|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
You've just described one of the most important aspects of Thoreau's brand of civil disobedience, that being the importance of bringing the injurious nature of unjust laws to light via an actor or group's willingness to "suffer in public."
And yeah WhiteDog, Wegandi is simply going to hit you with misunderstood name drops and ahistorical late 1800s references over and over again.
For future reference, Mr. Weggy, the postal service is a common carrier 
|
On April 26 2015 21:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
You've just described one of the most important aspects of Thoreau's brand of civil disobedience, that being the importance of bringing the injurious nature of unjust laws to light via an actor or group's willingness to "suffer in public." And yeah WhiteDog, Wegandi is simply going to hit you with misunderstood name drops and ahistorical late 1800s references over and over again. For future reference, Mr. Weggy, the postal service is a common carrier
For your reference calling Lysander Spooner a railroad baron displays such a lack of knowledge that your little smiley means diddly squat. Also, how you can say Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, et. al are not historically related to Proudhon is ridiculous, let alone his assertion that Proudhon was some opponent of private property lmao. Rent-seeking, yes. There's also a reason why John Stuart Mill categorized Warren and in extension Proudhon in diametrical opposition to socialism. Carry on though.
|
On April 26 2015 22:05 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 21:33 farvacola wrote:On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
You've just described one of the most important aspects of Thoreau's brand of civil disobedience, that being the importance of bringing the injurious nature of unjust laws to light via an actor or group's willingness to "suffer in public." And yeah WhiteDog, Wegandi is simply going to hit you with misunderstood name drops and ahistorical late 1800s references over and over again. For future reference, Mr. Weggy, the postal service is a common carrier For your reference calling Lysander Spooner a railroad baron displays such a lack of knowledge that your little smiley means diddly squat. Also, how you can say Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, et. al are not historically related to Proudhon is ridiculous, let alone his assertion that Proudhon was some opponent of private property lmao. Rent-seeking, yes. There's also a reason why John Stuart Mill categorized Warren and in extension Proudhon in diametrical opposition to socialism. Carry on though.
Proudhon did not oppose private property of the means of production ? Hahahahaha. Just because he changed stance afterwards doesn't mean he did not wrote what he did. Using a posthume work (the Theory of property) and neglecting what he wrote earlier (What is property ?) is pretty funny. And even in the theory of property, he still oppose to individual and state ownership.
By the way, Proudhon called himself a socialist, not an individualist. But you must be right, Stuart Mill must have been more informed than Proudhon on Proudhon's political preferences.
Seriously... Let's stop this discussion and exchange message if needed.
On April 26 2015 21:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
And yeah WhiteDog, Wegandi is simply going to hit you with misunderstood name drops and ahistorical late 1800s references over and over again. For future reference, Mr. Weggy, the postal service is a common carrier
It seems so.
|
On April 26 2015 22:05 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 21:33 farvacola wrote:On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
You've just described one of the most important aspects of Thoreau's brand of civil disobedience, that being the importance of bringing the injurious nature of unjust laws to light via an actor or group's willingness to "suffer in public." And yeah WhiteDog, Wegandi is simply going to hit you with misunderstood name drops and ahistorical late 1800s references over and over again. For future reference, Mr. Weggy, the postal service is a common carrier For your reference calling Lysander Spooner a railroad baron displays such a lack of knowledge that your little smiley means diddly squat. Also, how you can say Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, et. al are not historically related to Proudhon is ridiculous, let alone his assertion that Proudhon was some opponent of private property lmao. Rent-seeking, yes. There's also a reason why John Stuart Mill categorized Warren and in extension Proudhon in diametrical opposition to socialism. Carry on though.
I'll throw you a bone here and clue you in on why I enjoy calling Spooner things like railroad baron, storehouse tycoon, or dry goods purveyor extraordinaire.
While growing up, I was very good friends with a number of folks involved in the fledgling anarchist scene in Toledo, Ohio. Naturally, this group included folks from all across the "anarchist spectrum," from Spoonerite an-caps to Kropotkin devotees. Each group had their own weird little predilections, but the Spoonerites were, by far, the most hilarious to talk with, mostly because of the very thing you fill this board with, Weggy. You see, folks like yourself seem unable to have a conversation without name dropping harder than a freshman fat boy trying to get into a local frat party, and when someone incorrectly references even a very minute aspect of the person being discussed, y'all flip the fuck out and answer with, you guessed it, more names!
