9 ms·

I wasn't aware of this group; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati is their wiki article, but it

I wasn't aware of this group; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati is their wiki article, but it is a little light on details. Some of the claims are interesting - "Decision making in the group takes places collectively instead of through majority voting." - isn't explained by the sourced article.

parineum 11d ago
That seems like two words for the same thing to me but making the distinction seems like a signalling mechanism to me.
- jgtrosh 11d ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making alternative political movements care a lot about how decisions are taken. For instance, authors like David Graeber consider that majority voting only makes sense in the context if backed by violence.
  - parineum 11d ago
    So what percent of people are required for "consensus" because it seems like 50%+1 to 100%. There seems to also be an implication that democracy is 50+1 when it isn't. It can require any percentage to reach a decision. Those two words refer to the same "type" of system where the members make a decision by ascent or descent. Both systems require an agreed upon barrier of acceptance. They are the same. The US congress reaches decision by consensus.
    - selfhoster1312 10d ago
      Consensus is strictly 100% agreement (or at least 0% disagreement). Granted, it's not always possible. But in some setups and given some objectives, it's sometimes possible to have a collective that finds compromises that satisfy everyone (consensus).
      - parineum 10d ago
        > Consensus is not synonymous with unanimity – though that may be a rule agreed to in a specific decision-making process.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]
- mitxela 11d ago
  IETF for instance, makes the distinction because they do not use a fixed vote threshold, but use a judgement of someone with good judgement, taking all facts into account such as the strength of disagreement. And of course if that person turns out to have bad judgement they won't listen to him next time. It is certainly possible for this to become unstable and split into two or more groups. This may work for the IETF which frequently creates and destroys working groups.
nullbio 11d ago
This is how you get mindless group-think. Anyone who tries to object to a bad idea is turned into an outcast and seen as a boat rocker, so members are trained to toe the line at all costs. Very unhealthy.
- mitxela 11d ago
  Possible. But the fact they have been running anarchist IT services for 25 years says otherwise.
- hackable_sand 10d ago
  It sound like you had one bad social experience and are projecting that onto them.
Kuyawa 10d ago
In anarchism, democracy and voting are considered flawed An ignorant/manipulated majority can not decide over my natural rights. 51% of men can not vote in favor of raping 49% of women, that's why 49% of women should be armed and capable of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent (pick gender, race, religion, whatever, applies to all minorities). That's just philosophy, in real life the powerful fucks the weak, and that's how it works. 'Disarm the people' is the first step in the road to slavery. Of course an armed disfunctional society like the US is also not the best solution to the problems the state creates. So we keep thinking and philosophizing, until that day comes... Btw, I am a philosophical anarchist, I don't throw molotovs or wear masks but I do hate the state with a passion, and I like to think about how a free world should work, and currently the US is the antithesis of that
- Normal_gaussian 6d ago
  While this is often the case, it is not clear how this group specifically functioned. Theory vs practice is always very interesting in these cases.

parineum 11d ago

That seems like two words for the same thing to me but making the distinction seems like a signalling mechanism to me.

jgtrosh 11d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making alternative political movements care a lot about how decisions are taken. For instance, authors like David Graeber consider that majority voting only makes sense in the context if backed by violence.
- parineum 11d ago
  So what percent of people are required for "consensus" because it seems like 50%+1 to 100%. There seems to also be an implication that democracy is 50+1 when it isn't. It can require any percentage to reach a decision. Those two words refer to the same "type" of system where the members make a decision by ascent or descent. Both systems require an agreed upon barrier of acceptance. They are the same. The US congress reaches decision by consensus.
  - selfhoster1312 10d ago
    Consensus is strictly 100% agreement (or at least 0% disagreement). Granted, it's not always possible. But in some setups and given some objectives, it's sometimes possible to have a collective that finds compromises that satisfy everyone (consensus).
    - parineum 10d ago
      > Consensus is not synonymous with unanimity – though that may be a rule agreed to in a specific decision-making process.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
deleted 11d ago
[deleted]
mitxela 11d ago
IETF for instance, makes the distinction because they do not use a fixed vote threshold, but use a judgement of someone with good judgement, taking all facts into account such as the strength of disagreement. And of course if that person turns out to have bad judgement they won't listen to him next time. It is certainly possible for this to become unstable and split into two or more groups. This may work for the IETF which frequently creates and destroys working groups.

nullbio 11d ago

This is how you get mindless group-think. Anyone who tries to object to a bad idea is turned into an outcast and seen as a boat rocker, so members are trained to toe the line at all costs. Very unhealthy.

mitxela 11d ago
Possible. But the fact they have been running anarchist IT services for 25 years says otherwise.
hackable_sand 10d ago
It sound like you had one bad social experience and are projecting that onto them.

Kuyawa 10d ago

In anarchism, democracy and voting are considered flawed An ignorant/manipulated majority can not decide over my natural rights. 51% of men can not vote in favor of raping 49% of women, that's why 49% of women should be armed and capable of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent (pick gender, race, religion, whatever, applies to all minorities). That's just philosophy, in real life the powerful fucks the weak, and that's how it works. 'Disarm the people' is the first step in the road to slavery. Of course an armed disfunctional society like the US is also not the best solution to the problems the state creates. So we keep thinking and philosophizing, until that day comes... Btw, I am a philosophical anarchist, I don't throw molotovs or wear masks but I do hate the state with a passion, and I like to think about how a free world should work, and currently the US is the antithesis of that

Normal_gaussian 6d ago
While this is often the case, it is not clear how this group specifically functioned. Theory vs practice is always very interesting in these cases.