18

What's with all the hostility here lately?

Submitted by ziq_postcivver in lobby

Since that "the left is anti science" post, everyone's been at each others throats over minor ideologocal differences. We're all cut from the same cloth, people. Why can't we just accept and respect each other?

We all want a better world devoid of inequality, how we get there is ultimately unimportant.

We're better than this.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8

aiwendil wrote

I think this is why they call the left a circular firing squad. I do think it is important for us to passionately discuss our differences, but I agree that we need to be able to respect each other. I think that the reason people had an issue with the "left is anti-science," post was largely how it was framed. I think you could make the case that there are those on the left who are reluctant to embrace technology, but broadly saying the left is anti-science with some poor examples is just asking for trouble. I don't see why this needs to carry over on to other threads though and I haven't noticed that so much.

I think the problem with ideological differences is not that we don't all want a better world, but our ideas of what that better world looks like. We can never get anywhere near that better world if we can't make some concessions to each other on the more minor issues. I think it would be a good idea to figure out what things we can mostly agree on and build our individual platforms from there. Maybe we don't all get everything we want, but everybody can get some of what they want.

I agree we are better than the bickering and right now it is more important than ever to stand united in solidarity with every person's struggles and in so doing build an understanding for why the issues that are important to others are so important to them even if they aren't as important to you.

I really feel like raddle has been a positive force in my life lately and I hope that it can continue to be a place where we can learn from each other, debate each other, maybe even fiercely debate each other, but when it comes down to it, to support each other.

7

tnstaec wrote

We shoudn't discount pretty substantive differences. Primitivists and Transhumanists have largely incompatible ideas about what qualifies as liberation.

That said, the differing stances on technologies have created problems within anarchist milieux that are holding us back. We need to develop some kind of framework for anarchist unity.

The bigger dynamic at work here goes to the core of our culture. People's opinions about a range of topics largely go into forming their self-identities. So when someone challenges their deeply held convictions, it gives them the sense that they're being personally attacked.

4

ziq_postcivver wrote (edited )

Primitivists and Transhumanists have largely incompatible ideas about what qualifies as liberation.

This is true, but I've never understood why they're so threatened by each other. I even get attacked by antranshumanists for being postciv.

People that are critical of civilization aren't going to put scientists into cages and burn books. We're not going to cause the collapse, we just know it's inevitable and are preparing for it.

They act like we are going to take away their lifestyles, but we're just warning them that their lifestyles have an expiration date.

And anticivs shouldn't be threatened by transhumanists because we know the cybernated ultra industrialized world they pine for won't be achievable before collapse comes. If civilization is on the verge of annihilation with current tech, it would get pushed over the edge in no time if everyone in the world became an immortal.

5

tnstaec wrote

we know the cybernated ultra industrialized world they pine for won't be achievable before collapse comes

Not really. I'm very confident that this civilization will collapse as have all those that preceded it. But what that collapse will look like and when it will happen are far from certain. For all we know, three generations from now the mass of remaining humanity will be farmers, as they were before fossil fuels. Only this time their performance and vital data closely monitored by neo-feudal overlords via body-heat-powered implants and solar-powered drones. We very well could end up with the worst of both worlds. Many works of dystopian fiction are based in universes where technological development has continued and is available only to a small elite, while the masses live in extreme deprivation. The movie Elysium is one example.

I've never understood why they're so threatened by each other.

Maybe the concern is about how much damage could be done before either groups' supposed utopia. Techno-pessimists see our autonomy and ecosystems being continuously degraded and extrapolate from there. Techno-optimists worry about ITS-style terrorists killing brilliant scientists whose work would hasten the Singularity.

I think both sides tend to gloss over the "anarcho" part of "anarcho-primitivism", @prims because they think it's implied already in their theoretical output, anti-@prims because they see that it's not explicitly spelled out.

We're not going to cause the collapse, we just know it's inevitable and are preparing for it.

This distinction goes over a lot of people's heads. Good old 'shoot the messenger' effect

If civilization is on the verge of annihilation with current tech, it would get pushed over the edge in no time if everyone in the world became an immortal.

Maybe the people are still poo-pooing carrying capacity at 7.5 billion will finally figure it out

3

sudo wrote

Yeah, it's the same reason why liberals are wrong when they say "can't we all just get along?" when they see political arguments. Morally polarizing issues pretty much ensure that we can't get along.

5

Naokotani wrote

Fundamentalism, including scientism, and primitivism, is an issue. Solidarity requires everyone to have an open mind. Everyone has a perspective that is valuable and the greatest strength in any society is its diversity. The more perspectives, the more solutions that are presented to problems. Sometimes technology is the best solution, but sometimes we need to take time to reignite our love for and connection with nature in a non-rational subjective way. Our obsession with a panacea to our problems is in fact one of the greatest problems that we must overcome.

Of course, we must also keep in mind that a multitude of perspectives creates diverse solutions, but they also create myriad pit falls. It is easy and tempting to look for the shortcomings of others, but it is often more important to recognize the shortcomings of our own perspective than it is to recognize those in others.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

“We don't need unity in theory, we need solidarity in practice.”

― Curious George Brigade, Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs

4

BlackFlagged wrote

Yeah, this isn't reddit, comrades. None of us are reactionaries. Just fucking get along.

4

______deleted_ wrote

It's the old astronauts vs cavepeople debate, it's been tearing communities apart for ages.

3

Pop wrote

Not that I think this is what is happening here

but it makes sense that any intelligence agency would try to destroy a community like this by getting assholes to overrun them

3

Defasher wrote

At least people are talking, I suppose. It must take petty drama before people will engage with each other. It's an interesting social experiment - put a bunch of likeminded people in a room together and see how long it takes before they create factions and turn on each other.