Join 📚 Favorites And Reflection Questions
A batch of the best highlights from what Todd's read, .
So this is what I have come around to, this is how I have made sense of my obsession with anarchism: the first target of anarchistic practice ought to be whatever it is *in me* that resists anarchy—what resists negotiation, the turning toward the Other as neighbor and potential collaborator. I return to Odo’s line, *“What is an anarchist? One who, choosing, accepts the responsibility of choice,”* but I add this: The responsibility of choice arises when I acknowledge my own participation, in a thousand different ways, in the imposition of order on others. This is where anarchism begins; where the turning aside from the coldest of all cold monsters begins; where I begin. The possibility of anarchic action arises when I acknowledge my own will to power. Self-dispossession begins when I say to myself: *Je suis Sabul.*
Between Chaos and the Man
Alan Jacobs
These, then, are three distinct questions that the current debate over “free speech” runs together in a sloppy fashion:
* __Is the state engaging in acts of censorship?__
* __Are social sanctions against speech or beliefs too harsh?__
* __Is our media ecosystem sufficiently open?__
Failure to disentangle these questions has resulted in the current abysmal state of the conversation.
Censorship, Social Sanctions, and Access to Audiences
Adam Gurri
I wouldn’t mind nonviolence being a strict commandment, but it’s actually, and more importantly, an invitation to a way of life that is committed to telling the truth. And truth is a necessary condition for being able to live without coercion. The way of nonviolence is a hard, long business. It involves being trained in the virtue of patience.
Peacemaking Is Political
plough.com
...catch up on these, and many more highlights
Readwise