The fact that Republicans wouldn’t do that doesn’t change the fact that there are undecided voters that would do that. If you think non-whites aren’t capable of being as conservative as republicans, you’re going to be disappointed time and time again.
That’s correct - I’m not arguing for a blanket ban on invective, just its widespread and inappropriate use. Persuasive argument has better long-term results than peer pressure.
I would say that is empirically incorrect, at least in our current world. Many activist movements have seen far better results when they forgo reason and started inconveniencing others.
Evaporative cooling is a contributor to people leaving a movement, but empirically people also get drawn to movements and people when they act provocatively. This is a public forum, this conversation is also a play to anonymous lurkers, and I hope there are people who are surprised and intrigued by the notion that it is so natural for children not to defer to parents’ authority that accepting parental abuse is dumb.
Those people that get drawn to a movement are often unaware or disagree with its tenets, sparking more discussion and re-evaluation, re-heating the mixture. If you try to go for mass appeal, people will walk away disillusioned that nobody here seems to actually believe the punk in solarpunk. Similar to how Clinton lost voters by seeming to take politically disgruntled people that voted for Obama for granted.
I disagree that it is abuse, though, and I would not want to abuse people for the sake of popularity or ideological pursuasion. If you’re not arguing for a blanket ban on invectives, then I’m curious what makes you draw the line that this is abusive when other invectives wouldn’t be.
The argument you’re responding to sounds very similar to Bakunin’s […] distinction between types of authority.
This is a quote from another comment by the same OP under this post:
But if people are free to leave a community and suffer no consequences for it, and staying in the community does have a consequence - accepting abusive behavior by other community members, for instance - people will leave. It’s normal, it’s understandable, and it inevitably breaks down communities. And that’s why I don’t think the authors’ understanding of community is at all wrong. In the long run everybody finds themselves in situations where they have to submit to their community’s authority in order to remain in the community. And when people leave instead of submitting, that breaks community, and everyone, especially the children, suffer for it.
It is literally arguing for accepting abusive behavior from group authorities for the sake of group cohesion. That is the sort of authority they want parents to have over children and elders over parents. Accept abuse so you don’t rock the boat. Stay with abusive parents because they deserve to raise you even if they are abusive. Stay with abusive community leaders because the community deserves to persist so it can abuse more people into the future.
That is not Bakunin.
We exclude fascists, but I don’t want to encourage a particular anarchist orthodoxy, or even an anarchist orthodoxy on this instance.
I am not an admin or a mod. Treating my comment like an acceptable part of the discourse does not mean encouraging (a particular) anarchist orthodoxy, as long as similar discourse is accepted from people with different political leanings. I wouldn’t describe myself as orthodox either, I just don’t like abusive relationships. It is not my intention or expectation to scare them off, just to get them to re-evaluate deeply held beliefs.
We’re openly welcoming to liberals here. Good ideas can come from anywhere, and the problems we face are large enough that we need large coalitions to fight them. Practicing disagreement without dissolution means both our ideas become more potent and our movements grow larger.
I honestly blame the current unpopularity of the left (the proper left) as a political movement among the general public on this attitude. Being willing to water down your supposedly deeply held philosophical convictions for the sake of appealing to centrists makes it look like the convictions are just a charade, and that any promise you make, no matter how ideologically driven, can be traded off for just a little more influence. As labor parties in the UK, Netherlands, and elsewhere were happy to demonstrate in 1980-2018.
Disagreement without dissolution can be a useful skill when you’re making practical decisions under time pressure, such as in a coalition government or a friend group deciding what movie to go to. As a user posting here out of my own urge for politically meaningful conversation, I am not under time pressure. If this thread ended, I would find another. I can disagree without dissolution, it’s just not what I’m here for. If you happen to know anywhere that does encourage discussion that seeks to dissolve disagreement, I would love to know about it.
And if you do want this to be a safe haven for liberals, then I wish you luck 7½ years from now when you’re asked to please not say that library economies are a fundamental part of solarpunk because it would scare off moderates and reduce AOC’s chances in the Democratic primaries. Solarpunk is already being co-opted as the new cyberpunk - an aesthetic with a vague ‘rebellious’ tween attitude engaging in ‘green’ consumerism and YIMBY-ing state-subsidized corporate greenwashing with all their might.
You would be right, an openly solarpunk Democratic senator and primary candidate would be very potent and indicate a very large movement compared to what solarpunk is today. And maybe you would have practiced disagreement without dissolution so much that you would even be proud and happy to see the movement grow so far.
