Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

how did it sound different

my point is that there is a difference between the use of force and authority (the socially legitimated right of the use of force, or the right to command) so it isn't necessarily authoritarian to use force

how are you this bad at political thought that you needed me to explain this to you three times

and how, in spite of this, are you so prone to speaking down to others on questions of politics

0

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

how the fuck are you this aggressively ignorant, i am actually kind of stunned

i am not arguing in favour of objective natural rights nor am i saying society can make any action morally legitimate. i have clarified this three times now and it's like you're not even bothering to read.

what i am saying is that whoever is recognised as possessing an adequate claim to command, and under what circumstances, will depend on the social context of existing power relations. "the socially legitimated right of force" refers to the narrative that some people possess the right to command and others must obey. it is unarguable that in present society a police officer possesses a right to employ the use of violence in situations average civilians don't! this is what i mean by "legitimated". so i'm speaking of the right of legitimate force as a social convention and construct that anarchists are naturally opposed to.

it's this right that constitutes hierarchical relations, so it's impossible to say that just any use of force is an example of hierarchy in action. otherwise you'd have to say the working class polish-american anarchist who assassinated william mckinley possessed some form of hierarchical power over the president of the united states, which would be a fucking absurd claim.

therefore your attempt to argue that anarchist spaces should accommodate racists is not only insane but really fucking dumb! and still you seem more interested in patronising people who know better than actually... doing any reading on the subject! so you probably shouldn't mock raddlers for being poorly read.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

what's shocking about it?

hierarchy is a chain of privilege, status, and command, so it's predicated first and foremost on the right of command. obviously force has an important part to play there but that doesn't mean force is inherently hierarchical.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote

what do you think hierarchy is then

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

Dumai wrote

if you think "serious political discourse" will accept the use of the word "hierarchy" to mean "any act of violence whatsoever" then you're wrong, and i'm not surprised the only scholar you can find to agree with you is noam "what's anti-semitic about holocaust denial" chomsky, i mean, this is what happens when you fail to distinguish between power and authority

shoplifting as hierarchical? seriously?? so the fact the corporation possesses formal legal protection over its property and can have me arrested is incidental to the question???? so i have authority over corporations i guess. the fuck is wrong with you

0

[deleted] wrote

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

i'm not having this conversation anymore because you've proven on multiple occasions that you're not really interested in listening to anything i say but if you think the definition of hierarchy you gave is the "classical" academic one then i'll just leave these links here

1

[deleted] wrote

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

Hierarchy, in the social sciences, a ranking of positions of authority, often associated with a chain of command and control.

lmao you denied hierarchy had anything to do with a chain of command (which would predicated on the right of command, y'know) and when i used the word "authority" you asked me what it meant

1

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

why are you reviving threads that are almost a month old?

especially when you've tried to get all snooty about "giving me the last word" more than once

anyway when i defined hierarchy as a "chain of privilege, status, and command" you basically told me that was a dumb idea so i'm not sure what your point really is anymore. are you just arguing semantics for no reason or what? i mean if you aren't going to stick to your own definition then a semantic dispute is kind of pointless