Smiling-faced vileness: How enforced politeness becomes a weapon in grassroots paths

All too often, the ugliness we face in grassroots spaces wears a smile. It’s smiling-faced vileness: pleasant, agreeable individuals who wield control by blocking dissent, sanitizing movements under the guise of compromise, and maintaining the illusion of consensus. This is especially true in spaces overly tolerant of #NGO-style protocols – those bureaucratic, #fashionista postmodern traps that slowly erode the spark that makes radical communities thrive.

From my work across decades – from protest camps to #openweb projects – I’ve seen this pattern again and again. Projects like early #Indymedia were messy, radical, and fiercely autonomous. That edge, that wildness was slowly excised until what remains is either safe, bland, and powerless or locked down and paranoid, both smother the naive grassroots paths.

At late era #climatecamp i’ve witnessed activist planning groups that masquerade as open and inclusive, but doom radical ideas by policing language. If someone speaks candidly about power or inequality, they risk being labelled as “derailing.” Not unlike what I describe on the Fediverse: “a consensus ritual where insiders quietly veto contentious proposals, pushing them offstage.” The effect is chilling – the bold, and meaningful, get diluted and then silenced.

I’ve also seen “horizontal” groups adopt soft authoritarianism: a handful of insiders subtly side-line contentious voices with endless calls for care, safety and more research or structure, this is simply polite gatekeeping, in those quiet pauses, power consolidates. These practices don’t just kill energy, they devour possibility. They cannibalize the chance for communities that are both fluffy (nurturing) and spiky (radical).

Smiling-face vileness is not satire – it’s #fashionista postmodern gaslighting. It slowly smothers life with calm care and precision. The task of the grassroots is to replant what’s been stomped. That means cultivating friction -mess, disagreement, negotiation – because that is how community grows, trust is built, and real alternatives emerge. Let’s embed this friction into our code, our community practices, our shared care. Let’s compost the #NGO and fashionista chokeholds so we can grow radical, tender, collective futures #KISS

A lot of the “smiling-faced vileness” comes from a mix of personal psychology, learned behaviour, and the systemic incentives that shape #NGO, institutional, and #mainstreaming culture. It’s not usually deep evil – it’s something more banal, entrenched, and self-justifying. Examples of this mess makeing:

Fear of losing control when change threatens the structures they know how to navigate, so they subconsciously (or consciously) try to stop it. Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil idea applies here: harm is done by “ordinary” functionaries protecting their turf “The real danger is not that people will rebel, but that they will acquiesce in doing what they know is wrong.”

Cognitive dissonance management, as they see themselves as “the good guys,” so any action – even blocking positive change – must be reframed as “responsible” or “prudent.” #Postmodern self-protection: everything can be justified with enough narrative spin, “No one is the villain of their own story.”

Status preservation, NGOs and funding orgs reward stability over creativity, hierarchy over challenge. If your position, funding, or reputation depends on maintaining the current order, you will fight disruptive change, even if it’s obviously better “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Incompetence + insecurity, breeds paranoia. If you don’t know how to manage real change, you start to fear those who do. The façade of competence becomes more important than actual results, “When a man’s only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

Groupthink & conformity pressure, #mainstreaming cultures reward going along with the majority, even if the majority is wrong “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

This is why these people who take a cling to “power” often look “nice” on the surface while quietly gutting or neutralising anything spiky, challenging, or any change of path. It’s not just personal malice, it’s a cultural immune system against change, fuelled by fear, vanity, and comfort.

When, the tiny few of these people “secede” in #mainstreaming media (and the history it writes) it is not neutral, it’s a kind of #PR machine. It launders power and polishes away dissent. The smiling faces and “respectable” voices are just the velvet gloves over the iron fist. It’s fake history as PR – it isn’t history as lived memory or contested struggle, it’s official narrative, a “storybook” written to flatter the winners and confuse the rest. That’s why it feels vile and pointless: it distracts, pacifies, and reframes mess as inevitability.

The people who produce this are not innocent. Yes, many are clueless functionaries who internalize the system’s values without question. Others are parasitic aspirants, desperate to climb into the #nastyfew, copying their methods. Even when they do “small goods” (a sympathetic article, a cultural puff piece), in the larger pattern they still serve the mainstreaming machine.

