this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
1314 points (97.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
8078 readers
3629 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those things exist yes. They're the guidelines.
De guardrails is the law. Even though it's exceptional to walk as Batman, and people respond scared to it, it should be legal. In the socialist utopia that should be illegal, because it affects others.
Um... Then you're not describing a utopia, you're describing a perfect totalitarian state.
It should not be against the law to be rude or dress up as Batman. That's insane. That's the literal end goal of fascism - to give full control of every aspect of society over to the state, and then indoctrinate future generations to be perfect extensions of the state. They just also usually want it to be an ethno-state, but it can also be done through nationalism or ideological purity
In a utopia, laws should be mostly vestigial. You're supposed to fix the root causes of violence by helping people become well adjusted in a high trust post-scarcity society, not perfectly codify acceptable human behavior and crack down on it with stormtroopers
It's the logical conclusion to "don't do things that negatively affect others". The utopia for people who take that as an axiom, results in a totalitarian state indeed! Plenty of historical and contemporary examples of that happening.
No, that's the end goal of authoritarians. Liberal authoritarians think the perfect system of laws will maximize freedom without affecting the freedom of others, conservative authoritarians think the citizen should serve the state
Both of these are totalitarian dystopias - it dehumanizes people and enshrines the state.
The "your freedom ends where your fist meets my nose" axiom is one axiom, it doesn't describe a society. Libertarians maximize this as the full limit of state involvement, anarchists can maximize this as a guiding principle culturally with no state
As a fantasy, sure. I can see how some members of past "revolutions" might have thought that that's what they're going to do.
But then came reality, and the realisation that you can't vibe everyone into cooperation. There's so many different kinds of people with different goals, life stories and traumas.
Then comes the supression. Which they're doing only for your benefit, so they rationalize.
Yes, the feelings associated with the "let's all vibe" and "they're not vibing and everything is crumbling down" are different. But we have to be intellectually honest and realise as a leads to b, they are the same thing.
If you think you can create a utopia through revolution, you're delusional
A utopia can only be built by genuine buy-in. If it doesn't come from the people, you're just another authoritarian believing you've cracked the code
I don't even think you'd disagree with this from what you've said so far... But can you really not imagine a better world? Can you really not even picture a path where people just are better, without the need for laws or violence?
I get how you might not see a path from where we are to there, but can you not even imagine the best timeline?
I know there's pain so great that expecting people to accept it is delusional.