What? It's late/early and I'm not the smartest so I'm unclear on what you're trying to say.There's that self reflection issue I mentioned...
Also pragmatism for pragmatism sake isn't good.
What? It's late/early and I'm not the smartest so I'm unclear on what you're trying to say.There's that self reflection issue I mentioned...
Also pragmatism for pragmatism sake isn't good.
An issue I can have with my fellow Liberals is a lack of good self reflection. Too often they can get sucked up into "Their side is worse" to really analyze what's wrong here.What? It's late/early and I'm not the smartest so I'm unclear on what you're trying to say.
Ah okay, I follow you. Sorry about that.An issue I can have with my fellow Liberals is a lack of good self reflection. Too often they can get sucked up into "Their side is worse" to really analyze what's wrong here.
They often rationalize it with "be pragmatic" which as a fellow pragmatic isn't always the best way. Constant pragmatic thought can lead to stagnation and demoralization.
Bingo.Yeah, everyone can benefit from some self reflection. I think everyone tends to avoid it because it can present some uncomfortable truths.
There is sniping from both sides(not everyone is involved), but let us drop it; it will go nowhere good.
Now, as to Omar it's definitely a bad look, and a growing list of what I think are either political miscalculations or just bad messaging errors but in no way do I say she needs to go. She is certainly burning political good will doing stuff like this though.
As for my statelessism Pekola & others Stateless societies don't work in the modern era for a very large list of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that our society is too large and overburdened as is with states to accomplish what anarchism wants. Another issue is stateless societies can't answer outside context problems/powers very easily...or at all.
Rojava is a war zone where centralized government control collapsed, it is very different than a place like MAREZ, even if some of ad hoc the mechanisms that were put in place to try to run it are not dissimilar.360.000 people in mexico live in anarchist communities today. Also rojava is also anarchy-communist with 2.000.000 people. Any system models have problem even social democracy has a list o problems, but it will stop importuning you.
i would love to, the problem is money =(Rojava is a war zone where centralized government control collapsed, it is very different than a place like MAREZ, even if some of ad hoc the mechanisms that were put in place to try to run it are not dissimilar.
I would also urge everyone to not take at face value every piece of reporting that they see about people who are fighting for US's interests.
p.s.
You should consider visiting the Zapatistas in MAREZ though, it's safe and they love visitors.
Both of those are small, geographically and population.
360.000 people in mexico live in anarchist communities today. Also rojava is also anarchy-communist with 2.000.000 people. Any system models have problem even social democracy has a list o problems, but it will stop importuning you.
Both of those are small, geographically and population.
The U.S. can never be anarchist. Or the whole world.
Too big, too spread out and to interconnected.So the problem is that the US is too big and populated, you think?
I'm not entirely sure the Rojavan government model isn't scaleable. Basically, it's a federalist system that just views the municipality as the central unit and works up from there rather than from a top-down formation, united by a universally-accepted charter. You still have regional elections and the such. Rojava effectively posits that anarchism isn't incompatible with federalism and I tend to agree.Too big, too spread out and to interconnected.
Fire, Healthcare, Police, Education and infrastructure of this scale does not work without a state apparatus.
Racial issues and economic issues are not the same. Just giving racist poor people money won't make them magically not racist.
If this were the case, racism wouldn't be as prevelant among the rich.They actually are inseparable issues and there's clear historical evidence to support that. I don't think giving poor people money will stop them from being racist but what's important is building coalitions based on class so that wealth inequality can truly be addressed. Republicans have demonized minorities and the state for a long time, it will take extensive education to fix that.
If this were the case, racism wouldn't be as prevelant among the rich.
This I agree with.you can't stop shitty people from being racists, but what you can do is minimize the systemic damage racists can do. it'd be a lot easier for minorities to deal with racist assholes if those assholes didn't have domineering power over their livelihood as they so often do in a capitalist state.
I mean I don't disagree with you, but if racism and money were completely tied explain white nationalism and facism.
