5 ms·

Meanwhile, history also rewards communities who support and listen to the underserved in order to improve collective wellbeing. You can build a movement based

by jka 5y ago

Meanwhile, history also rewards communities who support and listen to the underserved in order to improve collective wellbeing. You can build a movement based on inclusion.

chippy 5y ago
I agree, you can build a movement based on community and doing things for the love of it. Allowing everyone in comes later and is for mainly for growth and profitability and usually is when we see this earlier community fracturing. That's when these websites grow bigger and bigger and start to monetize because people will not cooperate freely for nothing anymore. Commerce replace community but a community comes first and is rewarded. Commerce rewards also, in more obvious material ways.
- jka 5y ago
  Thanks, that's a good observation of traditional (online?) community evolution. It seems like software could potentially be a little different though, given zero-cost-of-copy, zero-cost-of-communication, and zero barriers (other than social inertia) to learning, inspection, modification and contribution of code. Perhaps sufficiently-sized communities require fragmentation in order to function effectively (it certainly happens within large organizations) - that happens fairly naturally already with software projects too, though, so there may not necessarily be a scalability or community-size limit concern there.
eropple 5y ago
If your movement is "based on inclusion" and the population that you strive to include contains Nazis, then your movement will be a Nazi movement sooner or later. Often sooner. The story of how a bar becomes a Nazi bar applies to any community, not just bars. Karl Popper didn't stutter.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  How is this different than including any other group who by their nature rejects others not in their group? Is the Nazi thing just to shut down any further contemplation?
  - danans 5y ago
    > How is this different than including any other group who by their nature rejects others not in their group? A social group of CPAs, an alumni group of university, and a French expat mom's group are all examples of groups, though exclusive, unlike neo-Nazis, do not reject the equal rights of others to enjoy the same bar. It is an unambiguous goal of neo-Nazis (and their historical antecedents) to claim racially exclusive spaces, whether in bars entire societies. They have an entire rationale for this, connected to the original Nazi concept of Lebensraum ("living space"). They act it out against people of color (and their white friends) by intimidating them bars and restaurants. It's not hard to find someone who has been subject to this. I certainly have. However, they aren't the only group to "claim" spaces exclusively for themselves through intimidation - the KKK, organized crime, and criminally associated biker gangs do it too, so you are right that one shouldn't point fingers exclusively at Nazis. But in the context of bars in particular neo-Nazis are the most widely culturally understood example of this behavior.
- _v7gu 5y ago
  Not that anyone who touts him as an authority has read what he said: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." So you don't even get to be violent with open racists as long as they aren't actively hurting people.
- brigandish 5y ago
  Strangely enough, Germany has had hate speech laws and struggled - to put it mildly - and continues to struggle with National Socialism attracting supporters. Also strangely, the United States has such strong free speech and association protections that Nazis were protected enough to march through Skokie, and yet there has been no such struggle with Naziism - except to join the other Allies in smashing the Reich. Yes, Popper didn't stutter, those who do not reject debate in favour of violence should be tolerated.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > Germany (..) continues to struggle with National Socialism attracting supporters. Correct. But that's because fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism. The State maintains a "social-liberal" republic which is nothing like a democracy but instead a hypocrisy reproducing systems of privileges. We are stuck in a cognitive dissonance where we are told it's all about freedom & equality but all institutions around us do the exact opposite, and in parallel we're conditioned for being docile in the face of authority and extreme injustice. Both these conditions create a perfect ground for fascism to take root. We have to remember fascism was born from "liberal" (= economic injustice) republics of the early 20th century and was based on myths distilled by public school systems and the media. Hitler did not invent racial hierarchies (they were common across all "democracies" of the time) and Mussolini did not invent state planning. > United States has such strong free speech (...) there has been no such struggle with Naziism Because in the US white supremacy is not called nazism, and may be more concerned with black/indigenous/latinx people rather than jews. In both cases, so-called "sexual deviancy" is also of concern to these people. Just because you don't see swastikas everywhere and Hitler is not the most popular figure in the USA doesn't erase the dozens of millions of people enslaved or killed due to their ethnicity, and the existence of white-supremacist discourse and militia across the country.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism Britain and the US were far more capitalist for far longer and haven't had a problem with National Socialism like Germany's.
npteljes 5y ago
Inclusion works to a point, and that point is when some of the included groups begin to exclude the other groups. By which I'm trying to refer to the paradox of tolerance: "[It] states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

by jka 5y ago

Meanwhile, history also rewards communities who support and listen to the underserved in order to improve collective wellbeing. You can build a movement based on inclusion.