The compost metaphor is about instead of raging endlessly at the mess, take what can be siphoned off (attention, fragments of narrative, disillusioned individuals) and redirect that flow into the alt systems (#OMN, #4opens, Fediverse, grassroots histories) then compost the rest: let it rot, break down, and become the fertilizer for something alive and grounded. Because otherwise we get stuck in their cycle: doom-scrolling their fake stories, wasting energy on reacting instead of building. The challenge is mediation, not just rejection. Spot the toxic flows, tap them for useful nutrients, and feed the roots of alternatives.

#KISS

The Seagull Knows: Notes on a Constipated Discipline

The opening moment of the workshop on Methodological Strategies for Real-Life Theorising was unintentionally profound. A story of a seagull crieing above the glass façade of the Blavatnik School of Government – a building that stands as a temple to the #deathcult that shaped our lives for the last 40 years of #neoliberal change. In hindsight, that seagull metaphor may have been the wisest participant at the event.

The sessions that followed offered a painful reminder of just how entrenched and constipated academic political theory can be. Many of the speakers, well-meaning, no doubt, spoke in dense, self-referential language, seemingly unaware (or uninterested) in the world burning outside. We are living through accelerating #climatechaos, surging right-wing extremism, and widespread social fragmentation. Yet here, the main concern is career-building through opaque frameworks and method fetishism. One can’t help but wonder how many in the room truly believe they are doing good?

The crisis is deeper than any single workshop. The very career paths that brought these scholars here have been shaped, filtered, and “concreted” by 30 years of neoliberal funding models. The result is a form of political theorising that appears to want to find a way out, but only by squeezing itself through the tightest gaps in the #postmodern mess. And even then, only while clutching tightly to the privileges and assumptions granted by the current paths.

Constipated Language, Abstract Struggles

Throughout the first sessions, there was a recurring sense of people talking to themselves. Even the attempts to make theory “concrete” – to move into empirical territory – felt more like power grabs than inquiry. There was talk of “transient theory,” of “mid-level normative frameworks,” of “ethnographic insights”, but very little clarity on what any of this meant in real practical or political terms.

Instead of confronting the deeply ideological assumptions embedded in liberal academia, the speakers soft-stepped around them. One could sense them trying to smuggle ideology back into a discipline that’s been left hollow. The “heroic era of theory” is dead, and what we’re left with is a ritual performance of relevance. At one point, the liberal impulse to block discomforting inputs in public policy was laid bare. This is ethics as insulation, not action. There was repeated deference to “existing norms and frameworks,” – the very architecture of the #deathcult, now warmed up and served again as policy advice.

The Seagull Still Watches

By the end of the day, some fresh air drifted in. A few scraps of cloth were handed out to the otherwise naked theorists. There was genuine engagement with normative complexity. Questions like “what is mutable?” began to shift the conversation. “Engaged political philosophy” and talk of “normative judgments” began to inch the discussion closer to the ground.

The presentation on restitution, for instance, highlighted real political dilemmas. Who decides what gets returned, and why? Is it justice, diplomacy, or geo-political calculation? One question noted that giving back looted objects is not just about ethics, it’s about giving back the values they represent. But this was quickly hedged with talk of “choice.” Liberal hedging again. No one wanted to say: yes, do it, without compromise.

Even here, markets remained the baseline. The dominant “common sense” is still economic flow. Value is defined by trade, not meaning. Discrimination itself can to easily be reframed as a market distortion, another cost to be corrected, not a systemic condition to be fought. The anti-market perspective, grounded in actual social justice, in living memory, in reparative truth, is invisible to meany people until it becomes a threat. At that point, the strategy shifts to distraction and buying off. That’s the logic of #neoliberal containment.

From Political Theory to Political Theater

What we witnessed was not just a methodological workshop, but a staged performance of institutional survival. Theories were dressed up, displayed, but never walked out into the street. Real political agency remained absent. The political philosopher, once imagined as a public actor, now hides behind peer-reviewed paywalls, while the world asks different questions entirely.

Still, by the end, perhaps there were reasons for the seagull to hold off its stone throwing – for a while. A few voices showed signs of life. A few questions struck true. But it will take more than scraps of normative cloth to cover the nakedness of political philosophy today.

The seagull will be watching.

#Oxford #Event

The event: Many political philosophers theorise not only for the sake of pure theory, but also because they want to convince citizens and policymakers to bring about changes in the real world.

