| Helloplite said: To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you. You are ignorant and lack reading comprehension. You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down. You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal), conflate equality with "leftism" (a condescending tag lumping together a variety of different ideologies), have produced no coherent position of your own, and your best efforts have been spent on finding amusing gifs to illustrate points that you do not have (what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts). So, I will entirely avoid responding to you, and simply participate in the wider conversation on this topic. You are really not worth my time.
My position to the general topic is the following:
1. Antifa is an oxymoronic movement. They are literally the antifascist fascists. Still a million times better than radical right-wing movements and groups, but depressive nevertheless. Gilles Deleuze, described this as 'microfascism', and if unchecked can lead to full-blown fascism. 2. You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves. The whole idea of a 'peaceful protest' is borne from the same kind of neoliberal-capitalist mindset in which all social conflict must be restricted to the 'institutional' arrangements and systems in place, namely elections and the 'peaceful' civil society. Society is never so neat, and containing politics exclusively to parliaments is effectively the death of real politics. So yeah, of course protest will be violent, eruptive, uncontrollable, and impossible to fully contain. Furthermore, whenever we attempt to constrain protest and activist action, no matter the source, we engage ourselves in the same kind of totalitarian thinking. A protest is a protest is a protest. It is not there to sugar-coat things, or to act 'civil', as if we are all nobles sat on thrones. 'Civility' is a highly problematic as a concept, and stems from aristocratic conceptions. For the same reason, 'political correctness' is a repressive idea. You can never contain fully all of the excess in society, no matter where it is coming from. Doing so, including restricting the right to speak and to think, only generates further disillusionment and protest down the road.
|
"To o_O.Q: had written a response for you, but I have decided it is utterly meaningless to engage in conversation with you."
i told you from the very beginning man, i've torn this nonsense apart more times than i can count and the reason i can is because i've studied it deeply right to its very source which i'm absolutely sure you do not know of
" You fail to even comprehend the difference between a normative desire or moral argument, and an ontological reality -- conflating the two and dragging this conversation down."
well buddy if i wanted to discuss fairy tales i'd go back to kindergarden
we are here now discussing real issues governing the interaction between people and the state... i obviously would not expect someone to conflate the two... unless of course they were trying to be dishonest and evasive
you can review your posts and decide for yourself if what i'm claiming here has any credence... regardless any objective person can see what i'm talking about i'd hope
". You insist on adding stuff that I have not said to my position (e.g. on whether workers and bosses should be equal)"
i used that as an example of how your arguments about hierarchy were nonsensical... but again i'm talking about the real world here and not fairy tales so that must be where the disconnect is occuring
ironically you yourself claimed to be in a higher position in a hierarchy than i am(without any evidence i might add since you do not know my background) using real world criteria then denied that you were doing so
"conflate equality with "leftism"
advocating for equality in opposition to hierarchy is a well understood central value of the left, that you are denying this and claiming i am ignorant is amazing to me
"what is now so commonly called an ‘ad hominem attack’ in these parts"
at every single turn i have replied to direct quotes from your posts
"You can't make omelette without breaking a few eggs. Those who deplore such groups for 'protesting violently' are hypocrites themselves."
i think its more that these people attack violently not in retaliation but to instigate violence
this pathetic weasily coward(who was a professor supposedly in a similar field to yourself) reached out from behind someone to whack this 20 year old(who was simply talking) in the head with a bike lock
you really think this piece of shit attacked this kid to "take down the oppressive capitalist system"(which protects his rights and property ironically) or to "take down the patriarchy" or some shit like that?
there are piles upon piles upon piles of evidence that many of these people are simply looking for an excuse to engage in criminal behavior even though they may claim to have altruistic intentions
this is why its important to have stated goals that are in alignment in with your actions, but unfortunately that is not the default state for most people
