i.e. "I pretend to be smart by noticing something that could be construed as hypocrisy". Let's be frank: there are multiple issues at stake and this completely missing the plot.
-
-
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.
Show this thread -
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."
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread
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.
