That is totally true, but like, what happens when tiny groups get a loud microphone? Do we dismiss them because they’re just a tiny group with a loud microphone? Because that’s a large part of how a small German fringe group used a novel toy called “radio” to evolve from a small inept fringe group to what it actually became. Another part being American oligarchs being willing to downplay the risk of doing mutually beneficial business deals because Nazi money spends as well as other money (sound familiar?)
History is now repeating itself, except this time American oligarchs actually own and operate the shiny new propaganda toy in the form of social media (they’ve mostly captured traditional media as well). So it’s a mistake to dismiss online groups as a roaring mouse with a loud microphone, because firstly we can’t really know how authentically numerous those voices are, and secondly, propaganda can help small groups grow through the perception of growing size and popularity.
By way of agreement, it depends upon what they are espousing. Racial hatred or violence? Yeah that deserves a response. Anti-vax misinformation? Ditto, but of a different type.
Whatever the situation is though, you should recognize it for what it is. A group of 4 dudes can control scores of active accounts on twitter, artificially delivering blocks of likes or confrontational commentary vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers but very effective if you want to harass someone.
‘It’s a joke’ that’s tired and stupid. So fuck off with your ignorance and your condescension.
‘Ooh, anarchism is chaos’ is not the big and clever funny you thought it was, and it’s hardly fucking original. It comes up every time someone mentions anarchism here.
I actually think it’s fascinating. Anarchism just means you don’t have a ruler–like, that’s literally the etymology. And a ruler is only a ruler as long as people do what the ruler says due to the threat of force. There’s a great send-up of that in The Little Prince, with a king who only gives orders that he knows will be obeyed anyway.
*People think it’s hilarious that anything can get done without the threat of violence being involved. “You’re an anarchist, and you held a conference? Haw! Haw! Haw!” We’re so conditioned to believe that if you want something done, you better threaten to kill people who don’t do it.
But these same people have no problem organizing a birthday party, or an outing to go see a movie, or a bowling league, or a book club, or a Thanksgiving dinner–and they do all these things without saying, “Be there at 7 pm, or I’ll drag you off to my basement and hold you there for five to ten years.” People are already anarchists in like 99% of their lives. There’s nothing more remarkable about organizing an anarchist conference than in organizing a Magic:the Gathering tournament, or a Renn Faire, or a soccer match. They’re all essentially anarchist: they’re all just people cooperating together to make something happen, without anyone threatening violence if you don’t cooperate.
When someone makes the “Haw haw, organized anarchists!” joke, it’s a real insight into how deeply compulsory government has infected their thoughts.
Ok, first I never meant to offend anyone. Yes, I don’t know what “real anarchy” means. I did look it up, but dictionaries often are too simplistic.
It was meant as a mild joke in the vein of “Organizing Democrats1 is like herding cats.”
If you want to see an oxymoron, I went to an atheist church a few times.
Look, I’m open to being educated. If you guys want to start a different thread, I’ll come along for the ride. But let’s drop it here, because it’s off topic.
No, you’re the one who started off insulting me and every other anarchist. That you think it being a lame joke makes it not an insult, doesn’t mean it wasn’t. It’s not swearing that makes an insult, it’s the thought behind it (or the lack thereof, in your case)
You should have just left it at the one apologetic post, you dumb motherfucker. Now turning around and asking me to apologize because I wouldn’t take your bullshit politely lying down is some nerve, I’ll give you that.
I have exactly zero fucks to give on this topic anymore, and you were dumb enough to do it in the Pit, unlike DT in that dumb P&E guns thread. So guess what - you’re the designated punching bag for all the dumb “anarchists are so disorganized” assholes today. Enjoy!
So thanks for the apology, and fuck you for not leaving it at that.
I think plenty of beliefs are worthy of ridicule. And plenty of people think my beliefs are silly and worthy of ridicule. It’s not the same thing as insulting people for things they can’t change.
That came out wrong and I probably should have left it off. Demanding an apology kinda undercuts the one I gave.
Respectfully, that’s not the thought at all. “Anarchy” in common parlance means disorder, chaos, not just a lack of a “ruler”, but a lack of rules.
There’s no premise of any threat in my thought process. It’s organizing a bunch of people who each want it their own way. It’s literally organizing a group that doesn’t believe in being organized. Violence doesn’t come into the picture.
Now I understand that’s not an accurate representation of your beliefs. It is, however, a very common perception. Sure, I’ll admit to ignorance. As I said, I’m open to a discussion. I’ll probably have a lot of elementary questions that you always get. If you’re willing.
Is that necessarily true? Organizing a conference, for instance, typically has someone contacting or collecting info on possible presenters, arranging for a venue, getting publicity to potential attendees, scheduling an event date, setting timetables and presenter order, arranging for A/V, and lots of other coordination tasks. There may be a committee involved and splitting up the work, but each task usually requires someone to direct traffic, to ensure the plan progesses to a common goal.
Or am I missing something in how you are defining things?
Ok, see that is definitely where your definitions and implications are different.
But a community, city, state, etc isn’t just a birthday party. But look at a birthday party. You invite people, and they all say they agree to be nice. Then at the party sometime gets obnoxious. Maybe they are drunk, or maybe they are contrarian, or maybe are too full of themselves to listen to others. And they won’t leave when asked. How does anarchy solve that problem?
Anyway, I’m willing to join another thread if you’re willing to have a conversation.
But I will make one other observation in this thread on this topic, and then I hope to move on and let this thread get back on topic. People are ascribing motives and beliefs to me that aren’t mine. If you don’t like someone misidentifying what you mean by anarchy, consider that you are also guilty of projecting.
By the way, that herding cats joke was self-deprecating humor - I am a Democrat. Like I said, I’ve heard that joke about a lot of orgs or groups I’m in. And the atheist church is a real place. I actually did attend one. So I wasn’t making shit up. Any mockery includes myself.
Yeah; a problem with discussing anarchy-the-political-ideology is the word has more than one meaning, and the ideology isn’t the common one, by far. Say “anarchy” and people think every-man-for-himself chaotic violence or failed-state warlordism, not peaceful bottom up organization. Even in discussions about the ideology I’ve seen it happen.
Exactly. A lot of words mean something very different when used in a political context. Like the word “conservative” means almost the complete opposite of the usual definition when you’re describing people who are politically conservative. Or how National Socialists (aka Nazis) had little to nothing to do with socialism (and in fact their fascism was pretty much a polar opposite of socialism), the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) is not in any way democratic, or a “republic” as we’d define it, and the people are heavily oppressed and have very little influence on anything their despotic leaders do.
Things get very much twisted whenever politics are involved, because people intentionally twist things for whatever political agenda they have, and you can never take any word at face value when it’s a political label. It has taken me a long time to learn that, and I still sometimes forget it.
Depends what beliefs you’re insulting, and why, and who, and how.
Insulting a strawman of their actual beliefs, in the form of a punching-down “joke”, out of admitted ignorance, is pretty much always going to be wrong, though.
“Probably”?“Kinda”? You sure you have enough weasels there?
Especially when you’re the one doing it, amIright?
You’re one of the ones who knows what the word means in a political context yet insinuates the non-political meaning anyway (vide the current gun/dictatorship thread).
You’re part of the problem and can definitely fuck right off.
Especially when you’re the one doing it, amIright?