Say What, Kenny??? How is disagreeing and offering a counter-viewpoint being "divisive"?
Of course we all must work together as individuals...
Steemit's holy trinity of passive aggressive communication. Shit, I mean "non-violent" communication.
in our respective communities and enterprises in order to achieve desired ends at times. This community-based interdependence is totally natural, and beautiful.
That said, I am yet again compelled to address what has been an ongoing issue here in the anarchist community on Steemit. Namely, the hypocritical refusal to be open to question, critique, and dissent, whilst simultaneously complaining that those asking questions are being "divisive," and should just basically shut up and go along to get along.
In other words: "Don't disagree with me or anyone I support passionately! That's being divisive and is bad for the movement. However, I will disagree with you because when I do it I am not being divisive, because I am right in saying we should all work together."
If you want to know what I am talking about, you can read Kenny Palurintano's latest post basically asserting that myself and other Voluntaryist Steemians are holier than thou utopians who don't want to see peace happen as quickly as possible, and who are hurting and harming "the movement" (puke) through our annoying questions.
What's funny to me is:
Anarchism/Voluntaryism is an INDIVIDUALIST PHILOSOPHY. THE WHOLE REASON WE ARE VOLUNTARYISTS IS BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND HUMANS DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AND CAN STILL LIVE IN PEACE! Having everyone agree on everything is not a pre-req! Hell, the whole beauty of the thing is that we understand people will NEVER agree on everything. Jesus. This is why there are property norms. (Sadly Kenny doesn't believe land can be owned either, and won't give a straight answer when I ask if I can come over and eat all his food and sleep on his couch for a month). This is anarchy 101 guys.
The very same argument Kenny and the other self-labeled "non-violent communicators" make to assert that folks like myself and @larkenrose disagreeing with people and calling them out is "divisive" and harmful to "the movement" can be flipped on its head and aimed directly back at them. Isn't it being divisive to the "movement" to make a whole post about how myself and others are utopian holier-than-thou types?
The folks Kenny defends, and who agree with him that myself and others are not being "gentle" and communicating in unhealthy ways, harming the "movement," are the same folks calling people "cowards" and "annoying trolls" (lovely NVC, right?) when asked honest questions or strongly disagree. Oner of these cats has even insinuated that @larkenrose is a "COINTELPRO" state plant. LOL. How is this not "divisive" and "bad for the movement"? Get the fuck right outta town.
God.I just LOOK bad for "the movement" and my "team."
The Post and My Response:
Kenny's post is strawman city on fire with preachy condescension of the brand I like least: the saccharine "non-violent communication"-advocating, double speak, subtle stabbing "What? What? Why are you getting so angry? Seeeee?" type of BS. Putting on a coat of "gentleness" doesn't make being dishonest and insulting okay.
Kenny, if you really want to have a genuine, honest conversation about this, let's do it. I'm open.
My rebuttal to Kenny's post can be found on the comment thread of his OP, linked above.
UPDATE/EDIT: Kenny has now stated that the main point of his post is about my communication method, and not the ideas actually outlined in the post. To set the record straight, I first raised philosophical contentions about IDEAS regarding Adam Kokesh’s presidential campaign. Eventually, I was called an “annoying troll,” by Kokesh for doing so, and it was claimed I was just “seeking attention.” I then began to respond in kind, in exaggerated fashion. It is this RESPONSE that Kenny takes issue with, while failing to address what led up to the response. It’s hard to question a narcissistic type of person, because most people surrounding the person, that cannot read between the lines, will say you are being unreasonable. Well, so be it. For those that do wish to know the true score, I’d encourage you to look at the ideas being debated, and not all of this dramatic, name-calling, “be a team player” bullshit and projection coming from the other side. Now Kenny has sunk to the laughable projection that I am doing this all for attention. He’s the third. @lukestokes was the second to suggest this. Thanks guys, and fuck off (I say this respectfully, of course).
Peace.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
My reply on the other thread:
This isn't about individuals; It's about the objective.
That objective, for me at least, is maximizing individual liberty. Is the person in question working towards that goal or not? If they appear not to be, what is the cause? Perhaps they have some greater good down the road in mind, or perhaps they do not.
