Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kin wrote

Neither.

I wouldn't bother myself to try to explain basic anarchist concepts to someone in order to demolish their silly Anarchojail, anarcholaw, and all silly oxymoronic concepts they may hold. I lately use this debate stance where I will feed their delusional point making even preposterous arguments, like detailing how Anarcho judges would act in this example, and at some point this interlocutor will trace a line and defend it as sacred, this will be the point where we can start a new approach in a next conversation. Or they will just notice how silly was their point since the beginning.

8

tuesday OP wrote

yeah.

i told him that my anarchism is founded on liberation. and regardless of the practicality of any specific situation the right answer, in my opinion, is one that is liberatory. if my "solution" recreates oppression, subjugation, or control then i just don't have a solution and that's fine. eventually someone will.

i think the best choice here is to just opt out of those conversations in the future. they'll only serve to frustrate because he's decided that he's right and isn't doesn't seem to be interested in moving past the idea that anarchism is just a lack of government and private property and that humans can inherently be one way or another (in his mind people will always hurt each other out of casualcrueltyor boredom or because they are broken in some way), which i think is the biggest hurdle for me.

the idea that humans are inherently any one way i just not a position i can argue against because we can't say for sure either way.

9

fortmis wrote

I get where you're coming from here, and can see it working in a comedic context, but the way you describe it sounds manipulative and unfair to the other person -- just my opinion. I think asking pointed questions is more effective .

3

kin wrote

Not my intention to have a comedic effect.

I stay by my first point, personally I don't bother to have this kind of conversation anymore, the ones you hit this wall and the other part insist in reproducing fallacies like anrcho police.

My said "strategy" may be manipulative, but it's not unfair. I am justing throwing at this hypothetical interlocutor more rope for him to hang theirself in their own nonsense. Asking pointed questions make sense if are willing to engage, not my case. Sorry again if this come out as a joke, and sorry if it sounds being an asshole but I don't use this tactics to deceive anyone that isn't already deceived by themselves. Understand it as a kind of maieutic process

7

fortmis wrote

I think projecting opinions that are the opposite of what you think, that inconspicuously mock the other person, for the sake of supposedly humiliating (? maybe too strong a word here?) them is a dirty game. BUT I think that making hyperbolic comments about anarchoJudges etc can be hilarious and get your point across just as well, without playing this sort of "I'm a mastermind of the situation" type game.

5

kin wrote

I understand what you say, and I would totally avoid mock/humiliate anyone to get a point across in a conversation. But I think I am no expressing myself clearly, it's totally not of "I'm a mastermind of the situation" or a game, or having an intellectual high ground.

I will stop here bc you are assuming a bad faith that I already stated that is not there, I just shared my experience if it came like a suggestion for Tuesdays situation is not.

9

subrosa wrote

What you're describing seems relatively 'hands off' and open-ended, it doesn't suggest much of a corrective. With anarcho-jails and anarcho-law, turning that into a conversation can easily dignify and strengthen the position, so a somewhat distanced and unimpressed I do things very differently while observing anarcho-jailers run into their own walls... makes plenty sense to me.

"Gatekeeping" is a pretty bad metaphor.

8

tuesday OP wrote

i hate the idea that all gate keeping is somehow inherently bad. i am not mad at being accused of gate keeping if only because i think that liberation is important enough that opening up the idea of what can be considered liberatory serves to weaken it as an idea, making it useless. he told me that i don't get to decide who is or isn't an anarchist and i said ok, except that are people who absolutely aren't anarchists who say they are. and if we don't draw that line then being an anarchist means nothing.

8

kin wrote (edited )

The other day I was thinking in writing a /f/offmychest post to state my current position that I abandoned (maybe just for a while) any pursuit regarding anarchism™ (not anarchy tho) and political theory right now. I don't have energy or I'm willing to spend time with it. Right now I rather prefer to use my energies and time in more tangible stuff, like the FoodNotBombs project and doing art.

Usually I don't have interest in debates or even conversations about contrasting positions, specially if I am not open. And I don't believe that better positions or takes/interpretations comes out of ndebates (at least not If both parts are no engaging willingly and consciously about it). For me every debate already closed in the participants mind to reinforce their position. My interested in conversations is more focused in receive from the other side a new perspective and references.

What I described early was rather a cynical way to get some sense in tired arguments from a very specific context irl (tankies). I did it to maintain my mental health at that point in a totally egoist way and I wasn't worried in changing their mind by then. And other point is that in my personal concept of Anarchism and Anarchy, I don't consider to have a final position or that a universal concept of Anarchy exists besides what its own names carry. So for me I wouldn't engage with someone trying to assert my position over theirs and maybe this is part of my frustrations and fatigue with theory right now.

Sorry for other long post here, this is becoming like one of the old threads we used to have.

PS: and I resent that I am a confused character for some. The text usually lacks the subtlety of face to face communication, and I abuse from ambiguity here more than I really should, but again that's the beauty of it and I like poetry enough to sow doubt in everyone hearts if I can

5

fortmis wrote

I abuse from ambiguity here more than I really should, but again that's the beauty of it and I like poetry enough to sow doubt in everyone hearts if I can

This is poetry in and of itself! <3

3