> other words if you move super far to the left, do you end up wrapping back around on the right wing?

> That’s how the Proud Boys were created - as a response to Antifa violence.

You quoted something talking about wrapping around. However you talked about being reactionary. Being reactionary isn’t wrapping around any more. It goes one way since the left and right wing paradigms were established in the 1700s (or since power/hierarchies first formed between people).

Reactionary is reacting to power and tradition. Which is what antifa is. However it’s not what Proud Boys are. It’s a negative thing aka reactionary create a powerful reaction or response to a leftist decentralized minor movement.

I have studied political science and helped on a paper on reactionaries so I got carried away assuming you meant reactionaries can go from far left to far right or even talking about reactionaries. Also I assumed you were talking politically in a political discussion.

> Sometimes things have a meaning that goes beyond how they would like to be perceived.

And sometimes they don’t have meaning beyond. The example you gave is correct, yes.

Also what does antifa mean beyond anti fascist and what I described above?

—

> Also perhaps I’m not as knowledgeable? How is it wrapping around if different people are reacting. Antifa is about anti fascism. It isn’t about being far left. Antifa isn’t only anarchist or communist.

You didn’t respond to any of this. I wrote 3 lines about antifa. You responded to one.

I also specifically asked:

> …How is it wrapping

My entire issue and explanation was about the way you wrote what you wrote. Too much vagueness when responding to wrapping around being the discussion.

While you didn’t respond to any questions or concerns. I have revolutionary optimistic however so I still give you the respect of a full laid out response.

Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

You don’t need to ask me what antifa is beyond ‘fighting fascism’. You know that too. Stop pretending you don’t or that you’re being respectful, it’s very clear you’re not. You understand the DPRK analogy. You know who antifa is. You’re too intelligent not to.

This is “negative”, or as normal people would put it, bad. If you think using words like “negative” makes for intelligent discourse, you’re not correct. Likewise mentioning your ‘studies’ is still the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy.

Honestly judging by ‘studies’ (not degree) and ‘I have revolutionary optimism’ I feel like you’re in high school.

There’s a great chrome extension that lets you block people on hacker news. You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak.

> Using violence against people that disagree with your politics, or people that attempt to document your authoritarian violence is not “reacting to power”. It is power. You know this. I know you know this. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Who is saying otherwise?? are you equating me with Antifa or something? You keep pretending I believe I’m so smart. I don’t think I am. I believe I’m a lumpenprole. I know what I know. Nothing more

I don’t know what you keep saying about me. Do you enjoy appealing to the status quo or centrism or moderation or civility?

So like I was saying to my audience:

Some people don’t understand what reactionary means…some people think communism isn’t reactionary. Then again those people typically don’t know what communism is. Nor socialism. Usually they don’t have much education outside the Global North or other privileges.

The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority. I’m asking others to be at my level and understand what words mean. So I don’t have to talk down to them.

Alas, on you go. Also fallacies are a fallacy. It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie.

> You’ll think I’m going to use it because your arguments are strong, but I’m using it because they are weak.

We are all cliches, comrade.

> Who is saying otherwise?

You are. You are pretending that one group of violent morons you like is not reactionary, and the other group of violent morons you dislike are reactionary. The definition of reactionary is at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ...

> Are you equating me with Antifa

Yes.

> The appeal to authority fallacy is only valid if I’m asking someone to believe me because I have authority.

You write in pseudo-academic speak and mention your "studies"

> So like I was saying to my audience

This conversation is from two days ago. I'm your only audience.

> It sounds like I’m talking to a techbro of VC bro or petit bourgeoisie.

I'm not sure why you equate non-extremism with "techbro" or "VC bro".

> petit bourgeoisie

(emoji trash can icon)

> Also fallacies are a fallacy.

God. I fear for the future.

Anyway, apparently I'd uninstalled this https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hn-blocklist/cgphk... but congrats on getting me to reconfigure it.

I’ll respond to this later. This person couldn’t stick to their threat of blocking me.

Nonetheless we can learn from this that centrists can not see their own perspective.

They related me with antifa. What? That might be the silliest thing ever. Antifa?? I barely know what it is.

Notice they went to a mainstream dictionary for the definition of reactionary. Not a non American imperialist influenced source. Though likely Wikipedia I assume would provide the same correct pol sci concept for reactionary.

So often we see people on HN or Reddit get so close to understanding the concept but they miss it even while reading the definition.

One major issue is their incessant need to be correct. Their worldview can’t possibly be incorrect. To crack that is to crack society.

To finalize a point to stop incorrect false information.

This user chose to quote one specific generic dictionary just to try to be right when they are not political commentators yet insult any one else who is.

Mixed in with many insults.

Look up most other definitions for reactionary. Not even [advanced] political science only. The Google built in dictionary says

> “adjective (of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform. "reactionary attitudes toward women's rights"

> Similar: conservative, right-wing, rightist, ultra-conservative, ultra-right, alt-right, blimpish, diehard, traditionalist, conventional, traditional, old-fashioned, progressive, true-blue

> Opposite: radical, progressive

No doubt if nailer ever looks at this they will find an excuse that this definition is somehow wrong.

Nobody has insulted you. The Oxford English Dictionary is one of the oldest most authoritative dictionaries in the world, you should learn about it. Enjoy the block.