2 ms·

> You're not supposed to adopt it as your real, actual ideology lol. Is this a joke? It's called "fatal strategies". See philosopher Rick Roderick [0,1] or r

> You're not supposed to adopt it as your real, actual ideology lol. Is this a joke? It's called "fatal strategies". See philosopher Rick Roderick [0,1] or read the less accessible original from Jean Baudrillard [2,3] Example (Roderick's): Coordinate to conspicuously not protest or vote on something that is objectively outrageous. The tyrants will be forced to stuff ballots with fake opposition so as not to make corruption obvious. For example 100% election victory by North Korean dictator etc. Another example: Gay, queer culture adopting those words with pride and wearing them as a "weaponised" badge of honour. Embracing being a Luddite is a way to defuse and neutralise the term. It's a bit of a "verbal judo" move. If you call me a "Luddite" (I'm a rationally sceptical computer scientist who thinks worship of technology is cultist) then I can either: - take the offence and get into a protracted argument about how the Luddites were really this or that... - say "Sure I am a Luddite". So what...? The latter does a lot more subtle work against the known disingenuous interlocutor. It reveals absurdity. It subtracts power from the term. It asks the opponent to show she actually _knows_ what a Luddite is. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c [1] http://rickroderick.org/308-baudrillard-fatal-strategies-1993/ http://rickroderick.org/308-baudrillard-fatal-strategies-199... [2] https://archive.org/details/baudrillard-fatal-strategies https://archive.org/details/baudrillard-fatal-strategies [3] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780936756509/fatal-strategies/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780936756509/fatal-strategies/

nickelpro 3y ago
Sure, as a debate strategy doing the "Yes" meme is interesting, but only if you mean to gain something by it. When the Republicans call Bernie a socialist, and Bernie says, "yes, and?" that's because Bernie is a socialist, and he's defusing the nature of the charge. Socialism is a valid, defensible position. Being gay is valid. Opposing a North Korean dictatorship is valid. If I call you a luddite, and you say "yes", then I say "great you're a crazy person, bring in the men with the white coats." You didn't win anything, luddism isn't defensible. Arguing that we should regress to a agrarian society with a "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" isn't sane or defensible or interesting, it's just crazy person talk.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  By responding with: > it's just crazy person talk you've absolutely fallen into the hole and discredited yourself. You've unashamedly revealed a lack of understanding and demonstrated extraordinary inflexibility and lack of curiosity at the same time. You've basically said "Indeed, I am a disingenuous interlocutor" You see, it's a powerful move :)
  - nickelpro 3y ago
    It's not interesting! If you argue I should light my pants on fire, or shoot myself out of a canon, or dunk my head in tar bucket, what am I supposed to respond with? "That's nuts!" It's not a lack of curiosity, the position the opponent is arguing doesn't have legs and that's readily apparent. "Renounce your sinful ways of sewing machines and egg beaters! RETVRN TO TRADITION!" Like, what? That doesn't deserve a dignified response, there's no argument there. If anything, engaging grants it a kind of credibility that is more harmful than just saying "Move along sweetie, leave the crazy man be".
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > leave the crazy man be I'm gonna take your advice right there.

nickelpro 3y ago

Sure, as a debate strategy doing the "Yes" meme is interesting, but only if you mean to gain something by it. When the Republicans call Bernie a socialist, and Bernie says, "yes, and?" that's because Bernie is a socialist, and he's defusing the nature of the charge. Socialism is a valid, defensible position. Being gay is valid. Opposing a North Korean dictatorship is valid. If I call you a luddite, and you say "yes", then I say "great you're a crazy person, bring in the men with the white coats." You didn't win anything, luddism isn't defensible. Arguing that we should regress to a agrarian society with a "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" isn't sane or defensible or interesting, it's just crazy person talk.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
By responding with: > it's just crazy person talk you've absolutely fallen into the hole and discredited yourself. You've unashamedly revealed a lack of understanding and demonstrated extraordinary inflexibility and lack of curiosity at the same time. You've basically said "Indeed, I am a disingenuous interlocutor" You see, it's a powerful move :)
- nickelpro 3y ago
  It's not interesting! If you argue I should light my pants on fire, or shoot myself out of a canon, or dunk my head in tar bucket, what am I supposed to respond with? "That's nuts!" It's not a lack of curiosity, the position the opponent is arguing doesn't have legs and that's readily apparent. "Renounce your sinful ways of sewing machines and egg beaters! RETVRN TO TRADITION!" Like, what? That doesn't deserve a dignified response, there's no argument there. If anything, engaging grants it a kind of credibility that is more harmful than just saying "Move along sweetie, leave the crazy man be".
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > leave the crazy man be I'm gonna take your advice right there.