PerfectSociety

3

PerfectSociety wrote

I don't feel that there's any point to debating when there is a fundamental difference in base values.

The only point in debating a personal with fundamentally different base values, is in the context of a forum where the audience is undecided to try to convince them to your view rather than the opponent's. However, on Raddle most people are Anarchists anyway so even that purpose is no longer there.

3

PerfectSociety wrote

but all the things you described are just different views of how to run a society

You could say that about basically every disagreement in politics. "Different view of how to run a society" isn't something to be minimized or trivialized. For a supporter of slavery and genocide, it's true that those are "just different views of how to run a society". That doesn't mean it's worth respecting that person or those views.

Boarders may be jail to you sure, but to someone else they may mean something else.

Again, you could say that about basically every disagreement in politics. For a supporter of slavery and genocide, those things mean something different to them than to me. That doesn't mean it's worth respecting that person or those views.

4

PerfectSociety wrote

My parents never raised me politically, at least not in any overt manner. If I had to label them, I guess I'd probably say they're more or less social liberals. They're immigrants from India and now would be considered Labor Aristocracy by Marxists. They've consistently voted democrat in every election. They often vote to raise their own taxes if they feel like it'll help society. They're largely pro-LGBTQIA rights.

Having said all that, politics was never regularly discussed in the household. The only time we talked about it is when I brought it up because of my interest. At times, I find that my Dad's political views are quite malleable and open minded. He's praised Fidel Castro a number of times and considers Cuba to be a "noble, virtuous" society. He places a lot of value on equality. He basically implied to me a while back that he was a Marxist-Leninist/Maoist when he was around my age.

And then...there's my extended family that lives in India. They're highly reactionary and hierarchically-minded people (on both sides of the family), much of which comes from their privileged position in the caste system but a lot also comes from the social mindset of India ("fuck you, I've got mine"). On my Dad's side of the extended family living in India (especially the old folk), there's a huge superiority complex that comes from the royal lineage in my family. My great-great-great grandfather was the Monarch of a kingdom.

11

PerfectSociety wrote

It's doubtful that you could ever get through to them by debating their political views. What often determines people's political values is their experiences and feelings about themselves. Reactionaries are often insecure about their own self-worth and they project the disappointment and worthlessness that they feel about themselves onto the nature of humanity and the world around them. The only way to really get through to them is to try to mend that fundamental feeling of worthlessness and disappointment. As you can imagine, that's a much harder task to accomplish than defeating them in a debate by citing facts, figures, and logic.

2

PerfectSociety wrote

No, Anarchism as defined in the most rational sense in the context of Political Philosophy. You've brought up this point of an "Anarchist Authority" as an attempted reveal of hypocrisy among Anarchists on this topic, multiple times on this thread. Our response has been the same - expertise and authority aren't the same thing. A lack of authority does not indicate a lack of objective criteria for what makes for the most rational definition of a term within some context (in this case, the context of Political Philosophy).