3 ms·

> Because such classes did not develop in every area where humans passed through this keyhole? But they did in many areas, and the article specifically states

by dghf 7y ago

> Because such classes did not develop in every area where humans passed through this keyhole? But they did in many areas, and the article specifically states "that's how the world was" (not "that's how some parts of the world were"). > I think the author is using this term in a very broad and perhaps imprecise context compared to you, who appear to be locking it down to a very specific geographical and chronological region. To be fair, that's what the term was invented for. It's not supposed to be just a fancy alternative to "state", "country" or "polity".

KirinDave 7y ago
> To be fair, that's what the term was invented for. It's not supposed to be just a fancy alternative to "state", "country" or "polity". And "literally" isn't supposed to mean figuratively but here we are in a living (but not actually), evolving (but not literally) language trying to understand one another. > But they did in many areas, and the article specifically states "that's how the world was" (not "that's how some parts of the world were"). It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities? Well, then perhaps you are not fully respecting the term either. The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial. Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that?
- dghf 7y ago
  > It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities? I specifically mentioned peasant revolts in general, and Wat Tyler's in particular, in the post you originally replied to. And though I guess armed rebels are technically "pursu[ing] their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area", I admit I didn't think that's what the author had in mind. > The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial. (1) Is that really the author's central point? I totally didn't get that. (2) Where did I say that organized societies didn't exist before such technology? > Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that? I'm here to argue that ahistorical assertions are neither helpful nor convincing.

by dghf 7y ago

KirinDave 7y ago

> To be fair, that's what the term was invented for. It's not supposed to be just a fancy alternative to "state", "country" or "polity". And "literally" isn't supposed to mean figuratively but here we are in a living (but not actually), evolving (but not literally) language trying to understand one another. > But they did in many areas, and the article specifically states "that's how the world was" (not "that's how some parts of the world were"). It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities? Well, then perhaps you are not fully respecting the term either. The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial. Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that?

dghf 7y ago
> It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities? I specifically mentioned peasant revolts in general, and Wat Tyler's in particular, in the post you originally replied to. And though I guess armed rebels are technically "pursu[ing] their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area", I admit I didn't think that's what the author had in mind. > The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial. (1) Is that really the author's central point? I totally didn't get that. (2) Where did I say that organized societies didn't exist before such technology? > Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that? I'm here to argue that ahistorical assertions are neither helpful nor convincing.