we can also see the power of what people can do when they collaborate.
-
Fedi is so interesting for me as an anarchist because it's an experiment in choice & cooperation.
We see the specific struggles that come with decentralization & individual choice & how that interacts with building safe & caring communities.
It's not always fucking easy, & we can see major issues (like harassment of POC) that require solutions for community safety are not easily solved & put to bed.
But we can also see the power of what people can do when they collaborate.
Problem-solving happens in community. We cannot solve all of our problems with rules & protocols. We cannot simply mechanically remove all harassment. We have to learn to react to things as members of a community, protecting & caring for each other.
The solutions aren't universal & top-down. They are solutions we arrive at together through effort, through listening to each other, through imagining better things.
-
Problem-solving happens in community. We cannot solve all of our problems with rules & protocols. We cannot simply mechanically remove all harassment. We have to learn to react to things as members of a community, protecting & caring for each other.
The solutions aren't universal & top-down. They are solutions we arrive at together through effort, through listening to each other, through imagining better things.
Something we have to know is that the work is never going to be done. We will never have everything resolved for good. We have to actively create the worlds we want & the communities we need.
-
Something we have to know is that the work is never going to be done. We will never have everything resolved for good. We have to actively create the worlds we want & the communities we need.
We live in a world where some people demand "law & order," rules that can operate without human choice. That's never going to be functional when dealing with humans.
Unironically, that approach when taken to its logical conclusion means a lot of innocent people will suffer, & a lot of ill-intentioned people get off scot-free.
Being unable to respond flexibly & contextualize things is a fucking problem.
-
We live in a world where some people demand "law & order," rules that can operate without human choice. That's never going to be functional when dealing with humans.
Unironically, that approach when taken to its logical conclusion means a lot of innocent people will suffer, & a lot of ill-intentioned people get off scot-free.
Being unable to respond flexibly & contextualize things is a fucking problem.
When prison abolition comes up a common question is "well, what will we do with the people who [commit x harmful activity?"
This is a completely understandable question, but it does betray a specific assumption: that we must decide ahead of time what must be done about a given harmful action. Which in turn assumes that such infractions are best viewed in the abstract, apart from all the real circumstances, the individuals harmed, etc.
But that isn't the only possible choice.
-
When prison abolition comes up a common question is "well, what will we do with the people who [commit x harmful activity?"
This is a completely understandable question, but it does betray a specific assumption: that we must decide ahead of time what must be done about a given harmful action. Which in turn assumes that such infractions are best viewed in the abstract, apart from all the real circumstances, the individuals harmed, etc.
But that isn't the only possible choice.
Many of us are so used to thinking the only safety is in absolute rules & abstract decisions.
But how does that actually work out in the real world?
Does that always result in better outcomes for people? Does that always translate into justice or restoration?
Or is it just possible that we can explore alternatives to how we build safe communities that are not built on the assumption that circumstances & individuals don't matter?
-
Many of us are so used to thinking the only safety is in absolute rules & abstract decisions.
But how does that actually work out in the real world?
Does that always result in better outcomes for people? Does that always translate into justice or restoration?
Or is it just possible that we can explore alternatives to how we build safe communities that are not built on the assumption that circumstances & individuals don't matter?
Can we learn to take the leap of trusting each other to resolve problems when they arrive by collaborative, cooperative means?
Can we accept the fact that we can't actually create perfect systems that always operate flawlessly?
Can we acknowledge that community safety can't just be automated? That there will always be a need for accountability, flexibility, & creativity? That the work of caring for each other never ends?
-
When prison abolition comes up a common question is "well, what will we do with the people who [commit x harmful activity?"
This is a completely understandable question, but it does betray a specific assumption: that we must decide ahead of time what must be done about a given harmful action. Which in turn assumes that such infractions are best viewed in the abstract, apart from all the real circumstances, the individuals harmed, etc.
But that isn't the only possible choice.
@artemis this is making me think of how like most people understand society as a big monolithic structure, like a giant company with lots of rules and policies. They can't quite wrap their head around the idea that society *could* be a bunch of teeny tiny companies no bigger than a family. How does that work? Well, all those teeny tiny companies talk and figure it out in their teeny tiny local contexts.
-
When prison abolition comes up a common question is "well, what will we do with the people who [commit x harmful activity?"
This is a completely understandable question, but it does betray a specific assumption: that we must decide ahead of time what must be done about a given harmful action. Which in turn assumes that such infractions are best viewed in the abstract, apart from all the real circumstances, the individuals harmed, etc.
But that isn't the only possible choice.
-
@artemis this is making me think of how like most people understand society as a big monolithic structure, like a giant company with lots of rules and policies. They can't quite wrap their head around the idea that society *could* be a bunch of teeny tiny companies no bigger than a family. How does that work? Well, all those teeny tiny companies talk and figure it out in their teeny tiny local contexts.
-
M monkee@chaos.social shared this topic