So, allow me to apologize for routinely baiting you, Weggy, and I look forward to hearing more about how Benjamin Tucker's experience doing literally nothing but surrounding himself with people who said things he agreed with qualified him to summarize the entirety of the rights of man.
Here's a good Tucker quote!
The matter of my famous 'Postscript' now sinks into insignificance; the insurmountable obstacle to the realization of Anarchy is no longer the power of the trusts, but the indisputable fact that our civilization is in its death throes. We may last a couple of centuries yet; on the other hand, a decade may precipitate our finish. ... The dark ages sure enough. The Monster, Mechanism, is devouring mankind.
|
On April 26 2015 22:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 22:05 Wegandi wrote:On April 26 2015 21:33 farvacola wrote:On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
You've just described one of the most important aspects of Thoreau's brand of civil disobedience, that being the importance of bringing the injurious nature of unjust laws to light via an actor or group's willingness to "suffer in public." And yeah WhiteDog, Wegandi is simply going to hit you with misunderstood name drops and ahistorical late 1800s references over and over again. For future reference, Mr. Weggy, the postal service is a common carrier For your reference calling Lysander Spooner a railroad baron displays such a lack of knowledge that your little smiley means diddly squat. Also, how you can say Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, et. al are not historically related to Proudhon is ridiculous, let alone his assertion that Proudhon was some opponent of private property lmao. Rent-seeking, yes. There's also a reason why John Stuart Mill categorized Warren and in extension Proudhon in diametrical opposition to socialism. Carry on though. I'll throw you a bone here and clue you in on why I enjoy calling Spooner things like railroad baron, storehouse tycoon, or dry goods purveyor extraordinaire. While growing up, I was very good friends with a number of folks involved in the fledgling anarchist scene in Toledo, Ohio. Naturally, this group included folks from all across the "anarchist spectrum," from Spoonerite an-caps to Kropotkin devotees. Each group had their own weird little predilections, but the Spoonerites were, by far, the most hilarious to talk with, mostly because of the very thing you fill this board with, Weggy. You see, folks like yourself seem unable to have a conversation without name dropping harder than a freshman fat boy trying to get into a local frat party, and when someone incorrectly references even a very minute aspect of the person being discussed, y'all flip the fuck out and answer with, you guessed it, more names! So, allow me to apologize for routinely baiting you, Weggy, and I look forward to hearing more about how Benjamin Tucker's experience doing literally nothing but surrounding himself with people who said things he agreed with qualified him to summarize the entirety of the rights of man. Here's a good Tucker quote! Show nested quote +The matter of my famous 'Postscript' now sinks into insignificance; the insurmountable obstacle to the realization of Anarchy is no longer the power of the trusts, but the indisputable fact that our civilization is in its death throes. We may last a couple of centuries yet; on the other hand, a decade may precipitate our finish. ... The dark ages sure enough. The Monster, Mechanism, is devouring mankind.
I chuckled. There is a long individualist lineage so I suppose we're more apt to 'name-drop' than other ideological groups. I can imagine the conversations between the Kropotkins/Bookchin's and the Molinari/Spoonerites :p
As for Tucker, I'll leave with this:
The Anarchists never have claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow authority.
|
I edited my question and sent a message instead.
I chuckled. There is a long individualist lineage so I suppose we're more apt to 'name-drop' than other ideological groups.
And Proudhon is certainly not part of that lineage. Seriously, I can't bear that kind of misrepresentation of Proudhon's work.
|
On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
Ok, a few things.
First, with the way the media works, the cases where everything goes right don't get heard. All the times where cops aren't biased and everyone gets treated fairly don't get reported. Neither do the ones where a cop is biased and gets called out on it. The media only reports the ones that don't go well, meaning it appears to be an epidemic. You only ever hear the bad news, never the good news, because conflict gets ratings.