Such policy-oriented research often draws on interdisciplinary methods, integrating empirical insights and normative and conceptual arguments. This, however, raises methodological challenges of its own. For example, how to deal with the fact that the social sciences are fragmented and different disciplines work with different paradigms and methodologies? How can philosophers, who bring their own normative assumptions openly to the table, deal with the – sometimes implicit – normativity that is also inherent in many other lines of research? What level of abstraction of normative arguments, eg basic normative theories or mid-level overlapping principles, should philosophers draw on when discussing with policymakers? And how to deal with the fact that in the current political climate in many countries, distrust towards “experts” also extends to philosophers?
Workshop agenda

Day 1: Thursday 24 April 2025

Methodological Strategies for real-life theorising

Chair: Jonathan Wolff, Blavatinik School of Government

Liron Lavi, Bar-Ilan University and Nahshon Perez, Bar-Ilan University: Conceptual Concretization in Empirically Informed Political Theory: What Makes a Concept Applicable
Carmen E Pavel, King’s College London: Mid-Level Theories of Justice and Public Policy
Kian Mintz Woo, University College, Cork: Explicit Methodologies for Normative Evaluation in Public Policy

Theorising between values and cases

Chair: Daniel Halliday, University of Melbourne

Rouven Symank, Free University, Berlin: Integrating Ethnography with Political Theory in Policy-Oriented Research: Challenges and Insights from Cultural Restitution Debates
Florence Adams, University of Cambridge: Discrimination as an Object of Social Science
Erika Brandl, University of Bergen: Measuring the justice of architectural development policies:debates on temporal scopes and indicators in the Hillevåg plan

My notes on this event:

The seagull is perhaps a good metaphor for nature fighting back against the last 40 years of human #deathcult culture that this building is temple of.

The language is constipated, a growing feeling that these people are pissing funding and focus against the wall while the world burns from #climatechaos and hard right social breakdown.

I wonder how many people here think they are doing good?

The problem on this career path is that it has been shaped by #neoliberalism for the last 20 years, funding and status have both been ground through this mess, and now reflect it.

After the first session I feel they are trying to squeeze themself out of this post modernist mess. By going back to basics, but it’s so constipated it’s hard to see if there is any value in this.

Looking at them talk and answer questions, you can feel them being lost. It still feels like they are talking to themselves.

A power grab, by making theory concrete, to build empirical research. They dodge this by saying the theory is transient.

If this is a bios? They fix this by making the bios visible. They find this question hard to answer as its a root issue.

They are “soft” sneaking ideology back into the current dead Political Science and theory world they work in.

The heroic era of theory is challenged for making public policy. They argue that we should start from the existing norms and frameworks. This from the #deathcult we get wormed up #deathcult worship as policy. Mess. Of course liberal rights have priority in the end, “we must also include institutional facts”.

The seagulls at the start of this event might be the wisest one here. The rest have no cloths, and the language is so constipated that the smell is likely off putting for any real outreach that they need in the scrabbling for coverings to continue their careers.

The liberals start to talk about #blocking the inputs that make them uncomfortable. In ethical public policy making.

From a working insider view, the people doing this don’t have the skills or knowledge if we focus on philosophy and theory only.

Good question, what is given, what is mutable is very mutable. So the Liberal “common sense” is likely a strong #blocking on the path of the change we need.

“Engaged political philosophy” “normative judgments” as we go on they start to be more relevant. “where there is convergence and divergence”

The event starts naked and smelly but as it goes on the air clears at times and some scraps of cloth are provided.

Relevant information that is easily excessable,

The power in a committee is the appointment of the people sitting on the committee rather than the committee process it self. The answer to this is hesitant and bluff, and distaste to cover this.

A chair or witness roll is different in committees.

Why restitution, why now.

Liberal
Justice

Reperatition is politics, not just ethical, geo politics and funding, based on former colonist will, is a tool for “ethical diplomacy”

Can any of these be seen as a reason not to do it. Don’t have an answer. Normative lessons.

When we give back objects that we value from our looting, we are giving back our values. We still chose.

My parents work is displayed in our #mainstreaming institutions, but these institutions are not interested in the objects, as they do not fit into there existing story’s and category. Subject archives will take them. But this is still shaping history.

Markets as the dominant “common sense” everything is economic flows. Value is defined by this.

Discrimination is contested with the hard shift to the right #DUI

Distortion in the market, function efficiently.

