I get that there is lot more nuances than russo-ukrainian, but imo there is a lot more similarities than you seem to imply : both Russia and Israel claimed that the land belonged to them before, that they should get it back, and use violence to kill local people who tried to resist or move them. The only difference is that Israel did it with the help of western countries and partially according to their laws, so they get like an aura of legitimity, but the acts remains quite close.

I do not like when people basically do not accept violent behavior but accepts them when they are allowed by some law or authority.

(Also yes Hamas is doing bad things and should be held accountable in some way, just like Ukraine to my eyes. But still, for me it remains obvious who kills more, who steals more, who oppresses more)

I think there’s some point in exaggerating things where it changes the meaning of exaggeration. At first this cartoon seemed to me like a satire of conservatives, mocking their exaggeration by exaggerating it even more. Imo the problem with this being “right wing humor” is not that right winger actively believe what it depicts, but rather that they do not perceive how it’s so enormously stupid that it even ridicules right wing ideas. (Because here, you’re like “hey, leftist harassing their child like right wingers do is so absurd and implausible, haha”). Of course they could be very self-aware to the point that they could laugh at their own ideas, but i sincerely doubt there are much people able to do that in any political spectrum.

Do we really know ? Maybe they believe in our gods ? Maybe they believe in their god, and it’s the true one ?

Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that “There is no practical difference” between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3

An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.

This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.

I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it’s okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as “There is no practical difference”, it makes the whole thing ridiculous.

In the end, saying there is only “one viable […] party”, and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single “viable” party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?

I’m not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I’m not entirely sure of what i’m saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don’t know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

So first “professional” photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part “new” customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

So at first, they did not really stole painters’ jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

At that point, some of the painter’s client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn’t “dry” (don’t know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).