Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

How is it possible for anarchists to communicate effectively online without falling into a discourse ethics?

+3 votes
By "discourse ethics" I am hinting at the responses put out by Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel (Cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics ), but I also just mean in general -- without telling people to 'be good', 'stop trolling', etc.
asked Sep 23, 2010 by Saint_Schmidt (2,690 points)
edited Sep 23, 2010 by Saint_Schmidt
Is anarchy unethical or have much to do with ethic other than to allow them rather than to dictate what they are?

4 Answers

+1 vote
my answer:
what does "effective" mean, in communication? there is a goal orientation implicit in the question that seems to negate the qualifiers that you include. (ie, if you know you want to go west, then there's nothing necessarily wrong with people telling you that you're not going west).
but it's highly likely that online, pointed conversation (discussion for the purpose of coming to a conclusion with at least one other person online) requires (either tacitly or explicitly) agreed-upon goals, as well as a vocabulary in common. (which doesn't mean, by the way, that people can't use words that the other(s) don't understand, but that there are some basics that are agreed on. cultural similarity would be another way to talk about it.)

and then, there's my fall back position, which is that there is no reason for us to pay attention to anything in these online conversations except what is helpful to us. and since no one but us can determine that, there is no reason to avoid the bullshit. (although it's true that sheer mass can be a reason to act, at some point.)
answered Sep 24, 2010 by dot (57,680 points)
0 votes
It's not. Online anarchist discussions, like most others, should probably be utilized only for the purpose of shits and giggles.
answered Dec 17, 2010 by Tower of Babel (800 points)
0 votes
Up the shits and giggles, for sure.

Perhaps those involved should avoid taking the anonymous comments and activities of others personally, as well.  If they must, then perhaps they should avoid showing such frustration publicly.  It seems to me that, more often than not, those carrying out such antagonistic behaviors simply aim to provoke a response.
answered Apr 19, 2011 by blark (1,160 points)
0 votes
I believe that both debate and discussions are over-rated.  Usually both assume a predetermined position of being right.  Forward moving progressive thought is where minds coming from different direction work together to reach an objective.
answered May 25, 2012 by afunctionalworld (3,290 points)
i think you are using a very limited definition of "discussion" if you say that it assumes a predetermined position of being right. for sure that applies to debate, it seems its very purpose.  but almost every interesting discussion i have - which does not start out as or become a debate - is interesting specifically because there is NO assumption of right or wrong. it is driven by an interest in articulating ideas and hearing the ideas of others articulated, as well as playing off those ideas (of all participants) to come up with new ones, or a reshaping of existing ones.

i don't mean to get all "meta" and shit...
...