Again, no. Anarchist literature is an in-group. Do you consider the conservative definition of “homosexual” meaning “homosexual child groomer” to be correct as well?
Again, “involuntary hierarchy” is a fine and accurate term. Generalizing that term to just plain “hierarchy” is in-group jargon. The fact that many anarchists use it that way doesn’t make it any more correct than conservatives using “homosexual” to mean “homosexual child groomer”.
This isn’t an “in-group”, you aren’t being excluded, they aren’t trying to obscure what they’re talking about. They’ve come to an understanding that when THEY say “hierarchy” they mean something different, stop trying to assign some devious motive to it. I get why it annoys you when an anarchist SHOULD know they’re talking to people unfamiliar with that usage, or act difficult and refuse to acknowledge that the term means something different in general usage. That doesn’t ALL anarchist do that, or even that those that DO are trying specifically to fuck with you.
The reasons behind the specific definition is pretty complex, but you have to understand, when anarchists are talking about these systems they don’t want to spend a whole page PRECISELY explaining what they mean every single time. Many writings are translated from other languages, or written in english by people who aren’t native english speakers, “jargon” here is kinda necessary for ease of communication. Are you gonna get mad if you hang out with some electricians don’t understand what the hell they’re talking about when they start using technical terminology?
They’ve come to an understanding that when THEY say “hierarchy” they mean something different
Like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass? He wasn’t supposed to be a role model, that was an illustration of twisted, insane logic.
when anarchists are talking about these systems they don’t want to spend a whole page PRECISELY explaining what they mean every single time
Who said anything about a whole page? It’s one word. If anarchists can’t add one extra word to clarify, and instead have to define “thing” to mean “a specific bad version of thing” then they deserve to be misunderstood and disregarded.
Are you gonna get mad if you hang out with some electricians don’t understand what the hell they’re talking about when they start using technical terminology?
I’m not the one getting mad here, but what electrician jargon is comparable? This isn’t a case of just using a word in a context-dependent way, this is imposing a biased connotation to strengthen a particular agenda.
Like a homophobe defining “homosexual” as “homosexual child groomer”, or an anti-semite defining “Jew” as “greedy Jew”, or a misogynist defining “men” as “rapist men”. This doesn’t ease communication, it obfuscates it. It’s a single adjective, a laughably small price for effective communication.
No one is discussing whether it’s a “good” definition, just that it’s understandable, this isn’t a disagreement on the “moral rightness” of whether to define hierarchy that way, just that it’s intelligible and consistent.
Also, actually fuck off comparing anarchists having a specific definition of hierarchy to homophobic bullshit, that is entirely in bad faith and I KNOW you know that.
It isn’t. The fact that the argument happens in the first place is proof.
that is entirely in bad faith and I KNOW you know that.
It isn’t. The principle is exactly the same: a niche group defines an existing word (hierarchy/homosexual) with an implicit negative connotation (involuntary/child groomer). Homosexual child groomers are bad, but it’s wrong (morally and rhetorically) to use language that generalizes all homosexuals as child groomers. Likewise, involuntary hierarchies are bad, but it’s wrong (morally and rhetorically) to use language that generalizes all hierarchies as involuntary.
If it’s unintelligible and inconsistent when they do it, it’s unintelligible and inconsistent when you do it.
For fucks sake, stop being a semantic crybaby and learn to read and discuss in good faith. TL;DR: Don’t be a “debatebro”.
Edit: I understand some of your reasoning, but the form in which you put it and the way you refuse to give others leeway in a discussion is unbecoming of a good socialist or just mutual respect in general; next time you will get a rule 1 timeout.
What’s wrong with my form? Was I the only one, or even the first, to refuse leeway? Have I been anything but civil in my firmness? Are accusations of bad faith and name-calling becoming of good socialists? Do you not think the threat of moderative action somewhat undermines the whole anarchic stance on authority and hierarchy? If not, doesn’t that kinda prove my point?
Avoiding being a “debatebro” is much, much lower on my list of priorities than discouraging rhetorical habits that make leftists look like oblivious fools. Obviously everyone who has ever worked on any kind of group project knows that you need some kind of hierarchy and authority to accomplish anything at a scale above half a dozen people. When you say you want to abolish authority and hierarchy, your audience (who isn’t already in the in-group) doesn’t know that you’re using a cheeky private definition of those words where you’re only talking about the oppressive versions. They just know that the sentences you’re building with those words, which they have common definitions for, sound like naïve nonsense.
