3 ms·

The Tyranny of Tyranny (2005)

22 points by tikhonj 13y ago

lukifer 13y ago
I once heard the idea that marijuana is a more insidious drug than heroin; a junkie knows that they're addicted, while a pothead can more easily convince themselves that it's "only pot". The former might seek help, but the latter seldom does. Similarly, I don't think anyone contends that the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" is morally or functionally equivalent to real-deal tyranny, whether in the context of patriarchy, corporate politics, or corrupt governments. Rather, unstructured tyranny is simply more subtle and insidious; there are no votes, titles or edicts, and yet there are still ongoing struggles for social capital, perception and political will. It's endemic to the human animal. Obviously, office politics is vastly superior to violent oppression. But we shouldn't succumb to the fantasy that casting down hierarchies is going to magically end the struggle for power; for better or worse, it merely sends that struggle underground.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jonrimmer 13y ago
"Men tend to organise the way they fuck - one big rush and then that "wham, slam, thank you maam", as it were. Women should be building our movement the way we make love - gradually, with sustained involvement, limitless endurance - and of course, multiple orgasms." I reached this bit and gave up.
- Yetanfou 13y ago
  If the original statement was made by a man it would be ground enough for another diatribe against the X-deficient gender, clearly hell-bent on diminishing the other gender's capacities. It is as if history has made a full cycle and we'll soon be back in the 60's - cold war included. Panem et circenses for the masses, I assume?
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  The entire article is a bunch of moonbattery. Such a failed and vapid critique of the original.
com2kid 13y ago
Oddly enough the author brings up some good points, but wow, 500 words where 1 would do. Various bits that stereotype males. The ideals[0] of equality state that every person is an individual unto themselves, and should be evaluated and communicated with as such. Creating a group to stereotype by focusing on a singular attribute is foolish at best, and dangerous at worst. All that said, some good points about the coopting of sub-culture and the problems with men being disallowed to express their feelings contributing to some social ills. The author also uses the phrase "women's culture", which as a believed in transhumanist philosophies I question. Again, it is creating a hard dividing line based upon some physical characteristic, physical characteristics that that hopefully one day will be as fluid as code. [0] And yes, needless to say, this goes both ways.

22 points by tikhonj 13y ago

I once heard the idea that marijuana is a more insidious drug than heroin; a junkie knows that they're addicted, while a pothead can more easily convince themselves that it's "only pot". The former might seek help, but the latter seldom does. Similarly, I don't think anyone contends that the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" is morally or functionally equivalent to real-deal tyranny, whether in the context of patriarchy, corporate politics, or corrupt governments. Rather, unstructured tyranny is simply more subtle and insidious; there are no votes, titles or edicts, and yet there are still ongoing struggles for social capital, perception and political will. It's endemic to the human animal. Obviously, office politics is vastly superior to violent oppression. But we shouldn't succumb to the fantasy that casting down hierarchies is going to magically end the struggle for power; for better or worse, it merely sends that struggle underground.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jonrimmer 13y ago

"Men tend to organise the way they fuck - one big rush and then that "wham, slam, thank you maam", as it were. Women should be building our movement the way we make love - gradually, with sustained involvement, limitless endurance - and of course, multiple orgasms." I reached this bit and gave up.

Yetanfou 13y ago
If the original statement was made by a man it would be ground enough for another diatribe against the X-deficient gender, clearly hell-bent on diminishing the other gender's capacities. It is as if history has made a full cycle and we'll soon be back in the 60's - cold war included. Panem et circenses for the masses, I assume?
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
The entire article is a bunch of moonbattery. Such a failed and vapid critique of the original.

com2kid 13y ago

Oddly enough the author brings up some good points, but wow, 500 words where 1 would do. Various bits that stereotype males. The ideals[0] of equality state that every person is an individual unto themselves, and should be evaluated and communicated with as such. Creating a group to stereotype by focusing on a singular attribute is foolish at best, and dangerous at worst. All that said, some good points about the coopting of sub-culture and the problems with men being disallowed to express their feelings contributing to some social ills. The author also uses the phrase "women's culture", which as a believed in transhumanist philosophies I question. Again, it is creating a hard dividing line based upon some physical characteristic, physical characteristics that that hopefully one day will be as fluid as code. [0] And yes, needless to say, this goes both ways.