Does anarchism make sense?

“Also, I'm not really aiming to win here. My goal is that we both end up on the same page based on the reasoning we give for both our sides of the debate, and that we have a good time doing it. So in that sense, I'm making a debate to have a discussion. Hope that's alright!”

“I do have another question though, less to do with the argument as a whole and more one out of pure curiosity, what kind of anarchist are you?”

“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.”

“Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

 

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]

 

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.”

“Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.

48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a variety of noise- making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)

49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.”

“We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But, because “freedom” is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.

 

94. By “freedom” we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).”

“FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory—the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won’t be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.

 

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long- term trend at all.

 

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can’t permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.

 

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

 

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

 

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

 

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

 

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

 

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society;.” 

 

If this were a 4 round debate I would respond to round 1 and 2 here, but as a 5 round debate I'll limit my responses to round one. 

I also apologize for my format here, this is rushed and on cellphone.

It is a common misconception that anarchy means eradication of the state or eradication of laws. Anarchy really means no rulers and in fact America was founded as a type nk of anarchist state, shaking off the chains of kings and queens who ruled people prior.

You would still have law in an anarcho primitivist society . Me and my family might live near the same pond as yours in our huts. You might not like that I shit in the pond, because it is your drinking water. Perhaps I don't like you raping my wife. In this case I would come to an agreement with you that if you stop raping my wife, I will stop sitting in your drinking water, now we have formed an agreement (laws) based on the social contract. 

With a primitive lifestyle, families will be closer together and and larger. Some families may join together in tribes and elect people responsible for enforcing the social contract. 

Anarchy doesn't mean we can't freely accept to follow some leaders, it means no rulers. If you don't want to accept the tribal leader. You just find somewhere else to set up your hut and live a life of freedom without that asshole.

If it ain't broke. My opponent claims anarchism usually fails. I would like to see some citation on this and challenge the judges not to take her at her word.  

Anarcho primitivism has worked before. Humans lived like that just fine for thousands of years before the invention of agricultural societies, and in fact can go back to that again if they so feel like it. 

The fact is society is broke. Our freedom and ability to move freely is overly attacked. I have listed the problems with over socialization from industrial society in my last round. Not just to humans but to animals in factory farming and their untold suffering and the environment which effects every species on the planet.

Society is extremely broken. We literally have dudes cutting off their dicks right now as a part of a popular fad among young people. we have a pandemic that really only spread because of globalization. If we were all in remote tribes, this would be unlikely to have happened. 

My opponent asks 

"Why wouldn't people sit around and do nothing if they didn't have authority breathing down their necks?"

They would. They would have more time pursuing leisurely activities like "doing nothing" and spending time with loved ones and focused on what truly matters. 

I'd like to know why society collapsing, a society that caused all the harms listed in this and my previous round,bis a bad thing. I want to know why individuals enjoying freedom to be with people they love, doing things that are fulfilling, is considered a bad thing for my opponent. 

Con asks essentially, "if there were no rulers who would rule us"

They sadly seem confused at what a life not under the boot would be like. We don't need cops. In a tribal pre agricultural society. If we kept the population low and very spread out, people would only come into contact with those outside of very close circles whenever they felt like. The family members who keep the peace like our moms so often do, will take the place of police. 

My opponent asks "wouldn't some rulers just rise up"

Perhaps. Perhaps a tribal warlord will temporarily enslave a small group of people. I don't know that the very tiny chance of some rival tribal warlord doing that outweighs the 100% chance that your life is being ruled by overlords as we speak. Some not even human but computer models determining how you live your life. 

I appreciate con's rebuttals. I do feel con has not taken the time to understand the entirety of my arguments though and has instead just made a bunch of off the cuff responses to.the pieces of my arguments she has found interesting or particularly objectionable to her senses. 

I do want to point out I have been referring to my opponent as "her" this is because instead of looking at the fact she claimed to be male on her profile, I did a psychological profile based on word usage, phraseology and mindset and have determined with 100% accuracy she is a female. I do apologize for blowing her cover if she was claiming to be a male though. Blowing her cover was totally unintentional on my part.