Any one person's distance down the path to greater individual liberty is not what should be focused on in other words. We should be focusing on the objective, and the objective is never fully obtained. We will always have to struggle and fight to expand and defend individual liberty.
All I ask for from my friends is consistency. Their motivation for doing what they are doing should be the same as mine. Are they doing it for fame or personal enrichment, to build their reputation to gain later, or some other selfish reason? Or are they motivated by the goal of maximizing everyone's individual liberty?
As I work towards the objective too, I should repeatedly question my motivations, actions, and failures to act. I am not very good at seeing my own inconsistencies or mistakes though. My friends therefore should be helping me grow by pointing them out. They are looking at me from the outside, and they can see more clearly.
It is our duty, due to liberty being worth any price, to make sure we are looking for consistency in our friends as they work towards the objective. We as individuals do not matter much at all compared to it either. Individuals can however do a lot of damage by not being true to the cause. The sooner those people are discovered, the less damage they can do.
No one should be an exception to the process of trusting but continually verifying. Repeatedly questioning the actions of those around us isn't divisive either. It is necessary to strengthen our cause and better achieve our goals. What really concerns me is when certain people believe they should not be subject to the process.
If we really do have the same objective, neither of us will mind being evaluated, repeatedly, for consistency. We won't mind having our actions questioned, and we'll be open to correction by our friends. People who do not welcome the process make me even more curious, and I then have to ask, "Perhaps they don't actually share the same objective as me?"
I totally did not follow the debate that has been going on... but i still feel like i need to let out my 2 cents of non violent hate here...
imho Adam is an opportunist... I've been following the guy's content for several years now, and I have come to the conclusion that he's just a narcissist and mostly cares for himself... the anarchist message, i am convinced he believes in it... but he's just creating his own circle-jerk around it in the end...
I have been following his content for years as well. I think "opportunist" is probably a pretty accurate assessment.
I might want to add that I'd still find it hilarious if he did actually leave a dent in a future presidential selection :P just for the controversy, it might just create an interesting public discussion at least.
One thing I like about you is that you can disagree without being disagreeable, that's something people need to be willing to do. To be honest I prefer ad hominem attacks to the daily $1+ downvote this asshole has been giving all my gun control posts without even leaving a comment, now that shit is cowardly. People lash out when they are wrong and can't defend their position.
Do you know the guy?
"(at)bloom" ( I don't want to summon him) I don't think I have ever interacted with him before but he discovered my gun control posts and has been downvoting them every day
How does that principle work , then?
I can't reconcile this with anarchism....
I just read his piece though, and it seemed 'reasonable' to be honest.
Divisive is a word best used with caution and can be easily be misconstrued......or it is a serious accusation...
I'm not weighing in on the the discussion regarding the strategies of Adam, or you guys.. just giving my 2 cents worth after reading it through...
Working as a group makes things easier for us to achieve faster and better completion
But the group must have a leader so that the business runs well
angry look
Reality doesn't always and in fact almost never comes out the way you plan it. There are problems with Adam's and Larken's methods about promoting anarchy and libertarianism. But I'm going to be honest here you don't usually get to your destination by a straight line in life. You try and see what happens and correct what you have done and try again. The only failure is not doing anything. This is actually why all forms of governments have failed. Because the ideas don't become reality they were draw up to be. Adam is not going to be the savior or Larken. If he makes a splash and people wake up that's the best thing we can hope for. The frustration that Larken believes will come from a failed campaign will bring will in fact only piss people off more. They will also see without a shadow of a doubt how the system is totally rigged invalid and not real. If you play there little game to see if you can actually change something for real and realise you can't and it's pointless well there's your proof for why need anarchy in the first place. CAN WE STOP THIS SILLY BICKERING?!... If not maybe focus your energy more on your own projects then bashing other peoples. I don't believe either side is giving any bit on these issues, maybe revisit them later but take a break see what happens. Or do whatever you want, I just think sometimes we need a little more unity.
Unity is not achieved through stifling dissent. That is all I am saying. I agree that the bickering is silly. The foundational, axiomatic, immutable principle and reality of individual self-ownership, however, is not silly at all, and that's basically what I've been talking about this whole time.