If all you care about is circle jerking with the in-group, fine. I don’t want to be a part of that anyway. But if you actually want to move the general population to the left, and that’s never been more crucial than now, you need to seriously examine your rhetoric. If your platform sounds stupid to the general audience, they’re not going to entertain it for a second.
Again, no. Anarchist literature is an in-group. Do you consider the conservative definition of “homosexual” meaning “homosexual child groomer” to be correct as well?
Again, “involuntary hierarchy” is a fine and accurate term. Generalizing that term to just plain “hierarchy” is in-group jargon. The fact that many anarchists use it that way doesn’t make it any more correct than conservatives using “homosexual” to mean “homosexual child groomer”.
This isn’t an “in-group”, you aren’t being excluded, they aren’t trying to obscure what they’re talking about. They’ve come to an understanding that when THEY say “hierarchy” they mean something different, stop trying to assign some devious motive to it. I get why it annoys you when an anarchist SHOULD know they’re talking to people unfamiliar with that usage, or act difficult and refuse to acknowledge that the term means something different in general usage. That doesn’t ALL anarchist do that, or even that those that DO are trying specifically to fuck with you.
The reasons behind the specific definition is pretty complex, but you have to understand, when anarchists are talking about these systems they don’t want to spend a whole page PRECISELY explaining what they mean every single time. Many writings are translated from other languages, or written in english by people who aren’t native english speakers, “jargon” here is kinda necessary for ease of communication. Are you gonna get mad if you hang out with some electricians don’t understand what the hell they’re talking about when they start using technical terminology?
Like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass? He wasn’t supposed to be a role model, that was an illustration of twisted, insane logic.
Who said anything about a whole page? It’s one word. If anarchists can’t add one extra word to clarify, and instead have to define “thing” to mean “a specific bad version of thing” then they deserve to be misunderstood and disregarded.
I’m not the one getting mad here, but what electrician jargon is comparable? This isn’t a case of just using a word in a context-dependent way, this is imposing a biased connotation to strengthen a particular agenda.
Like a homophobe defining “homosexual” as “homosexual child groomer”, or an anti-semite defining “Jew” as “greedy Jew”, or a misogynist defining “men” as “rapist men”. This doesn’t ease communication, it obfuscates it. It’s a single adjective, a laughably small price for effective communication.
No one is discussing whether it’s a “good” definition, just that it’s understandable, this isn’t a disagreement on the “moral rightness” of whether to define hierarchy that way, just that it’s intelligible and consistent.
Also, actually fuck off comparing anarchists having a specific definition of hierarchy to homophobic bullshit, that is entirely in bad faith and I KNOW you know that.
It isn’t. The fact that the argument happens in the first place is proof.
It isn’t. The principle is exactly the same: a niche group defines an existing word (hierarchy/homosexual) with an implicit negative connotation (involuntary/child groomer). Homosexual child groomers are bad, but it’s wrong (morally and rhetorically) to use language that generalizes all homosexuals as child groomers. Likewise, involuntary hierarchies are bad, but it’s wrong (morally and rhetorically) to use language that generalizes all hierarchies as involuntary.
If it’s unintelligible and inconsistent when they do it, it’s unintelligible and inconsistent when you do it.
For fucks sake, stop being a semantic crybaby and learn to read and discuss in good faith. TL;DR: Don’t be a “debatebro”.
Edit: I understand some of your reasoning, but the form in which you put it and the way you refuse to give others leeway in a discussion is unbecoming of a good socialist or just mutual respect in general; next time you will get a rule 1 timeout.
What’s wrong with my form? Was I the only one, or even the first, to refuse leeway? Have I been anything but civil in my firmness? Are accusations of bad faith and name-calling becoming of good socialists? Do you not think the threat of moderative action somewhat undermines the whole anarchic stance on authority and hierarchy? If not, doesn’t that kinda prove my point?
Avoiding being a “debatebro” is much, much lower on my list of priorities than discouraging rhetorical habits that make leftists look like oblivious fools. Obviously everyone who has ever worked on any kind of group project knows that you need some kind of hierarchy and authority to accomplish anything at a scale above half a dozen people. When you say you want to abolish authority and hierarchy, your audience (who isn’t already in the in-group) doesn’t know that you’re using a cheeky private definition of those words where you’re only talking about the oppressive versions. They just know that the sentences you’re building with those words, which they have common definitions for, sound like naïve nonsense.
If all you care about is circle jerking with the in-group, fine. I don’t want to be a part of that anyway. But if you actually want to move the general population to the left, and that’s never been more crucial than now, you need to seriously examine your rhetoric. If your platform sounds stupid to the general audience, they’re not going to entertain it for a second.