I mean in that sort of case then the group would defer to the person more knowledgeable in that specialty, same as what happens when after brainstorming people split into small groups or volunteer for individual responsibilities. Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, that’s not a hierarchy. Listening to an expert is just respecting someone’s knowledge, and as long as they don’t have actual authority over you, then there’s much less risk of corruption taking place. There’s a quote from I think Proudhon Bakunin that I can’t remember off the top of my head, I’ll come back and edit this when I find it. But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.

And people who help organize and manage jobs also don’t necessarily need to be part of a hierarchy either. If the group agrees that someone is extremely effective at helping resolve conflicts or suggesting the best path to take and that sort of role is desirable for the project then that’s what they should do. The difference is that they aren’t in a position of power over anyone. They don’t have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual), or take away their income/ability to live. And since they don’t have that power, they aren’t in a hierarchical position over anyone. If they start trying to force their way without taking feedback then the group will stop listening to them and appoint someone else if they still feel that it’d be useful. Without a position of authority over people no hierarchy exists in the definition used in anarchist theory.

Edit: Thanks @onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com! Knew I read it somewhere on here recently.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

— Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2

But yeah, respecting peoples expertise in topics, splitting up work, or appointing people to give managerial suggestions aren’t hierarchical. A lack of hierarchy is not a lack of structure, it’s just a lack of power and violence being used to oppress or control people. Efficient structures like these tend to naturally fall out of self-organization once the monopolies on violence used to prop up hierarchies are removed.

I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. There’s a reason “incompetent boss/manager” is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. It’s why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isn’t an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.

Yeah like the other comments say, as long as it’s not an issue with the drive itself you should be able to just remove the drive and read it pretty easily. If it’s not a hard drive it’s probably not the actual drive itself that failed, and even if it is a hard drive it’s more likely to be something else imo. Taking it to a computer repair shop might still be a good idea if you’re not comfortable doing it yourself, but it should be as easy as taking the drive out and plugging it into another computer via the right adapter.

Yeah I know it’s technically visible, but unless I’m just dumb afaik the default ui doesn’t have a way to easily see which mod did an action unless you manually filter by every mod it could be. Since it is possible to do that it’s really not a huge deal, just something that could help prevent misunderstandings.

I think we both might have misinterpreted each other a bit then. I didn’t really mean a person who said the parties were the same, but someone who says they’re extreme in opposite directions and I think you misunderstood it as the opposite, so I should have clarified a bit.

But regardless, sure, socially stuff like trans acceptance is generally improving, but that’s not really a result of Democrats or their policies, that’s a result of LGBTQ people fighting against hate and society at large becoming more accepting. No policy is responsible for increasing social acceptance, it’s the other way around. Like another user said as well, it’s only socially progressive policies that tend to recieve that treatment too, never big economic reforms. Plus that support only lasts as long as its thought politically favorable, as evidenced by the fact that in the wake of Kamala losing the DNC has been trying to push a narrative that it’s because the party is too socially progressive. The alternative is the DNC admitting that neoliberalism is unpopular, so throwing a minority under the bus is much preferable.

Economically, things haven’t been getting better for a long time. Food insecurity is extremely high right now, same with rent/housing, the climate is fucked, going go a hosptial can put you in debt for life, and corporations keep amassing more and more money and power. That process speeds up under Republicans sure, but it hasn’t been improving much for anyone but the already wealthy under Dems either.

But either way, even if the Democrats wanted to change things the system makes that basically impossible. Trying to change a system only by participating in it is just kinda a flawed idea in the first place, but that’s how liberalism does things.

Yeah but that’s kinda the point. Liberalism is also right-wing compared to leftists, and even on it’s own is pretty firmly center to slighly right of center. Left of center only really happens at social democracies, and they’re still not super far left. Obviously someone in the middle of the Democrats and Republicans will also be right-wing, since neither party is actually left of center and the Republicans are currently so far right.

So basically basically Republicans are super harmful to a ton of people and meeting in the the middle of democrats and republicans is still bad, and compromising on certain issues by doing that sort of meet in the middle approach still hurts people right? Don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything like that.

