It wasn’t mocking it was a genuine point delivered not as polite as could be (there is a difference). You said hierarchy is inherently oppressive I countered pointing out it seems silly to call the hierarchy between parent and child oppressive or between safety staff and other staff at dangerous industrial locations or between doctors and nurses. If these examples are not oppressive and in many cases actually positive it then brings into dispute the idea of oppression as some inherint or intrinsic aspect of hierarchy as opposed hierarchy simply being a useful social construct that can be used in many ways depending on outside factors such as class content etc.
You added all of this after the fact. The original response was a one liner meant to be a zinger. I really dont see how else I was supposed to read that. Yes, this has a point, I just don’t ever see hierarchy being used by anarchists in any other context than community and governmental. With that context, we can see exactly what I meant. But it honestly doesn’t matter. This place loves to dogpile instead of talking. We factually cannot exchange ideas because everything is binary and you are either ML or wrong lmao.
You made a statement about the intrinsic nature of a social relation: that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. I do not believe that relation holds such an intrinsic attribute, so I responded by listing several examples of hierarchy that, in my view, do not inherently contain oppression. To me, saying oppression is inherent to hierarchy is similar to saying flammability is inherent to liquid. There are many flammable liquids, but liquid as such is not inherently flammable; that depends on other factors, such as chemical composition. Likewise, there are many oppressive hierarchies, but that does not mean oppression is intrinsic to hierarchy as such. The fastest way to challenge a universal claim like that is to list counterexamples.
You could have read/responded to that in several ways. For example, you could have explained what you mean by hierarchy if you do not think the relation between nuclear plant staff, doctors and nurses, or parent and child counts as hierarchy. You could also have explained why those examples should be distinguished from the kind of hierarchy you are criticizing, or shown where oppression exists in those examples in a way I may not recognize. Those would all be substantive responses to the point I was making.
Also, I very much did not dogpile you and had no intention of doing so. I was the first person to respond, and at no point did I insult you. My first response may not have been as polite or elaborated as possible, but it was meant as a counterargument, not as mockery or an attempt to shut you down.
It wasn’t mocking it was a genuine point delivered not as polite as could be (there is a difference). You said hierarchy is inherently oppressive I countered pointing out it seems silly to call the hierarchy between parent and child oppressive or between safety staff and other staff at dangerous industrial locations or between doctors and nurses. If these examples are not oppressive and in many cases actually positive it then brings into dispute the idea of oppression as some inherint or intrinsic aspect of hierarchy as opposed hierarchy simply being a useful social construct that can be used in many ways depending on outside factors such as class content etc.
You added all of this after the fact. The original response was a one liner meant to be a zinger. I really dont see how else I was supposed to read that. Yes, this has a point, I just don’t ever see hierarchy being used by anarchists in any other context than community and governmental. With that context, we can see exactly what I meant. But it honestly doesn’t matter. This place loves to dogpile instead of talking. We factually cannot exchange ideas because everything is binary and you are either ML or wrong lmao.
You made a statement about the intrinsic nature of a social relation: that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. I do not believe that relation holds such an intrinsic attribute, so I responded by listing several examples of hierarchy that, in my view, do not inherently contain oppression. To me, saying oppression is inherent to hierarchy is similar to saying flammability is inherent to liquid. There are many flammable liquids, but liquid as such is not inherently flammable; that depends on other factors, such as chemical composition. Likewise, there are many oppressive hierarchies, but that does not mean oppression is intrinsic to hierarchy as such. The fastest way to challenge a universal claim like that is to list counterexamples.
You could have read/responded to that in several ways. For example, you could have explained what you mean by hierarchy if you do not think the relation between nuclear plant staff, doctors and nurses, or parent and child counts as hierarchy. You could also have explained why those examples should be distinguished from the kind of hierarchy you are criticizing, or shown where oppression exists in those examples in a way I may not recognize. Those would all be substantive responses to the point I was making.
Also, I very much did not dogpile you and had no intention of doing so. I was the first person to respond, and at no point did I insult you. My first response may not have been as polite or elaborated as possible, but it was meant as a counterargument, not as mockery or an attempt to shut you down.