Second, I'm definitely one of those "gun ownership as protection from the state" people, but they're doing it wrong. Burning stores and harassing random white people accomplishes nothing. If you're going to be violent about it, you have to go after the right people. Store owners aren't the problem, police are. Now, again given the way the media works, you can't be the one to fire the first shot. If the rioters kill or seriously injure a cop before the cops kill or seriously injure rioters, the media will turn against them and all will be lost.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im ok with calling proudhon an individualist but the problem has been appropriating the individualist label for ancaps only
|
On April 27 2015 00:44 oneofthem wrote:
im ok with calling proudhon an individualist but the problem has been appropriating the individualist label for ancaps only
Proudhon was a socialist, it's not a matter of interpretation : he defined himself as such. That philosophically he create the ground for individualist anarchist is another matter.
Seriously, it's my french pride that is touched to see such misrepresentation. How can you say that someone who argue that all labor is collective is an individualist ? How can you state that someone who define himself as a socialist is an individualist ? Where's the respect ...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well we are talking about a term, individualism, with unsettled significance here. for left anarchists individualism may well entail social sharing of productive capital and socialism does not oppose individualism.
my point was really that it is not necessary to give away individualism to the ancaps
|
On April 27 2015 01:35 oneofthem wrote:
well we are talking about a term, individualism, with unsettled significance here. for left anarchists individualism may well entail social sharing of productive capital and socialism does not oppose individualism.
my point was really that it is not necessary to give away individualism to the ancaps
I agree with your point, but still his argument that Proudhon was an individualist is an outrage. Proudhon was not for social sharing of productive capital, he believed production was by nature a collective endeavor, that creating wealth is always the result of a collective activity and that capital should be a collective property. In this regards, Proudhon, Marx and Engels had the same stance.
|
On April 27 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
Ok, a few things. First, with the way the media works, the cases where everything goes right don't get heard. All the times where cops aren't biased and everyone gets treated fairly don't get reported. Neither do the ones where a cop is biased and gets called out on it. The media only reports the ones that don't go well, meaning it appears to be an epidemic. You only ever hear the bad news, never the good news, because conflict gets ratings. Second, I'm definitely one of those "gun ownership as protection from the state" people, but they're doing it wrong. Burning stores and harassing random white people accomplishes nothing. If you're going to be violent about it, you have to go after the right people. Store owners aren't the problem, police are. Now, again given the way the media works, you can't be the one to fire the first shot. If the rioters kill or seriously injure a cop before the cops kill or seriously injure rioters, the media will turn against them and all will be lost.
Uhm bullshit? It doesn't 'appear like' an epidemic, police abuse of citizens is an epidemic. White people are just finally seeing it on camera...again...
The second point...more bullshit. Cliven Bundy had a good sized armed militia defend him squatting on government land and people cheered the militia members as they defied and threatened law officers.
In SC a man was shot in the back while running away, In Baltimore a young man was crippled and left to die in the back of a police van, In New York a man was choked to death in broad daylight yelling "I can't breath" for allegedly selling cigarettes, a man was shot 'on accident' by a pay to play 70+ year old donor to the local PD, then officers proceeded to yell "Fuck your breath" to the dying unarmed man they shot, another man had his rights violated and was beaten outside of his car, the list goes on and on and those are just the recent high profile ones...
The protesters can't do anything first... They are out there because these abuses have been happening for decades and finally with them and the lying police caught red handed on camera there is a tiny chance people admit it is an epidemic and stop lying to themselves and everyone else pretending like it's the media or 'race baiters' making this shit up.
|
On April 27 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
Ok, a few things. First, with the way the media works, the cases where everything goes right don't get heard. All the times where cops aren't biased and everyone gets treated fairly don't get reported. Neither do the ones where a cop is biased and gets called out on it. The media only reports the ones that don't go well, meaning it appears to be an epidemic. You only ever hear the bad news, never the good news, because conflict gets ratings. Second, I'm definitely one of those "gun ownership as protection from the state" people, but they're doing it wrong. Burning stores and harassing random white people accomplishes nothing. If you're going to be violent about it, you have to go after the right people. Store owners aren't the problem, police are. Now, again given the way the media works, you can't be the one to fire the first shot. If the rioters kill or seriously injure a cop before the cops kill or seriously injure rioters, the media will turn against them and all will be lost. Uhm bullshit? It doesn't 'appear like' an epidemic, police abuse of citizens is an epidemic. White people are just finally seeing it on camera...again... The second point...more bullshit. Cliven Bundy had a good sized armed militia defend him squatting on government land and people cheered the militia members as they defied and threatened law officers. In SC a man was shot in the back while running away, In Baltimore a young man was crippled and left to die in the back of a police van, In New York a man was choked to death in broad daylight yelling "I can't breath" for allegedly selling cigarettes, a man was shot 'on accident' by a pay to play 70+ year old donor to the local PD, then officers proceeded to yell "Fuck your breath" to the dying unarmed man they shot, another man had his rights violated and was beaten outside of his car, the list goes on and on and those are just the recent high profile ones... The protesters can't do anything first... They are out there because these abuses have been happening for decades and finally with them and the lying police caught red handed on camera there is a tiny chance people admit it is an epidemic and stop lying to themselves and everyone else pretending like it's the media or 'race baiters' making this shit up.
