If you’re losing the battle of wisdom against a toddler, perhaps there is a reason to listen to that toddler…
You seem to not understand how anarchy works. It is not, “no rules and everyone is equal amd does what they want”. It’s, “nobody is given de facto authority over others with which they can cudgel their compatriots”. Not having de facto, unquestionable authority is a long ways away from, “there are no rules for society”.
It is shameful that I didn’t clue-in that anarchist-sects each have their-own unquestionable-definition for “anarchy”.
The ones who hold that anarchy means they have the right to butcher others, the ones who hold that anarchy means no-hierarchy-socialist-consensus-archy, the ones who mean libertarian-independence-and-no-coherent-action, etc.
It’s sickening.
YOU hold-to A definition of anarchy.
YOU hold that nobody is allowed to have contradictory-definition of anarchy.
YOU are boss of that-meaning, then…
Good for you.
The “anarchy means there is no boss, no bossed” sect ignores that the parent-child relationship is that.
Good for them.
I’m fed-up-with being gaslit by ideologues, both left & right.
As vertebrates prove, hierarchy allows complex-organism to be more effective than non-hierarchical-organism ( sea-sponges have 2 types of cells: interior & surface, so they’re the least-complex multicellular organisms I know-of ).
As complex-civilizations also prove, hierarchy is prerequisite to effectiveness.
That doesn’t mean class-based-validity, it does mean that decomposition-of-problems/obstacles/work into smaller problems, done by smaller-teams, etc, is intrinsically required for civilization-effectveiness.
Having more-experience be in charge of less-experience is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
Having greater-responsibility in charge of less-responsible-ones is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
Having the most-domain-competent people in charge of things is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
It’s making hierarchy arbitrary in the eyes of all who reject that domain-experience means anything, isn’t it?
IF common-goals cannot be found, THEN congruent-action cannot be/result.
IF common-values cannot be found, THEN harmonious-operations aren’t going to result.
Etc.
Nick Yee discovered that there is a category of people who enjoy breaking social-worth, because that is the buzz/pleasure they’re wired for.
I expect “griefers” are in that category.
& rigging society so that nobody would have any authority to stop such abuse, unless perhaps some event-consensus were to happen…
but then you’ve got a “consensus-group” ruling over the griefer, arbitrarily, haven’t you?
What happens when the majority are the abusers, & the minority the abused?
I’ve read that in a traditional American Indian community-justice-circle, if the majority decide with the abuser…
the only choice left is to leave the resrvation: there’s no appeal-system, once it’s decided: you’ve lost.
< shrug >
Whatever…
Just downvote everything I say, anywhere: I’m not going to begin pretending that YOUR magical-definition of anarchy is identical with the other magical-definitions of anarchy that people put in my face…
& therefore, I ought not be allowed, by ANY anarchy, to be affecting, or harming, your-ideology’s world.
Nowhere did I say people should have the right to “butcher” others.
No, experienced people having authority over inexperienced is not anti-anarchy, unless they always hold authority even in the face of a good idea.
Of course consensus is important in ANY socially-bound system, and the indians were correct. When the majority decide to be fucking morons, it’s time to go. Or worst case, take a nice trek deep into the Paradox of Tolerance and kill the belligerent ring leaders.
Yes, there always has to be some hierarchy… the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of “anarchy” is that authority has to be JUSTIFIED, preferably at all times. Only stupid children think anarchy literally means zero authority.
You’re only being gaslit successfully because you’re clearly too stupid to pull the obvious axioms out of such an ideology…
lol
If you’re losing the battle of wisdom against a toddler, perhaps there is a reason to listen to that toddler…
You seem to not understand how anarchy works. It is not, “no rules and everyone is equal amd does what they want”. It’s, “nobody is given de facto authority over others with which they can cudgel their compatriots”. Not having de facto, unquestionable authority is a long ways away from, “there are no rules for society”.
Archy means hierarchy.
AnArchy means no-archy/nohierarchy.
It is shameful that I didn’t clue-in that anarchist-sects each have their-own unquestionable-definition for “anarchy”.
The ones who hold that anarchy means they have the right to butcher others, the ones who hold that anarchy means no-hierarchy-socialist-consensus-archy, the ones who mean libertarian-independence-and-no-coherent-action, etc.
It’s sickening.
YOU hold-to A definition of anarchy.
YOU hold that nobody is allowed to have contradictory-definition of anarchy.
YOU are boss of that-meaning, then…
Good for you.
The “anarchy means there is no boss, no bossed” sect ignores that the parent-child relationship is that.
Good for them.
I’m fed-up-with being gaslit by ideologues, both left & right.
As vertebrates prove, hierarchy allows complex-organism to be more effective than non-hierarchical-organism ( sea-sponges have 2 types of cells: interior & surface, so they’re the least-complex multicellular organisms I know-of ).
As complex-civilizations also prove, hierarchy is prerequisite to effectiveness.
That doesn’t mean class-based-validity, it does mean that decomposition-of-problems/obstacles/work into smaller problems, done by smaller-teams, etc, is intrinsically required for civilization-effectveiness.
Having more-experience be in charge of less-experience is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
Having greater-responsibility in charge of less-responsible-ones is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
Having the most-domain-competent people in charge of things is anti-anarchy, isn’t it?
It’s making hierarchy arbitrary in the eyes of all who reject that domain-experience means anything, isn’t it?
IF common-goals cannot be found, THEN congruent-action cannot be/result.
IF common-values cannot be found, THEN harmonious-operations aren’t going to result.
Etc.
Nick Yee discovered that there is a category of people who enjoy breaking social-worth, because that is the buzz/pleasure they’re wired for.
I expect “griefers” are in that category.
& rigging society so that nobody would have any authority to stop such abuse, unless perhaps some event-consensus were to happen…
but then you’ve got a “consensus-group” ruling over the griefer, arbitrarily, haven’t you?
What happens when the majority are the abusers, & the minority the abused?
I’ve read that in a traditional American Indian community-justice-circle, if the majority decide with the abuser…
the only choice left is to leave the resrvation: there’s no appeal-system, once it’s decided: you’ve lost.
< shrug >
Whatever…
Just downvote everything I say, anywhere: I’m not going to begin pretending that YOUR magical-definition of anarchy is identical with the other magical-definitions of anarchy that people put in my face…
& therefore, I ought not be allowed, by ANY anarchy, to be affecting, or harming, your-ideology’s world.
Make your-world happen.
_ /\ _
Nowhere did I say people should have the right to “butcher” others.
No, experienced people having authority over inexperienced is not anti-anarchy, unless they always hold authority even in the face of a good idea.
Of course consensus is important in ANY socially-bound system, and the indians were correct. When the majority decide to be fucking morons, it’s time to go. Or worst case, take a nice trek deep into the Paradox of Tolerance and kill the belligerent ring leaders.
Yes, there always has to be some hierarchy… the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of “anarchy” is that authority has to be JUSTIFIED, preferably at all times. Only stupid children think anarchy literally means zero authority.
You’re only being gaslit successfully because you’re clearly too stupid to pull the obvious axioms out of such an ideology…