this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
46 points (83.8% liked)
Memes
55674 readers
506 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I did engage I provided examples off the top of my head of non oppressive (and some would say necessary/positive) hierarchy. You're the one refusing to engage, smug posting instead of engaging with the fact that if non oppressive (or necessary/positive) hierarchy exists then the idea that hierarchy is inherently oppressive is silly. I also engaged by further expanding my thoughts in the reply to zeezee on top of engaging with the idea of "epistemic-authority" and how in my view that is merely a semantic retreat substitutimg changing the name for changing the thing.
This was not engaging it was mocking, you can fuck around all you want I see what you are doing.
Definitely not the most polite tone you're right maybe I was being a bit mean but it was still engaging with your point more than your smug posting reply was engaging with anything at least.
I'm not responding seriously to mocking and dont act like I should? Lol wild.
You don't have to respond, but I do want to echo QinShiHuangsSchlong's point: many hierarchies exist due to necessity or sheer practicality in a way that far supercedes any problems arising from being a hierarchy. For example, horizontally organizing a nuclear power plant is a recipe for disaster, and managing and coordinating the production and logistics chain of sufficiently complex but useful technology like smartphones requires vertical elements to administration.
The fact of this then brings us to the Marxist critique, that hierarchy isn't the problem inherently, but class and the products of class society.
Thanks, Cowbee. But I'll just stop talking. Its not fun. I fucken hate BrainInABox, and you are the only one out the gate who is interested in discussion. Everyone else is mocking, and then wants to respond in detail once I call it out and at that point I'm already turned off to discussion.
I understand, but once you cool down I think it's worth revisiting, if not with anyone here, on your own.
It wasn't mocking it was a genuine point delivered not as polite as could be (there is a difference). You said hierarchy is inherently oppressive I countered pointing out it seems silly to call the hierarchy between parent and child oppressive or between safety staff and other staff at dangerous industrial locations or between doctors and nurses. If these examples are not oppressive and in many cases actually positive it then brings into dispute the idea of oppression as some inherint or intrinsic aspect of hierarchy as opposed hierarchy simply being a useful social construct that can be used in many ways depending on outside factors such as class content etc.
You added all of this after the fact. The original response was a one liner meant to be a zinger. I really dont see how else I was supposed to read that. Yes, this has a point, I just don't ever see hierarchy being used by anarchists in any other context than community and governmental. With that context, we can see exactly what I meant. But it honestly doesn't matter. This place loves to dogpile instead of talking. We factually cannot exchange ideas because everything is binary and you are either ML or wrong lmao.
You made a statement about the intrinsic nature of a social relation: that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. I do not believe that relation holds such an intrinsic attribute, so I responded by listing several examples of hierarchy that, in my view, do not inherently contain oppression. To me, saying oppression is inherent to hierarchy is similar to saying flammability is inherent to liquid. There are many flammable liquids, but liquid as such is not inherently flammable; that depends on other factors, such as chemical composition. Likewise, there are many oppressive hierarchies, but that does not mean oppression is intrinsic to hierarchy as such. The fastest way to challenge a universal claim like that is to list counterexamples.
You could have read/responded to that in several ways. For example, you could have explained what you mean by hierarchy if you do not think the relation between nuclear plant staff, doctors and nurses, or parent and child counts as hierarchy. You could also have explained why those examples should be distinguished from the kind of hierarchy you are criticizing, or shown where oppression exists in those examples in a way I may not recognize. Those would all be substantive responses to the point I was making.
Also, I very much did not dogpile you and had no intention of doing so. I was the first person to respond, and at no point did I insult you. My first response may not have been as polite or elaborated as possible, but it was meant as a counterargument, not as mockery or an attempt to shut you down.
Oh my God, you precious little baby
What's up shit talker. Thats all you do. Is look for dogpiles to talk shit in.
Given how you respond to people actually trying to engage with you by throwing a little tantrum, why the fuck wouldn't I just shit talk you
Because you can scroll through my comments and see its not my default interaction with anybody but you and the libs. Its cool though thats just who you are to me, a wanker
I can scroll through your comments and see you chucking a tantrum when anyone disagrees with you, "wanker".
Also, learn what a liberal is, moron
Wild I could say the same about you, and besides, I never interact with you until you talk shit to me. Thats our every interaction.