Well, Cliven Bundy was on his own land. He and his family had been there for ~100 years. Google Adverse Possesion. The armed militia did nothing. They didn't hurt anyone.
Three cases makes an epidemic to you though? I mean like I said, you don't hear about all the times things work great. I'm gonna need to see some data before I accept its an epidemic. Especially if you want to make the claim that it's about race and not just classic abuse of power.
|
On April 27 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 21:22 BallinWitStalin wrote:
You know, I think this pile-on on Green Horizons is a bit unjustified, but largely from the perspective that maybe a little rioting needs to happen from time to time.
I mean, it definitely draws attention to an issue that often gets sidelined. It forces people to pay attention, even if it is through violence. How many times do you hear about cops beating the shit out of black people (in recent times, actually just straight up killing them) but nothing happening? At least something did happen in Ferguson. I had not even thought it was possible for a police department to act in such a manner (the ticketing, percentage of the population with an arrest warrant, etc.). At least their rioting made it an issue. It definitely wouldn't have been exposed nationally if people just allowed it to be another death swept under the rug (which it definitely would have been if people didn't mobilize around it).
Christ, so many of you people justify gun ownership as "protection for your rights against the state". There's pretty decent evidence that there's systemic issues with policing black communities involving the denial of their fundamental rights (including that to life). At what point are people justified in taking a stand? How bad does it have to be?
Ok, a few things. First, with the way the media works, the cases where everything goes right don't get heard. All the times where cops aren't biased and everyone gets treated fairly don't get reported. Neither do the ones where a cop is biased and gets called out on it. The media only reports the ones that don't go well, meaning it appears to be an epidemic. You only ever hear the bad news, never the good news, because conflict gets ratings. Second, I'm definitely one of those "gun ownership as protection from the state" people, but they're doing it wrong. Burning stores and harassing random white people accomplishes nothing. If you're going to be violent about it, you have to go after the right people. Store owners aren't the problem, police are. Now, again given the way the media works, you can't be the one to fire the first shot. If the rioters kill or seriously injure a cop before the cops kill or seriously injure rioters, the media will turn against them and all will be lost. Uhm bullshit? It doesn't 'appear like' an epidemic, police abuse of citizens is an epidemic. White people are just finally seeing it on camera...again... The second point...more bullshit. Cliven Bundy had a good sized armed militia defend him squatting on government land and people cheered the militia members as they defied and threatened law officers. In SC a man was shot in the back while running away, In Baltimore a young man was crippled and left to die in the back of a police van, In New York a man was choked to death in broad daylight yelling "I can't breath" for allegedly selling cigarettes, a man was shot 'on accident' by a pay to play 70+ year old donor to the local PD, then officers proceeded to yell "Fuck your breath" to the dying unarmed man they shot, another man had his rights violated and was beaten outside of his car, the list goes on and on and those are just the recent high profile ones... The protesters can't do anything first... They are out there because these abuses have been happening for decades and finally with them and the lying police caught red handed on camera there is a tiny chance people admit it is an epidemic and stop lying to themselves and everyone else pretending like it's the media or 'race baiters' making this shit up. Well, Cliven Bundy was on his own land. He and his family had been there for ~100 years. Google Adverse Possesion. The armed militia did nothing. They didn't hurt anyone. Three cases makes an epidemic to you though? I mean like I said, you don't hear about all the times things work great. I'm gonna need to see some data before I accept its an epidemic. Especially if you want to make the claim that it's about race and not just classic abuse of power.
It wasn't his land though. His family wasn't there for a hundred years that was bullshit he pulled out of his ass and people apparently still repeat...
