3 ms·

The parent brought up a valid point, that organizing can be done without traditional union bureaucracy behind it - and perhaps suggesting sometimes this is a be

The parent brought up a valid point, that organizing can be done without traditional union bureaucracy behind it - and perhaps suggesting sometimes this is a better approach. Then you responded with a completely different set of points attacking the parent poster on completely unrelated topics that you somehow equated to what the parent said. If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention.

jahaja 7y ago
> If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention. This is a very ahistorical take. Tone policing and "moderation in discourse" has a strong connection to the will to maintain status quo. Radical discourse, direct action and even an unpleasant tone have however a rich history of change, both positive and negative.
- ben_jones 7y ago
  I agree and would point out that my comment does not contradict yours. Respectful and rational discourse doesn’t mean to sit idle while your talked over, rather it means you respect your enemies strengths and rationalize their weaknesses in order to take a position which best supports your cause.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    What do you mean 'rationalize their weaknesses'? I ask because it sounds like you're propounding a 'lose-lose' strategy.
- dictum 7y ago
  It all depends on how an individual feels about the status quo. A. You can be moderate because you believe moderate actions will bring about radical change, or B. You can be a moderate because you believe things are good to some degree as they are, and any actions should result in moderate changes. I'm inclined to believe the calls to moderate discourse come from the latter group. "Rational discourse" stands in opposition to "irrational discourse", with implied irrational demands. In other words, if you can't see why group X would want something, you won't see anything group X does to get that as rational.
revscat 7y ago
Bollocks. Positive change comes about from those who make it, not from those who sit on the sidelines and discuss it. Those in power — from Trump to Putin to Boris Johnson to Murdoch to McConnell to Duerte and beyond — all share the common characteristic that truth is what they say it is. They’re not just uninterested in respect or “rational discourse,” they know that lazy allegiance to them are a weakness and use it to their advantage. They understand that the notion of a “marketplace of ideas” is anachronistic, and use modern marketing techniques and sociology to influence public opinion to their gain, preying upon the inherent weaknesses of the primate brain. So go ahead. You tell me how seizing the reigns of power by force in order you prevent climate catastrophe is a bad thing. Outside the rarified realms of our own minds, rational discourse really doesn’t exist, and this is doubly true when it comes to politics and power. Humanity will not survive the climate apocalypse because there is a strong argument to be made. It will only survive if direct, and likely violent, actions are undertaken.
- ben_jones 7y ago
  The very country we (I’m assuming you’re American apologies if not) are sitting in was founded by a group of, admittedly rich old white men, coming together and convincing their oppositions to not just go to war against the greatest power of their time, but afterwards to come together as a single unified country through a large number of compromises. You were quick to list the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you know off hand, but for every example you listed there is someone like Merkel, Obama, etc. on the other side. It comes down to both our ideologies being wrong. No you can’t talk your way through everything and no you can’t fight your way through everything either. You have to wade through the muck in the middle, and because that muck isn’t sexy very few people are actually willing to do it.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    The propensity of Americans for selective amnesia to the fate of the Native Americans during those years of "compromise" is truly vile.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    This seems like a self-defeating argument - why didn't the American revolutionaries just hug it out with King George? You take the fact of their going to war as a given, like the weather, then turn around and pour scorn on grandparent posters' firm opposition to autocracy and level of knowledge ('the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you know off hand'). You seem to be characterizing ideologies as fight everything out vs talk everything out, and then saying that centrism is the 'muck in the middle' where compromises are brokered. Why, then would you invalidate the whole concept of opposition and dismiss them as ignorant?

jahaja 7y ago

> If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention. This is a very ahistorical take. Tone policing and "moderation in discourse" has a strong connection to the will to maintain status quo. Radical discourse, direct action and even an unpleasant tone have however a rich history of change, both positive and negative.

ben_jones 7y ago
I agree and would point out that my comment does not contradict yours. Respectful and rational discourse doesn’t mean to sit idle while your talked over, rather it means you respect your enemies strengths and rationalize their weaknesses in order to take a position which best supports your cause.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  What do you mean 'rationalize their weaknesses'? I ask because it sounds like you're propounding a 'lose-lose' strategy.
dictum 7y ago
It all depends on how an individual feels about the status quo. A. You can be moderate because you believe moderate actions will bring about radical change, or B. You can be a moderate because you believe things are good to some degree as they are, and any actions should result in moderate changes. I'm inclined to believe the calls to moderate discourse come from the latter group. "Rational discourse" stands in opposition to "irrational discourse", with implied irrational demands. In other words, if you can't see why group X would want something, you won't see anything group X does to get that as rational.

revscat 7y ago

Bollocks. Positive change comes about from those who make it, not from those who sit on the sidelines and discuss it. Those in power — from Trump to Putin to Boris Johnson to Murdoch to McConnell to Duerte and beyond — all share the common characteristic that truth is what they say it is. They’re not just uninterested in respect or “rational discourse,” they know that lazy allegiance to them are a weakness and use it to their advantage. They understand that the notion of a “marketplace of ideas” is anachronistic, and use modern marketing techniques and sociology to influence public opinion to their gain, preying upon the inherent weaknesses of the primate brain. So go ahead. You tell me how seizing the reigns of power by force in order you prevent climate catastrophe is a bad thing. Outside the rarified realms of our own minds, rational discourse really doesn’t exist, and this is doubly true when it comes to politics and power. Humanity will not survive the climate apocalypse because there is a strong argument to be made. It will only survive if direct, and likely violent, actions are undertaken.

ben_jones 7y ago
The very country we (I’m assuming you’re American apologies if not) are sitting in was founded by a group of, admittedly rich old white men, coming together and convincing their oppositions to not just go to war against the greatest power of their time, but afterwards to come together as a single unified country through a large number of compromises. You were quick to list the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you know off hand, but for every example you listed there is someone like Merkel, Obama, etc. on the other side. It comes down to both our ideologies being wrong. No you can’t talk your way through everything and no you can’t fight your way through everything either. You have to wade through the muck in the middle, and because that muck isn’t sexy very few people are actually willing to do it.
- jahaja 7y ago
  The propensity of Americans for selective amnesia to the fate of the Native Americans during those years of "compromise" is truly vile.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  This seems like a self-defeating argument - why didn't the American revolutionaries just hug it out with King George? You take the fact of their going to war as a given, like the weather, then turn around and pour scorn on grandparent posters' firm opposition to autocracy and level of knowledge ('the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you know off hand'). You seem to be characterizing ideologies as fight everything out vs talk everything out, and then saying that centrism is the 'muck in the middle' where compromises are brokered. Why, then would you invalidate the whole concept of opposition and dismiss them as ignorant?