Discrimination is about greed, American greed, a moral dilemma. Liberal but not to liberal. Talk about the market path, let the market do its thing.

Markets aligned characteristics, money the logic of the #deathcult

As my work is anti market they can’t see any value, so put no resources and focus on the path in till it becomes a threat then distraction and buying off become the difficult paths.

Trump now is turning this neoliberalism around as discrimination. What is this, discrimination against nation states, rather than economics/market.

At the end the might be reasons for the seagull to hold off the stone throwing for a while.

Signal-to-noise is a hard conversation

Signal-to-noise is a hard conversation to have. In our #postmodern world, the very idea of common agreement on what constitutes signal or noise feels elusive, even when it’s often obvious to the community.

The undermining of shared narratives fractured our sense of collective reality. In the absence of common ground, every perspective risks becoming its own echo chamber, amplifying what it values as signal while dismissing conflicting views as noise. This dynamic plays out in countless social and political spaces, shaping how movements grow or fracture.

Take the #climatecrisis: for decades, scientists have raised alarms, presenting real evidence of human-driven climate change. To the scientific community, this is pure signal — an urgent call to action. Yet, in the polluted information ecosystem of #dotcons social media, this signal is drowned out by noise: conspiracy theories, corporate disinformation, and nihilistic fatalism. The noise isn’t random; it’s cultivated to create doubt, intentionally distorting the clarity of the signal.

In activist communities, the tension between signal and noise surfaces as the #fluffy vs #spiky debate. The push for kindness and inclusivity (#fluffy) is valuable, but when weaponized to silence critique and #block hard conversations, it becomes noise that stifles necessary friction. Conversely, sharp, uncompromising confrontation (#spiky) can cut through noise to deliver a clear message, but this is too easy to #block, by “common sense” dogmatism and can also all too easily tip into performative aggression and endless infighting, it drowns the original signal in static.

The same dynamic unfolds in the political sphere. Movements like Black Lives Matter or Palestinian solidarity campaigns face relentless attempts to distort their message. The core signal, calls for justice, equality, and liberation, gets obscured by deliberate noise: fearmongering narratives, tokenizing gestures from corporations, or bad-faith actors hijacking discussions to sow division.

Yet, communities often have an intuitive sense of what is and isn’t noise. They might not always agree on the edges, but collective experience and shared values act as a compass. The challenge lies in cultivating enough trust to navigate that together, to hold space for disagreement without succumbing to the paralysis of endless debate or the allure of easy scapegoats.

In the end, the conversation itself is part of the signal. The flows of discussion, the messiness of negotiating meaning, and the work of collective sense-making, all of this generates the compost from which new understandings can grow. But that only works if we resist the temptation to #block, dismiss, or isolate ourselves entirely.

The goal isn’t to eliminate noise (an impossible task) but to build resilient communities that can amplify signal through the static. Because in a world where everything is contested, the most powerful act is to keep listening, keep speaking, and keep tending the roots of shared meaning.

#KISS

NOTE, we failed on this here

Composting mess (truth)

NOTE: This might seam a little confused because it is, I am arguing for “balance” and “use” in truths, and arguing against dogmatic, blinded, worshipping of the #deathcult as a moral argument. None of this shit is rational, it’s a mess I am pointing to, and a shovel and composting is needed to build truth.

In the postmodern mess we inhabit, “truth” that becomes deliberately obscured by those who view it as subjective, fragmented, and relative. This is more than denying an objective reality; it’s an embrace of #nihilism, where the concept of truth dissolves into endless, conflicting, interpretation. Combined with #Neoliberalism, that itself blurs the lines between fact and fiction while it commodifies knowledge, we find ourselves in a world where power and influence, rather than evidence, define what passes for truth.

This distortion is evident in how conflicting “truths” clash with each other. Instead of an honest pursuit of any path of understanding, debates become competitions of influence, narratives backed by the most powerful voices are treated as “truth.” For example, corporate media giants and political power politics shape public discourse by determining which facts matter and which are dismissed or simply ignored. Consider #climatechange, where scientific consensus is downplayed or outright ignored by industries whose profits depend on denial. The truth, in this case, becomes buried under the weight of vested interests.