If you think it's 'three cases' I don't think we have any more to discuss.
|
|
|
On April 26 2015 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying it's less efficient, I'm saying it isn't workable on a large scale. Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing. Lol you're post in wrong on many level. First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday. Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology. Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today.
For someone who thinks history isn't important, you seem to be insisting that we discuss history quite a bit and citing my supposed lack of historical knowledge as a big deal.
But anyways, I wasn't referring only to large-scale Soviet war-time purges. For one thing, the Soviets also engaged in small scale 'purges'. It was reasonably common that Soviet officials would remove people from the party, jail them, or execute them just because they couldn't make the Gosplan a reality. This kind of stuff was common in China as well and still happens in North Korea.
Also today Venezuela styles itself a socialist government waging an 'economic war'. And the methods are similar to communists of the past century. Reality is denied. Failure is blamed on scapegoats (hoarders) and more and more government power is requested to deal with the scapegoats.
It's a common thread through both socialism's history and the history of comments on this and other TL threads. Backers insist that their socialist ideology is true. When confronted with reality, they either insist that flaws will be figured out in the future (as if sci-fi always comes true) or that non-believers (capitalists or what have you) are to blame for failure.
|
On April 27 2015 05:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Maybe, but again that's not the point. It's too hypothetical to be discussed : with us, mankind as it is being raised and taught today, it is not possible indeed. Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable. someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing. Lol you're post in wrong on many level. First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday. Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology. Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today. For someone who thinks history isn't important, you seem to be insisting that we discuss history quite a bit and citing my supposed lack of historical knowledge as a big deal. But anyways, I wasn't referring only to large-scale Soviet war-time purges. For one thing, the Soviets also engaged in small scale 'purges'. It was reasonably common that Soviet officials would remove people from the party, jail them, or execute them just because they couldn't make the Gosplan a reality. This kind of stuff was common in China as well and still happens in North Korea. Also today Venezuela styles itself a socialist government waging an 'economic war'. And the methods are similar to communists of the past century. Reality is denied. Failure is blamed on scapegoats (hoarders) and more and more government power is requested to deal with the scapegoats. It's a common thread through both socialism's history and the history of comments on this and other TL threads. Backers insist that their socialist ideology is true. When confronted with reality, they either insist that flaws will be figured out in the future (as if sci-fi always comes true) or that non-believers (capitalists or what have you) are to blame for failure.
I'll be clearer, I don't see any moral teaching in history. But history have some practical use. And I didn't insist on anything, I responded to some ignorant point (socialism is/was state ownership, which is wrong). There is quite a difference.
How did it go from your comment that social ownership of capital create "practical" problems, in things "like transfer of ownership, expansion, contraction, risk management, retirement" to the mass killing of soviet russia ? That's the kind of thing that is always argued when communism / socialism become a topic : 1) it's less efficient ; and when it is actually clear that it is not in a local perspective 2) but if you do it... mass murder blablabla. And all this with me clearly stating I don't want to discuss this topic with you... lol.
That's some nice unclear historical evidence. "They killed people and made purge, before and after the war". Why are repeating what I just said ? I just pointed out that the early days of the revolution were kinda like 1789 (except they fought 4 years of civil war), but that they didn't had the sanity to stop it in time ? And frankly the real revolutionaries lost the war, all getting killed or fleeing to south america. Do you know about this ? Who do you think the soviets were killing ? Anti communists ? Libertarians and capitalists ? The russian tea party ? lol
Here is some quote for you (took time to translate, but I feel happy to let you read some words from Victor Serge) :
He came to our revolutionary generation a truly terrible thing. The greatest hope of the world stood up for us, tangible, real, giving us new reasons for living, accepting us, calling us entirely. We have become, stripped of any old pride, and, often, not thinking for ourselves (it's such a little thing : ourselves! ), the witnesses and participants in the transformation of all. It would end the misery, the old humiliation of man, all the old indignities. Birth of a new world. A community of volunteers was working for it - the Bolshevik party (...). A day came when the great community that we served had suddenly demanded that we disavow everything - everything that made its own purpose, and ours, the very basis of our lives.
|
Can you find me some that correct for wealth? None of these conclusively show it's a race issue.
Because of previous racist policies, black people make up a disproportionately large percentage of the country's poor. Poor people are more likely to be arrested. Ergo, black people are more likely to be arrested.
