> I also think you fail to see that might makes right.

No, I disagree. And this type of writing is one reason I'm drawing back from 'progressive' spaces: There's a pernicious moral righteousness, lack of humility, and lack of desire to engage in good faith discussions. It is a red flag for a couple of reasons:

* It gives me the impression that the interest isn't in finding truth or effective tactics: The interest in the discussion is making dissidents fall into line.

* Tactically and strategically, it leads to an ossified movement which can't adapt to changing times or support itself. Cutting off internal dissent is a great way to make sure no improvements are ever made. And if we're talking personal interest and game theory, why would I tie myself to a sinking ship? Even if the ship is mostly correct, it's better to build a mostly correct ship that is less likely to sink.

* Related to number 1: Treating all dissent the same. The black and white kneejerk of assuming everybody who dissents is a right-winger ignorant of the context of these discussions. I've been discussing identity issues and politics online for almost 3 decades. I know where this speech and approach come from since I was, you know, there and participating. My critiques have grown out of experience of seeing first-hand over the past 20 years some failure modes of these spaces and having grown up and looking at the conversations with a different eye and context now than I had as a teenager or child. But what I get is 'stupid Trumptard'.

Digression aside:

I don't agree might makes right. Do you mean might makes victory? Because 'victory' and 'right' are two different things. I'm an archivist, immediate results are not the only things I consider when I support or don't support worldviews, values, and policies. There are plenty of historical cases where the mightest group 'won' and is now either forgotten or agreed to be in the 'wrong'.

> I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system.

I'm very pro 2A. I even think it should be extended to include equipment made to jam electronics and malicious software code. Tools against tyranny must evolve with the capacities of the tyrants.

I'll also clarify a bit more since you know what you're talking about: I actually hold a meta-belief that there is no 'best' economic and political system, only a best one for a given set of conditions. (There are even some which call for an absolute dictator, but I wouldn't want to live in those conditions personally.) And for right now, syndicalism is the closest ideology, but I actually think we're due for a new one because the theories behind capitalism, communism/socialism, and modern liberal democracy are all tied very closely to a particular informational era and we're leaving that era. I don't know what that new thing will be: I'm waiting to see. God knows I'm not going to figure it out: I'm a random crippled peasant.

I agree that anarchism denies institutions. The primary reason that, if I were to support any of the existent political ideologies right now it would be anarchism is because a lot of our problems right now come from corrupt and ineffective institutions, and investing more in them is a hard sell for me.

> Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself.

I would approach the game thusly: Discussion if possible, first time I cooperate. I cooperate until they defect/break our agreement, and then I don't play anymore. If it's a one time thing with no discussion, I'm just not playing the game. I'll take the longer sentence and figure out another way out - I'm not signaling to my jailers that I'm amenable to manipulation or psychological torture. I'm a huge NC fan and an interesting aspect of their Prisoner's Dilemma/Trust game is how it differs depending on conditions like how many rounds you play. Politics and worldviews aren't a one and done; games are being played every second. In addition, a lot of those 'games' are public and if you play only to win and completely disregard your values, then everybody knows your values aren't real. And then nobody wants to cooperate with you politically except hustlers and Machiavellians. Which we are seeing with the social justice movement - every single part is weighed down by scam artists and hustlers much in the same way some early web groups were overrun with spam. That's what happens when your morals boil down to 'if you say the right things, you're a good person'.

(Also I'd suggest you replay NC's 'We Become What We Behold' - one reason I am here is that it's outside my normal filter bubble and I value that.)

> How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality?

They didn't, and I know it's not popular but I do have some sympathy for the Nazi German populace. Not as much as their victims, obviously, but as somebody who lived through 9/11 and remembers how everybody got caught up in that jingoistic fervor, I have no interest in pretending like we're innately 'better'. As for the latter, of course not, wtf? I was talking in the sense of 'allowing words offensive to a particular inborn quality'. I don't think anybody should be decapitating anyone and I would try to intervene. It's kind of telling that you first went there, honestly. I was thinking of how a progressive Iranian (You know, like the ones who are protesting) might still be uncomfortable with drawings of Muhammed or heresy because that's a cultural thing they were raised with since birth and most of them are still practicing Muslims.

Which kind of leads into the second reason I'm avoiding progressive spaces now: I'm from a purple area in a purple state. My family and general social circle are almost split in half left-right. There's a concerning amount of rhetoric (not just on the left but I learned to avoid most right spaces really early) that I feel is going to lead to my cousin's grandbabies fighting my best friend's grandbabbies or my mom's family fighting my dad's family. There's this rhetoric of 'purge the disbelievers from among you': don't read what the other side says, don't associate with any of them, etc. Sorry, but anybody who gives me an ultimatum about who I should love and care for is not somebody I listen to. Even if you hate my cousins for their belief systems, you're advocating that I leave their babies (literal babies) in that environment and do nothing to help them because it's more 'moral' for me to demonstrate my virtue. Fuck that.

> I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power?

My feelings on truth are...complicated. Basically I think of it similar to an electron cloud - there is a given range of probable truths but we have no way of knowing the exact truths. I do believe in truth in that I believe there are certain things that all humans can observe equally and in the same way - e.g. the acceleration constant. But even that has an asterisk: Humans on the moon or in space get different values. I'm still feeling out my values and thoughts on truth, but right now the closest would be: "I don't believe objective truth exists, I believe it's constructed through human observation of our environment and I believe that having strong constructions is necessary for a functioning society". You can believe something is important even if it's not innate.

Since you used anti-trans rhetoric as your example, I'm curious if you were politically active in the queer community prior to the push for gay marriage? (Just curious because those of us who are older often reach for general anti-queer sentiment but the focus on anti-trans to the exclusion of the rest of the community tends to be a younger person thing because they don't personally remember homosexuals being oppressed). I'm also curious how you define anti-trans? Obviously 'trans people are degenerates that shouldn't exist/we shouldn't allow them to dress and be who they are' is anti-trans. What about 'I agree with everything activists want for trans rights except for sports desegregation?' or 'I think transition is fine but we shouldn't allow minors to make irreversible decisions?' or 'Trans people deserve rights but sometimes I want to talk to other cis lesbians about how isolating it was realizing I didn't like men without having to stop and do emotional labor to help trans women feel like they belong changing the focus of the conversation? (there's a major habit of trans women using lesbian spaces as a therapy substitute)' or 'I'm a detransitioner and want to talk about my experience that doesn't fit into the narrative?' etc. If your first reaction is that I'm sea lioning or those are just edge cases... that's how the right views trans people and POC. Since we're on a tech site, I'll say that what I see is 'building a system without doing any QA or edge case testing, pushing it into production, and then gaslighting the users for not staying on the happy path and gaslighting the customer service people when they say the system isn't working'.