4 ms·

People keep telling me to watch videos like this, and it never resolves the contradiction. I can't watch them all. However, the interesting thing is that you c

by javert 13y ago

People keep telling me to watch videos like this, and it never resolves the contradiction. I can't watch them all. However, the interesting thing is that you can't (or haven't) pointed out any contradiction in what I said. If what I said is wrong, you should be able to correct me quite easily.

SwellJoe 13y ago
I'm not telling you to watch the video. I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism, you should probably not feel empowered to speak so confidently on what it means or its value. The Dunning-Kruger effect may be worth reading about, in this instance. Your lack of knowledge seems to be leading you to a false sense of confidence in your words and beliefs. I wasn't looking to argue with you the merits of anarchism vs. whatever you believe is more correct. I was, instead, looking to point out that you have a level of ignorance about anarchism (not even knowing what the word means) that should preclude you from speaking about it, except in the form of questions. I believe this sort of approach applies to any subject, not just anarchism. I don't find your dismissive tone conducive to the level of discussion I expect from HN. I want to encourage you to be a better contributor to HN, not convince you to be an anarchist.
- javert 13y ago
  If you go back and look at my comment history, I think you will see that I engage with people in a thorough, honest, and often self-critical way. I don't think your Dunning-Kruger idea is actually plausible. Are you thinking of that based on this one post, or do you remember me from other discussions? Anyway, I do make pithy comments that are not intellectually thorough from time to time. And if you were to look at my post history, I'm sure you'd find some things that I wouldn't be proud of. But in general, I don't try to "win" arguments; I try to learn, and I try to help others learn, which requires connecting to their current context of knowledge, not just making hand-wavy arguments. > I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism The word means "without power" or "without government." So I'm not sure why you say I misunderstand it. That said, I do think many "anarchists" actually mean something else. For instance, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong--I'm not at all certain), Chomsky is actually advocating devolved communalism, which is a form of coercive government. For some reason, he wants to call that "anarchism." I want to call him on that. I don't think it's right to take the word "anarchism" and have it mean local communalistic government. Maybe when you say I don't understand "anarchism," it's because I interpret it to mean "without power," and you interpret it to mean some kind of devolved communalism. I have talked to anarcho-syndicalists and they claim that there is no government and no force. Oh, except yes, the syndicate exercises police power and taxes people and decides on wealth distribution. And if you don't like the syndicate, you can go join a new one. Well, guess what? That is government. It is not anarchy, except if "anarchy" does not mean what its Greek root words mean. I agree with "anarchy" as anarcho-capitalists describe it, but I just don't think it would be stable for more than 5 minutes. That is precisely the thing I was pointing out in my comment.

by javert 13y ago

SwellJoe 13y ago

I'm not telling you to watch the video. I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism, you should probably not feel empowered to speak so confidently on what it means or its value. The Dunning-Kruger effect may be worth reading about, in this instance. Your lack of knowledge seems to be leading you to a false sense of confidence in your words and beliefs. I wasn't looking to argue with you the merits of anarchism vs. whatever you believe is more correct. I was, instead, looking to point out that you have a level of ignorance about anarchism (not even knowing what the word means) that should preclude you from speaking about it, except in the form of questions. I believe this sort of approach applies to any subject, not just anarchism. I don't find your dismissive tone conducive to the level of discussion I expect from HN. I want to encourage you to be a better contributor to HN, not convince you to be an anarchist.

javert 13y ago
If you go back and look at my comment history, I think you will see that I engage with people in a thorough, honest, and often self-critical way. I don't think your Dunning-Kruger idea is actually plausible. Are you thinking of that based on this one post, or do you remember me from other discussions? Anyway, I do make pithy comments that are not intellectually thorough from time to time. And if you were to look at my post history, I'm sure you'd find some things that I wouldn't be proud of. But in general, I don't try to "win" arguments; I try to learn, and I try to help others learn, which requires connecting to their current context of knowledge, not just making hand-wavy arguments. > I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism The word means "without power" or "without government." So I'm not sure why you say I misunderstand it. That said, I do think many "anarchists" actually mean something else. For instance, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong--I'm not at all certain), Chomsky is actually advocating devolved communalism, which is a form of coercive government. For some reason, he wants to call that "anarchism." I want to call him on that. I don't think it's right to take the word "anarchism" and have it mean local communalistic government. Maybe when you say I don't understand "anarchism," it's because I interpret it to mean "without power," and you interpret it to mean some kind of devolved communalism. I have talked to anarcho-syndicalists and they claim that there is no government and no force. Oh, except yes, the syndicate exercises police power and taxes people and decides on wealth distribution. And if you don't like the syndicate, you can go join a new one. Well, guess what? That is government. It is not anarchy, except if "anarchy" does not mean what its Greek root words mean. I agree with "anarchy" as anarcho-capitalists describe it, but I just don't think it would be stable for more than 5 minutes. That is precisely the thing I was pointing out in my comment.