You see how it may not be about race, and still affect one race more than another?
I've said throughout this thread that police need to be held to higher standards. Force them to wear cameras. Institute oversight committees that are not part of the departments they watch. But I don't accept that the problem is racism. I think its just your standard power-tripping.
This whole "You aren't part of group X, ergo you cannot disagree with group X." idea is total bullshit too.
On April 27 2015 06:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 05:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable.
someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing. Lol you're post in wrong on many level. First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday. Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology. Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today. For someone who thinks history isn't important, you seem to be insisting that we discuss history quite a bit and citing my supposed lack of historical knowledge as a big deal. But anyways, I wasn't referring only to large-scale Soviet war-time purges. For one thing, the Soviets also engaged in small scale 'purges'. It was reasonably common that Soviet officials would remove people from the party, jail them, or execute them just because they couldn't make the Gosplan a reality. This kind of stuff was common in China as well and still happens in North Korea. Also today Venezuela styles itself a socialist government waging an 'economic war'. And the methods are similar to communists of the past century. Reality is denied. Failure is blamed on scapegoats (hoarders) and more and more government power is requested to deal with the scapegoats. It's a common thread through both socialism's history and the history of comments on this and other TL threads. Backers insist that their socialist ideology is true. When confronted with reality, they either insist that flaws will be figured out in the future (as if sci-fi always comes true) or that non-believers (capitalists or what have you) are to blame for failure. I'll be clearer, I don't see any moral teaching in history. But history have some practical use. And I didn't insist on anything, I responded to some ignorant point (socialism is/was state ownership, which is wrong). There is quite a difference. How did it go from your comment that social ownership of capital create "practical" problems, in things "like transfer of ownership, expansion, contraction, risk management, retirement" to the mass killing of soviet russia ? That's the kind of thing that is always argued when communism / socialism become a topic : 1) it's less efficient ; and when it is actually clear that it is not in a local perspective 2) but if you do it... mass murder blablabla. And all this with me clearly stating I don't want to discuss this topic with you... lol. That's some nice unclear historical evidence. "They killed people and made purge, before and after the war". Why are repeating what I just said ? I just pointed out that the early days of the revolution were kinda like 1789 (except they fought 4 years of civil war), but that they didn't had the sanity to stop it in time ? And frankly the real revolutionaries lost the war, all getting killed or fleeing to south america. Do you know about this ? Who do you think the soviets were killing ? Anti communists ? Libertarians and capitalists ? The russian tea party ? lol Here is some quote for you (took time to translate, but I feel happy to let you read some words from Victor Serge) : Show nested quote +He came to our revolutionary generation a truly terrible thing. The greatest hope of the world stood up for us, tangible, real, giving us new reasons for living, accepting us, calling us entirely. We have become, stripped of any old pride, and, often, not thinking for ourselves (it's such a little thing : ourselves! ), the witnesses and participants in the transformation of all. It would end the misery, the old humiliation of man, all the old indignities. Birth of a new world. A community of volunteers was working for it - the Bolshevik party (...). A day came when the great community that we served had suddenly demanded that we disavow everything - everything that made its own purpose, and ours, the very basis of our lives.
How much do you know about Stalin's Five Year Plan? Or Mao's Great Leap Forward?
Both of these socialist schemes failed so dramatically, millions of people starved to death. They weren't executed by government hitmen, they simply starved because the system was so unbelievably terrible.
|
We need an anger translator in here, too.
|
On April 27 2015 06:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 05:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 06:13 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah, someday blizz will patch humanity and your awesome theorycrafted strats will be totally viable.
