it confuses me why so few people see it that way

Willful ignorance fuelled by religious indoctrination that getting out of your head is immoral.

Indeed, alcohol can be a problematic drug and is much more dangerous than most illicit drugs but do you assume that everyone who has a drink is doing so because they have a drinking problem?

“Increase social service programs so that we address the reason why they’re homeless and doing drugs in the first place.”

Doing drugs doesn’t imply a problem. UNODC estimates that only 10-15% of drug use is problematic. It’s not reasonable to assume that drug use is an escape from problems, any more than drinking alcohol.

4K/UHD discs need to phone home in order to get decryption keys on a per disc basis

Is that true for hardware players? I’ve only seen people talking about software players like Power DVD having to get keys from the Internet.

4k players

Are you talking about software players or 4k decks?

there is simply too much at stake

OUR MONAYS!1!!!

They are both perfectly fine editors but they don’t hold a candle to a proper IDE

I’m not sure what you mean by “proper” in this context. Every IDE I’ve ever used has seemed like a child’s toy compared to Emacs. An annoying child’s toy with cracks and sharp edges.

I also want to play some games that go beyond the production values of SuperTuxKart and Battle for Wesnoth.

Try 0 A.D. or FreeOrion.

Have you considered using GNU Emacs? Or even shudder vim?

There are plenty of free software games available: https://libregamewiki.org/

I want closed source apps

Ewww

Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over.

Pre-civilized societies were small.

The real question isn’t whether bad actors exist. It’s how we choose to deal with them. Do we build systems that make it harder for them to dominate others, or ones that practically roll out the red carpet?

This seems like a misunderstanding to me. The people don’t build systems. The people are subjected to systems built by dominating bad actors.

What should I improve?

Your communication about what you’re selling. You’re selling hosting services. Please make that clear up front.

It’s not like people, especially anarchists, somehow didn’t notice that people can sometimes be awful to each other.

In my experience, many people who follow an ideology or who have some deluded conception of reality or humanity believe that people will cease being awful to each other when some specific better future comes about. Communists with the revolution, Christians with the return of Jesus, deluded “spiritual” people with the New Earth or “new age” people with the Age of Aquarius and even, dare I say, some anarchists with non-hierarchical society.

You came to the anarchist instance to tell people that mutual aid isn’t believable?

No that’s not anything like what I said.

The existence of mutual aid behaviours doesn’t mean much, in any animals but particularly human beings in the context of anarchism. Humans can cooperate when it’s beneficial and also stab each other in the back and step on one another when it’s beneficial. The behaviours aren’t mutually exclusive. Anarchists should expect negative behaviour along with mutual aid.

Other factors of evolution include but are not limited to:

• Lying
• Stabbing people in the back
• Taking credit for other people’s achievements
• Fraud
• Theft
• Rape
• Murder, including patricide, matricide and infanticide

Someone who says the lords name would be upset about “the lords name” specifically.

But it’s not “the lord’s name” because it’s not “the lord”, it’s “their lord”. Why would you include yourself as a subject of Christians’ “lord”?

Wrong sub. Perhaps you want !windows@sopuli.xyz ?

It’s a common thing religious people say

Exactly. How come you’re saying it?

the lords name

I’m not religious

Wut? If you’re not religious, why are you using the phrase “the lords name”?

This is the typical argument of “it can’t exist because it doesn’t exist yet”. It’s facetious.

By the same token, if there’s no practical evidence of prefigurative communities being effective in fostering wider sociopathy-less societies then your/the proposition is solely theoretical and adherence to the ideal is a matter of faith.

By this argument one could argue 500 years ago that liberal democracies are impossible just as well.

Nobody set out with liberal democracies in mind 500 years ago. The societies we have now have evolved very slowly and are a mish-mash of different ideas and influcences, often conflicting, both over time historically and together now in its current state.

I don’t think you have any actual honest interest to understand

I did, I’m just extremely skeptical. I feel I do have a better understanding now though and to be honest, in light of that limited understanding I’m not feeling motivated to seek more.

I’m bowing out now

Fair enough.