3 ms·

> other words if you move super far to the left, do you end up wrapping back around on the right wing? > That’s how the Proud Boys were created - as a response

> other words if you move super far to the left, do you end up wrapping back around on the right wing? > That’s how the Proud Boys were created - as a response to Antifa violence. You quoted something talking about wrapping around. However you talked about being reactionary. Being reactionary isn’t wrapping around any more. It goes one way since the left and right wing paradigms were established in the 1700s (or since power/hierarchies first formed between people). Reactionary is reacting to power and tradition. Which is what antifa is. However it’s not what Proud Boys are. It’s a negative thing aka reactionary create a powerful reaction or response to a leftist decentralized minor movement. I have studied political science and helped on a paper on reactionaries so I got carried away assuming you meant reactionaries can go from far left to far right or even talking about reactionaries. Also I assumed you were talking politically in a political discussion. > Sometimes things have a meaning that goes beyond how they would like to be perceived. And sometimes they don’t have meaning beyond. The example you gave is correct, yes. Also what does antifa mean beyond anti fascist and what I described above? — > Also perhaps I’m not as knowledgeable? How is it wrapping around if different people are reacting. Antifa is about anti fascism. It isn’t about being far left. Antifa isn’t only anarchist or communist. You didn’t respond to any of this. I wrote 3 lines about antifa. You responded to one. I also specifically asked: > …How is it wrapping My entire issue and explanation was about the way you wrote what you wrote. Too much vagueness when responding to wrapping around being the discussion. While you didn’t respond to any questions or concerns. I have revolutionary optimistic however so I still give you the respect of a full laid out response.

nailer 3y ago
Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise. You don’t need to ask me what antifa is beyond ‘fighting fascism’. You know that too. Stop pretending you don’t or that you’re being respectful, it’s very clear you’re not. You understand the DPRK analogy. You know who antifa is. You’re too intelligent not to. This is “negative”, or as normal people would put it, bad. If you think using words like “negative” makes for intelligent discourse, you’re not correct. Likewise mentioning your ‘studies’ is still the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy. Honestly judging by ‘studies’ (not degree) and ‘I have revolutionary optimism’ I feel like you’re in high school. There’s a great chrome extension that lets you block people on hacker news. You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  > Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Who is saying otherwise?? are you equating me with Antifa or something? You keep pretending I believe I’m so smart. I don’t think I am. I believe I’m a lumpenprole. I know what I know. Nothing more I don’t know what you keep saying about me. Do you enjoy appealing to the status quo or centrism or moderation or civility? So like I was saying to my audience: Some people don’t understand what reactionary means…some people think communism isn’t reactionary. Then again those people typically don’t know what communism is. Nor socialism. Usually they don’t have much education outside the Global North or other privileges. The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority. I’m asking others to be at my level and understand what words mean. So I don’t have to talk down to them. Alas, on you go. Also fallacies are a fallacy. It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie. > You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak. We are all cliches, comrade.
  - nailer 3y ago
    > Who is saying otherwise? You are. You are pretending that one group of violent morons you like is not reactionary, and the other group of violent morons you dislike are reactionary. The definition of reactionary is at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/reactionary https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ... > Are you equating me with Antifa Yes. > The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority. You write in pseudo-academic speak and mention your "studies" > So like I was saying to my audience This conversation is from two days ago. I'm your only audience. > It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie. I'm not sure why you equate non-extremism with "techbro" or "VC bro". > petit bourgeoisie (emoji trash can icon) > Also fallacies are a fallacy. God. I fear for the future. Anyway, apparently I'd uninstalled this https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-blocklist/cgphkkepnnepcjnjgboihccobkjoecoc https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-blocklist/cgphk... but congrats on getting me to reconfigure it.

nailer 3y ago

Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise. You don’t need to ask me what antifa is beyond ‘fighting fascism’. You know that too. Stop pretending you don’t or that you’re being respectful, it’s very clear you’re not. You understand the DPRK analogy. You know who antifa is. You’re too intelligent not to. This is “negative”, or as normal people would put it, bad. If you think using words like “negative” makes for intelligent discourse, you’re not correct. Likewise mentioning your ‘studies’ is still the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy. Honestly judging by ‘studies’ (not degree) and ‘I have revolutionary optimism’ I feel like you’re in high school. There’s a great chrome extension that lets you block people on hacker news. You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak.

skinnymuch 3y ago
> Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Who is saying otherwise?? are you equating me with Antifa or something? You keep pretending I believe I’m so smart. I don’t think I am. I believe I’m a lumpenprole. I know what I know. Nothing more I don’t know what you keep saying about me. Do you enjoy appealing to the status quo or centrism or moderation or civility? So like I was saying to my audience: Some people don’t understand what reactionary means…some people think communism isn’t reactionary. Then again those people typically don’t know what communism is. Nor socialism. Usually they don’t have much education outside the Global North or other privileges. The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority. I’m asking others to be at my level and understand what words mean. So I don’t have to talk down to them. Alas, on you go. Also fallacies are a fallacy. It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie. > You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak. We are all cliches, comrade.
- nailer 3y ago
  > Who is saying otherwise? You are. You are pretending that one group of violent morons you like is not reactionary, and the other group of violent morons you dislike are reactionary. The definition of reactionary is at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/reactionary https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ... > Are you equating me with Antifa Yes. > The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority. You write in pseudo-academic speak and mention your "studies" > So like I was saying to my audience This conversation is from two days ago. I'm your only audience. > It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie. I'm not sure why you equate non-extremism with "techbro" or "VC bro". > petit bourgeoisie (emoji trash can icon) > Also fallacies are a fallacy. God. I fear for the future. Anyway, apparently I'd uninstalled this https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-blocklist/cgphkkepnnepcjnjgboihccobkjoecoc https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-blocklist/cgphk... but congrats on getting me to reconfigure it.