"If people are different then that's a hierarchy, checkmate anarchists" = truly the most lazy dipshit line conservatives have. 1) Difference is not domination. What we oppose is relationships that constrain net choice. "Social hierarchies" are not any axis of difference.
I guess substantively what I worry about is that people's choices are constrained partly by their natures, some hierarchies emerge in relation to these differences but then the correlation between hierarchy and ability is false assumed to be causative in the wrong direction.
-
-
Obviously there are a billion counterexamples that are Not This, but I only mean to defend some hierarchies from the charge of being inherently coercive. To de universalise your program.
-
name one concrete defensible hierarchy. (you know, that's defensible, and that's a hierarchy.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.