Perhaps later I can go into how to do these profiles to determine the sex of the individual you are talking to. For now, we'll just stick to the debate and stay on topic.

"To some degree I would agree with this BOP placement, I did after all make the debate and thus form the assertion"

I am happy that con has agreed to take on the entirety of the burden of proof. I wouldn't have accepted the burden of proof in her shoes, but she has and judges should put their personal views aside and assign her burden of proof even if they personally disagree with who actually should hold the BOP.

Interpretation of the Resolution 

". I think we both agree anarchism makes sense from a semantical perspective, that being that the philosophy is coherent and understandable."

That's good. In round 2 I argued that the resolution should be interpreted so that I only have to prove the above points to win. Judges should take this statement as a concession and award me the win. I'd actually urge the judges to stop reading right here and just go ahead and award me the win, but if you wish to read on, I won't stop you.

"The intent of my making this debate is to see whether or not it is reasonable in the literal sense as something implemented on a societal scale. I believe you understand this, just want to make sure to avoid any future complications!"

I'm sorry the debate did not turn out as you expected. I gave a reasonable interpretation of the resolution and you have not argued for why any other interpretation should be accepted, so my interpretation of the resolution is the one we will be using for the debate, regardless of your intent. 

Voters should not feel bad con did not receive the debate she was hoping for, this will actually help her in the future either form more coherent complete resolutions or to make the debate unrated so her opponent cares less about winning and she can have more of a conversational tone in her debate.

Pro hasn't really taken the time to understand my arguments I feel, so her entire rebuttal round seems dedicated to objections that actually she probably should have used as her main arguments in round one.

I have shown why technology is not worth it. How in a tribal society a pandemic will be very limited to how far it can spread, and how we are killing the environment with global warming that will cause a planet level extinction.

We have factory farming which destroys and tortures animals. The following has been described about their practices.

Sure people may love technology, but probably in a way a crackhead loves crack. The constant anxiety, loss of autonomy and torture of billions a year is not worth it. 

Will we defend industrialization until the hole in the ozone rips wide open and exposes us to enough solar radiation to kill of every last living thing on Earth?

How much destruction should we tolerate so you can have some temporary, and yet unfulfilling comfort that also costs you your happiness? 

We can roll back the clock and there are a few ways to do it. Provoke a nuclear war against nations is one way. 

We could also do it peacefully.  For example there is a solar flare that happened about 150 years ago that scientists have determined if it happened today it would practically wipe out all technology.  

This same type of solar flare is expected to happen at any random time within the next 100 years. If this solar flare happened we would lose electricity, satellites would stop working, the internet would seize to exist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2150350-a-tech-destroying-solar-flare-could-hit-earth-within-100-years/

We just need to be apathetic to the threat and allow this to happen. This debate is about if anarcho primitivism is feasible if implemented, not if it is feasible to implement, but it can happen. Even if 1% of the population started becoming extreme luddites, it doesn't take much to create blackouts or start attacking centers of technology. 

Humans were hunter gatherers for thousands of years and stayed in groups no larger than 50 people for that long. Before humans did this for thousands of years, our caveman ancestors literally lived hundreds of thousands to millions of years in peaceful anarchoprimitivist like cultures. https://www.quora.com/How-long-were-humans-in-the-hunter-gatherer-era-How-arent-any-prejudices-about-men-and-women-related-to-them-wrong-since-their-time-period-made-up-only-very-little-of-humanitys-whole-evolution

If these societies can literally exist for millions of years with no governments popping up, I think it is fair to say that, governments are an anomaly, and we shouldn't be overly concerned about the risk of them forming. 

THE ‘BAD’ PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ‘GOOD’ PARTS

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

The problem is with oversocialization.  Humans are a cooperative species, but we are also a competitive one, and when we are over socialized it brings great psychological distress as Uncle Ted points out in the text you quote, and it leaves people as door mats that some prey on. Certainly in a primitive anarchist society a lot of socialization will occur, but over socialization is going to be dramatically reduced in favor of a more moderate amount of socialization that will bring about psychological happiness.