Dead black folk can't buy your stuff. Sometimes, people are just shit without needing money as an excuse.
However, that was less Hitler generating racism so much as it was Hitler harnessing racism. Anti-semitism in the 19th and 20th centuries was out of fucking control. I mean, it always was, but it was on an upswing even before WW1. I mean, shit, look at Bakunin. Dude was fucking ready to go do some immensely regrettable shit, not just write immensely regrettable shit.Nazism became popular in part because Germany was suffering economically after WWI and then that only intensified once the Great Depression hit and Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats, Hitler used the economic struggle of German people against the Jews and made them the enemy. Hitler actually lost the election against Hindenberg (?), he won something like 33% of the vote but capital owners convinced Hindenberg to appoint Hitler to a leadership role precisely because they were worried about the growing popularity of socialism and they thought they could reign in his antisemitism, we know how that turned out.
Aren't most of these primed for decentralization? I mean the firedepartment in Sacramento really does not need to work in tandem or closely follow what the fire department in Tampa does...Too big, too spread out and to interconnected.
Fire, Healthcare, Police, Education and infrastructure of this scale does not work without a state apparatus.
I think you're both right, he harnessed it when successfully blaming jews for the German loss in WW1 and the crippling of the German economy, that doesn't happen without a substantial amount of anti Semitism existing already. But he definitely generated it too, the random person on the street may of been anti Semitic before but they weren't members of the nazi party, raiding Jewish homes/shops etc and cheering putting Jews and other groups in trains to hell.However, that was less Hitler generating racism so much as it was Hitler harnessing racism. Anti-semitism in the 19th and 20th centuries was out of fucking control. I mean, it always was, but it was on an upswing even before WW1. I mean, shit, look at Bakunin. Dude was fucking ready to go do some immensely regrettable shit, not just write immensely regrettable shit.
By micro targeting do they mean police infiltration of groups? If so there was a big thing over here about that.I've just been made aware of a Harvard study showing the success rates of peaceful protests dropped from 70% to 30% in the mid 2000s, which they believe is thanks to police micro targeting organizers.
Shows how dangerous the surveillance state is. Organizers either need to learn how to protect thier privacy, or become visible enough that their arrest would flair up further protest, alongside a passing of the baton to someone not known by police.
Probably means pointing out and detaining specific individuals via advanced communication and research as well. Black bloc tactics help, folks! Or the HK evolution to such is valid too.By micro targeting do they mean police infiltration of groups? If so there was a big thing over here about that.
That too, but harassment of organizers and infiltration of groups has been a thing for decades. It's the extra knowledge that comes from heavy surveillance that makes it so successful.By micro targeting do they mean police infiltration of groups? If so there was a big thing over here about that.
HK being decentralized is really throwing the cops for a loop.Probably means pointing out and detaining specific individuals via advanced communication and research as well. Black bloc tactics help, folks! Or the HK evolution to such is valid too.
Probably means pointing out and detaining specific individuals via advanced communication and research as well. Black bloc tactics help, folks! Or the HK evolution to such is valid too.
I see, thanks!That too, but harassment of organizers and infiltration of groups has been a thing for decades. It's the extra knowledge that comes from heavy surveillance that makes it so successful.
Link?I've just been made aware of a Harvard study showing the success rates of peaceful protests dropped from 70% to 30% in the mid 2000s, which they believe is thanks to police micro targeting organizers.
Shows how dangerous the surveillance state is. Organizers either need to learn how to protect thier privacy, or become visible enough that their arrest would flair up further protest, alongside a passing of the baton to someone not known by police.
Today Explained podcast on worldwide protests is where I learned it. I'm sure the study itself could be googled.Link?
I'm asking because the police, NSA and FBI have been specifically targeting organizers since forever.
They have more capabilities these days, but most organizers and protest leaders are pretty damn easy to find.
I couldn't find it. But I didn't look terribly hard.Today Explained podcast on worldwide protests is where I learned it. I'm sure the study itself could be googled.
