MetaJess

Do you think it's factually wrong or just tonally or what? As a story for how people relate to each other it sounds ok/not controversial to me

i'm trying not to be very dismissive/my usual self about this because the drive to project a conflictless past and use it as proof that a conflictless future can be achieved is clearly an emotional reaction to current-day stress, but it's really wishful thinking at every turn

I think there is more naivety presented in some of the writings than really exists in the worldviews of those involved in this loose affiliation. Maybe it's a flaw in style and presentation, but I wouldn't interpret it in the same way you are. Not wishful thinking.

everything i came across (incl videos and endless twitter scrolling) was the exact same eschaton immanentizing i'll keep the terms unmuted and keep paying attention, just in case

I share your frustration that a lot of the discourse is eschatological rather than practical. in my experience the pragmatic, grounded, worldly conversations are happening in video conference calls mostly. there are real things happening that are not reflected in the discourse.

i'll take your word for it, but for now the basic tenets seem poorly sketched out/rest upon a not very solid base & the goal seems to be global coherence (correct me if i'm wrong, i wanna be wrong here), which is... yeah. not sure pragmatics based on them are productive

you might be right. I can't speak for everyone. The contacts I have had have mostly been involved with communicating within a subculture niche to achieve alignment of values so participation in practical works can be achieved. I'd say, basically, watch this space.