The book in question. What was the intent or purpose of coming at this sideways?

To me, how can you possibly enjoy reading something some other person simply ... made up? Like an elaborate lie?

Contrarily, non-fiction tells it how it happened within the very reality I myself live in, subject to the same laws of nature and real psychology, and therefore, and only therefore, able to teach me something about real life on this earth.

"Government" is the creator and enforcer of the rules of society; it's merely a matter of flavor of what that looks like: democratic, Church, warlord, corporate state, etc.

Nature abhors a vacuum and a power vacuum will always be filled -- I'd rather it be a democratic version, which is the least-worst option.

Firefox user here too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party

  "non-fiction tells it how it happened"

This is me trying to pick up most bullshit written from humanities or arts; a 99% of it it's carefully crafted nonsense for ahem mainly emotionaly driven women and artsy people with very subjective opinions instead of accepting the reality as is.

Elaborated jokes OTOH can be trully clever and a good source of laughs and fun.

Also, Discworld from Pratchett, as they have obvious magical analogies to real life devices and scientific procedures.

But I don't understand how those could not only be held to the same level as The Hobbit, but that you seem incapable of even reading Animal Farm.

Do you enjoy any fictional media? TV, movies, plays, interactive murder mystery dinners, tabletop games (d&d, etc)?

Do you enjoy watching movies or series, reading comics? Going to the theatre (as in - not movies, but actual theatre)?

Edit: Do note that I wrote enjoy - I've certainly read my fair share of non-fiction. A classic Agatha Christy murder-mystery, while set in the real world, is anything but realistic.

A park where anything goes ... because sentry robots keep the peace. When the robots break, things get scary quickly.

I've become convinced that a well-governed society is the perfect foundation for a limited anarchist commune set up on property legally purchased. Libertarian, essentially. Or Amish.

I think most superficial interpretations of anarchists are based on edgy LARPers rather than real political ideology.

Fun fact: Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without laws" or "without social order". There's a wide diversity of political thought under this umbrella, but the key underlying common denominator is (on some level, at least) a rejection of hierarchy (and often a rejection of capital).

Though it's fun to imagine what the philosophical and political beliefs that underpin a colloquial understanding of the word might look like, the answer is usually simply: Teenagers.

Try talking to some anarchists and its pretty obvious their ideas don't go deep nor can stand well some questioning. Once you are in fairy land, anything may seem like a good idea to tackle ie some injustice.

What's sort of funny, is how all these seemingly polar-opposite anti-establishment flavors are actually far closer to each other than they are to mainstream political left or right.

The anti-establishment part ends up overriding everything else

That's how you end up with Bernie/Trump crossover voters

We aren’t exactly law abiding citizens, more anarchists really.

That comes with certain mindset about the copyright. I can’t remember the last day I didn’t violate some kind of law of a corporate state. It’s spiritual almost, highlight of the day.

You can be sure that whatever you posted online that had any value, have already been on my hard drive two times over. Sometimes even modified and passed along.

What are you going to do about it?

I understand the idea that "justice delayed is justice denied." But within reasonable governance time-frames for a municipality/region, why would revocation latency be a litmus test for the type of governance model?

This just sounds like an implementation detail masquerading as a philosophical ideal.

Nope, I truly live under a rock when it comes to those.

I've been wanting to watch the big ones (Hobbit, LotR, ...), but – and I say this with no disdain:

I simply cannot get myself to consume hours upon hours of somebody else's fantasy – when I could instead be shaping my own reality.

I really for the most part do not. I've not even seen any of the big oscar winning pieces everyone keeps talking about.

As I said to another commentator on here as well:

Without any disdain, I cannot bring myself to watch hours of another person's fantasy, when I could instead be shaping my own reality.

Recommend reading "Against the State" by James Stout, wherein he describes history of various Anarchist societies, including Barcelona during Spanish fascism, Myanmar where they are very successfully fighting the junta which wrested control from their civilian government, and Rojava where he personally visited and gives a firsthand account.

H in HN = D in DPRK

Let me beat that dead horse once more for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_culture

— William Shakespeare, Fantasy Author

and dont write off comics either, there is some genuine phenomenally emotional works in that medium.

It’s interesting to think about the ‘best’ way to organise a society; its enticing to think that society could be contained in a single encompassing structure, but such a structure is impossible.

Human-implemented anarchism might be futile, because it is already implemented, and there is no sovereign with agency above our institutions. It becomes apparent, in the second quarter of the 21st century, that any co-operative agreements and intergovernmental treaties are just as vulnerable as gang treaties.

If the world only stratified, with no balkanisation, it would form a homogeneous structure, but something prevents this. What?

I assume you mean "gang" in the sense of, "Hey honey, a non-rivalrous gang converted this luxury hotel into a mutual aid hospital, let's go get that rash looked at."

If not, your assertion is at odds with what Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.

I'm not even a fan of anarchism, but I am a fan of reading about these things.

Not the absence of a society, where utter lawlessness reigns. Most people's colloquial idea of anarchy is a Mad Max film.

I'm not being dismissive at all of anything except the public's misconceptions.

The continuum I was picturing is: big central planning government <--> little-to-no government (anarchy)

In any case, I guess I'm just restating a version of the old horseshoe theory

I have no clue how any equality minded person could vote republicans or trump.

I get that you want to point out the overlap of the ideologies, but I don't see how they are remotely attributable to the current political landscape. (Strictly in the equality matter)

Trump is not a socialist or an anarchist of any kind (I have a hard time believing he has any political ideology or even ideas about governance at all), and neither are the vast majority of the political establishment.

Maybe it just reads weird or I read it weird, to read trump at some point and someone else ending the sentence with equality.