Misrepresentations of Accelerationism

Not to be confused with ‘misrepresentations by Accelerationist authors’.
It was disappointing but not all that surprising to hear the usual misconceptions and not a lot else. I’d really love to hear what people’s sources are for a lot of this stuff. I don’t mind that people don’t like U/Acc writing or ideas or whatever — to each their own — but it is irritating when people trot out the same straw men again and again, as if these are things which aren’t addressed in the earliest U/Acc (and more broadly accelerationist) writings already.It seems like someone who hasn’t read anything makes a comment and then that comment is parroted by other people who haven’t read anything either. It feels like a bizarre psyop implemented by people who just don’t know any better. The blind leading the blind. It’s boring. It’d be great to have a better class of opponent.This happens a lot, obviously, but I take particular umbrage with this instance because JG Michael and Michael James have been around for some time. Heck, they’ve been hanging around these parts longer than I have, probably. They’re well-known interlocutors. So what’s the excuse? Have they inadvertently betrayed their own laziness? Their own superficial readings? As fellow chroniclers of a lot of online debates, I’m really struggling to understand how this episode is peppered with so many basic errors. It’s embarrassing.— Blogpost, «Do u (even) /acc bro?», by "xenogothic" 25f19, at least partially a response to «Ep. 58: Synthetic Zero’s Michael James on Speculative Realism, Post-Nihilism, Accelerationism, & Climate Catastrophe» a 22f19 episode of the podcast «Parallax Views w/ J.G. Michael». 
== Rhizomata ==
* Accelerationism
* Accelerationism in Mass media
* Presentation; Representation; Appearance
* Slander; Defamation; Confusion; Error; Slight; Fallacy