In industrial society, socialization is geared towards fitting in the system, while in a tribal society it will be towards the expectations of family and friends who love you.

What I am referring to is feelings of insecurity. If you read uncle Ted's work, you would know a sense of security comes not from actual security, but from your [confidence] to be able to deal with any situation that arrives. 

A modern man can as easily find himself starving as a primitive man, but primitive man feels secure, because he feels competent in his ability to hunt and fish. 

Con later asserts that maybe people don't need freedom, that they would be happier without it. However it seems history would disagree. African americans have formed a couple of revolts prior to the civil war, knowing they would lose, just to have a chance to fight for freedom from slavery. In fact not long before these rebellions Americans risked their lives to fight for their freedom from british rule.

Before that settlers to the united states risked a high chance of death on the open sea to find religious freedom in America. History is peppered with people willing to face almost certain death at the chance for freedom.

In fact we know that people who care for nothing else love their freedom and that is why it is our go to method to punish criminals.  We take their freedom.

Con has dropped my argument for how the resolution should be interpreted.

Con has dropped the arguments I made for how much humans and animals suffer from industrial society.

Con has ignored the overarching theme of my arguments and essentially concedes the debate to me. 

I am stunned at the incoherence of some of what I have seen through this debate. It is frustrating for my opponent to just completely miss some points by totally ignoring my argument and than keeping an objection that doesn't work if you accept my argument.

For example she says we should reform things instead of just abolish the current system. However I brought up the 4 laws of history which she agreed with, and which explained that reform does not work. That reforms of the system are led by technology and the social response to it. Or that reforms are temporary until the system pushes back

She not only says she agrees with the 5 truths of history I shared and the consequences of those truths, but she also says we should reform things instead of abolish them. 

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

It seems to me that given a good enough socioeconomic understanding, one could predict future events even if they hadn't specifically happened in other societies, though I suppose in that case it wouldn't be new, simply a new pattern arising from a bunch of old repeatable strategies. In whatever case, I don't think the interlinking web of subjects and facts would be too complicated to give a near enough estimation such that it would be more worthwhile to pursue modern societal change rather than anarchic dreams Which, given that approach, should make reforming modern industrial society to the extent necessary to make a likely better outcome than anarcho-primitivism possible, at least until you address the major risks associated with anarchism as a whole.

 106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

 

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society;.” 

Her response to reform also ignores that I argued that the good effects of technology can not be separated from the negative effects. This is debatable, but the point is that she ignored the argument and thus dropped it, and yet she still insists we reform. 

Sorry con, you cannot argue for reform until you handle my objections to reform, and you have not done so. I'd argue that round 5 is too late to respond. 

I brought this up to show con really is disrespecting me, by not putting in a real effort of this debate. She isn't taking the time to understand my arguments. 

I read her rounds like 5 or 6 times. Over and over to make sure I properly understand it and that I have addressed all the points. If my opponent mentions a rare or complicated concept, I dig into it as much as the very short time of this debate allows me to. 

I am going to try and reel this debate in with the very little time I have left, but I want judges to understand that con lost this debate by ignoring arguments and still moving forward with objections that simply don't make sense unless you address the arguments I made . 

"I'm afraid I must object to a couple statements here, firstly that you gave a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. The reason I object to that is that the definition of "reasonable" involves being in accordance with reason, and you haven't given a reason for interpreting it semantically rather than literally."

I'm not sure if my opponent is just being crazy here or what is going on. I argued that the interpretation should be taken literal. I'm gave definitions for the words in the resolution and gave the most obvious interpretation of what the sentence would mean.

Perhaps con just doesn't know what the word "literal" means, because I interpreted the resolution literally. If anything Con should be arguing I took the resolution to literally, but instead she gets confused over what the word literal means and accuses me of using semantics instead.

