[FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but 
doesn't it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive 
speech (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended 
to *persuade* and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion), 
then they are responsible for the consequences of their persuasion.

I have a strong identification with the ideals of anarchism, as I do 
with libertarianism, and to a lesser extent conservative and progressive 
ideals.   I am not eager, however, to proseletyze on any of those 
subjects overmuch *lest* I persuade someone to act on those ideals,  
Action, also by it's very nature, is intrinsically irresponsible.   We 
can never know the full consequences of our actions, so we take them 
based on a lick and a promise that they won't go totally and 
unexpectedly bad.

Talking and acting are a risky business it seems.   But it is the stuff 
of being in the world.  I believe it was Rumi who suggested we "be IN 
but not OF the world".   Subtle business.

I appreciate your use of the term "elite sophists" here.   It is the 
place I retreat to and feel that is what most of the discussion here 
(about religion, politics, social, economic theory) is... the use of 
sophist(icated) language to try to understand complex and subtle 
phenomena but from a somewhat distanced perspective allowed by our 
various circumstance.

- Steve


On 5/5/17 9:03 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
> OK.  So, the answer is "No".  Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists".  Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause.  So it is with Islam, libertarians, Trump, etc.  Same effect, different demagoguery.  We elite sophists can preen and pick at the language all day.  But unless it "boils down", intact, to the language and actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as every other well-paved road to hell.
>
> To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone.  I just want to be clear about the self-contradictory nature of such things.
>
>
> On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>> Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
>> groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
>> able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
>> non-violence is the winning strategy.
>>
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
>>> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
>>> or whatnot?