I guess the main thing is that if you’re going to argue for something very unpopular, rather than arguing for the sake of your opponent as they are today, argue for the sake of uncommitted onlookers and for the sake of the opponent a week from now after they’ve had time to calm down and reprocess. Respond to their arguments, of course, but do it in a way that illustrates to less polarized people that you’ve got a point, rather than trying to convince your opponent or finding specific errors in the opponent’s reasoning/self-justification.
When an issue is as polarized as this, people very rarely switch sides publicly (unless they’re shilling and they didn’t hold the original position to begin with), but people can cringe from the side making bad arguments, quietly distancing themselves, and a few months or years later show up on a different side.
If you want that side to be your side, it’s nice to present a pipeline that does that. People who cringe from bottom-of-the-barrel leftist discourse can fall into alt-right pipelines, which you presumably don’t want, so ideally you would want to have examples of (leftist) influencers whose takes you find reasonable, ideally on the case itself. For example, LegalEagle (“it is plausible that the jury was right that murder under Wisconsin law was not proven beyond reasonable doubt”).
The hate is not really avoidable except by forgoing this venue or not arguing your point, but like with the hate thrown towards peaceful climate activists, it is not a sign that you’re doing a bad job.
Your original comment is passive-aggressive. You decry that people aren’t doing their due dilligence but don’t actually provide your perspective on the story or give any indication that you’ve put in any effort of your own. Unless you believe that legal definitions and jury trials are simply right, in which case, wow, you’re such a leftist.
If you want to have a fact based conversation, it would be nice if you came with facts instead of just claiming they exist.
If you want to discuss about what kind of killing is worth calling murder, it would be nice if you explained your position.
Your original comment is incredibly passive-aggressive.
I put together this gif for a side-by-side comparison. The picture was taken from a slightly different location, so it’s not perfect, but the difference is obvious.
Your mistake is seeing them as Democrat voters. Maybe if the Republicans had a brown candidate they would vote for them instead.
tl;dr: Peer pressure is a normal and healthy part of communication. You use it in this comment and it is baked into this website through the karma system. Using it for disagreement and not just conformity is important to keep groups attached to meaningful values. I don’t think “What the fuck is wrong with you” is unfriending, and I think that sort of harsh peer pressure can be and was justified by its context. I think you’re mistakenly arguing against peer pressure in general and absolute terms when your issue is specific and one of degrees.
Indeed it is a poor tool for determining whether the intended goals are worthy. That’s what the entire rest of the comment that people have been systematically ignoring is for. Condemnation is the sledgehammer in a suite of construction tools, itself unable to tell whether it is in the right place doing the right thing, but justified (or not) by it context.
And, like I said, upvote karma is peer pressure. People can see at a glance how many people will see something and how many people agree with it in a way that becomes a self-fulfilling Keynesian Beauty Contest. If you truly believe peer pressure is wrong, then the lemmy architecture is fundamentally hostile to you. If an invective adds toxicity to the soil, then the soil here is full of lead already.
But the reason civil debate between neutral people has so little part in progress is because nobody is truly neutral, not because so few people choose to be civil. Marxism works well as a model for society because people are by nature hypocritical. Philosophy, culture, and social groups are a layer of topsoil, vegetation, and human structures covering the mountains of what we think benefits us personally over the course of our lives. Argumentation can redirect superficial flows, which occasionally allows for a key watershed moment where your way of life is redirected onto another plausible course, and that course over time changes the geography. Sometimes that redirection means taking a sledgehammer to a wall.
I agree that it is easy to cooperate with people when you only care about liking and trusting them. That’s how you get social groups and movements that are entirely detached from reality, a bog of stagnant water. If you want a social group to have sensible, actionable beliefs rather than descend into circlejerk, you need the members of your group to be systematically willing to cause offense when it improves the group’s ability to interact with the outside world. And for them to be systematically willing, you need to react positively to them doing so. Otherwise, over time, the detritus and resistance builds up in that channel and it clogs up, and the flow becomes stagnant or goes elsewhere.
When you ask me to choose people liking and trusting each other over processing disagreement, you are not opting out of peer pressure. You’re simply using (soft) peer pressure to enforce group norms that are about cameraderie rather than beliefs.
I do not consider the application of peer pressure to be outside the scope of good faith argument, otherwise I would not be on this website with its karma system, I would not reply to you when you talk about whether or not people will like me, and in fact I would not be able to communicate with anyone. I don’t feel like @solo is an enemy or an unfriend, just someone who needed a wake-up call.
I don’t see saying “what the fuck is wrong with you” after someone says something horrendous as abusive. I would personally genuinely appreciate that kind of clarity if I said something that revealed a fucked up underlying attitude, when accompanied with a sensible explanation. It’s an emotive way of saying that you’re noticing something deeply wrong with someone’s worldview, and opens up the talk in that context. And honestly, I doubt you or others on here are unfamiliar with that sort of usage and don’t partake in good-faith invectives yourselves on occasion.
