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

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 “r...