chippy 5y ago

I agree, you can build a movement based on community and doing things for the love of it. Allowing everyone in comes later and is for mainly for growth and profitability and usually is when we see this earlier community fracturing. That's when these websites grow bigger and bigger and start to monetize because people will not cooperate freely for nothing anymore. Commerce replace community but a community comes first and is rewarded. Commerce rewards also, in more obvious material ways.

jka 5y ago
Thanks, that's a good observation of traditional (online?) community evolution. It seems like software could potentially be a little different though, given zero-cost-of-copy, zero-cost-of-communication, and zero barriers (other than social inertia) to learning, inspection, modification and contribution of code. Perhaps sufficiently-sized communities require fragmentation in order to function effectively (it certainly happens within large organizations) - that happens fairly naturally already with software projects too, though, so there may not necessarily be a scalability or community-size limit concern there.

eropple 5y ago

If your movement is "based on inclusion" and the population that you strive to include contains Nazis, then your movement will be a Nazi movement sooner or later. Often sooner. The story of how a bar becomes a Nazi bar applies to any community, not just bars. Karl Popper didn't stutter.

jimmygrapes 5y ago
How is this different than including any other group who by their nature rejects others not in their group? Is the Nazi thing just to shut down any further contemplation?
- danans 5y ago
  > How is this different than including any other group who by their nature rejects others not in their group? A social group of CPAs, an alumni group of university, and a French expat mom's group are all examples of groups, though exclusive, unlike neo-Nazis, do not reject the equal rights of others to enjoy the same bar. It is an unambiguous goal of neo-Nazis (and their historical antecedents) to claim racially exclusive spaces, whether in bars entire societies. They have an entire rationale for this, connected to the original Nazi concept of Lebensraum ("living space"). They act it out against people of color (and their white friends) by intimidating them bars and restaurants. It's not hard to find someone who has been subject to this. I certainly have. However, they aren't the only group to "claim" spaces exclusively for themselves through intimidation - the KKK, organized crime, and criminally associated biker gangs do it too, so you are right that one shouldn't point fingers exclusively at Nazis. But in the context of bars in particular neo-Nazis are the most widely culturally understood example of this behavior.
_v7gu 5y ago
Not that anyone who touts him as an authority has read what he said: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." So you don't even get to be violent with open racists as long as they aren't actively hurting people.
brigandish 5y ago
Strangely enough, Germany has had hate speech laws and struggled - to put it mildly - and continues to struggle with National Socialism attracting supporters. Also strangely, the United States has such strong free speech and association protections that Nazis were protected enough to march through Skokie, and yet there has been no such struggle with Naziism - except to join the other Allies in smashing the Reich. Yes, Popper didn't stutter, those who do not reject debate in favour of violence should be tolerated.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > Germany (..) continues to struggle with National Socialism attracting supporters. Correct. But that's because fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism. The State maintains a "social-liberal" republic which is nothing like a democracy but instead a hypocrisy reproducing systems of privileges. We are stuck in a cognitive dissonance where we are told it's all about freedom & equality but all institutions around us do the exact opposite, and in parallel we're conditioned for being docile in the face of authority and extreme injustice. Both these conditions create a perfect ground for fascism to take root. We have to remember fascism was born from "liberal" (= economic injustice) republics of the early 20th century and was based on myths distilled by public school systems and the media. Hitler did not invent racial hierarchies (they were common across all "democracies" of the time) and Mussolini did not invent state planning. > United States has such strong free speech (...) there has been no such struggle with Naziism Because in the US white supremacy is not called nazism, and may be more concerned with black/indigenous/latinx people rather than jews. In both cases, so-called "sexual deviancy" is also of concern to these people. Just because you don't see swastikas everywhere and Hitler is not the most popular figure in the USA doesn't erase the dozens of millions of people enslaved or killed due to their ethnicity, and the existence of white-supremacist discourse and militia across the country.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism Britain and the US were far more capitalist for far longer and haven't had a problem with National Socialism like Germany's.

npteljes 5y ago

Inclusion works to a point, and that point is when some of the included groups begin to exclude the other groups. By which I'm trying to refer to the paradox of tolerance: "[It] states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance