User one tweets: "Voluntary hierarchies are not a thing." User two replies: "What about femdom?" User one replies: "fuck I don't have a rebuttal"

all 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I was about to say "what about therapy" and then I remembered how almost every therapist besides me does therapy (and how they react when they learn how I do things...). I know I can't eliminate all the spooks, but I do try my best

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    That's so vague tell me more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    It's all so second nature to me at this point that I had to spend a good bit of time thinking about all the ways I incorporate my anarchist values in my practice. I'm sure there are more, but these are the most significant ones I could think of

    • No insurance, so I'm not forced to pathologize my clients and I'm not beholden to a third-party constraining what we're allowed to work on, etc

    • Extremely low cost, with no means testing, and I even accept bartering

    • Full therapeutic self-disclosure to help dissolve the power dynamic

    • Conduct sessions in neutral or client-centered environments (I have no public office- I meet clients virtually, outdoors, or in their home)

    • Peer accountability with a fellow anarchist in the medical field

    • Consent and boundaries are iterative and explicit

    • Session structure, modalities, etc, are collaboratively negotiated

    Edit: I realize this list probably sounds normal and benign to leftists, but libs react very strongly to these things

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That stuff does seem like table stakes to me. I've only done telehealth with people who were pretty chill. Sounds like there's some real bad practices if this is abnormal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I feel like bad practices are the norm, but maybe my experience is skewed due to living in Florida lol (a blue part, but still)

    Most therapists I've encountered/been familiar with obv have new clients sign consent forms, but never actually review it with them; they create a treatment plan for them and say 'here, sign this'; they tell me it's inappropriate to list my own diagnoses and politics on my PsychologyToday page; they argue that bartering is less ethical than charging $150; and I've yet to meet someone IRL (therapist or otherwise) who wasn't surprised (and often lowkey sketched out) when I say I do sessions at parks & in homes.

    Also I forgot to add this one- other therapists are always absolutely floored when I tell them I don't do involuntary commitals

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'm Aussie and I can say your practices are not the norm for sure, and I don't think I'd engage a therapist unless they followed your guidelines.

    In fact I would not be surprised if some of your practices would prevent you from getting or retaining a licensed! E.g. the involuntary commitment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I prefer horizontally-hierarchial BDSM.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 45 points 1 year ago* (9 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Gestures wildly towards workplaces

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    That doesn't mean we go there involuntarily. Femdom also gives you something back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I wouldn't exactly call the workplace voluntary though? When the alternative is to be without "legitimate" access to primary needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc.

    Id say it's more coercive than anything.

    But yeah voluntarily hierarchies still exist, it's just that normally they're meant to dissolve. Like a student-teacher hierarchy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is it possible for those needs to be met systematically without some kind of coercion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Please femdom me involuntarily 🥺

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Dom/sub is not hierarchy, it's a consensual relationship between people.

    Hierarchy is an institutional set of involuntary command/control relationships

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Every human “vice” that can be expressed as evil can have a place in society where its consensual with guardrails.

    Even the dynamics of facism can have its in roleplay, video games or the bedroom. I always considered it a kind of fetish.. just look at the nazi uniforms and tell me its not partly about suppressed sexual desires.

    This part of a conclusion of mine that there is no structure or dynamic that is inherently evil, only living being who use them to create evil (aware or not aware)

    The dynamics of hate are those of fear expressed in ways where consent is no longer considered leading to assault. There is a good natural reason to feel afraid of beings that are similar yet different as different cultures can be open to things you are not ready for, and in the past (think medieval) groups of immigrants where a sign of war and war caused poverty a precursor to disease no one knew how to treat.

    We can educate ourselves to be beyond these, learn from the past and find new ways to incorporate vices in the world in healthy consensual ways.

    That is how i believe we evolve to free ourselves from evil. It starts with knowing there is nothing wrong with how we feel, only with the way we express it that harms others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Is there a nuance to usage of the word hierarchy that I'm not understanding in this context?

    Like if I invite a bunch of friends over to help me move into a new apartment, is there a hierarchy because I'm telling everyone where to put the boxes? If my pal Sarah drives a truck for work, so I entrust her to load the van with two other people, is that a hierarchy?

