Hermits have it right apparently. Given those logical extremes, the third option of simply having no groups and becoming hyper-independent is THE way to go.
What if the problem is the assumption that problems can be solved with rigid rules, universally applied without consideration of context? What if the problem is the assumption that rules make something objective?
There's no universal definition of "asshole". That's okay; you can still have "Don't be an asshole" as a rule, because the interpretation of rules is inherently a subjective act. You can either subjectively interpret this rule, or you can subjectively interpret a convoluted system of rules designed to exclude assholes in an "objective" way, and fail at both excluding assholes AND being objective.
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2026, 19:59)
Assholes don't care if everyone ends up miserable, including themselves. They will go out of their way to ignore, frustrate or undermine any rules set. This includes creating edge cases as well as pretend compliance.
100, and exactly why you need the first mechanism from the OP. You need a librarian type who can explain something like "while sighing may not be against any rules they need to be more considerate or they need to leave; and then sigh to their heart's content "
It's not like there's an objective definition of "asshole". The distinction is one of degree more than of category - someone does something bad enough and they're an asshole rather than just annoying.
It's why true anarchy and communism are pipe dreams. They all hinge on the assumption that assholes who lust for power over all else stop existing, as well as the idiots they charm with their charisma.
Those people are like a glioblastoma (unsurvivable brain tumor). Sure, you can get rid of the bulk of the tumor, but it's little tendrils remain and it'll come back eventually
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2026, 21:24)
I think the theory is that capitalism pits the unbearable assholes' psychotic ambitions against one another and allows the normal people to reap the benefits of their relentless competition, while a functional democracy regulates the economy to prevent any one particular asshole from gaining too much power and enforces regulations to handle the externalities, and that in a functional democracy nobody who is too much of an asshole can ever get too powerful.
Of course, all of that presumes a functional democracy and... well... [gestures around broadly]
Esta entrada fue editada (jueves, 8 de octubre de 2026, 23:00)
it also assumes none of the unbearable assholes get together and worm their way into the government so they can dismantle it from the inside [gestures around broadly]
What's to stop you from excluding assholes from shared spaces in anarchy and communism? They're free to have their own asshole patch, ofc, but in a society...
At the risk of opening a can of worms: this is a paradox well-known to Christianity. Jesus teaches us to include the marginalized, to love our “neighbor” without limits. But then Jesus also gives instructions about when to remove people from the community and, of course, expected people to stop being assholes if they truly want to follow Him (Jesus called this “repentance” and “sinning no more”). The assholes made use of the the inclusiveness bit and managed to overrun the Church while also pushing the marginalized out.
I mean yeah it requires maintenance. That's what they did in the US and are trying to do everywhere else in the world now too -- "just go make money don't worry about anything else!". And now our society is falling apart because everyone is just trying to make more money and nobody cares about their community anymore.
Carlos Solís
in reply to Gabe Bell • • Public Messagesinwell
in reply to Carlos Solís • • • Public MessageCarlos Solís
in reply to sinwell • • Public MessageSwedneck
in reply to Carlos Solís • • • Public Message5318008
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public MessageWhat if the problem is the assumption that problems can be solved with rigid rules, universally applied without consideration of context? What if the problem is the assumption that rules make something objective?
There's no universal definition of "asshole". That's okay; you can still have "Don't be an asshole" as a rule, because the interpretation of rules is inherently a subjective act. You can either subjectively interpret this rule, or you can subjectively interpret a convoluted system of rules designed to exclude assholes in an "objective" way, and fail at both excluding assholes AND being objective.
Bgugi
in reply to 5318008 • • • Public MessageDidn't make it to paragraph 2, or just didn't understand it?
The difference between an asshole and someone who is simply disliked is typically one one of perspective.
5318008
in reply to Bgugi • • • Public MessageGabe Bell
in reply to 5318008 • • • Public MessageFor me it's like porn, satire, good jazz, dark magic and espionage.
You know it when you see it.
GeorgimusPrime
in reply to 5318008 • • • Public Messagegrrgyle
in reply to GeorgimusPrime • • • Public Messagebaines
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public Messagethe solution is sunshine laws, careful admittance and a requirement to participate in education and governance by all members
aka just look at all the thing pronect 2025 is attacking and do the opposite
prettybunnys
in reply to baines • • • Public MessageFor anyone dumb like me: sunshine laws and sun down laws are very different. Sunshine for transparent governance, sun down for racist bullshit.
baines
in reply to prettybunnys • • • Public MessageKairos
in reply to baines • • • Public MessageFishFace
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public MessageStabbingSky
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public MessageIt's why true anarchy and communism are pipe dreams. They all hinge on the assumption that assholes who lust for power over all else stop existing, as well as the idiots they charm with their charisma.
Those people are like a glioblastoma (unsurvivable brain tumor). Sure, you can get rid of the bulk of the tumor, but it's little tendrils remain and it'll come back eventually
baines
in reply to StabbingSky • • • Public MessageGraniteM
in reply to baines • • • Public MessageI think the theory is that capitalism pits the unbearable assholes' psychotic ambitions against one another and allows the normal people to reap the benefits of their relentless competition, while a functional democracy regulates the economy to prevent any one particular asshole from gaining too much power and enforces regulations to handle the externalities, and that in a functional democracy nobody who is too much of an asshole can ever get too powerful.
Of course, all of that presumes a functional democracy and... well... [gestures around broadly]
Swedneck
in reply to GraniteM • • • Public Message[gestures around broadly]
grrgyle
in reply to StabbingSky • • • Public Messagewhalesnrainbows
in reply to grrgyle • • • Public MessageStabbingSky
in reply to grrgyle • • • Public Messagegrrgyle
in reply to StabbingSky • • • Public MessageStabbingSky
in reply to grrgyle • • • Public MessageFrChazzz
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public MessageGeorgimusPrime
in reply to FrChazzz • • • Public Messagesangeteria
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public MessageBluescluestoothpaste
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public MessagePratai
in reply to Gabe Bell • • • Public Message