Goddammit, that’ll teach me for trusting the category “Photographs of Finland by Jorge Franganillo”

Ah yes, the great Zionist position of [checks notes] calling Israel a pariah state that should be treated like North Korea.

“Neoliberal” is just what you lot call anyone who doesn’t believe in red fascism, and despite being online a pretty good amount of time, I’m STILL not terminally online enough to be familiar with Destiny, unlike you chuds who seem to salivate over him.

Nah, public corrections are fine. I think this is just a post because of cross-platform oddities, but even if not, it brings attention to the issue, which is on-topic.

The source I got it from says Helsinki, I’ll look into it though.

That’ll learn me. Thank you, I’ll correct the title.

Fuckers really going for Greater Israel, huh.

He sounds reasonable enough, and tbqh, nearly anyone is preferable in comparison to Keiko Fujimori.

What utter lunacy

[one-woman wail in background]

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

uwu

For the same reason Chaos and Wholesome are opposites

for the shitpost o7

“Talk is a national institution, but it does not help the slave!”

bark bark bark goes the nazi dog, he hates america’s enemies

I’m sorry you find hating a fascist state so offensive, but I understand that fascism is dear to your heart.

i dont even have much good to say about the dprk. i was just pointing out that the term juche predates the dprk and was used by anarchists. just because i agree with one of its points (and one that was specifically inverted in the dprk) doesn’t mean i agree with all of it

It’s astounding that you can say shit like this when you were literally quoted

and anarchists are still one of the leftist tendencies present in the DPRK to this day.

but fascists don’t believe that words need to have meaning when it’s inconvenient for them.

your entire argument was that rome had no formal police, was ‘roughly non-hierarchical’ (among the non-slave/female population) and therefore demonstrates that anarchist solutions ‘work’.

My argument was that Roman law-enforcement was based on roughly non-hierarchical enforcement of peers, and therefore demonstrates that enforcement of law is not dependent on hierarchical policing forces, yes.

my statement was that slaver oligarchs coordinating is not demonstrating a non-hierarchical society.

No one fucking said Roman society was non-hierarchical as a whole, dipshit, it’s the third fucking sentence in the explanation which you didn’t read, or couldn’t understand.

An unusual point of unity between an ancient polity noted for its sense of hierarchy, and hierarchy-averse modern anarchist ideology!

you’re conflating ‘contains some horizontal elements’ with ‘demonstrates non-hierarchical organizing’ to dodge the point.

You got anything to say about your previous bullshit denial, by the way, or are you trying to ignore that blatant contradiction the way you’ve tried to ignore every other piece of information inconvenient to your bootlicking?

i didn’t say that ’no state can have horizontal practices’, you even quoted me saying that. that’s not at odds with all states having hierarchy.

a hierarchical slave state can’t demonstrate non-hierarchical anything.

i said that i don’t appreciate sexual comments about my genitals. you could simply not do that.

No, what you said is that it was a sexist comment, and I can quote you on that as well, not that quoting you seems to matter much. Reality is inconvenient, and so discarded by good little fascists like you.

In any case, I’ll do my best to remember to refrain from any comparisons that reference genitalia even in the abstract, if you feel that strongly about it. But fuck your assertion that it’s ‘sexist’.

your (unfounded) accusations about my politics still don’t justify sexual harassment. you accused me of being ‘sex negative’ for finding your comments disgusting. i pity the people who have to deal with you in real life.

Sorry that you think that sexual matters are something too repulsive to be referenced in public discussion, and that referencing the human body in idiom is sexual harassment; I hope you recover from your Victorian-era mores someday.

you just quoted back me saying the same thing as if it was some kind of gotcha? I really don’t get what your point is supposed to be, other than barking.

Absolutely stunning that you highlight everything except the most relevant portion and pretend that ignoring that makes it go away.

I specifically said that oligarchs coordinating amongst themselves does not mean it’s a non-hierarchical society.

Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

i didn’t say that ’no state can have horizontal practices’, you even quoted me saying that. that’s not at odds with all states having hierarchy.

This you, or did you forget what you said already?

a hierarchical slave state can’t demonstrate non-hierarchical anything.

you’re just making shit up and attacking straw targets at this point.

