5 ms·

>Would it not be better to work towards nobody feeling such fear? But that isn't the hypothetical. Do you understand the concept? Certainly if I had a faeries

>Would it not be better to work towards nobody feeling such fear? But that isn't the hypothetical. Do you understand the concept? Certainly if I had a faeries & unicorns switch I'd hit that as well, but we don't always have the options we'd like. In the meantime, if it's possible to make fascist programmers afraid for their careers, that's great for me. It means fascist movements are disrupted before they can even form. God knows leftists have been afraid for long enough.

mindslight 11y ago
You came up with that specific hypothetical and it inherently carries your framework. It is set up as a zero sum interaction where everyone needs to be brought down rather than lifted up. But fighting injustice with more injustice is a race to the bottom. By your usage, I presume you're using definition #1 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist even though you are not capitalizing it. If it is possible to make Fascist programmers afraid for their careers, then Fascists cannot possibly wield much power. On the other hand, the results of mob justice look an awful lot like a distributed implementation of fascism definition #2 - how is it not appropriate to describe, for example, a summary firing for political views as such?
- sdfghjkl34567 11y ago
  Dictionaries are descriptions, not proscriptions, of words. I'm not "using" any definition of fascism other than the one I've built up in my own mind based on my own lived experiences. I'm not going to be questioned on a dictionary. It is true that all exercises of political power are at the end of the day coercive. My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day. The hypothetical I came up with is one where it's easier to attack an existing system than to create new and liberatory systems. This is the same as reality. It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference than it would be to get everyone at that conference to come to an appropriate understanding of feminist and anti-racist thought and praxis. There are certainly people involved in education, propaganda, and outreach, but this is by nature a much slower process and one that will not bear fruit in any reasonable time span. It is certainly not fast enough to counteract things like fascists at conferences, so we shut down the fascists. I also obviously disagree as to whether denying a fascist the ability to spread fascism is injustice, or more broadly, whether attacking the oppressor classes and limiting their ability to oppress is somehow unjust. But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice." Certainly the world is not a just place, and I question whether the concept of justice as communicated by oppressor classes is something we need to bring with us into the future. Finally >distributed implementation of fascism Do you notice the contradiction?
  - amcastillo 11y ago
    >Do you notice the contradiction? No. Distributivism comes to mind.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    If your definition differs, please describe it. Sharing definitions is necessary to communicate, as opposed to simply lobbing feels back and forth. > My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day. So in the mean time, you switch to maximizing political power? Why exactly do you think this would end any differently than it has in the past - simply empowering new autocrats borne by new religions? > But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice." How can you propose to have a society without justice? When people feel wronged, their desire is to get greater revenge. Without moderating this force, feuds grow ever larger. It seems as if you're envisioning a magic society where everybody just "gets it" and nobody transgresses against one another. And since you can never have that (there will always be differences of opinion), you take solace in mob destruction but yet still tell yourself you're fighting the good fight. >> distributed implementation of fascism > Do you notice the contradiction? Not at all. The result is the same for those on the receiving end. (and for your inevitable thought of 'well they deserve it' - that's exactly the position of the oppressors you're fighting against. good job!)
  - nkurz 11y ago
    It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"? Is the difference relevant? I think Moldbug views himself as anti-fascist, and argues that Fascism and Communism are alternative undesirable endgames for democracy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle-in-20th-century-fascism-and.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle... And I'm not sure whether one should equate Moldbug with Yarvin. Is the blogger a pseudonym, a construct, a caricature, or an alter-ego? Should a comedian be equated with their on-stage persona? An actor with the character they play? An author with their protagonist? I (truly) appreciate the insight your earlier comments provide.
anon_adderlan 11y ago
> In the meantime, if it's possible to make fascist programmers afraid for their careers, that's great for me. It means fascist movements are disrupted before they can even form. God knows leftists have been afraid for long enough. Disrupting fascist movements sounds like a great idea, but is that really your intent? > But if I could flip a switch and make every man feel the persistent, gnawing fear that a woman has of men, I would in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even consider whether the consequences were strategic, I would just do it. Because it seems your intent is to make others as afraid as you are regardless of the consequences. Unless it's not, in which case things would probably be a lot more clear if you stopped flip flopping and refusing to define the words you use.