    I'm not asking this to be a smartass, I'd just like to understand if there is a meaningful difference between hierarchy and deferring to someone's skill in a particular domain.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] [S] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    because you have the freedom to do that and it is voluntary

    So what's the agreed upon definition of "having the freedom" and "voluntary" here? Because even under an authoritarian government, you can technically go against the authorities, but there will be consequences to doing so. What level of consequences do we consider to be acceptable for these purposes? Or is it not a question of level of severity of the consequences?

    An example of what I'm thinking of is a situation where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they're the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better. If you refuse, then you die. Is that voluntary? I can choose to die, so the "freedom" is there, but the consequences are severe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better.

    you have the right word for it: expertise (see my other comment).

    it becomes a hierarchy if the doctor involuntarily hospitalises you or uses the courts to force you to undergo the treatment; the power (force) to do that is authority. so long as you still have the power to challenge or otherwise discuss the prognosis, it is not a hierarchy, especially if the treatment is gratis and libre.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Illegal actions are always available. States use violent consequences to coerce legal choices. Someone might say the Kent State massacre was an acceptable consequence for violating the rules of the state.

    The set of legal and moral actions are not one to one. Any moral deference of autonomy needs to be consentual. There are times I would choose death instead of the doctor. For example, unpayable debt would make death an acceptable outcome.

    Autonomy is about power to take an action. Heirarchy is about power over the actions of others. Anarchy is an individual and social philosophy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think maybe a level of external intentional threat is necessary for it to be involuntary. Deferring to an expert because you want good results or because you feel more comfortable in a follower role seems distinct from being threatened with going to hell or losing your home.

    But even then I still wonder because what if the thing you're threatened with losing is the other person's companionship? It's reasonable to not want to interact with someone uncooperative, but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they're going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.

    I also think there needs to be a word for what people mean when they say voluntary hierarchy if we're going to assign it a strictly involuntary meaning. You can't just subtract vocabulary and expect everyone to jump on board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.

    this is an ongoing discussion within anarchism.

    ideally, removing someone who wants to remain should be the last resort of a group. ideally, someone would not get to this point unless everyone else in the group (at some point) wanted them there.

    this is where relationship anarchy and restorative and transformative justice come into play:

    • avoiding situations where people feel trapped in a social situation, and
    • promoting confrontation, dialogue and active listening when people are uncomfortable.

     

    for disclosure: i'm not for relationship anarchy, but i'm not against it, either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    a hierarchy (from Greek, for 'rule of priests') is a structure which creatures superiors and subordinates.

    Like if I invite a bunch of friends over to help me move into a new apartment, is there a hierarchy because I’m telling everyone where to put the boxes?

    if your friends want to help you, then they're helping you. they of course needs to defer to you for instructions, because you're the one who knows what you need help with. if they're doing so without the guarantee/demand of anything in return (because they care about you), then this is mutual aid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (20 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Fetishes and kinks are different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (18 children)

    That greatly depends on who you ask. There are plenty of kinksters who make no distinction between those terms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (17 children)

    ioo then that makes them functionally useless to have two terms, and it means there's no way to get specific about whether something is a need to get off, or just something you just enjoy when being kinky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

    You're not wrong, and I agree that there's value in distinguishing between those ideas. I've just been around a lot of kinky people who insist there's no difference in the words, so maybe there's a language shift going on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    @SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org

    You know what, I don't think I knew the distiction before. I was just making a drive-by "lol" type of offhand comment.

    Never thought about it that specifically. I will try to be conscious of word choice now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (14 children)

    Thank you fellow demiromantic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    There are dozens of us.

    Recently I'm thinking I may be demisexual too. Kinda like a double-demi/ace hybrid. I like the idea of sex, but it would have to be a very special person. But I don't have much drive to try for it, it's just not that important to me. I mean we're already in the ace spectrum anyway, so maybe that's redundant.

    Still trying to nail down what labels I'm comfortable with. Probably will always be a little wiggle room to change as time goes by.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    Yeah, we're demi in many ways, including demisexual. After much experience with this kind of thing we learned that rushing in to things, even with a desire for things do things doesn't work for us, and really knowing a person is important, so we won't do anything sexual or romantic with someone until we have gotten to know them quite well.

