The following entry will serve as a compilation of general criticisms. As I have already mentioned, a fundamental part is the capacity for self-criticism, and furthermore, being an imperfect work, the more considerations taken, the better. I will then detail the criticisms I have received in the order they were sent to me. Unless it is necessary to make some observation [Which will be commented on], everything written here should be considered as "something said by another person not involved in the writing of the manifesto". I will not seek to respond to anything unless I deem it extremely necessary, but rather to record that these complaints EXIST, so that they can be read and considered by readers, whether to expand upon them, agree, or dismiss them.
Our beloved contributor, clown 1, explains that the visions presented in this manifesto are not realistic. It is impossible to unite the population based on humor, without going very far because it will always be subjective. Nor is it possible to win in the political sense against anyone, neither against the state nor against any currently existing party, because basically the entire sector is inherently corrupt and therefore the powerful will always be the ones in power. Under this consideration, coming to power is impossible progressively and peacefully, and revolution should be aimed for as step number one. Once the hypothetical revolution succeeds, one must proceed to choose a specific type of humor that is best accepted by the general population to prioritize it or make it the only admissible type, since they also do not consider it possible for all types of humor to exist or be appreciated equally. Once these issues are planned, they explain that by applying the methodology of "distancing" or "marginalizing" the UNFUNNY, it will inevitably trigger a future revolution on their part and the cycle would repeat itself. They explain that the way this group would be treated is poorly developed and too brief, which may give the idea that they would be oppressed groups. This is not the case. Based on the manifesto (P.1 explains) we realize that they would actually have a normal life based on their own sub-groups and lack of "humor", in essence it would be the same normal life prior to the arrival of the AnComs, only now they would have to swallow living in a society where comedians are in power, but since humans are social beings, they will feel exclusion as a kind of "attack" and will respond accordingly. The treatment should then be outright getting rid of them, whether by exile, or whatever method is preferred, thus eliminating what becomes a threat to AnCom and to the comedic society and its principles, making it clear that the basic principle of "letting them be" is not possible. Once we have detailed their main concern, let us move on to the next thing. As they said, humor is subjective and therefore uniting everyone under a globalized concept would be impossible, because everyone has their own humor. In summary, each one is their own "individual" with their own tastes and so on. While the manifesto proposes defending individuality, the truth is that the only way for the union based on general comedy to progress is by eliminating this aspect and making comedians/clowns/whatever work as a kind of "hive", all following the same standard of comedy, following the same inspirations, etc. This is not impossible, but to achieve it one inevitably arrives at outright oppression of sectors that fail to incorporate into this way of handling everything, at populism, and at manipulation. It is also necessary to highlight that all societies where "society over the individual" was prioritized ended up failing, not without costing millions of lives. [NOTE: Partially covered in 7. and 9. An authoritarian and even revolutionary branch of AnCom would be radically different from what the manifesto proposes, leading us to point 0.]
They also explain that life often tends to be depressing and miserable for the majority, which is why it would be impossible to remove philosophical or political currents that oppose AnCom [NOTE: Partially covered in 5.] and another reason why it would be impossible to unify everyone based on laughter, because it would mean that all those people must be equally happy. If I'm not mistaken, these would be all their criticisms, it's possible I'm forgetting something else, but this was the main part.
The following is quite complex to explain, because although they have managed to express opinions and criticisms perfectly, then ending up in points means I have to unify everything. I asked them to do it that way, but I didn't think about that part. Therefore, I hope it's clear that there is a lot of personal interpretation on my part based on the titles of the points, and it may not accurately represent what P.2 wanted to express.
[NOTE: Here a conversation developed that went like "right, in that case we can without problem consider that being funny or not is based on whether the majority finds it funny or not, this way violence would be avoided, for example, because the majority would not enjoy it". This relates to what has already been discussed about consensus, but mainly to point 8 of this criticism, which will also be commented on.][NOTE: This point will be mostly skipped because it is covered in point 3 of the manifesto. The main criticism is the lack of clarification / plan regarding the economic "what to do" of AnCom. As it is already basically covered and answered (although it will surely be insufficient for most) I consider it correct to skip this part. They used as an example something undoubtedly funny, which is the idea of circulating fake money (peak comedy) as a currency. By saying that a society where the item of greatest value is based on comedy, and from that previous comment about money, I assume they linked it to capitalism. Concepts like that were already discussed in point 9 when talking about clownocracy, making it clear that it is undoubtedly possible. It will depend on each person to develop how and based on what. I reiterate: Already covered and I don't consider it up to me to develop or explain anything about it.][NOTE: Necessary response from my part, because it was something we also discussed but at the time I didn't comment or respond adequately. It's impossible to say that this is a full-fledged democracy, which is why I specifically wrote "FORM OF DEMOCRACY PRESENT", even though those were not their words. Why do I say this? Because based on this criticism, the concept of democracy is considered to be simply general consensus. However, the general structure of AnCom can never be considered democracy based only on this concept, nor is generalized democracy defined this way, and if it is, it's often to refer to "majority voting", but this is also incorrect. To begin with, democracy in general is based on a already formalized governmental structure with laws, protocols, procedures, institutions, etc., and WITHIN this, the "election" of representatives and voting, for example, which is as I've said what is usually highlighted and recognized. Added to this, "what the majority wants" does not always mean it is taken into account or even carried out, since as I have mentioned, the laws themselves and the way a democracy is structured can limit the success of a consensus, not to go too far because in every society there are laws that limit what citizens can or cannot do, and if they want, even being a majority, to go against something, the law, even after a formal debate where they "win", would prevent them. In AnCom this does not exist because the state has been eliminated, there are also no formalized entities, laws, etc., and the consensus that occurs is not based on the aforementioned but on the spontaneous and according to other points of this same criticism, subjective response of a given audience. There is no mechanism whatsoever proposed in the index to regulate and protect anything, to structure anything coherently, so it goes against the concept of democracy, and within it, of equality, equity and justice equally in their traditional sense, again contrary to a democracy. There are other crucial differences, but I think it's best to stop extending this and recommend reading various articles that detail both democratic and anarchic functioning. For the latter, I have already left in Extras an academic article analyzing the different types of anarchies. I will add others about democracy later, because they have helped me formulate my ideas better here.][NOTE: This has been my interpretation based on the name of the point. I don't remember this in our chat.] This type of humor, as we have seen for example in point 9, can disproportionately affect a specific minority sector. It is therefore relevant to rethink the use of this type of humor and its impact, as well as for example the incorporation of the sectors involved, being represented by members of that same community rather than random comedians. I imagine it also seeks to rethink the idea of protection to prevent dark humor from being used as a form of hate speech.[NOTE: No comments. It was already discussed in detail in 1 (about the reason for eliminating it) and above all, this same point was discussed in 7 (considered under gradualism). It leads us to point 0.]It will be expanded as more things are commented to me. :o)