I couldn't find it. But I didn't look terribly hard.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'm buying it, what's the last big protest movement in the US that died because their leaders were arrested?
In that blog about the study, government data was the first thing the researcher mentioned.I listened to that Today Explained episode, and honestly, from the way the study was described I think it's more about a change in goals than improved police action. Governments have become better at waiting out or disrupting protestor, but a big thing that was mentioned was that protestors are asking for a lot more - not the removal of a corrupt leader and some reforms, but a wholesale changing of the system, often in ways that're beyond the ability of any one government to do. Climate protests are the obvious example here. There's no way to protest hard enough in, say, Norway that China changes their emission standards.
I'll have to sit down and go through it, then.In that blog about the study, government data was the first thing the researcher mentioned.
Making larger demands was talked about in today explained too, but it's not at all like Norway protesting China. It's things thier local governments can do but won't because it's too uncomfortable for them.
I meant more that like... If you're in Norway, and you stage a climate protest, the goal of which is something like "meet global emission standards reductions we need to avoid the 2 C threshold", then there's only so much the government of Norway can *do*. At some point that protest gets marked as being unsuccessful. So if the proportion of protests that fall into that general category has increased, then the proportion of successful protests would of course go down.Wouldn't a Norway protest be based on Norway's export of oil to China? I'm just spitballing but that would technically be a domestic issue.
Ah okay, that makes sense. I misunderstood, sorry.I'll have to sit down and go through it, then.
I meant more that like... If you're in Norway, and you stage a climate protest, the goal of which is something like "meet global emission standards reductions we need to avoid the 2 C threshold", then there's only so much the government of Norway can *do*. At some point that protest gets marked as being unsuccessful. So if the proportion of protests that fall into that general category has increased, then the proportion of successful protests would of course go down.
But I haven't had time to go through the article, so maybe that's not as much of a factor as I'm thinking.
Protesters are smart enough to know they aren't going to impact another country's policy by going to their local streets and I don't know where you got the idea that there's been any protest like that.I'll have to sit down and go through it, then.
I meant more that like... If you're in Norway, and you stage a climate protest, the goal of which is something like "meet global emission standards reductions we need to avoid the 2 C threshold", then there's only so much the government of Norway can *do*. At some point that protest gets marked as being unsuccessful. So if the proportion of protests that fall into that general category has increased, then the proportion of successful protests would of course go down.
But I haven't had time to go through the article, so maybe that's not as much of a factor as I'm thinking.
Cool, thanks!
It's pretty useless unless you can get them to realize you subscribe to a belief system they haven't actually encountered previously. THAT opens up some ears, some of the time anyways.Does anyone else feel like talking to people with very different political views about politics is pretty useless online now?
It just seems like everyone talks past eachother and nobody changes their mind.
It's not useless for the far right. It's just really important to understand the audience isn't the person you're arguing with, it's the normies watching from the sidelines.Does anyone else feel like talking to people with very different political views about politics is pretty useless online now?
It just seems like everyone talks past eachother and nobody changes their mind.
Yeah, it's sometimes hard to judge if some of the questions are genuine or just trolling. Stuff like "Why would humans do x without money/status?" could be an honest question but it also could just be someone wasting your time.It's pretty useless unless you can get them to realize you subscribe to a belief system they haven't actually encountered previously. THAT opens up some ears, some of the time anyways.
Libertarian municipalism is a good opener for that.
This is true and I've watched the video before (that entire series is excellent) but I simply don't have the temperament to talk to a random far right guy. I've tried, but my patience isn't the best.It's not useless for the far right. It's just really important to understand the audience isn't the person you're arguing with, it's the normies watching from the sidelines.
The Alt-Right Playbook: How to Radicalize a Normie
patreon: http://patreon.com/InnuendoStudiostumblr: http://innuendostudios.tumblr.comtwitter: https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudiostranscript: https://innuendos...www.youtube.com