'member this cartoon? It's dumb for a number of reasons. The first is of course that it's completely glossing the hypocrisy issue, mogging it with "I'm signaling that I'm smart". It's not really slick rhetoric.pic.twitter.com/NeaFnhon46
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
By this I mean, when you adopt a philosophy, unless you follow its tenets you're being hypocritical. Hypocrisy itself is not about immortal/universal standards, but about pretense; what is put forth, honestly or dishonestly. "By your own words you will stand or fall."
Now to clear something up, most of these folks view society and government as different things - they think of society as simply "relationships" between people that form the "community", whereas gov't is coercion. Society has always been governed, so they imagine a "new" society.
I take the historical view, which is in this case less Plato and more Aristotle you might say - that no society is without government. Therefore society must be governed, to eliminate coercion is to dissolve society. History backs me up here, although this isn't the point.
However, the moral point about hypocrisy and the concern about destroying humanity by destroying its "interlinking" fabric miss a very much more important point! And it has all to do with a dumb nursery rhyme, "the lady who swallowed the fly."
In "the old lady who swallowed the fly", the woman tries to get rid of one pest with another, or, in short, she develops X to destroy Y, after which X becomes a new pest! Imagine if a socialist developed a government to destroy government... well, you get it.
So the Leninists, in order to get rid of the evils of government and bring on the classless society, create a government to destroy the evils of government, which proceeds to become a new, perhaps more virulent form of government. Ah.
But let's say, what if... what if one as able to use the system to destroy itself? It would be hypocritical to engage and in fact in some ways help the system, but if successful, X destroys X, and X-X=0, the fly eats itself.
For this reason, in conclusion, accelerationism and decelerationism are identical movements, separated only by their expectations of what will happen after the "bifurcation" - an eruption, an AI, whatever, as Decelerationists will realize they need to use tech to destroy itself.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.