Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

not_Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

About your example with Dr. Jack: that's not a hierarchy.

If I have an illness, and a person with a medical diploma are telling me to do X, and a person without one are telling me to do Y, then, most likely, I will do X, because I'm relying on Dr. Jack's expertise, but doctor have zero power over me. It's not a power structure, nor it's a hierarchy.

This is an argument for punishment / punitive justice over rehabilitative justice

Consequences could be in a form of rehabilitative justice, why not?

punitive justice is also something the raddle strain of anarchism promotes

We aren't ideologically monolithic here. What you have read on wiki - is just a view of a specific person. It might or might not reflect views of other raddle users. However, I'm admiting that, personally for me, for an easy example, punching nazi in a face is more preferable then engaging in a rehabilitative justice, and I'm happily promoting this.

But why does this site get to decide what anarchism is for everyone?

Ok, fuck it, who am I to stop you? Call yourself an anarchist, but prepare to be mocked at any occasion.

EDIT:

Every time I say what anarchism is in my opinion, all the people yell at me to read raddle and learn

People are yelling at a confused person: "Read raddle!" There is something... satisfying in this.

5

confusedarchist OP wrote

If I have an illness, and a person with a medical diploma are telling me to do X, and a person without one are telling me to do Y, then, most likely, I will do X, because I'm relying on Dr. Jack's expertise, but doctor have zero power over me. It's not a power structure, nor it's a hierarchy.

That's pure idiocy. If you are trusting Dr. Jack because he knows more than you, then that's a hierarchy. You admit he is your superior.

Consequences could be in a form of rehabilitative justice, why not?

Because speech / democratic will shouldn't be something that is illegal and policed. We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

Ok, fuck it, who am I to stop you? Call yourself an anarchist, but prepare to be mocked at any occasion.

That's not very anarchist either, bullying someone for refusing to conform to reactionary ideology that is anti freedom.

3

polpotisevil2 wrote

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

You realize the democratic process is punishing people right? Those who disagree with the outcome or are otherwise alienated by the process?

So why would someone who is subject to an authority, "democratic" or not, fighting against that authority, be somehow not anarchist to you?

As has been stated by others, if you don't like what anarchy is stop trying to appropriate and cling to the term anarchist, because it only pisses us off. In the end, if your idealistic society ever was reached, we'd still be fighting against your "anarchist" "democratic" process, by any means necessary.

6

confusedarchist OP wrote

If they disagree they are free to, but the will of the people has to be paramount. If they don't respect the democratic process they can leave the society.

Maybe you guys are the ones clinging to the term anarchist when you're not since you hate democracy so much.

−2

polpotisevil2 wrote

Herein lies the problem. You are someone who believes in the "will of the people" and "democracy" and don't give a shit about those marginalized by it. Leave the society, to what? The other "democratic" societies? That's a pointless endeavor.

Democracy is irrelevant to anarchy

Let me ask you this, what books, documentaries, or people other than a noam chomsky interview have you read, watched, or listened to about anarchism?

8

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

If you are trusting Dr. Jack because he knows more than you, then that's a hierarchy.

It's just trust, no? If I trust my partner to watch my back while I'm a torching prosecutor's car, this doesn't mean they have a hierarchy over me or making them my superior. Same with doctors. Please, give me your definition of hierarchy.

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

False. If I'll find your words or actions harmful - then I'll use any means necessary to stop you. Preferably, restorative. That's what anarchy is for me.

That's not very anarchist either, bullying someone for refusing to conform to reactionary ideology that is anti freedom.

Fucking nerd.

5

nadir wrote (edited )

Speech / democratic will shouldn't be something that is illegal and policed.

What is being said about free speech here is two things:

  • What you call 'free speech' is actually far from free.
  • People should not be forced to put up with verbal abuse. So a universal rule making all verbal abusers immune from being held accountable is a bad idea.

Do you disagree with either of those points?

4

confusedarchist OP wrote

Yes of course. Free speech is absolutely free. It's the freedom to say what you want without being persecuted. It's the most basic freedom we have.

You don't have to put up with verbal abuse, you can just leave the conversation if you don't like what I'm saying.

2