Lefty Memes

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (10 children)

This really seems like it only makes sense in the context of contrived definitions of "authority" and "hierarchy". Expert Authority (authority deriving from an individual's expertise in a particular field) is a well-established and widely recognized concept.

"Hierarchy" does not inherently imply that the relationships are involuntary. If you want to call such structures "involuntary hierarchy", knock yourself out, I'll agree with everything you say against them. But voluntary hierarchies are still hierarchies by the actual definition of the word, and when the structure is based on expertise (judges, teachers, trades experts, administrative coordinators, etc) they are extremely effective.

Redefining words to exclusively refer to the most negative aspects of the common definition is bad rhetoric, intellectually disingenuous, and ineffective at spreading a message. Like I said, if you would like to be specific, and append an appropriate adjective to existing words to refer to a particular subset of a concept (involuntary hierarchy, arbitrary authority) you'll have much more luck convincing those who know what the base words mean.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] HeroHelck@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's the problem that occurs when a term that is being used in a narrow more academic context makes contact with people who use it in a more colloquial conversational sense. Neither definition is "wrong" really, it's just very confusing unless clarified, and becomes a problem when both sides refuse to understand that context comes into play here.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

when a term that is being used in a narrow more academic context

That's not really what I see happening though, these aren't academic terms, academia uses the "colloquial" definitions. This is a niche in-group co-opting words, changing their definitions, and using them as jargon.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] HeroHelck@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Wrong, it's how the term is used in a lot of anarchist literature because precisely defining what they mean by "hierarchy" is important for discussions about it. So yes, it's a bit of out joint with Standard English usage of the term, that doesn't make it wrong. They aren't being obscurantists, or trying to fuck with you by using hyper specific terminology to trick you into thinking they mean something else. Also words can't be "co opt'd", different groups use them differently all the time, it's a normal feature of all languages don't be an ass about it.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Again, no. Anarchist literature is an in-group. Do you consider the conservative definition of "homosexual" meaning "homosexual child groomer" to be correct as well?

Again, "involuntary hierarchy" is a fine and accurate term. Generalizing that term to just plain "hierarchy" is in-group jargon. The fact that many anarchists use it that way doesn't make it any more correct than conservatives using "homosexual" to mean "homosexual child groomer".

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] HeroHelck@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

This isn't an "in-group", you aren't being excluded, they aren't trying to obscure what they're talking about. They've come to an understanding that when THEY say "hierarchy" they mean something different, stop trying to assign some devious motive to it. I get why it annoys you when an anarchist SHOULD know they're talking to people unfamiliar with that usage, or act difficult and refuse to acknowledge that the term means something different in general usage. That doesn't ALL anarchist do that, or even that those that DO are trying specifically to fuck with you.

The reasons behind the specific definition is pretty complex, but you have to understand, when anarchists are talking about these systems they don't want to spend a whole page PRECISELY explaining what they mean every single time. Many writings are translated from other languages, or written in english by people who aren't native english speakers, "jargon" here is kinda necessary for ease of communication. Are you gonna get mad if you hang out with some electricians don't understand what the hell they're talking about when they start using technical terminology?

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They've come to an understanding that when THEY say "hierarchy" they mean something different

Like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass? He wasn't supposed to be a role model, that was an illustration of twisted, insane logic.

when anarchists are talking about these systems they don't want to spend a whole page PRECISELY explaining what they mean every single time

Who said anything about a whole page? It's one word. If anarchists can't add one extra word to clarify, and instead have to define "thing" to mean "a specific bad version of thing" then they deserve to be misunderstood and disregarded.

Are you gonna get mad if you hang out with some electricians don't understand what the hell they're talking about when they start using technical terminology?

I'm not the one getting mad here, but what electrician jargon is comparable? This isn't a case of just using a word in a context-dependent way, this is imposing a biased connotation to strengthen a particular agenda.

Like a homophobe defining "homosexual" as "homosexual child groomer", or an anti-semite defining "Jew" as "greedy Jew", or a misogynist defining "men" as "rapist men". This doesn't ease communication, it obfuscates it. It's a single adjective, a laughably small price for effective communication.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] HeroHelck@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No one is discussing whether it's a "good" definition, just that it's understandable, this isn't a disagreement on the "moral rightness" of whether to define hierarchy that way, just that it's intelligible and consistent.

Also, actually fuck off comparing anarchists having a specific definition of hierarchy to homophobic bullshit, that is entirely in bad faith and I KNOW you know that.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

just that it's intelligible and consistent.

It isn't. The fact that the argument happens in the first place is proof.

that is entirely in bad faith and I KNOW you know that.

It isn't. The principle is exactly the same: a niche group defines an existing word (hierarchy/homosexual) with an implicit negative connotation (involuntary/child groomer). Homosexual child groomers are bad, but it's wrong (morally and rhetorically) to use language that generalizes all homosexuals as child groomers. Likewise, involuntary hierarchies are bad, but it's wrong (morally and rhetorically) to use language that generalizes all hierarchies as involuntary.

If it's unintelligible and inconsistent when they do it, it's unintelligible and inconsistent when you do it.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

For fucks sake, stop being a semantic crybaby and learn to read and discuss in good faith. TL;DR: Don't be a "debatebro".

Edit: I understand some of your reasoning, but the form in which you put it and the way you refuse to give others leeway in a discussion is unbecoming of a good socialist or just mutual respect in general; next time you will get a rule 1 timeout.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

What's wrong with my form? Was I the only one, or even the first, to refuse leeway? Have I been anything but civil in my firmness? Are accusations of bad faith and name-calling becoming of good socialists? Do you not think the threat of moderative action somewhat undermines the whole anarchic stance on authority and hierarchy? If not, doesn't that kinda prove my point?

Avoiding being a "debatebro" is much, much lower on my list of priorities than discouraging rhetorical habits that make leftists look like oblivious fools. Obviously everyone who has ever worked on any kind of group project knows that you need some kind of hierarchy and authority to accomplish anything at a scale above half a dozen people. When you say you want to abolish authority and hierarchy, your audience (who isn't already in the in-group) doesn't know that you're using a cheeky private definition of those words where you're only talking about the oppressive versions. They just know that the sentences you're building with those words, which they have common definitions for, sound like naïve nonsense.

If all you care about is circle jerking with the in-group, fine. I don't want to be a part of that anyway. But if you actually want to move the general population to the left, and that's never been more crucial than now, you need to seriously examine your rhetoric. If your platform sounds stupid to the general audience, they're not going to entertain it for a second.

parent

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

I know it's semantics (er...is it diction?) and at the end of the day pretty pedantic, but this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that hierarchy necessitates authority, and that authority necessitates compulsion (or an institution, or a command/control relationship). I mean yeah, they definitely have those connotations, for sure. And maybe in the context of anarchist theory, this is their functional definition.

But in a general sense, we still have hierarchies that are completely outside of the realm of social organization, like top down hierarchical categorization of...things...right? Like, stuff? And similarly, we have authorities that aren't necessarily relevant to compulsion, like an authority on a particular niche subject. I guess we're compelled to believe them, but, I dunno...

I'm kinda thinking out loud here. But I guess if I met, say, a master woodworker, and she was guiding me through building a bookshelf, I'd still say she is the authority over my actions, even if I decided to do something contrary to her commands. For sure, she has the right to tell me how to build the bookshelf -- she is the expert, I recognize the authority over me in this matter -- and she retains the authority even if I defy her. Idk maybe I'm talking about a different definition of authority.

parent

[–] ReCursing@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

No True Scotsman would ever have a hierarchy!