Although I suspect she is also confused about the definition of semantics also. Perhaps english is not her native language and she can be forgiven for these mistakes, but even if that is the case she needs to look M in the dictionary occasionally as she debates, so she can eliminate incompetent analysis of definitions. 

I noticed something about con's inclusion of sources. They are just unnecessary and silly. They don't support her arguments. Apparently she is peppering them in, in Hope's award her source points merely by seeing she has more sources.

That's not really how source points work here though con. Sources are awarded by how well they support your argument. 

For example she says 

"I agree it's a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another, however some parts (all faulty parts I've done research on) are exchangeable with methods that wouldn't cause nearly as much if any damage to ourselves or the environment. Here are some examples : [3] [4] [5]"

She just blindly lists 3 sources and says check these things out. 

That's not really how debates work. We shouldn't have to leave the site to see your arguments. You should have gave these examples and then linked to the source of these examples. 

Not to mention the solutions she gave for some of the problems don't seem like actual solutions. Citation number 4 for example is an advertisement for a greenhouse that allows you to grow plants in the snow. 

Citation  5 speculates that 3d printing could mitigate the pollution of factory's making stuff at some point. It also speculates that one day 3d printed meat could end factory farming. 

Besides these being mere source bombing. They don't support her argument. Any judges fooled by the number of sources she presents, need not be judging. 

In her latest round she also gave a citation that says diabetes is bad for example and a random definition to a word in a paragraph "reasonable" that is common knowledge.

Note, she didn't define the word in her argument and then cited the definition. She just used it in a paragraph and then cited it. 

The previous round her first citation is just a definition of the word state.

[Her] next citation that round is to a definition I provided and her 3rd one is a citation to support her statement that follows here

"And I have to disagree that America was founded as a type of anarchist state, since the two terms again seem contradictory. Even if they weren't, there were clearly representatives which even if they do fairly represent the people are still a kind of ruler"

Her citation is to the United States constitution.  Which is a nonsensical thing to cite for the above statement. 

She then goes into give citations for the definitions ruler and leader, which are not only definitions never in dispute, but no definitions of the terms were given by her.

She merely used the words in a paragraph and then gave a citation for them, for some mysterious reason. 

Unfortunately the differences in this case between "leaders" and "rulers" are too difficult to pinpoint. I agree that anarchy doesn't necessarily mean a rejection of leaders, but if people are electing people to enforce certain rules, I think that's a ruler rather than a leader. [5] [6]

The specific reason I don't accept your attempt at differentiating the two in this case is that technically all rulers are voluntarily followed. There's no reason we absolutely have to follow the law other than a monopoly on violence which the state has, and if your leader didn't have this then he wouldn't have the usage you're describing in this example. If he did have it, then he would be a ruler, not a leader.

For sources 7, 8, and 9 . She says here is proof my statement that anarchist societies usually fail is true, and merely gives these citations instead of actually explaining what any of them are. 

They also don't demonstrate what she says. Instead of cherry picking unsuccessful anarchic societies like I expected she would do, she merely cites irrelevant wikipedia's articles.

Article number 7 is an anarchist movement in Spain and not an actual anarchic society. Citation 8, is a revolution of communists that took over Paris for a less than 2 months. 

Calling that an anarchic or even communist state would be like calling the CHAPO incident in Seattle the same thing. 

The Paris anarchy also failed because the French Military took Paris by force. You can't call this a failed anarchic state because of anarchy. It is only failed because of the overwhelming military might of an entire nation was brought up against a mere city. 

It didn't matter what ideology the people who occupied Paris had. It would have failed. It's not the fault of the ideology as much as the fault of not having enough military might. 

Source 9 lists a bunch of anarchic societies. The most relevant section of those are titled "intentional communities"

Of the intentionally set up anarchic societies, it looks like half were actually successful, because half are still operating and some started as early as the 1920s. So con's citations actually support my arguments, but for the most part her citations are just source bombing.