If you consider a mug to consist of two parts, the handle and the cup, the cup has broken into pieces and the handle is holding two of them together. So I think "two pieces held together by the handle" is the most correct way to describe it.

This is why I think it's important to use violence only for self-defence. Our main weapons should be peaceful but if the ruling class refuses to give up power then we will have to use violence to defend ourselves. However it should never be allowed to be the means through which we achieve change, only to protect what we have already achieved.

Eww: https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too

For radicals, fetishizing the guillotine is just like fetishizing the state: it means celebrating an instrument of murder that will always be used chiefly against us.

The worst punishment anyone could inflict on those who govern and police us today would be to compel them to live in a society in which everything they’ve done is regarded as embarrassing—for them to have to sit in assemblies in which no one listens to them, to go on living among us without any special privileges in full awareness of the harm they have done. If we fantasize about anything, let us fantasize about making our movements so strong that we will hardly have to kill anyone to overthrow the state and abolish capitalism. This is more becoming of our dignity as partisans of liberation.

So we repudiate the logic of the guillotine. We don’t want to exterminate our enemies. We don’t think the way to create harmony is to subtract everyone who does not share our ideology from the world. Our vision is a world in which many worlds fit, as Subcomandante Marcos put it—a world in which the only thing that is impossible is to dominate and oppress.

Oh look. An obviously SVG image that's been JPEGed. Let me fix that.

Much better. Licence (as always): CC-0, no rights reserved. Any mistakes are encouragements for you to try and improve it.

Are you fucking KIDDING ME? I linked to crimethink. An anarchist site actively telling and helping people to fight against Flock and ICE:

• https://crimethinc.com/2026/08/17/you-are-under-surveillance-2026-a-sticker
• https://crimethinc.com/2026/07/16/protecting-your-neighbors-by-following-ice-vehicles-a-guide-from-the-bay-area
• https://crimethinc.com/2026/05/07/protecting-our-neighbors-from-ice-a-do-it-yourself-community-defense-skills-workshop-guide
• And there are many more

And you dare say I "sound like a MAGAt". NO I FUCKING DON'T! I'm LITERALLY distributing anarchist propaganda!

But clearly you didn't actually read the post I linked you to because in that case you would have seen exactly why anarchists oppose the guillotine, and why we can't "burn it after" because we would have been on the chopping block.

For radicals, fetishizing the guillotine is just like fetishizing the state: it means celebrating an instrument of murder that will always be used chiefly against us.

It is impossible to make the revolution with the guillotine alone. Revenge is the antechamber of power. Anyone who wants to avenge themselves requires a leader. A leader to take them to victory and restore wounded justice.”

- Alfredo Bonanno, Armed Joy

The guillotine is the law made concrete… It is not neutral and does not permit you to remain neutral. Whoever sees it quakes, mysteriously shaken to the core. All social problems set up their question mark around that blade.

- Victor Hugo, Les Misérables

Have mass killings ever helped us advance our cause? […] If we seek transformation rather than conquest, we ought to appraise our victories according to a different logic than the police and militaries we confront.

When we see ourselves as fighting against specific human beings rather than social phenomena, it becomes more difficult to recognize the ways that we ourselves participate in those phenomena. We externalize the problem as something outside ourselves, personifying it as an enemy that can be sacrificed to symbolically cleanse ourselves. Yet what we do to the worst of us will eventually be done to the rest of us.

Precisely because it is sometimes necessary to employ force in our conflicts with the defenders of the prevailing order, it is especially important that we never lose sight of our aspirations, our compassion, and our optimism. When we are compelled to use coercive force, the only possible justification is that it is a necessary step towards creating a better world for everyone—including our enemies, or at least their children. Otherwise, we risk becoming the next Jacobins, the next defilers of the revolution.

Those last three are taken from my previous comment when this came up: https://anarchist.nexus/post/357494/comment/2040563
Feel free to read my other responses in that thread as well.

