Ask HN: Reddit alternatives (that aren't Mastodon)

Major props. I suspect I disagree with you politically on many subjects, but I'm pretty sure I could sit down and have a reasonable conversation with you. We would agree on some things, and disagree on more, but we'd hopefully be able to understand even when we disagreed.

This will have to be in parts. Apologies for the very abstract thinking:

Words are indirect references to ideas, so making sure the idea referenced by the same word is the same is a valuable thing to do. A problem in modern discourse is that frequently two words are spelled identically and used in similar contexts but reference wildly different ideas and contexts (woke, communism, fascism, democracy, racism, etc.). If you asked 100 people to write a paper on those words, their meaning and contexts, and how to test them, I think you would get a lot of variety. These word <-> idea references are developed socially, and eventually you have groups of people saying words outsiders understand and can make sense of, but with completely different meanings. Political sects can literally speak a different language.

You are aware of this and are addressing it by asking if I meant "might makes victory." I appreciate that.

I feel like I need to re-justify my reference to might makes right and define it better. Kissinger might call it realpolitik, but the context of realpolitik makes it something I disagree with. Realpolitik “might makes right” is wrong, but “2nd amendment to stop oppressive forces” “might makes right” is right, Unionization “might makes right” is right, Why?

I think there is a spectrum between “actions are justified because they increase your might”, and “without might you can never get justice.”

So, might makes right is not a justification to be right through might, it’s a warning against being weak or in a position without power.

A better less loaded statement is “might is the ultimate arbiter of disagreements.”

If liberal people think they can rule purely from value and without respect to power structures they are wrong. If anarchic people think they can function without building power structures (institutions) I think they are wrong.

Liberalism is a philosophy of sacrifice and responsibility. Conservatism is a philosophy of struggle and winning. Liberalism is a philosophy that requires consequences for prisoners dilemma defectors to function. Liberalism fails when it denies that it is “might” that arbitrates axiomatic disagreements, not values. Values form culture, and culture influences might, but a culture that does not respect power or pay dues to it is doomed.

Snyder talks about this in a different way in terms of “the politics of inevitability” (the idea that if something is inevitable, you don't have to put your self at risk exercising power to support it) and “the politics of eternity” (the idea that at some point exercising any power is too risky).

All of that providing context for a response:

> finding truth or effective tactics vs making dissidents fall into line.

This is a spectrum and not a black and white view. Effective tactics which must be informed by truth are a very high concern, but that concern must be analyzed in context.

People say culture war and under-emphasize “war.” We are in a culture war. Is our nation a nation of and for white Christians, or is it a nation for all? There is no compromise to be reached, only armistice and ceasefire.

So in terms of effective tactics, how effective was responding “Oh no, not degeneracy” to a person who is likely to share a trench with you? Was the end result more people sharing a truth and increased understanding?

Fascists call liberals fascists, and liberals call fascists fascists. How do you determine what a fascist is and whose assessment is more correct and who’s is just projection.

Degeneracy is a word that has been used to hurt you, and you rightfully wish to not hurt others with it, or even more selfishly/pragmatically/rationally, you don’t want to make a word that has been used against you more powerful.

> internal dissent

Where is the line between internal dissent and infighting. If you fire guns from within your ship, you might make holes and sink the ship. That ship might get “repaired” to be stronger and that could be good, but the context of an enemy to exploit your weaknesses makes all the difference.

> why would I tie myself to a sinking ship?

Fighting oppression requires that some people be on sinking ships. “If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die to tyranny.” A ship everyone is trying to keep afloat is more likely to survive the storm than everyone jumping to escape craft. What happens when all the worlds governments are authoritarian and there’s no where to escape to and no one with a better looking ship?

> better to build a mostly correct ship

Ship building requires resources, especially the resource of time.

> The black and white kneejerk of assuming everybody who dissents is a right-winger

Are you making an assumption about an assumption other people have? Could this create self fulfilling prophecy like behavior? I mentioned 2A because you seemed liberal to me.

> almost 3 decades.

I am but a neophyte.

> But what I get is 'stupid Trumptard'.

Based on what’s been said here I’m not sure I get why. I have a hard time imagining it is dissent in the abstract sense, but dissent done in a specific way.

> institutions

Timothy Snyder has a lot to say on this. You see institutions as a force outside of us, but institutions are us, just like the government is us. I am fairly confident Snyder would say you should take the side of a union/try to help a union function. You’re right any kind of power structure can start to choose loyalty over its values, even unions, and that is the path of least resistance. We are the resistors. We don't get good institutions for free.

> I'll also clarify a bit more…

FWIW, we probably agree in all but name and our personal context. I think the words “anarchy” and “union” have been so hijacked that it is an ineffective tactic to use them. Syndicalist isn’t obvious and requires someone to pay the upfront cost of understanding before they engage with it, that nearly guarantees obscurity.

It seems clear to me the two options right now in America for things that you (in the abstract sense) can do (not something someone else needs to do) are unions or vigilantism. I suspect we both strongly agree with this sentiment. I would like everyone to come to the conclusion that extra-judicial unions are the only way to get a seat at the negotiating table.

> modern liberal democracy

I’m not sure our times now are so different than the greeks, nor are the main concerns with governance and it’s failure mode. I’m no historian and I am way out of my depth. I frequently hear “the greeks struggled with this” in talks about how our own democracy functions.

> leaving that era.

It sounds like you think there might be an AI age. The way power is distributed right now, cyberpunk seems more likely than not. I definitely don't see any reason to expect a good political revolution.

> I don't play anymore.

So your strategy is the Thich Quang Duc strategy? The trans people who want to stay on this planet, don’t get the option to not play.

> play only to win and completely disregard your values

I think you’ve described the core liberal conservative divide. Conservatives think if defecting wins you should do it. Liberals think you should never defect unless it’s required and agonize once it is required.

Both strategies are rational. There is a reason these memes (in the Dawkins sense) have been naturally selected for.

> weighed down by scam artists and hustlers much in the same way some early web groups were overrun with spam

So you’re saying the social movements need more self policing? How does one have an institutional “trial” for a scam artist or hustler? How does this collide with the idea of wanting people to fall in line?

I will respond to the rest tomorrow...

I think you would find Snyder, if nothing else, intellectually stimulating. His book "on tyranny" and his reading of that book (I previously linked to his reading of one chapter) are really well stated IMHO. It's also a ~2 hour read for his illustrated graphic version of the book.

If you like to read interesting things, this is one of the most interesting things I've read: https://www.amacad.org/publication/what-does-it-mean-be-amer...

It talks a lot about the meta structure of society and whether societies exist through shared histories or exist on top of shared values. That is the greater debate/war that is happening in America right now: Is America a country of values, or a country of ethnic groups?