I just read over the thread that Nexalacer posted about the skeptics guide. I also read a few of the other threads that were linked in the process and the whole time I was reading I just felt frustrated and sort of angry. It seemed that most of the people debating UPB didn't even have a passing interest in it or any real understanding of it's purpose and use.
I always feel a bit scared and also a bit excited when I see someone debating one of my core values because It could mean that I am wrong about something important but it also implies that there is potentially an opportunity to improve. In reading over this thread however I just felt like we were debating a brick wall with a big "Fuck You!!!" spray painted on it. This is the kind of experience that I have had on most boards and the main thing that keeps me coming back here.
The only thing that scares me about the relative safety of FDR is that I often wonder if our views are being debated strongly enough. Surely one of the best ways to test an arguement's metal is through a dialectic. While most debates with statists and other non-anarchists usually end in hurt feelings I wonder if I (and we by extension) are being challenged enough. I know Stef and many of the other fine members of the FDR boards have been doing battle with those supporting pro-state sentiment for a long time and I have had my own scuffles as well so I know we are not exactly soft but I wonder if it is enough. Are we challenged enough? Is challenge really that important?
“Champagne for my real friends and real pain for my sham friends.” - Tom Waits.