Sophism, using clever but misleading arguments, has replaced honest discussion. Truth is no longer about what is empirically verifiable, but about what can be sold as convincing in a highly fragmented, pluralistic, and increasingly polarised space. This problem of competing narratives, shaped by power, leads to a collective confusion where “truth” is more mess than ground to build on.

Ultimately, this is not a sustainable path for society. A world where truth is shaped by power rather than facts is a path of instability and distrust. To change this path we need to take simpler, grounded approaches, what you might call #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) – where clear thinking and evidence-based understanding are our guides.

It’s time to unearth the truth, stripped of #neoliberal distortions and #postmodern doubt. We need to reject the noise and focus on reality, on (social) truths that exist in communities outside #mainstreaming power games and manipulative sophistry.

When this pushing of truth-telling is penalized, it’s a clear sign we’re navigating a post-modern, obfuscating mess. Instead of addressing issues openly, society hides and punishes those who expose inconvenient views, letting problems rot and fester. It’s a reminder that transparency is essential for creating a healthier culture. When truth is composted rather than suppressed, it breaks down unhealthy systems and makes way for healthy growth and accountability.

The Mess, Delusion Folly and Hysteria

It should be obvious to most of us that we’re moving through an era of mass delusion, unbridled folly, and unrestrained hysteria, with the old facts and reason’s forgotten amidst the building #climatechaos of social and ecological breakdown. We are in this mess due to the embrace of the #dotcons, the spread of misinformation and the decline of rational discourse that has now reached alarming levels. Social media platforms, echo chambers, and the proliferation of fake news have created a fertile ground for delusion to thrive. Conspiracy theories abound, gaining traction despite being thoroughly debunked. From anti-vaccine movements to flat Earth theories, unscientific beliefs flourish in the absence of #KISS skepticism.

“We’re living in an age of mass delusion, unbridled folly, unrestrained hysteria. Facts & reason have slipped down the back of the sofa and been forgotten. Our descendants (should there be any) will look back on this time the way we look back on our ergot-infected ancestors who arrested chickens on suspicion of using dark magic and believed wombs could wander around women’s bodies.” https://kolektiva.social/deck/@Richard_Littler@mastodon.social

The rise of these delusions is not only a result of ignorance, rather the outcome of our embracing of #postmodern and #neoliberalism that has been pushed over us for the last 40 years. This has lead to distrust in institutions, polarization, and the commodification of attention, all contributing to an environment where sensationalism overshadows substance. The erosion of shared reality undermines the foundation of democratic society, making it difficult to address catastrophic challenges such as #climatechaos or basic things like public health crises, and social inequality.

History offers examples of mass hysteria and folly that parallel our current predicament. The ergot-induced hallucinations of the Middle Ages, led to bizarre and irrational behaviour, are strikingly similar to the modern phenomenon of mass delusion. During the Salem witch trials, fear and superstition overpowered reason, leading to the persecution of innocent people. Similarly, the belief in “wandering wombs” reflects how unscientific ideas can dominate medical understanding and treatment.

These historical episodes remind us that human societies are vulnerable to waves of irrationality. They illustrate how fear, ignorance, and social dynamics create paths where absurd beliefs take hold. Importantly, they also highlight paths that exacerbating or mitigating these delusions. In the past, religious and political leaders fueled hysteria for their gain, much like our #mainstreaming crew that exploit misinformation for power and profit.

The role of technology in amplifying delusion, our embraces of the #dotcons age has magnified the impact of mass delusion. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement prioritize sensational and polarizing content, creating echo chambers that reinforce #mainstreaming mess, to amplify misinformation. The speed and reach of social media allow falsehoods to spread rapidly, outpacing efforts to debunk them. This environment fosters a culture where emotional appeals and confirmation bias trump evidence and any attempt at rationality.

The consequences of mass delusion are far-reaching and catastrophic. In the realm of public health, vaccine misinformation has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases. Climate change denial hampers efforts to address one of the most pressing existential threats facing humanity. Political polarization, fueled by misinformation, erodes trust in basic democracy and undermines our hard won social stability.

On a more personal level, individuals caught in the web of delusion suffer from cognitive dissonance, living in a reality disconnected from the social facts. This not only affects their decision-making, but also strains relationships and fosters an environment of suspicion and hostility. The cumulative effect is a mess where fear and mistrust easily push over cooperation and mutual understanding.