someday ... You think our current society was possible in the XVth century ? It's a question of education, even democracy was a completly impossible idea at first. And you're always arguing against things that are not discussed. I responded a claim that said that socialism is only state ownership. That's false, and the history of socialism proved it. The discussion is not : does collective societies are possible ? And I don't want to discuss that with a mind wrapped in "economism". So what? Just because some ideas develop successfully over time does not mean that all ideas will successfully develop over time. Some will just turn out to be bad ideas. Like Marxism. Just look at where these discussions always go - straight to the dumpster of theoretical bullshitting. Practical issues? Who gives a fuck about that? Native Americans and stuff! Whoooo! The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. That's the history of communism in a nutshell right there. You just proved you don't know much about the history of communism some pages ago... Historically it wasn't uncommon for communists to try to solve real world problems by purging non-believers and scapegoating. So when you say things like the problem is that people who disagree with you exist, you're just following the dogma down the same failed path your predecessors went. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good student of history should be doing. Lol you're post in wrong on many level. First I don't believe history can really teach much, the society of today is not the society of yesterday. Second, the Russian did purge "non-believers", but it was war. I know you never read anything about the period, but you should, they didn't create the tcheka out of their desire to purge those who belived differently (that's actually the discourse of the counter revolution), they did it because of the counter revolution and because of the war their neighbor countries declared against them. Sure, the tcheka evolved in the KGB afterwards but at this point I'm not sure it's the communist anymore. In this regard, the early years of 1917 are really close to 1789, the difference is we stopped after a few years, while the Russian kept doing it days in and days out for more than thirty years. But it's true that Leninism - armed communism, it's not Marx who never argued for anything of the sort - was a dangerous ideology. Third, I did not say I wanted to kill the jonnys - I'm not a leninist, let alone a communist - I'm just implying our society create in mass dudes that are ignorants about history (and worst than that dudes who actually believe they "know"), who are individualists and who happens to be filled with a passionnate desire for money which I guess is your portrait. Considering that I'm a democrat and thus that I acknowledge your vote as equally valuable as mine, altho less informed, I agree that "communism" or "socialism" is impossible today. For someone who thinks history isn't important, you seem to be insisting that we discuss history quite a bit and citing my supposed lack of historical knowledge as a big deal. But anyways, I wasn't referring only to large-scale Soviet war-time purges. For one thing, the Soviets also engaged in small scale 'purges'. It was reasonably common that Soviet officials would remove people from the party, jail them, or execute them just because they couldn't make the Gosplan a reality. This kind of stuff was common in China as well and still happens in North Korea. Also today Venezuela styles itself a socialist government waging an 'economic war'. And the methods are similar to communists of the past century. Reality is denied. Failure is blamed on scapegoats (hoarders) and more and more government power is requested to deal with the scapegoats. It's a common thread through both socialism's history and the history of comments on this and other TL threads. Backers insist that their socialist ideology is true. When confronted with reality, they either insist that flaws will be figured out in the future (as if sci-fi always comes true) or that non-believers (capitalists or what have you) are to blame for failure. I'll be clearer, I don't see any moral teaching in history. But history have some practical use. And I didn't insist on anything, I responded to some ignorant point (socialism is/was state ownership, which is wrong). There is quite a difference. How did it go from your comment that social ownership of capital create "practical" problems, in things "like transfer of ownership, expansion, contraction, risk management, retirement" to the mass killing of soviet russia ? That's the kind of thing that is always argued when communism / socialism become a topic : 1) it's less efficient ; and when it is actually clear that it is not in a local perspective 2) but if you do it... mass murder blablabla. And all this with me clearly stating I don't want to discuss this topic with you... lol.
Your response to practical problems was to state: The only practical issue I see is that the world is full of Jonnys lol. Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past.
As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable.
That's some nice unclear historical evidence. "They killed people and made purge, before and after the war". Why are repeating what I just said ? I just pointed out that the early days of the revolution were kinda like 1789 (except they fought 4 years of civil war), but that they didn't had the sanity to stop it in time ? And frankly the real revolutionaries lost the war, all getting killed or fleeing to south america. Do you know about this ? Who do you think the soviets were killing ? Anti communists ? Libertarians and capitalists ? The russian tea party ? lol
As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela.
Here is some quote for you (took time to translate, but I feel happy to let you read some words from Victor Serge) : Show nested quote +He came to our revolutionary generation a truly terrible thing. The greatest hope of the world stood up for us, tangible, real, giving us new reasons for living, accepting us, calling us entirely. We have become, stripped of any old pride, and, often, not thinking for ourselves (it's such a little thing : ourselves! ), the witnesses and participants in the transformation of all. It would end the misery, the old humiliation of man, all the old indignities. Birth of a new world. A community of volunteers was working for it - the Bolshevik party (...). A day came when the great community that we served had suddenly demanded that we disavow everything - everything that made its own purpose, and ours, the very basis of our lives.
The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