Honestly, I think that maybe y’all have talked yourselves into a corner arguing against peer pressure and invectives in general when you really only disagree with how (and whether) it was applied in this instance. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
The thing is, I used constructive arguments to build up to the invective. If you just use an invective without context you’re just yelling at people. But if you think using invectives/personal attacks is not justifiable, good job stooping to what you perceive to be my level, I guess?
When a moderator makes a request for moderation in someone’s conduct, it seems weird to ignore the aspect of them being a moderator. It’s not about the rules, per se, but if their request is done from the office of a moderator then that use of authority should be as fair as possible.
As for it being a good suggestion, personal attacks like this, where you’re only ‘personally’ attacking deep-rooted opinions (including ones someone personally identifies with), are valid. For example, you don’t need to have a civil debate about whether trans people deserve to pee with a transphobe. If you can win the peer pressure battle, a personal attack is better for everyone involved. Our liberal education has whitewashed history to make it seem like civil debate between neutral people had a much bigger part in progress than it did. Personal attacks are a form of peer pressure, getting people to re-examine deep-rooted beliefs that in a discussion they would cling to as axioms.
There are other valid ways to put on peer pressure, whether it’s inviting envy by having a happier life, whether it’s building friendship and rapport until they’re open to trying to something out, or whether it’s a reward in the form of bragging rights, prestige, or upvote karma. But this time this one felt right.
I understand if you disagree on whether, by expecting children to go without respect and people to submit to the natural hierarchy, their comment promotes a form of child abuse. But do you disapprove of the methods or of the choice of target?
If it is the methods, do you want me to report everyone who makes similarly rude statements about fossil fuel companies so you can ask them to tone it down a little? Because fossil fuel companies too are neither outlandish nor hateful. Perhaps even about right-wing politicians? Many of them are hateful, but is it really right for us to act disrespectfully in turn?
If it is the choice of target, then would you please add a clarification to the rules where you outline what determines who is a valid target?
I’m frankly confused about your second paragraph. Do you have a different definition of “definition”? Because I didn’t give a definition, I did not mean human rights, and the notion that respect can and should be earned also isn’t a definition. I and your “common understanding” only give two different priors for who deserves respect.
Is it so hard to fathom the notion of actually respecting children? Because I mean actual respect. Feeling the same gravitas at your infant child who wants a cookie before bedtime as at a CEO who wants that report on their desk by tomorrow morning when you clock out in five minutes, and vice versa. Just two people who have their own unstated reasons for wanting something that from your perspective appears unreasonable. The only difference is that the state uses its monopoly on violence to enable you to abuse one and enable the other to abuse you.
People will often find themselves in the position where they’re forced to accept abuse from others, but that doesn’t make it right for them to pass it on, and it doesn’t make it right for them to claim that the abuse is fair or compatible with anarchism.
As far as I’ve seen, it’s rare to find someone for who “having earned their respect” isn’t code for someone having power over them, and for who “not having earned their respect” isn’t code for them having power over someone.
You should learn the difference between deference and delegation, and then learn to delegate choices and research to experts rather than deferring to them. Where doctors are concerned, it could literally save your life and those of your loved ones.
Children, too, should learn to delegate rather than defer. Deference maintains a gap in someone’s understanding, and as soon as the parents stop providing that service the child becomes lost. A baby who cries when they feel uncomfortable is already choosing when to cry and when not to cry. They don’t defer the maintenance of their body to their parents, they delegate it, and as soon as they are able to control those bodily functions they rescind that delegation.
Deference is always archist. “Natural hierarchies” were an archist lie when it referred to racist and sexist hierarchies and it’s an archist lie when it refers to familial, professional, and social hierarchies. Respect is due to everyone, not just to the powerful or to your “natural superiors”. Every infant deserves respect, every wife, every teenager, every mentally disabled person. What the fuck is wrong with you that you think otherwise?
I think your depiction of community requiring people to accept abuse from “the community’s authority” comes from growing up in a legal and cultural framework where abusers are systematically protected and rewarded. Where being able to cheat colleagues out of their fair share because the contract is written in just the right way gets you more money than you can ever spend; where victims of rape aren’t allowed to warn each other because the community will judge them for making accusations, or find them guilty of libel.
How could a community in a statist society end up with any other choice than between falling apart or accepting the abuse of the guy the police will protect? But that’s not an inherent property of community, it’s just an inherent property of statism.
That is not to say we have to wait for the end of states for communities to be more egalitarian. The bylaws of a community organization can do a lot of work towards making it more pleasant for its members, similarly to how the democratic Separation of Powers doesn’t solve tyranny but does make it a lot more mild. Ultimately sufficiently dogged abusers will find a gap, but it’s nice for the time that it lasts.