Addressing the age of mass delusion requires a multifaceted approach. Education systems must prioritize critical thinking and media literacy, equipping people with the tools to discern facts from fictions. We need to build institutions and networks like the #OMN, particularly in media and technology, to take some responsibility for curbing the spread of misinformation and promoting more reliable and truthful sources of information. Encouraging open dialogue can help bridge divides and rebuild trust in shared reality. The #4opens are a path to this to not only challenging falsehoods but also providing compelling narratives that resonate with people’s values and emotions. By creating a social environment that rewards paths of truth and reasonableness, we can push back at the tide of delusion and hysteria.

Our age of delusion, folly, and hysteria mirrors historical periods of irrationality and superstition. The erosion of shared social norms and reasonableness poses obverse risks to public health, democracy, and social cohesion. The path forward is clear, use the #4opens and tools like the #OMN to reclaim our commitment to truth and foster meany societies that value evidence and critical thinking #KISS

How can we get people not to be prats about this path, ideas, please?

Caring in a culture that disregards human well-being requires resistance to dominant values

I have come to think that care for people requires a high degree of resistance to the surrounding culture, simply because that culture is dedicated to values that have no concern for people. This is a tension in society, the disconnect between cultural values and genuine care for people. Thus, actually caring for people requires a strong resistance to prevailing cultural norms that prioritize profit, “efficiency”, and superficial success over human well-being. This resistance is clearly needed to overcome the mess of the last 40 years of #postmodern, #neoliberalism that has undermines basic humanism.

The Mess

Profit Over People: Our worship of the #deathcult within capitalist societies, prioritizes profit driven consumerism above all else. Companies and institutions exploit labour, cut costs at the expense of safety and well-being, and focus on short-term gains rather than any long-term sustainability, or even basic survival.
Superficial Success Metrics: Social success is measured by wealth, status, and material possessions, rather than by well-being, happiness, community health or basic ecological function. This leads to widespread neglect of where value actually lie.
Individualism Over Community: Our dominating “common sense” culture emphasize individual achievement and self-reliance, at the expense of communal support and cooperation. This erodes social bonds and leave individuals isolated and unsupported.

Resistance

Ethical Imperative: Caring for people is an ethical obligation that at best makes us challenge and resist cultural norms that dehumanize and exploits people. It involves advocating for fairness, justice, compassion, and prioritizes a living environment.
Mental and Emotional Health: The pressures of conforming to the #deathcult culture leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and burnout. Joining together to resist these pressures is essential for maintaining mental and emotional health.
Social and Environmental Justice: Resistance is necessary to address systemic inequalities and injustices that are pushed by the dominant culture. This is common sense, to stop the degradation of our ecology, both human and inhuman.

Making Resistance Happen

Advocacy and Activism: Engaging in fluffy NGO advocacy and #spiky activism to promote and push policies and practices for human well-being over profit. This includes strong ecological policies, supporting labour rights, affordable healthcare, sustainability, and education etc.
Community Building: Fostering real, supportive communities of mutual aid, solidarity, and collective well-being, involves creating open non-commercial spaces where people can come together, share resources, and support one another.
Alternative Value Systems: Promoting and practising alternative systems that emphasize care, empathy, and interdependence. This can be through #spiky #DIY activism culture, like squatting, protest camps or more lifestyle #fluffy choices, such as minimalism or voluntary simplicity, and through supporting businesses and organizations that prioritize ethical practices in the #dotcons.
Personal Practices: This is a harder path to make meaningful, implementing personal practices that resist cultural pressures, such as mindfulness, self-care, and setting boundaries to protect mental and emotional health. This path can be a problem, as it in part pushes the #stupidindividualism that feeds the very problems in the first place. Encouraging others to do the same can, maybe, help create a ripple effect of resistance and care.

What should you do?

Caring for people in a culture that disregards human well-being requires a conscious and active resistance to the dominant values. By advocating for social justice, building supportive #DIY communities, promoting alternative value systems like the #OMN, and maybe practising personal care, we might create a more compassionate, sustainable society. This resistance is not only a needed path, but also a moral imperative. What are you doing today about this?

