favorite anarchistic philosopher

Fuck the Nazi's and any rights they may want, NGNM85 you are so naive sometimes, we don't live in a police state? Fuck, could have fooled me....Neo Nazi's aren't a threat in Western Society? Neo-Nazi's are a threat in your own back yard in Boston let alone the rest of the US and Canada, please, I admire your passion for your ideas of human rights for all, unfortunately Nazi's have voided all of those rights by virtue of what they represent to ALL the rest of humanity and their rights, my little brother and sister are both half Jewish, I'm half Mexican and those motherfuckers would not hesitate, if given the power, to anihilate us. And this isn't a dig at you but I notice in your speech patterns a deep faith in 'Law' and 'Citizenship' and 'Western' etc., etc., It just sounds bizzare coming from an Anarchist, of course your absolutely free to believe whatever the fuck you want.

 

It is, indirectly. Free speech is a right that includes speech that is dishonest or erroneous, within reason.

Only if they made those statements as private citizens, which they were no, and did not. When they spoke they did as members of a political institution which is bound by different rules than you or I. It’s not a free speech issue.

They’d be wrong, but yes, they absolutely have the right to think that.

Dependent on context, but yes, possibly.

Yes, they have the right to BE racist, however, there are limits on how they can ACT on those views.

This should be pretty self-evident. What you don’t seem to comprehend is that free speech doesn’t belong to any one person. Yes, they thave the right to express views that I find abhorrent, as do you. Thankfully, I also have the right to rebut and challenge those ideas and I fully exercise that right. I’m not for a minute saying we should simply calmly accept people spewing lies and hatred, or whatever. The RIGHT way to respond is to call them out for what they are, to shine a spotlight on their dishonesty, or bigotry, or whatever. What you DON’T do is start burning books, throwing people in prison for thoughtcrimes, criminalizing dissent, etc.

See above.

Not in the slightest. Like I said, freedom of speech is everybody’s. By defending others’ freedom of speech, we defend our own, per the Niemoller quote.

No, I’m saying that if you think rationally, there’s no other perspective that is consistent with the facts.

As long as it comes from private citizens it is.

See above.

Not remotely. Epic fail.

I answered, it just wasn’t the answer you want to hear.

You’re changing the subject and employing (Very crude.) rhetorical tricks. The issue, the central thesis, is what is consistent with anarchism, being for free speech, or against it.
Just because self-proclaimed Anarchists have made concessions on free speech in no way proves that this is the correct course of action, or that it flows naturally from Anarchist ideology. Second, these circumstances you mention bear virtually no resemblance to the Faurisson case.

No, I actually said the opposite. The holocaust DID happen, and that CAN be proven, however, that doesn’t mean Faurisson doesn’t genuinely believe what he’s saying, I think he does.

Again, it’s not your freedom of speech, their freedom of speech, my freedom of speech, it’s everybody’s freedom of speech.

That’s not like it at all.

No, you’re not being “logic.”

Prison is a different issue, as to what should be done with REAl criminals, rapists, murderers, etc., is a whole different ball of wax. Frankly, I think there are some individuals society should be protected from. Either way, it’s really a bogus comparison. Let’s stick to the central thesis.

There is no contradiction. My position on free speech is very clear, and I’ve articulated it over and over, again.

You’re conflating two separate things. I believe in protecting society from ACTUAL criminals, war criminals, murderers, that’s not remotely comparable with locking someone up simply because you don’t like their ideas. Believing in freedom doesn’t mean I don’t think people should be held responsible for their actions.

Most of those examples didn’t last very long, and existed under very particular circumstances which are in no way analogous. What floors me is that you’re actually advocating burning books, censorship, imprisoning, even executing people for ‘thoughtcrime’, and you’re saying I’m not an Anarchist. That’s really a masterpiece of convoluted thinking. You CAN’T be an Anarchist and believe in these things.

That has nothing to do with it. Those people committed ACTUAL crimes, they are not oppressed.

This is not quantum physics, this is very simple and has very direct real world applications. Again, you revert to restating examples of SO-CALLED Anarchists in circumstances that bear NO RESEMBLANCE and then rest your case. Sorry. Just because something was not done, in no way proves that it cannot or should not be done. You’re not actually proving anything. It’s like how religious people always say; “You can’t PROVE 100% god doesn’t exist!” then they act all satisfied with themselves because they think they just hit a home run. However, that statement is actually worthless. I can’t “100% prove” there are no unicorns, that doesn’t mean the study of them is a legitimate exercise, or that I should seriously entertain the notion unicorns exist. You aren’t actually proving anything.

I’m not a hippy, and I’m not a pacifist, but I do think this idea you have of achieving a stable Anarchist society in the modern west by violent revolution is a horrible idea for a number of reasons, not in the least being it would probably be a grotesque failure.

There’s nothing really theoretical about it, it’s really incredibly simple and applicable.

