Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

Plebcouncilman

@ Plebcouncilman @sh.itjust.works

Posts
0
Comments
949
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.

    I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Wow you wrote all of that and still failed to leave American politics behind. But even within American politics still did not address what should be the label for people who fit the definition of conservative (gradual change) if conservative now means reactionary. And they absolutely need a label because they are actually the larger faction in American politics, as most people would say that they do not want radical change. Independents then? Are they liberals? Centrists? We need a name to give to this politically significant group.

    But you really just want to win the argument.

    Here you go you win 🏆🎉🥳

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.

    That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeles, but many have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats, but they still exist.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • I’m already skeptical because of the author but I’m willing to give it a read. I do know that Lenin by the end of his life really did not like the state he had built so the ideas must be different than the practice.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Do I need to repeat it again? They are not conservatives, they are reactionaries. Two different things.

    Conservative does not = GOP except as political shorthand. It’s like saying socialist = Democrat. Both parties are coalitions of many different views.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • That’s because they are reactionaries not conservatives.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • That’s exactly what they believe.

    But it’s an inherent issue with democracy, that it only really works if we all have somewhat of a shared view of the world. If the people in a democracy have many different, and opposite views of the world, democracy simply cannot work because we’re not just disagreeing in what the method to reach our goals are, we disagree fundamentally on what our goals are and what the very fabric of our society should look like. That’s why many on the right will say that assimilation is important. And yes that has been co-opted by racists, but originally the idea was that a democracy can only sustain itself if all its members have a shared culture. Pluralism, as has been observed since Plato, only leads to the collapse of a democracy because consensus becomes impossible.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Am I having a fit? It’s just clear we’re not gonna get anywhere, so why continue arguing?

  • Bonk.

    Jump

  • I mean that would be my instinct but what if they have like a pressure point there that requires a specific amount of force that happened to be approximately the same as a light tap?

  • 'Anti-Racist' ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt Laments Rising 'Intermarriage Rates' Among Jews

    Jump

  • That’s exactly my reading of it.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Ah the good old words mean nothing. Ok I guess we’re done here.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • I don’t think it’s a gotcha, mainly because I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass. I’m giving proof of why someone arguing for gradual change is the literal definition of conservative.

  • Bonk.

    Jump

  • Tap it or punch it? I mean there’s a difference in both movements and intensity.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • I am. Shoot.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • It’s not a take if it’s a fact.

    Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, which is a modernizing, antitraditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses resulting from the misuse of social and political power. In The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), the American writer Ambrose Bierce cynically (but not inappropriately) defined the conservative as “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” Conservatism must also be distinguished from the reactionary outlook, which favours the restoration of a previous, and usually outmoded, political or social order.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • That depends on the threshold for harm. But yeah, if you take the maximalist claim that any death or harm direct or indirect is unacceptable, you are basically arguing for no changes in society because we do not know the future and there is always uncertainty.

    Conservative doesn’t mean reactionary, it is what it means now just like liberal now is taken to mean progressive, but that is not the real definition of the word it’s simply how people have been using them as a sort of shorthand.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.

    I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.

  • Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

    Jump

  • What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.