More: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/collective-intelligence-calls-for-sharing-rewards-from-innovation-for-the-common-good-by-mariana-mazzucato-2024-08

Talking to friendly people who have built their careers on and in #postmodernism

I have been at the coal face of affective direct action for a progressive change/challenge of the current mess for all my life, well this is a family history going back 3 generations. And this makes meany issues obvious as they keep happening, they circal, and if we are to be the change we need to be, we need to mediate some of these bad circles #KISS

This is one #blocking

Q. Dude will tie themselves into knots rationalising their desire to be selfish by citing everything between Aristoteles, John Dewey, and utilitarianism, in lengthy hyper-complex intellectual posturing that basically just boils down to: “But I wanna!”

A. This is true, with the #postmodern default we would end up with mess. What happens if we try not to do the postmodernist default? What would that looklike #nothingnew

Q. This has nothing to do with postmodernism and everything to do with dudes rationalising their own selfishness.

A. You are not wrong, but step back for a wider view to try and see and talk about the root of this mess. I would say this is an example of #blocking from the #postmodern path. Can we look at this from a #modernist view to take a different path? Good faith question.

Q. So, I did a PhD that focused on the application of Derrida’s ideas to interactivity. I’m not the guy you come at trying to blame postmodernism for all the world’s ills.

A. can understand that, trying to highlight the bad use of the #mainstreaming of #postmodernism and highlight this in the current social mess of the last 40 years. And yes, understand that #postmodernisam and #neoliberalism are dead ideologies. But they have both deeply shaped the last 40 years of #mainstreaming culture. The mess we work in today, thus it is useful to ask questions on good paths out of this mess.

Q. Yeah, that’s nonsense. Sorry, not sorry. It’s all capitalism all the way down. Philosophical movements such as postmodernism or modernism are just window-dressing on an amoral, anti-intellectual capitalist hellscape. Any philosophical movement, even the ones that power actually pays attention to such as utilitarianism, is just completely irrelevant. Deck chairs on the Titanic.

Q. OK we can leave this here… if ideas and thinking do not matter then mess it is. Mess can be good, and it can be bad, in the current social mess it’s VERY bad https://visionon.tv/w/gq6qCiUoC2J8RqhYHgpmzq how to deal with this is a good faith question.

Q. Also, I always have an extreme scepticism about those who blame postmodernism for society’s ills because a lot of the anti-postmodernists are bedfellows with reactionaries who think these cultural ideas have mainstreamed moral and sexual degeneracy, which is just code for homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny.

A. Can continue this if you like. Let’s put this one into the #mainstreaming miss use of #postmodernisam the is a lot of this, kinda of a natural outcome, it’s a mess. Am with Chomsky on this one https://visionon.tv/w/p/kaafmbuLWyASifGg7DZ9y3 What would a #modernist path out of the current mess look like? And yes, I understand there is a bad history. Let’s not re tread that path. What is a good path? An example is #XR “tell the truth” is a modernist path. Tell the “truths” it is not.

Q. No, let’s retread that path. You’re repurposing the argument of the religious right. They blame society’s decline on postmodernism having mainstreamed moral relativism. You don’t get to gloss over the fact that this is specifically an attack against gay rights, trans rights, and women’s rights. There is no causal link between the state of the world and postmodernism. It’s all about power and money. Blaming postmodernism sides you with the most hateful reactionaries around

A. Think this is easy to answer.
Nop,
Nop,

And worth talking about, there are overlaps between the economics of #neoliberalism and the use of #postmodern philosophy over the last 40 years. We have a HUGE social mess, and no social language or thinking to compost this mess. We need a way of thinking, #Modernism is a shovel, we have lots of mess to compost.

Q. You are not making any sense whatsoever. What matters is who is in power. If you want change, you need to change who is in power using whatever nonviolent, peaceful means available. Blaming postmodernism and “social mess” sounds to me like you’re just a reactionary who wants to walk back gay rights, reproductive rights, trans rights, women’s rights, and civil rights in general. It sounds like bigotry. Postmodernism and “moral relativism” is a favourite punching bag of the religious right and fascists. When you come at me with the same kind of rhetoric, I have to assume that you’re sympathetic to their ideas on society and culture.

A. Am obviously not talking about that. Defensiveness and personalizing this is not useful, apart from it illustrates what I am talking about. https://visionon.tv/w/sNo39CPaX7MswQ57tVy2TR mess and more mess. Is #modernism useful for taking a different path is what I am asking.

UPDATE: Sorry the video links are offline the was not any money or resources to keep the video project online after 20 years, it’s sad and dysfunctional, if anyone has a big donation we could put it back online https://opencollective.com/open-media-network