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.
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.