    Sadly too many people expect it or cannot be bothered to wait around, which is why most of our current partners are all some flavour of ace and maybe aro, heh.

    It's also why dating apps etc don't really work for us as we're too cautious and want to get to know someone before meeting up, but most people are like "let's meet up right now" and we aren't into that. We had someone reject us once because we spent 'too long' thinking about if we wanted to meet them, ugh when they hadn't really put any effort in to get to know us and we had put clearly in our profile that we need a lot of talking to in the app first.

    Sigh, mainstream dating culture is awful. We would rather just date friends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    Not exactly sure who "we" is exactly, but I'm proceeding with the assumption you meant it collectively for demis.

    That describes me pretty well. I've never even come close to a dating app, but I thought it was a leftover legacy boomer trait of mine at the time ("the time" in this case meaning before I knew I was demi. Before I knew that was a thing. Also before I realized I wasn't "normal" at all).

    I just felt that that kinda communication couldn't possibly be accomplished via what was basically just texting, or at least not to my satisfaction. I've always felt much more ability to fall in love via traditional (aka in person) means. But that ability has a lot more stipulations on it than I realized at the time.

    I actually didn't know or identify as such until this year. As I started seeing posts about pride coming up, I wondered about the (what I now know is called) inclusivity flags (with and without intersex). I was familiar with most of the main flags, but kept seeing more I didn't even know about, and finally came across the demi flags. So since I was already learning about other identities and orientations, I read about that, and my spidey sense tingled.

    I don't know if there's a demi version of the idea, but a trans would call it an egg cracking. I actually don't know if any others have a version of it, but I really think so if them should. Either way, you know what I mean. I'm rambling now anyway lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Not sure who "we" is exactly

    This is easy to figure out by looking in our profile 🙂.

    Yeah it took us a while to figure out we were demi but when we did it was really obvious looking back at our life.

    Egg cracking can refer to more than just being trans, so if it works for you then go for it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    I've only heard it used for them. I guess I just assumed it was theirs lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No, it's not ours, gay people etc have used it too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    Fair enough. I've only really had much discussion about a lot of this stuff with a trans sibling. I've learned a lot from him. His coming out was one of the last big (sorry to use the word again but I've been using this metaphor already) cracks in the glass dome or sphere or snow globe or whatever in the ceiling of my old beliefs before it shattered, allowing me to become atheist, liberal/leftist, queer-friendly, you know, just a much better person overall.

    So I heard it first from him and haven't really discussed it (aka egg cracking) in any other context.

    So now I have another phrase for it at my disposal.

    In other news, after looking at the profile I both understand more and have more questions.

    And given the request to ask instead of assume, I would like to do so.

    First, from what I can gather the use of we seems to come from identifying with a group that identifies as a community.

    So first question is, is that correct, and if so what community/communities?

    Scratch that, the previous app I was using didn't show the word plural as a link, and now that I'm trying another one I see it. Nvm

    And secondly, I definitely gotta ask about what you mean about the not human thing.

    You can roll your eyes at me and leave me on read if you want though lol. No pressure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Glad we could help and glad you have a good borther who helped you 🙂.

    If you want to know more about plurality we have more links should that help.

    Oh, well, you know how there's transgender, well some people also identify as other things too like otherkin, alterhuman/alterbeing, therian, or transspecies.

    For a long time we have not felt comfortable with the label "human", just like being transgender and being misgendered, being misspecied causes us a lot of dysphoria. We have quite a few friends offline and online like this too, so it's not just us, and it isn't mental illness that causes it (though even if it were it would still be valid/legitimate). It's just merely we don't feel much connection with humanity as a thing we are and are absolutely working towards both transgender and transspecies transition.

    Despite what the slippery slopers will tell you, it's not dangerous and doesn't harm anyone, indeed there's been many who have come before who have purused such things, and it has a long history, we aren't a danger to ourselves or others as long as we're respected for who and what we are then we're fine.

    Sadly a lot of lemmy cannot fathom anything outside of their worldview and has a baseline that says everyone is human and a singlet, so it's challenging sometimes, but we are what we are, their disapproval, cruetly, and mocking doesn't stop that.