Anarchists or other very left-wing people have basically the same opinion on liberalism. It’s a very middle of the road ideology that’s favors incremental progress but doesn’t really make real change on its own, that normally has to be fought for outside the system. The Democrats are less immediately harmful to people, but neither party really does anything big enough to truly help people in a meaningful way and things have been slowly getting worse over time. And just like there are a bunch of policies you wouldn’t want to meet in the middle of, there are a bunch of things liberalism supports that are meeting in the middle of something very harmful.

I think the other big thing is the prevalence of the idea that voting for a representative is the most important thing you can do that also wears on people. Whether or not Trump or Harris won, over half the US states are unsafe for trans people, especially kids. Sure things are obviously worse with Trump, but either way for a lot of trans people things have been bad and getting worse for a long time. Same with food insecurity, housing costs, immigration, etc. All of these issues wouldn’t have meaningfully improved much with the tiny concessions that Democrats offered, and most would continue getting largely ignored until a Republican takes office and can be blamed.

I’m not saying the parties are the same, one moves us in this negative direction much faster which I why I’ve basically voted D every time I could, but voting is at most the minimum you should do. Building aid networks and horizontal power and networks to protect queer people or immigrants are all things that need to happen no matter who is in power because either way compromises and the slow advance of capitalism continues to hurt more and more people.

None of this is a person attack against you or anything either, but the way you don’t like Republicans for being too far right or centrists for being too middle of the road with fascism/the Republican party are the same basic reasons leftists dislike liberalism.

This is a genuine question, not some sorta gotcha or anything. What’s your opinion on the “enlightened centrist” style of centrists in the US? The sort of people that say things like “both the Democrats and Republicans are too extreme.”

I’ve rewritten this a few times with various points I was trying to make, but for the sake of not having a wall of text I’ll try to keep it short lol.

For the whole tankie discussion, I saw @LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works mentioned imperialism, and it made me think that the whole rule should probably be reworded imo

The big thing is that it feels like the whole debate is mostly based on semantics, so that should be fixed if possible. It basically boils down to what “tankie” means or is perceived to mean. As written the rule uses ideological labels to try and represent a broader set of beliefs, but the main issue with that is that by picking those sorts of imprecise labels it sort of muddies what specific kind of beliefs the rule is trying to highlight. Especially with tankie (and even more so on Lemmy), lots of different people use it to label very different things. Even if the rules are using it “correctly”, there’s still enough disagreement surrounding the term overall that it seems worth it to just elaborate more specifically on what it’s actually trying to refer to. Doing so helps prevent some misunderstandings that might happen between users and mods as to what is covered by this rule, means that new users who have been incorrectly called a tankie elsewhere on lemmy don’t see the term and assume they’ll also be banned here, and also just generally makes the rules more clear which is never a bad thing.

Maybe something like:

Support or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome.This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, nazism, etc."

I feel like that covers the problematic stuff from any type of authoritarianism. Could even be safe and make it something to the effect of “Support or defense of authoritarianism, regardless of the state, is not welcome…” to make sure it’s explicit.

I definitely agree with being against states/state oppression. I think the main problem is just that someone doesn’t actually need to self identify as a tankie to feel excluded by the word. If someone gets a bunch of angry comments on .world calling them a tankie when they definitely aren’t, then even if this community/instance is trying to use it in a different, more accurate way it still has the possibility that they would feel unwelcome here. When the prevailing way tankie gets used by the rest of Lemmy is incorrect, then that usage kinda becomes the first thing people will associate it with when they see the term somewhere else on Lemmy.

I think for official rules tankie is vague enough that it’s better to just be explicit in what is actually against the rules like what’s already there with the “no genocide denial” and “no authoritarianism” lines. Adding “no tankies” on top of that just leads to a less clear definition of what sort of behavior is actually against the rules imo. Since everyone has different ideas of what someone being a tankie means it’s not always just the authoritarian aspects that get lumped into the definition but sometimes the leftist aspects too.

Obviously none of this is to say that authoritarianism, genocide apologia, or anything like that should be allowed. I’d just personally like the rules being more clear about that explicitly instead of muddying stuff unnecessarily by using tankie.