3 ms·

I’m definitely not scared about a small subculture of Brooklyn art chicks and permanently online disaffected 20 year old woman. I brought it up because monied i

I’m definitely not scared about a small subculture of Brooklyn art chicks and permanently online disaffected 20 year old woman. I brought it up because monied interests have taken an interest in the aesthetic. The question is, why? Edit responding to your edit: I 100% agree that any extreme is bad. A society with no restrictions would be anarchy (note mores and peer pressure are means of restriction). But in a democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted. Once the structures of power are changed, it’s almost impossible to reverse. Therefore, I believe it is imperative to call out these ideas for what they are. Also I disagree that progressives fall in the same bucket as leftists. All leftists are authoritarian leaning but progressives can be liberal or authoritarian. I don’t think it’s usefully either to endlessly categorize political movements. If you are partial to post-modern thought, you could say categorizing things is a way of exerting power of them. This has clearly been the runbook historically of dismantling the left in America. This is mostly self afflicted due to the tendency of the left to over intellectualize things, but there has been a conscious effort by provocateurs to infiltrate left wing groups and cause discord.

usrn 4y ago
Sorry, I've edited it again (I tend to do that a lot, it's easier than typing everything out only to discover I've used up my post quota for the day.) Liberals are definitely not in the same bucket as leftists, they're arguably just another kind of libertarian. Democracy is another extreme you don't want. Many people have written about how destructive it can be and should definitely be balanced with something slower (in the past this was an aristocracy/monarchy, in the US and Canada you have the Senate.) I really don't think maximizing democracy should be an objective. To respond to your edit: This categorization is a pretty old one that comes from the french revolution. I think it makes empathy easier which makes political ideas much easier to communicate and reason about. Precise definitions and catagories (as long as they're consistent) are not oppression, they're necessary for communication.
dc-programmer 4y ago
We reached the max comment depth. I don’t disagree with your points. One point of clarification is that when I say democracy I mean republican or parliamentarian style government. I sympathize with the critique of democracy. However the failure of more authoritarian systems of governing is and always has been the lack of transparency and trust. In a democratic style of government there’s at least an attempt of oversight. Good luck making a FOIA request to a king or private corporation. Autocrats abuse this flaw to amass power and wealth for themselves at the expense of the population. Democracy is also inextricably tied to civil liberties. Disenfranchised citizens have less recourse when their civil liberties are attacked
- jessaustin 4y ago
  We reached the max comment depth. No, you didn't. HN will sometimes hide the "reply" link, but you can always reply by clicking the "ago" link.
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    “obvious troll” jk, thx for the info
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      You're welcome!
DeathArrow 4y ago
>democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted Are you sure you desire democracy? Because democracy literally means "will of the people" not "will of the elites".
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  1 (biological) person = 1 vote. Unweighted by wealth. Anything less than that is a kleptocracy or a apartheid state, regardless of what the online obscurists will have you believe

usrn 4y ago

Sorry, I've edited it again (I tend to do that a lot, it's easier than typing everything out only to discover I've used up my post quota for the day.) Liberals are definitely not in the same bucket as leftists, they're arguably just another kind of libertarian. Democracy is another extreme you don't want. Many people have written about how destructive it can be and should definitely be balanced with something slower (in the past this was an aristocracy/monarchy, in the US and Canada you have the Senate.) I really don't think maximizing democracy should be an objective. To respond to your edit: This categorization is a pretty old one that comes from the french revolution. I think it makes empathy easier which makes political ideas much easier to communicate and reason about. Precise definitions and catagories (as long as they're consistent) are not oppression, they're necessary for communication.

dc-programmer 4y ago

We reached the max comment depth. I don’t disagree with your points. One point of clarification is that when I say democracy I mean republican or parliamentarian style government. I sympathize with the critique of democracy. However the failure of more authoritarian systems of governing is and always has been the lack of transparency and trust. In a democratic style of government there’s at least an attempt of oversight. Good luck making a FOIA request to a king or private corporation. Autocrats abuse this flaw to amass power and wealth for themselves at the expense of the population. Democracy is also inextricably tied to civil liberties. Disenfranchised citizens have less recourse when their civil liberties are attacked

jessaustin 4y ago
We reached the max comment depth. No, you didn't. HN will sometimes hide the "reply" link, but you can always reply by clicking the "ago" link.
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  “obvious troll” jk, thx for the info
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    You're welcome!

DeathArrow 4y ago

>democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted Are you sure you desire democracy? Because democracy literally means "will of the people" not "will of the elites".

dc-programmer 4y ago
1 (biological) person = 1 vote. Unweighted by wealth. Anything less than that is a kleptocracy or a apartheid state, regardless of what the online obscurists will have you believe