For the more general insight that a community needs some pressure to prevent it from falling apart under internal forces even if those internal forces are neither assisted by outside forces nor empowered through crappy internal bylaws, you’re conflating coersion and incentive. Coersion is typically violent and based on positive punishment. But there are also negative punishment, positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcement. Poor people cooperating to survive is an example of negative reinforcement: their cooperation allows them to use their resources more effectively to avoid harm.
In short, when an authority is abusive: you have three options. Leave, submit, or remove them from power. It is not the fault of communities that states make this last option difficult.
I (don’t) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn’t cisgender and/or heterosexual.
Simple: non-cishet children quickly stop being part of religious communities, and so the religious community is very accepting to all its members. Classic survivorship bias.
Alice says that the fear response is dangerous because it can get people to get drawn in by reactionaries, but fear is often legitimate. It’s a visceral signal to remove yourself from the dangerous situation (such as social media), into a position where you can evaluate your options safely.
Fear becomes dangerous if you are unable to escape it for a long time, if you hold on to it, or if it is misdirected so you end up trying to remove the wrong things. If you are posting about social media about how bad social media is, fear is detrimental, but if you find yourself unable to cut down on social media even though you want to, fear is valid and proportional.
… yeah, it is horrifying how I’m on here spending limited introverted energy speaking with strangers through text, and then don’t have the energy to organize stuff with friends offline. I’m gonna go now.
5 years later: “Why did nobody warn us social media consumers that social media was bad?”
Maybe they’re going for something similar to RDJ’s Sherlock Holmes. A veneer of propriety over a ruthless and savage intelligence.
it becomes the first nation on earth to avoid civil war by allowing its military to rape prisoners
If this is true, it is only because usually the rapists got their way before enough people heard about it for it to become a civil war. Soldiers threatening mutiny unless they were allowed to rape people is a pretty common phenomenon in war.
Incidents like this almost certainly took place during the US American occupation of Okinawa, there just weren’t smartphones to relay the information to the general public, other soldiers, and the government so they could take positions. Maybe the prisoners will be tried at a later date, like the US did with some rapists in the US armed forces.
It’s an interesting open question what we would want to replace intellectual property with.
My brain is so used to capitalism that I would be inclined to preserve things like artists having a contractual obligation to turn their work into a finished product if they got paid for it by someone that wanted a finished product. But if you look at some of the great renaissance artists, many of them were infamous for just skipping town and leaving unfinished works left and right when they got bored of making them. So maybe it’s better to just accept that many great works are never finished so that other, greater works can get made instead.
One thing that does seem very important is crediting the actual artists and people that made it possible. Not to deny the right to copy or distribute, but to make it so people just know who is responsible and who they want to support or praise or communicate with. You would need infrastructure for that to make it easy to check, to remove duplicates, and to make sure entries give credit correctly.
Another important thing is the location, maintenance, and integrity of physical pieces. Hoarding seems bad, especially behind closed doors and especially without the permission of the creator or their (cultural) descendants. Letting artpieces decay seems bad, especially if others would pay to maintain them. Defiling artpieces seems bad, perhaps even with the creator’s consent. But how do we decide which measures, if any, are okay to address these issues? I honestly don’t know.
I don’t know if it’s necessary to do anything beyond these two that is specific to art. As long as there is a digital currency and wealth is already fairly distributed, voluntary patronage and donations (using the crediting infrastructure to make sure it ends up at the right places) may just be the best system for deciding which artists get what budget and how much of the world’s resources and labor go to art. If wealth weren’t fairly distributed, poor people would have less say in what gets made than everyone else, but the solution to that is to redistribute the wealth, not to patch that up with special rules for art. If there is no digital currency, then it’s inconvenient to pay artists remotely.
Hope and positivity are two different things. Hope dissociates from the present and the future, externalizing your care into an imagined future you can not affect. Empirically, people with hope fare worse psychologically than those without hope, because those with hope have no coping mechanisms when their hopes get dashed.
What we need is not positive news, but a positive life. Sit in a meadow, share meals with friends, be kind and generous, work at things that mean something to you, make art with passion, and rage during political protests.
When so much of the world’s news and media are pushing a narrative of unending consumerism and growth, it is good to keep reminding ourselves with factual news that this world will collapse sooner rather than later.
If it helps, all life ends in misery, be it decreptitude, disease, ecosystems collapse, or all of the above. Life has never been about how it ends, it is about what we do while delaying the end. Everything we do for the future, we do for the future that will actually be, not for the future that gives us comfort to imagine.