fortmis wrote (edited )

I'm running for Interior Secretary of the Interior. Don't question the title or you'll be the first to be exteriorized.

Edit: Pleased to announce I have been elected with a landslide victory, thank you to the people, now back to the assembly line with ye! We have a war against ourselves to win.


fortmis wrote

Reply to Friday Free Talk by ziq

I feel like people were interrupting me all week. Sometimes I think there's phases where my voice just doesn't register for ppl or the fact that I'm halfway thru a sentence just doesn't matter... Bleh
Enjoyed a lot of the convos on here this week though


fortmis wrote (edited )

That providing an alternative to the thing you are criticizing is not important, the criticism can be valid regardless of hypothetical alternatives. I.e. anarchists do not need to provide an alternate way of restructuring society while criticizing hierarchy.

Ahhhh I'm torn. I mean I agree that not having a ready alternative doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't criticize hierarchy etc but I disagree that having an alternative isn't important.
We were just having a whole convo about this. I'll edit the comment with a link in a moment.
There are definitely situations where the criticism can end with "no ____" for example, a critique of domestic violence doesn't require providing an alternative .. it can just be "no hitting your wife."
But when I'm in a conversation where I'm saying yo we don't need the government, I find it really important to explain how I think it could work.
I think the problem with anarchists being called to explain how they would x y z, is that the questions are all wrong. The defund the police movement faced a lot of this. We don't need to answer the question "but what would you do if someone was gunna stab you." But I think it's helpful to answer questions like "how would we deal with violence."