Do you mean to suggest that the book is really *just* a commentary on territoriality-based national sovereignty? I've read your back-and-forths with other scholars like Mahmood Mamdani that have suggested you are interested in a deeper critique of the state form in relation to movements.

What's so confusing is this: that my perspective has been informed in large part by reading Home Rule in the context of participating in recent movements, and it's jarring to see you fail to see the relevance of your own work the way I and others have

Of course he's worse and we have to stop him, but why does that mean capitulating to a party that will eagerly sell out the most vulnerable among us? For instance, surely colonial European occupations such as in were "worse" than what came after, but why should that be the end of the discussion?

But the Dems themselves increasingly reject inclusion of Palestinians, trans people, and others in this supposed coalition. Surely they're the ones who have forced the choice, not the "left."

The Democratic Party is a containment of liberation movements that funnels energy into propping up a small capitalist elite, while leading the charge on violently repressing the same movements it draws from. I don't understand how you fail to see this when it's so similar to the dynamic in Home Rule

yes, DM

it's also revealing that when they propose an alternative projection, they don't pick something reasonable like Equal Earth or Eckert IV or even the Lambert Cylindrical, they typically go for Gall-Peters, which disproportionately stretches and distorts the areas around the equator!

and if you mean specifically wrt probability and game theory, rationalists aren't particularly good mathematicians compared to actual mathematicians who are making much better strides in those areas

so i don't understand, every philosophical and scientific tradition is trying to do this, and a lot of them accomplish really monumental stuff that that lesswrong rationalists simply don't hold a handle to

trying at what? when do lesswrongers actually organize anything?

do people who talk like lesswrong users seriously have better insights into faulty rationality though, is that truly your experience

papers please?

but it is precisely because of the general organizational effectiveness of decentralized organization that we should consider who/what we're doing it in service of. similar to issues of when some protest medics treat fascists, it can redirect our effectiveness against us in the long run

i think that's at least as much an effect of the insurgency's anti sectarianism as the cause. my disagreement is with "all things held equal..."

we should favor decentralization generally because economies of scale are biased in favor of mass violence, ecological destruction, etc...

what do you say to the fact that decentralized organizing in collaboration with the state exacerbates and ossifies stratification among social groups? notably in the case of kibbutzim but also very much so in any direct provision of war