Of course they do. But it looks bad when you use a tragedy as a step stool.
Far-Right-Wing Violence since January 2008
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Of course they do. But it looks bad when you use a tragedy as a step stool.
The kind that briefly and succinctly invalidates your propaganda?Exactly the kind of nonsense I've come to expect from you.
True Anarchy is very much mirrored in Lennon's "Imagine".Anarchy nowadays seems to consist of angry, misguided young people that wear masks like cowards and think that breaking the window of a Gap store and running away from riot police somehow symbolizes a crowning achievment in the name of being anti-corporation and anti-government.
Losers. Every single one of them.
Although placing blame on a political party for a murderer's activity is distasteful, it's also shortsighted to discount the political discourse entirely. If the Republican party allows the Limbaughs, Becks and Palins of the world to be their mouthpeice, they reap what they sow. They fill the air with combustible gas and then act offended when blamed for the spark.
The shameless dishonesty, mindless bigotry and murderous cruelty of right-wingers does quite enough to demonize them. Thinking that an Obama bumpersticker is far left is crazy. Minds so unhinged by hate and fear are capable of anything. Right-wingers everywhere may refuse to admit it, but Loughner thinks the way they do. He just had the cojones to live up to their ideals, unlike the cowardly rabble who just masturbate when they think about drone attacks blowing people to shreds.
While right-wingers think some people are better than others, and therefore have a right to rule, or to kill when they are not sufficiently gratified by the groveling of the inferior people, leftists think that people have equal rights, and that the majority should rule. Which tends to make it contradictory to shoot down people at random. Like everyone, leftists tend to rationalize such behavior more easily during a war. In some minds, armed struggle for national liberation qualifies as a war. Even then, the hard leftists are internationalists and working class oriented and is rarely characterized by the kind of violence you can find in, say, offshoots of the Mormons.
On anarchism and anarchy: One of anarchy's meanings is "no rulers," instead of "no rules." It is entirely possible for people to cooperate rationally, without orders being given, especially when such is custom, which is always backed by informal social sanctions. The experience of areas devastated by natural catastrophes proves conclusively that the temporary absence of authority does not instantly lead to chaos. In fact, sometimes allegations of looting, chaos, etc. is cover for an attack by authorities (Haiti was last year's example, the case is being made for Tunisia right now.) The thing is, the anarchists also reject democratic cooperation of the majority, as well as oppressive cooptation by a minority.
We happen to live in an anarchy, however. This planet lacks a global authority and every individual (nation) is free to resort to violence when it wishes, with only toothless regulations and pieties to say they are wrong. In one sense, anarchists are just people to say that individuals can be sovereign nations of one. Personally, I believe that the anarchy we see in the world is itself a powerful empirical case against anarchism as a political philosophy.
While right-wingers think some people are better than others, and therefore have a right to rule, or to kill when they are not sufficiently gratified by the groveling of the inferior people, leftists think that people have equal rights, and that the majority should rule. Which tends to make it contradictory to shoot down people at random. Like everyone, leftists tend to rationalize such behavior more easily during a war. In some minds, armed struggle for national liberation qualifies as a war. Even then, the hard leftists are internationalists and working class oriented and is rarely characterized by the kind of violence you can find in, say, offshoots of the Mormons.
On anarchism and anarchy: One of anarchy's meanings is "no rulers," instead of "no rules." It is entirely possible for people to cooperate rationally, without orders being given, especially when such is custom, which is always backed by informal social sanctions. The experience of areas devastated by natural catastrophes proves conclusively that the temporary absence of authority does not instantly lead to chaos. In fact, sometimes allegations of looting, chaos, etc. is cover for an attack by authorities (Haiti was last year's example, the case is being made for Tunisia right now.) The thing is, the anarchists also reject democratic cooperation of the majority, as well as oppressive cooptation by a minority.
We happen to live in an anarchy, however. This planet lacks a global authority and every individual (nation) is free to resort to violence when it wishes, with only toothless regulations and pieties to say they are wrong. In one sense, anarchists are just people to say that individuals can be sovereign nations of one. Personally, I believe that the anarchy we see in the world is itself a powerful empirical case against anarchism as a political philosophy.
Switch
Captain
The kind that briefly and succinctly invalidates your propaganda?Exactly the kind of nonsense I've come to expect from you.
Of the kind that demonstrates not only do you not know what the fuck you're talking about, but that you've no interest in finding out. I've no more time for your smug, condescending brand of bullshit.
Anarchy nowadays seems to consist of angry, misguided young people that wear masks like cowards and think that breaking the window of a Gap store and running away from riot police somehow symbolizes a crowning achievment in the name of being anti-corporation and anti-government.
Losers. Every single one of them.
Just because violent anarchists are the ones you hear about on TV doesn't mean they're the only ones around, or even in the majority. You might want to start with Anarcho-Pacifism: Tolstoy, Gandhi, et al.
Last edited:
Leave a pamphlet.The kind that briefly and succinctly invalidates your propaganda?Exactly the kind of nonsense I've come to expect from you.
Of the kind that demonstrates not only do you not know what the fuck you're talking about, but that you've no interest in finding out. I've no more time for your smug, condescending brand of bullshit.
Well, simply from a practical point of view: what could anybody do about it in this scenario?
Violent revolution? But stj's comment implied that nothing should be done about it, if he is being consistent.
Not really, since mindless bigotry is rather incompatible with the equal rights he mentioned first. I don't think it's a big step to assume he meant that the majority should rule within a framework that guarantees equal rights, which is supposed to be how it works now.
Also, saying the majority should rule doesn't mean you have to agree with how they rule.
It looks bad. Full stop.
This is all nonsense anyway. We should all be struggling against a *common* enemy...
THE JUDEAN PEOPLE'S FRONT!!!
No no, Judean Front for the People! Get with it!
That's just hilarious coming from Rii.I've no more time for your smug, condescending brand of bullshit.The kind that briefly and succinctly invalidates your propaganda?Exactly the kind of nonsense I've come to expect from you.
Oh I've witnessed them plenty in real life as well.Anarchy nowadays seems to consist of angry, misguided young people that wear masks like cowards and think that breaking the window of a Gap store and running away from riot police somehow symbolizes a crowning achievment in the name of being anti-corporation and anti-government.
Losers. Every single one of them.
Just because violent anarchists are the ones you hear about on TV doesn't mean they're the only ones around,
Perception is everything, and right now that's exactly what anarchy is perceived to be - petulant youngsters that everyone absolutely hates because all they do is act selfishly and destructively. As far as the normal people of this world are concerned, that is the majority. I'd say if it's so important to you then you shouldn't waste time here, rather be out trying to clean up the image of your bullshit, pipe dream ideology.
I don't give enough of a fuck to.
Ah-ha! Now the pieces fall into place! I was blind, but now I see! It all makes sense, my dear Watson!
Switch is Rii? I thought Rii vowed to leave or something? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yes he did, and now he's back. Big deal? I think not.
You don't need to make a mountain out of a molehill, Roger Wilco. It was just a question.
Well, it's not like he's making it a secret, I think he even uses the same avatar as before.
1. How do you know I don't have avatars turned off?
2. "Not keeping it secret" is not equal to "it's public knowledge".
3. This is still getting three more posts than the topic deserves.
2. "Not keeping it secret" is not equal to "it's public knowledge".
3. This is still getting three more posts than the topic deserves.