And before you dare to claim I'm advocating against fighting:

This is not an argument against the use of force. Rather, it is a question about how to employ it without creating new hierarchies, new forms of systematic oppression. [...] The image of the guillotine is propaganda for the kind of authoritarian organization that can avail itself of that particular tool. Every tool implies the forms of social organization that are necessary to employ it. [...] As a tool, the guillotine takes for granted that it is impossible to transform one’s relations with the enemy, only to abolish them. What’s more, the guillotine assumes that the victim is already completely within the power of the people who employ it.

In the flames where it belongs: https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too

No you're singing it wrong. It goes "so here I am, doing everything I can, holding on to what I am, pretending I'm a superman" /j

I personally like the start of the second verse better: "So here I am, growing older all the time, looking older all the time, feeling younger in my mind."

And I'm grateful for the 1+2 remake introducing me to Zebrahead.

Those regular people aren't here. And If they were what would you want them to see? People arguing over "stealing" and "copyright", completely sidestepping the actual point of the conversation like Mystic was. Or people warning each other over using corporate models and replacing artists.

From now on whenever I make something AI related I'm going to say "Don't use corporate AI. Hire actual artists." As the first line to combat this. Because, as I hope you've seen, arguing on whether or not this is stealing will simply go nowhere.

These models exist, and normal people will see generated content as every other platform is full of it. Allow this one space to be about doing image generation right: "No destroying the planet or replacing humans".

As with consent. I think training falls under fair use. You aren't going to be able to get an exact replica from a model anyway so any output I consider transformative, similarly to how a human brain transforms content (although obviously the internals completely different). For me the argument that you need consent to train a model is the same as arguing you need consent to train yourself, or cover a song, or trace over an image. Yes the transformation is mechanical, but if a human was doing all those calculations by hand it would be considered art, and no-one would question if they had the right.

Slight tangent as you mentioned music. I actually like generated music. Like the sound of it. It's got the vibe of melting a bunch of different songs together to make something completely unoriginal but still different. Real music is obviously superior in every way, but when you want something like that one song that's unlike any other and you just wish it were longer, that's what generated music is for. It can't replace any actual musician but it can provide an interesting listening experience... For like an hour at a time before it becomes grating.
But the point I want to make is that generated music does not sound like music. It's something different. So arguing that it's somehow plagiarising just seems silly to me. The model transformed it. It's not the same, audibly.

If it's artists' livelihoods you care about then you are arguing the wrong point. Copyright is not the thing that gives artists money, getting hired is. The problem is not that someone copied an artists work and used it to generate a different picture in the same style. The problem is the people who use those pictures instead of paying artists. I don't think anyone in this instance would use generated images instead of paying artists if they had that availability. The only claim that this instance is harmful to artists that has any weight is that it normalises generated images, but that's circumstantial at best.

Your problem, that artists aren't being paid, is caused by the people not hiring artists. Not some anarchists using their local models for fun. The theft happens when a would be commission gets generated instead, not when the image is processed into the model.

This is the point that you miss when you equate this and capitalists. Capitalists can afford to pay artists to create the art they want, they're just too greedy to do so.

In all fairness an argument could be made that using generated images feeds the hype capitalists create around "AI". eg. "Look even anarchists are using it". Obviously they completely ignore the anti-capitalist sentiment or the fact that the models were running on local hardware.

However I don't really think this matters, Our corner of the internet is small and no-one is going to subscribe to gemini because they saw some artwork generated here. Although I guess posting "This was made with locally. Fuck Corporations." below every post wouldn't hurt.

If you want to use this here's a slightly fixed and png'd version:

I haven't used any AI. This is traced over the https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/anarchism banner. That banner was generated, like most db0's comms.

But I have wondered about doing this to images generated myself. I think it's an interesting counter-argument to the "AI" hardliners. If I claim no ownership of the generated output or even my own work based on that output is it still stealing? And if the image was generated in a climate-friendly manner, like through AI Horde or Ecosia, is it still problematic?