La question est opportune. Que fait la police? Quel est le contexte?

I’ve been using a OnePlus Open since November last year, and I’m very satisfied. I still cannot see a crease, and I use it unfolded with the multi-window setup fairly often!

I would recommend it more if it wasn’t so damn expensive!

It ain’t even good. Not worth it -1/10 would not recommend.

I feel the same… While some words are best avoided, I find the obsessive focus on language ridiculous sometimes, especially in the anglosphere. That gives us Voldemort/Yahweh words, controversy around master/slave, ““latinx””, censorship with asterisks that doesn’t fool anyone…

But I also remember that it’s not the big deal Twitter rightoids make it seem to be. I have rarely seen anyone get seriously offended over just a word in real life, even when talking with fellow progressives. What triggers people in real life in my experience is arguments and ideas. Social media is not the real world in that regard.

Sometimes, I worry that the language puritanism might be offputting when defending progressive ideas, because it makes it seem that feminists/antiracists are shallow and only about dictating newspeak, but I found while talking with people not onboard with these causes that they were smart enough to make a distinction between Twitter pedants and a genuine defense of feminism/antiracism.

But, at the same time, I agree wholeheartedly that it makes a lot of sense to not call a black person racist names, or to stop calling people hysteric or retarded!

And the website’s called tax-the-rich.eu, not imposez-les-richous.eu

I understand, but I don’t want crisp in my curry potatoes 😋

I wonder which version is correct in japanese/Indian curry recipes? Not that it makes any preferrence wrong, tastes are personal.

But I could’ve sworn one way is the traditional way and one isn’t… Oh well 🤣

History is a great teacher. Without a powerful state to curb the influence of the owners of capital like when the US dismantled the standard rail in the early 20th century, what is going to prevent the natural concentration of wealth in the hands of an all-powerful lord, since accumulation is the endgame of capitalism?

What you describe can only ever become a nightmarish dystopia that would bring about a new era of feodalism. And nobody except a few sheltered idiots are falling for that shit.

And what you seem to describe in your other comments is actually minarchism and not anarchism, which handwaves the complexity of anarchism away for a flavor of “extreme economic conservatism but I don’t want to pay taxes”, which is incredibly shallow and selfish, on top of being actively against your personal interest.

Mostly because it has more to do with feodalism than anarchism proper.

That is minarchism. Still fails as a society model at every metric we judge a good society model with, but you aren’t an anarchist. You just like the folklore because it sounds cool.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. You need hierarchies to protect private property, otherwise the whole thing just collapses on itself because there’s no significant force to prevent theft - and not just by communities, be it states or cities, not following the principles of that selfish flavor of liberalism.

Even if everyone lived in an “ancap” dystopia, that doesn’t make everybody magically immune to greed, and some would happily bend the rules and loot, kill or steal, even if they agree on the social contract.

I really don’t think these idiots deserve the label “anarchism”. I like to go with “neo-feodalism” because this is what their dystopias can only resolve to ultimately as soon as wealth is concentrated enough (which is inevitable without corrective action currently undertaken by the state in normal societies).

I’m not saying this for you as much as I’m saying it for the lemmings that might not be too familiar with their nonsense.

For one illustration of the dangers of their stupid ideology, see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling