Destroy Reality. Create a Multiverse.
MULTIVERSE is a PieFed instance for soulists. Our rules are designed to create a safe space for minorities, including those considered unreal by society. We are also an anarchist instance and do not allow tankie propaganda. We aim for transparent and fair moderation in line with the principles of anarcho-antirealism, and to be fertile ground for discussion of soulist ideology. We also aim to be intuitive to use for new fediverse denizens who don’t care how federation works, and are just interested in the politics. Our manifesto can be found at http://soulism.net/.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
I want an instance that does not ban anyone or any group. I do not want administrators to protect me from others, or to censor me if I disagree with the group.
Because the group is way off base on a lot of shit, you better believe it. If it was not we would not be losing.
We all trust the wrong people, if not the worst people.
Some moderation is important today. I agree with your idealism, but let’s face it. Any unmoderated space would sooner rather than later be run to the ground by a swarm of AI bots psyop agents, spammers and trolls.
Long gone are the days of pristine, unguarded forums.
Not even Nazis or paedophiles?
I do not believe the founding principles of MULTIVERSE are representative of the mainstream left, but you’re welcome to avoid our instance and users if you choose.
I reject directionalism, I do not give a shit what you or anyone else thinks is left or right. Measured from the colon of billionaires the only direction we need to go is straight backwards.
Unilaterally banning groups just echo chambers everyone more, and you give them plenty of ammo constructing insufferable super sensitive overly politically correct charactitures.
I don’t totally get it (other than the anarchism ❤️🖤), but hell yeah more Piefeds!
If you want to learn about soulism, feel free to make a post in the community with any questions. Even if they’re “what the fuck” and “why”, we like those questions.
WTH is a “soulist”?
An anarchist who views natural laws as unjust hierarchies. Most of our community is on Discord, but we have a few mostly abandoned subreddits and some local action groups. Now we also have a federated forum.
So gravity is something you consider unjust?
Yes. Gravity does not ask one’s consent before pulling. If one has arthritis or chronic fatigue, gravity will hurt them. I believe in building technology to challenge the dominance of this law, such as wheelchairs, fitness programs, and science fiction antigravity machines.
Yes. Gravity does not ask one’s consent before pulling.
Lol you lost me here.
What about oxygen? We’re enslaved by it. We can’t escape it. What are you guys doing about it?
Not much. Oxygen is much lower on the list of priorities than capitalism and pluralphobia.
This feels like satire, ngl
I don’t think Gravity is the hierarchy preventing arthritis patients from getting medical care
Interesting. It sounds like soulism is very similar to anarcho-transhumanism, but with a spiritual component, is that correct?
Many soulists believe in two different branches of soulist thought: scientific soulism and spiritual soulism. I disagree, I think magic is a science and spirituality can be a technology. But there are soulists who reject spiritual means of changing our perceptions, and there are spiritual soulists who do not use the scientific method. So to answer your question: sometimes.
What is meant by “natural” laws?
The laws which people believe to be part of reality. Such as gravity, time, human nature, and species.
So you don’t believe that people have a right to not be murdered?
all of these anarchist flavors are a form of relativism where all that matters is people’s individual feelings.
it’s a form of solipsism when you start asking questions about it.
and when you draw it out, it inevitable leads to consequences that totally contradict it’s tenants. but anarchists… don’t do that… they just feel the feelings, man.
anarchism is great if you never think, but some flavors of it regard thinking as an undue burden foist upon people by a unjust society… hence why you are getting these absurd answer about how gravity is unjust and cruel. I suppose they also regard having to eat/drink/breathe as injustices that ‘society’ forces upon us.
My experience with anarchists, limted though it is, their hearts are in the right place, they know what sides they are not on, but do not neccessarily know a lot outside of their doctrine. But they will fight.
So better than most all. Knowing what side you are NOT on is becoming rarer.
most people don’t care about sides. they just care about money.
and rightfully so. your theory or political stance can’t buy you food or a car or other basic necessities.
That is true. They would care about sides if there was a good side that fought against them being taken advantage of. People try to win rural, red areas being conservative light. They need new dealist. Too late now maybe.
they call any new deal type thinking ‘populism’ and lump it in with Trump.
the ‘new deal’ rural areas are getting is shitty Data centers fucking up their landscapes and giving them zero jobs.
I’m not a soulist like the user you replied to, but for another perspective, mine is that rights are imaginary constructs which mean nothing if unenforceable.
People have some rights to not be murdered; that’s not an opinion if we have a compatible definition of ‘rights’, it’s written in law, it’s ingrained into mainstream liberalist social norms and ethics. So the right exists as a social idea which sometimes manifests in real consequences. However:
- I can get murdered by the government or law enforcement who proclaim to enforce my right to not be murdered! It’s a conditional right, not the idealistic universal right it’s often made out to be.
- And there are some people who I wouldn’t really care if they were murdered. I don’t weep for Wnssolᴉuᴉ’s lynching. I don’t mind that Ken McElroy’s murderers weren’t charged. Sometimes we just don’t have the luxury or power to go through the ideal routes of justice. And to be clear I also don’t advocate for murder for a big long list of reasons, many of them are obvious. For example, I think the assassination of Brian Thompson was morally just and cathartic, it stopped an antisocial social murderer who would not have been held accountable by law, and the fear it created may feasibly have saved some lives of UHC customers in the short term, but ultimately I do not advocate for such adventurism as it’s proven historically to do little to create long-term systemic improvements, and can easily go wrong and cause more damage than benefit, as we saw with the “golden age of Propaganda of the Deed”.
Hmm looks like setting local as the default homepage view doesn’t work. I’ll sort that out.
Might it be because we only have two local posts so far?
