Oh, I agree that you live in a shittier place than I do. My point is that the other guy—and the accelerationist philosophy in general—is saying "collapse is inevitable, but if it happens soon, [my group] has a chance to survive the worst and rebuild with people that aren't retards, because all the retards will have died or been driven out in the extreme civil unrest that follows collapse." When someone says "I'm an accelerationist because the sooner we hit rock bottom, the sooner we can rebuild," the implication is that he expects to be literally fighting and killing and starving in order to get that chance to rebuild.
Then you come along and say "yeah, I'm gonna sit out all those horrors in a nation that isn't collapsing. I totally support pulling it all down on my way out the door, though. We're exactly the same."
I'm not trying to denigrate you for leaving; I don't think it's irrational, I don't think it's a bad choice, I agree that maybe the UK is already lost, I'm not even sure that I think accelerationism is correct. Those are all a bunch of separate debates. What I'm taking issue with is the fact that you're planning to leave and also lumping yourself in with a guy who says he's going to stay and fight. To continue your analogy of historical terms, it's like you exiled yourself but then you show up after a regime change and talk about how harsh you had it in the gulag. It's fine to leave, but you have to recognize that you are leaving, and other people are staying, and that if, as you put it, you get a chance to "return when things have calmed down," there's a very good chance that's because of the people who stayed and went through a much harsher time than you did.
Oh, I agree that you live in a shittier place than I do. My point is that the other guy—and the accelerationist philosophy in general—is saying "collapse is inevitable, but if it happens soon, [my group] has a chance to survive the worst and rebuild with people that aren't retards, because all the retards will have died or been driven out in the extreme civil unrest that follows collapse." When someone says "I'm an accelerationist because the sooner we hit rock bottom, the sooner we can rebuild," the implication is that he expects to be literally fighting and killing and starving in order to get that chance to rebuild.
Then you come along and say "yeah, I'm gonna sit out all those horrors in a nation that isn't collapsing. I totally support pulling it all down on my way out the door, though. We're exactly the same."
It's insulting.
I'm not trying to denigrate you for leaving; I don't think it's irrational, I don't think it's a bad choice, I agree that maybe the UK is already lost, I'm not even sure that I think accelerationism is correct. Those are all a bunch of separate debates. What I'm taking issue with is the fact that you're planning to leave and also lumping yourself in with a guy who says he's going to stay and fight. To continue your analogy of historical terms, it's like you exiled yourself but then you show up after a regime change and talk about how harsh you had it in the gulag. It's fine to leave, but you have to recognize that you are leaving, and other people are staying, and that if, as you put it, you get a chance to "return when things have calmed down," there's a very good chance that's because of the people who stayed and went through a much harsher time than you did.