    Hope that helps!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    See now I'm imagining if I read that 10 years ago and how I would have interpreted (much less felt) differently, versus how I read this now.

    I had heard of some of those communities before, but only vaguely referenced. Haven't really heard much about it, but at the time I was hearing about it I still hated gay people, so did I know about people identifying as other species? I didn't understand the phrase "identify as".

    So I am still playing catch up on stuff.

    Now that that makes more sense, I need to go back. For being multiple entities, is it like, I don't have the vocabulary for this so pardon the expression, is it like vessels commandeered by multiple observers, or more like a multiple personality thing, or what? I feel that sounds bad but I don't know how else to phrase it. I'm not trying to call it a medical diagnosis, I'm just curious about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah, sadly people often need time. But it's annoying they need it at our (us and people like us) expense.

    It can be either, however, for us it's like different entities who start controlling the body, thinking the thoughts etc, we all have our own dislikes, like etc, so we're definitely different . Sometimes one of us will be fronting and another will pop up and start talking to the other. Sometimes, we co-front where more than one of us is controlling the body or one is and the other is in the background observing and we can hear them but they don't have control of the body.

    Does that make sense?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I see. So it sounds like a much friendlier, more cooperative version of the guy in the movie Split.

    Except for them being humans and at least a few of them being psychotic. At least I assume you're not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Word of advice: Please don't look to media for what it's like to be plural, the only one (we have seen) that came close was Moon Knight and even that was bad at the end. Most media about it is incorrect in that it paints us as dangerous killers etc. We're not, most people who are neurodivergent, including us are more likely to get hurt than to hurt others, indeed, a lot of the time plurality and some other neurodivergencies come from trauma, not always, but they do a lot of the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's what I was trying to get at in the previous comment. I don't have much else to relate it to. It's hard to speak about it without referring to the only examples I know of.

    And lacking any other vocabulary, I feel like I'm stuck in the Darmok episode of Next Generation in terms of that topic. Not sure how familiar you are with Star Trek to know if this makes sense to you. (The short version is speaking in historical metaphor due to a lack in language. Great episode tho, one of my favorites.)

    Which is again using a media example, I guess, but for my own situation this time lol. Hope I didn't offend. I'm not trying to imply they're similar, I just don't know another way to say it so I'm using the language I have to get as close as I can relative to my current understanding. Definitely not trying to attach everything else about the examples I use, but just the individual ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    We aren't offended, just warning you off media that'll give you the wrong impression, that's all.

    Yeah, we like Star Trek a lot and are well aware of that species/culture from Lower Decks, they talk in memes basically, right?

    It's okay, you can relax, we're not out to get you. We have enjoyed this conversation so far 🙂. If we don't understand something we'll ask or clarify. Please talk in ways you understand until you can understand more.

    Oh, that reminds us: https://pluralpedia.org/ hope that helps!

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Is that surprising at all, though? Leftists take stuff like this very seriously to begin with, but also leftist spaces are more likely to be populated by a higher number of autistic (hi!) and other ND people who don't always know (or care) when something is a joke unless it's literally stated in the text of the joke.

    Also also, jokes shouldn't necessarily be granted immunity from serious analysis. It was a thought provoking post, that's a good thing too, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    "One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way - prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs."

    "Hitler's government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their franchise."

    Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    If I want to learn to bake bread I voluntarily accept the bakery te4acher as my superior in this matter for the duration of the lessons. If the first person had said voluntary hierarchies are the only valid ones they might have had a point!

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] [S] 22 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:

    …we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.

    — Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    This was probably just a bit or whatever, but I feel like it would be pretty easy for someone who actually thought all hierarchy was involuntary to argue that acting according to biological imperatives (such as the need/desire to engage in kink dynamics like femdom) are not voluntary. We can't choose what sexual orientation we have, either.

    Those fundamental desires are imposed upon us by our brain chemistry, whether we want them to be or not. You can consent to who you engage with, but you can't consent to experiencing those needs in the first place.

    If you squint hard enough, that's similar logic as when people claim that capitalism is fine because you can "choose" to get a different job.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But the sub is the one in control? Safe words and all that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I can literally just point to the republican party.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Re-education camps for nazis? 🤷‍♂️

  • source