I could tell by your first comment that you didn’t care to know about how others think.

Ignorance is a lot easier than educating yourself, so I can see why you’d choose the easy path; I’m just disappointed that you decided to be incurious instead of learning something.

But I’m sure your “highschool rebel” understanding of anarchism is truly accurate, thanks for the notes. Or you could explain what mental gymnastics I’m performing? This is all basic anarchist theory that you can confirm with a five minute read of a wikipedia article summary.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you should read some anarchist political theory if you want to address their actual beliefs.

This is exactly the kind of communal structure that anarchists advocate for: a voluntary collective where everyone agrees to contribute to furthering certain goals, values, and objectives.

OP is not coercing players to be in their game or to do things their way; they’re saying “this is the game that I run, take it or leave it,” and the players can join if they share the same goals.

I think it’s funny that I have the exact same rule zero: I’ll reluctantly play 5e, but I won’t run it.

Communal resources seems to go against that

Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association.

In other words: if the PCs don’t like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.

My favorite is when I search for something and nothing comes up, but I search again and it brings up a hundred results. So I have to search everything twice if there are no results just to make sure.

Classical guitar, here’s Nocturne by Chopin.

I want to ride on a dirigible so much.

I can see the windows with the inbox labeled in the taskbar preview, it just consistently brings up the wrong one when I click it.

Believe me, I’ve tried for years to fix this.

Hermes Conrad. He’s got a level head and knows his way around a bureaucracy.

That’s my point: billionaires are an establishment unto themselves, and they’re already in a cartel to control the US government.

Corey Robin put it better than I can in The Reactionary Mind:

Far from yielding a knee-jerk defense of an unchanging old regime or a thoughtful traditionalism, the reactionary imperative presses conservatism in two rather different directions: first, to a critique and reconfiguration of the old regime; and second, to an absorption of the ideas and tactics of the very revolution or reform it opposes. What conservatism seeks to accomplish through that reconfiguration of the old and absorption of the new is to make privilege popular, to transform a tottering old regime into a dynamic, ideologically coherent movement of the masses. A new old regime, one could say, which brings the energy and dynamism of the street to the antique inequalities of a dilapidated estate.

How anyone can see a billionaire as “anti-establishment” is beyond me.

Musk is so impervious to ego-death that I suspect his will hang around for a few decades after his body.

I think it’s a mistake to believe that everyone has a sense of empathy; there are plenty of people who do not because of their brain meat or their experiences.

I think the closest Musk gets is the desperate and pathetic attempts to get gamers to like him: it makes him crazy that he can’t just buy their respect like he does for everything else that he wants.

People like that genuinely believe that they should be in charge because of who they are. He has absolutely no feelings of guilt about the terrible things that he does; he thinks they’re good because he did them.

Narcissistic megalomaniacs, especially ultra wealthy ones, lose their ability to empathize (or even the ability to mask and pretend) because they quite literally never have to care about how another person feels.

I do think he’s confused as to why people hate him though. He sees himself as a lovable cheeky troll instead of the Nazi dickhead that he clearly is.

I’ve been wanting the exact same thing: an e-ink device for writing, and there’s just nothing remotely worth considering.

Please enlighten me on how he could have acquired $200 billion dollars if he had paid his fair share in taxes, fairly compensated his labor, and refrained from monopolistic business practices.

As a reminder, the tax rate for the wealthy during the highest period of economic growth was as high as 91%, whereas Gates has never paid more than 40%.

How do you think his stocks were juiced if not for the aforementioned monopolistic business practices? What kind of capital gains taxes did he pay on those compared to what labor pays on their income? Why should he pay at a lower rate than people who work for a living instead of holding onto wealth?

But perhaps you misunderstand my point: a healthy society would not allow this kind of wealth disparity, as it is inherently destabilizing.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add monopolistic practices that prevented people from effectively operating competing businesses.

That should about cover it.

It shouldn’t be his money to spend; it’s been skimmed from all the people he has underpaid and the taxes that he’s avoided for decades.

Billionaires shouldn’t exist, even ones with good PR like Gates.

You can’t sit for long on a stool with only two legs; I think it just becomes a stool sample at that point.

I’ve got a couple of cast iron skillets from the early sixties that I use pretty much every day.