The projection here is impressive.

there’s no reason to romanticize the roman empire

Me: “Even pre-modern polities which are hierarchical, like the Roman Republic, with an explicit note excluding the Roman Empire in the explanation which you clearly did not read, or could not read because it used too many words, demonstrate that the copaganda claim of policing forces being necessary are bunk.”

You: “Stop romanticizing the Roman Empire!”

i didn’t ask for sexual or gendered comments

I didn’t realize having a murder-boner was gendered. I’m sure plenty of Zionists will be delighted to hear this.

i have no problem with sex, i find you disgusting and i don’t appreciate you making references to my genitals when it’s not relevant and wasn’t invited.

Maybe don’t bootlick for genocidal states and you won’t be accused of getting off on it? Just a thought.

The praetor using the lictor weren’t just any nearby citizen.

Yet their legal mandate for law enforcement was no greater than any nearby citizen. Because that’s not how Roman law fucking worked. I’m sorry that you can’t comprehend any legal system which doesn’t work like the ones you’re familiar with.

Ignoring the use of the lictor and focusing on the lictor as though independent just doesn’t mean they weren’t fulfilling a law enforcement role, which included legitimized violence by state authority.

I already addressed how idiotic this argument is in this vey conversation. Since your literacy is as limited as ever, let me repeat myself:

Only insofar as state sanctioned violence is here defined as “any violence acknowledged as legitimate by the state”, which would make every use of self-defense in a modern context also state-sanctioned violence.

The point that the use of ‘cop’ was too narrow or obscure to fit a meme is certainly not an invitation to unnecessarily and pedantically widen the definition as though to clarify a pretty basic point, nor to perpetuate useless argument.

I’m sorry you’re upset at yourself over being unable to come up with a consistent definition of ‘cop’ which covers the people you want it to, without covering people you don’t want it to,

-Includes the role the lictors played for the praetor.

Which is the role of any nearby citizen.

So, if you’re done dodging the question, I ask again: your definition of police, in this context, is anyone symbolically associated with the use of violence legitimized by the standards of the polity, even without any attendant legal power?

My initial point being that they did state sanctioned violence, which was their role, ceremonial and otherwise.

Only insofar as state sanctioned violence is here defined as “any violence acknowledged as legitimate by the state”, which would make every use of self-defense in a modern context also state-sanctioned violence.

So: the association with being a direct embodiment of state authority and power of violence.

So let me get this straight, just so I know what I’m arguing against - your definition of police, in this context, is anyone symbolically associated with the use of violence legitimized by the standards of the polity, even without any attendant legal power.

They were the embodiment and a measurement of the imperium which gave authority over government and military command.

Imperium was by the nature of Roman law extremely limited and specific. What you’re saying has no relevance to the authority of a magistrate to make detentions of citizens on the grounds of criminal or civil wrongdoing.

Getting back to it, this meme appears to require a very specific and literal use of ‘cop’ to work.

“Getting back to it”

Your entire point is that lictors are, in your view, cops, so there’s no ‘back to it’ involved.

If you feel so strongly about the word usage, please define ‘cop’ for me in such a way that would not imply that anarchist polities also have ‘cops’.

What does that have to do with the point at hand?

Other than nothing, with you grasping for straws for something that can cover up your utter inability to read basic English, plainly and repeatedly stated, with your misinterpretations corrected each time?

’Other citizens’ such as: the Praetor;

No, I mean that the lictors had no power beyond that of other citizens. The lictors had no ability beyond what we would regard as a “citizen’s arrest”. They had no power of their own. If a Praetor told a random citizen on the street to arrest another, the process would be entirely and exactly the same, as well as the punishment for not doing so - nil. A detainment by a lictor was not any more legally binding than a detainment by anyone else. Lictors had no authority, and even the authority of their magistrate was extremely limited in that their detainments, likewise, were not regarded as more lawful than any other citizen bringing in another to court.

hence the rest of the comment. They served a critical role for the local rulers and magistrates.

Not really? Lictors were overwhelmingly ceremonial at any time beyond the earliest years of the Republic.