mindslight 11y ago

You came up with that specific hypothetical and it inherently carries your framework. It is set up as a zero sum interaction where everyone needs to be brought down rather than lifted up. But fighting injustice with more injustice is a race to the bottom. By your usage, I presume you're using definition #1 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist even though you are not capitalizing it. If it is possible to make Fascist programmers afraid for their careers, then Fascists cannot possibly wield much power. On the other hand, the results of mob justice look an awful lot like a distributed implementation of fascism definition #2 - how is it not appropriate to describe, for example, a summary firing for political views as such?

sdfghjkl34567 11y ago
Dictionaries are descriptions, not proscriptions, of words. I'm not "using" any definition of fascism other than the one I've built up in my own mind based on my own lived experiences. I'm not going to be questioned on a dictionary. It is true that all exercises of political power are at the end of the day coercive. My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day. The hypothetical I came up with is one where it's easier to attack an existing system than to create new and liberatory systems. This is the same as reality. It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference than it would be to get everyone at that conference to come to an appropriate understanding of feminist and anti-racist thought and praxis. There are certainly people involved in education, propaganda, and outreach, but this is by nature a much slower process and one that will not bear fruit in any reasonable time span. It is certainly not fast enough to counteract things like fascists at conferences, so we shut down the fascists. I also obviously disagree as to whether denying a fascist the ability to spread fascism is injustice, or more broadly, whether attacking the oppressor classes and limiting their ability to oppress is somehow unjust. But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice." Certainly the world is not a just place, and I question whether the concept of justice as communicated by oppressor classes is something we need to bring with us into the future. Finally >distributed implementation of fascism Do you notice the contradiction?
- amcastillo 11y ago
  >Do you notice the contradiction? No. Distributivism comes to mind.
- mindslight 11y ago
  If your definition differs, please describe it. Sharing definitions is necessary to communicate, as opposed to simply lobbing feels back and forth. > My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day. So in the mean time, you switch to maximizing political power? Why exactly do you think this would end any differently than it has in the past - simply empowering new autocrats borne by new religions? > But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice." How can you propose to have a society without justice? When people feel wronged, their desire is to get greater revenge. Without moderating this force, feuds grow ever larger. It seems as if you're envisioning a magic society where everybody just "gets it" and nobody transgresses against one another. And since you can never have that (there will always be differences of opinion), you take solace in mob destruction but yet still tell yourself you're fighting the good fight. >> distributed implementation of fascism > Do you notice the contradiction? Not at all. The result is the same for those on the receiving end. (and for your inevitable thought of 'well they deserve it' - that's exactly the position of the oppressors you're fighting against. good job!)
- nkurz 11y ago
  It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"? Is the difference relevant? I think Moldbug views himself as anti-fascist, and argues that Fascism and Communism are alternative undesirable endgames for democracy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle-in-20th-century-fascism-and.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle... And I'm not sure whether one should equate Moldbug with Yarvin. Is the blogger a pseudonym, a construct, a caricature, or an alter-ego? Should a comedian be equated with their on-stage persona? An actor with the character they play? An author with their protagonist? I (truly) appreciate the insight your earlier comments provide.

anon_adderlan 11y ago

> In the meantime, if it's possible to make fascist programmers afraid for their careers, that's great for me. It means fascist movements are disrupted before they can even form. God knows leftists have been afraid for long enough. Disrupting fascist movements sounds like a great idea, but is that really your intent? > But if I could flip a switch and make every man feel the persistent, gnawing fear that a woman has of men, I would in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even consider whether the consequences were strategic, I would just do it. Because it seems your intent is to make others as afraid as you are regardless of the consequences. Unless it's not, in which case things would probably be a lot more clear if you stopped flip flopping and refusing to define the words you use.