[sdfghjkl34567]

>Would it not be better to work towards nobody feeling such fear?

But that isn't the hypothetical. Do you understand the concept?

Certainly if I had a faeries & unicorns switch I'd hit that as well, but we don't always have the options we'd like.

In the meantime, if it's possible to make fascist programmers afraid for their careers, that's great for me. It means fascist movements are disrupted before they can even form. God knows leftists have been afraid for long enough.

[mindslight]

You came up with that specific hypothetical and it inherently carries your framework. It is set up as a zero sum interaction where everyone needs to be brought down rather than lifted up. But fighting injustice with more injustice is a race to the bottom.

By your usage, I presume you're using definition #1 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist even though you are not capitalizing it. If it is possible to make Fascist programmers afraid for their careers, then Fascists cannot possibly wield much power.

On the other hand, the results of mob justice look an awful lot like a distributed implementation of fascism definition #2 - how is it not appropriate to describe, for example, a summary firing for political views as such?

[sdfghjkl34567]

Dictionaries are descriptions, not proscriptions, of words. I'm not "using" any definition of fascism other than the one I've built up in my own mind based on my own lived experiences. I'm not going to be questioned on a dictionary.

It is true that all exercises of political power are at the end of the day coercive. My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day.

The hypothetical I came up with is one where it's easier to attack an existing system than to create new and liberatory systems. This is the same as reality. It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference than it would be to get everyone at that conference to come to an appropriate understanding of feminist and anti-racist thought and praxis. There are certainly people involved in education, propaganda, and outreach, but this is by nature a much slower process and one that will not bear fruit in any reasonable time span. It is certainly not fast enough to counteract things like fascists at conferences, so we shut down the fascists.

I also obviously disagree as to whether denying a fascist the ability to spread fascism is injustice, or more broadly, whether attacking the oppressor classes and limiting their ability to oppress is somehow unjust. But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice." Certainly the world is not a just place, and I question whether the concept of justice as communicated by oppressor classes is something we need to bring with us into the future.

Finally

>distributed implementation of fascism

Do you notice the contradiction?

[nkurz]

It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference

How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"? Is the difference relevant? I think Moldbug views himself as anti-fascist, and argues that Fascism and Communism are alternative undesirable endgames for democracy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle...

And I'm not sure whether one should equate Moldbug with Yarvin. Is the blogger a pseudonym, a construct, a caricature, or an alter-ego? Should a comedian be equated with their on-stage persona? An actor with the character they play? An author with their protagonist?

I (truly) appreciate the insight your earlier comments provide.

[sdfghjkl34567]

>How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"?

Well, pragmatically, the difference is immaterial, because to maximize the memetic intensity of anti-fascism, we have to attack all fascists everywhere all the time. Within the fold, there is very little opposition, because once one valid point has been made, going against it is nearly impossible.

This is the real danger in going down the ideological-purity path the way the mainstream extreme-liberal tumblerite bloc has. I get around this by maintaining a network of people I trust implicitly as comrades and who also trust me, but this is how ideologic drift happens in, say, activist groups.

>I think Moldbug views himself as anti-fascist

Well, nobody's the villain of their own story.

>Is the blogger a pseudonym, a construct, a caricature, or an alter-ego? Should a comedian be equated with their on-stage persona? An actor with the character they play? An author with their protagonist?

Do you think Moldbug is intended as a fiction?

>I (truly) appreciate the insight your earlier comments provide.

Don't think they provide so much insight. I'm one person and pretty idiosyncratic in my ideology and praxis. I am certainly not representative and I'm sure I would disagree with (just as an example) most of the people whose twitter comments were cited in the OP's article.

I just wanted to say that yes, I fully enjoy the fact that people are now afraid to be racist, sexist, etc., at tech conferences.

[eli_gottlieb]

>to maximize the memetic intensity of anti-fascism, we have to attack all fascists everywhere all the time

Nobody on the Left talks like that. I'm guessing you're actually one of Yarvin's own bunch masquerading as an antifascist to discredit the cause.

[nkurz]

Do you think Moldbug is intended as a fiction?

No, I think they are essays where in the author is testing out ideas to see how they hold together when criticized by the world. Some of these ideas are deep beliefs, where the question is simply how the outside will react to hearing about them. Some of them are fragments of arguments he's trying to piece together, in the hope that the process of writing will clear things up in his own mind. Others are probably there simply because he was drawn in the cadence of the language.

But I do think that Moldbug is consciously a persona, and not identical to Yarvin. And I don't think either is a fascist by any reasonable definition. Racist? Yes, the writing is racist by the current way the word is used to label practically any belief in racial differences. But I'd prefer to judge the author (Yarvin) by how he treats others in the world, not how he writes about the world in the abstract.

I fully enjoy the fact that people are now afraid to be racist, sexist, etc., at tech conferences.

If this was the only outcome, I'd might agree with the tactics. But what if their pragmatic reaction is to simply avoid situations where they can be accused of these things? Don't hire women, because they might accuse you of sexism. Don't hire minorities, because you might lose your job if accused of racial prejudice?

In such an environment, silence is likely the best strategy. But along with the silence is likely the belief that everyone else shares the same opinion, but similarly doesn't speak about it. I believe more in sunlight as a disinfectant: get the ideas out in the open. I think it's good for people to hear more points of view they disagree with.

I'm one person and pretty idiosyncratic in my ideology and praxis.

Yes, but that ideology is so different from mine that I learn just by the knowledge that such a viewpoint exists.

[mindslight]

If your definition differs, please describe it. Sharing definitions is necessary to communicate, as opposed to simply lobbing feels back and forth.

> My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day.

So in the mean time, you switch to maximizing political power? Why exactly do you think this would end any differently than it has in the past - simply empowering new autocrats borne by new religions?

> But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice."

How can you propose to have a society without justice? When people feel wronged, their desire is to get greater revenge. Without moderating this force, feuds grow ever larger.

It seems as if you're envisioning a magic society where everybody just "gets it" and nobody transgresses against one another. And since you can never have that (there will always be differences of opinion), you take solace in mob destruction but yet still tell yourself you're fighting the good fight.

>> distributed implementation of fascism

> Do you notice the contradiction?

Not at all. The result is the same for those on the receiving end. (and for your inevitable thought of 'well they deserve it' - that's exactly the position of the oppressors you're fighting against. good job!)

[amcastillo]

>Do you notice the contradiction?

No. Distributivism comes to mind.

[anon_adderlan]

> In the meantime, if it's possible to make fascist programmers afraid for their careers, that's great for me. It means fascist movements are disrupted before they can even form. God knows leftists have been afraid for long enough.

Disrupting fascist movements sounds like a great idea, but is that really your intent?

> But if I could flip a switch and make every man feel the persistent, gnawing fear that a woman has of men, I would in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even consider whether the consequences were strategic, I would just do it.

Because it seems your intent is to make others as afraid as you are regardless of the consequences. Unless it's not, in which case things would probably be a lot more clear if you stopped flip flopping and refusing to define the words you use.