I’m not utopian, or extropian, for that matter. This talk of revolutions is really idealistic childlike macho bullshit.

No it doesn’t. See above.

You did it again. “During a revolution..” You, know, if you keep changing the subject it makes it a lot harder.

“If you don’t have anything intelligent to say…”

No, simply saying, “You’re wrong.” Proves absolutely nothing, it’s childlike, and useless.

It’s not-…. Why bother? You didn’t comprehend it the first dozen times.

That is a childlike oversimplification. “Class war” contains the word “war”, but in practice and principle these are two radically different things. Like ice cream and shaving cream both contain the same word but are actually two radically different things that function in different contexts.

It is, because I’ve already said it so many times, but you still don’t understand it.

That’s not what I said, it’s not theoretical, you’re missing the point.

These examples have no bearing on the Faurisson case. There’s absolutely no comparison whatsoever. You’re arbitrarily adding these new criteria. I don’t see much point arguing how one ‘should’ conduct a violent revolution, because I don’t think a violent revolution, at least in the modern west, is a good idea.

I don’t know how else to spell it out for you. There is an ideology called “Anarchism”, it has certain essential features, based on those core principles it should be very cut and dry.

Again, you’re fundamental logic is flawed. Even if, EVEN IF, and I’m not conceding that by any means, there was NO ALTERNATIVE in these few particular historical scenarios, that STILL wouldn’t prove that their actions were consistent with Anarchism.

Actually, from the sounds of it, authoritarian communism is exactly what you’re advocating.

This isn’t an argument because it completely ignores the relevant issue. You’re jumping from arguing that Anarchists shouldn’t support free speech to saying it doesn’t really matter, which wouldn’t prove anything even if it was true.

“..OF SPEECH.” You’re excising two very essential words. Yes, all human beings have human rights, which is what you’re arguing against, except when people either individually or as part of a large group, wrongfully violate the rights of another person. Then society says that person has to pay a price for committing a hostile act. Simply speaking or publishing ideas does not constitute an assault or infringement by itself. Also, if you limit on type of speech, you limit everybody’s freedom of speech, not just one particular group. I don’t see why you’re having such trouble with this.

It’s not relevant what his political orientation is because, as you’ve misunderstood, again, it’s not just his freedom of speech, it’s everybody’s.

There is no contradiction, I never said anything about liberating actual criminals, there’s no connection.

Anything but. I’ve answered the same questions a multitude of different ways, you just don’t seem to grasp the answers.

That assumes violent revolution is a necessary precondition for Anarchism, even if that were true, supposedly that would entail just a limited period of time.

It’s only irrelevant if you don’t think words have meanings. If you want to be honest, and express yourself clearly then you can’t just make shit up.

No, for the last time. The members of the Bush administration were nor private citizens, they were government officials, which exist under different rules. That’s simply true.

An unpleasant form of speech, but still free speech, within reason.

If you removed the word ‘fascist’, in context,….yes.

That has no bearing on free speech, by itself. Second, if you wanted to apply this to the Faurisson case, you’d have to prove he is lying, which I don’t think is the case.

You can’t articulate yourself intelligently so you resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks. I also reiterate, saying that I’m against locking people up or killing them for having ideas or expressing opinions does not make me a hippy, or a pacifist.
Explain us how any of the historical example i quoted above can be realised without armed revolution.

I’m not a pacifist, nor am I arguing for pacifism. This was all clearly explained, if you don’t get it by now…
easily countered hahahaha WOOWWW.... yeah thats probably why WWII existed and thats probably why there are HUGE neo-nazis problems in russia.... yeah nazism is easily countered LOLLLL[/quote]
You’re giving me a headache. Nazism rests on certain key principle beliefs many of which are just flat-out wrong and can be proven to be so. Although, admittedly, unfortunately, people don’t always act logically. The best method I would say for confronting neo-nazism in Russia would be through economics. If the standard of living could be raised and there was better infrastructure, education, etc., I think you’d see a rapid decline.

I’ll remind you, I said, the modern WEST.

I said modern WEST….

[/quote]
You can’t punish people for things they haven’t done yet. Once a ruling institution starts to attack basic human rights, then it will have to be resisted, very possibly by force, if necessary. However, you don’t defeat the enemies of free speech by destroying free speech.
“None are so blind as those who will not see..”

 

"i might not agree with what you have to say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it".

I agree with this statement and NGMN only on the fact that people have a RIGHT to SAY what they want. There are a lot of people out there who disagree with what most of us our saying but respect the right of us to say and think this way also.

This reminds me of the thread on the argument of pedophile rights and ill say what i said then. You can have your beliefs and what not, if your racist, your a piece of shit and should be executed but go ahead and say it, gives me more fuel to beat your ass.

And fuck prison systems. Racists shouldnt be jailed, they should be (as i said above) shot or you can try to change their minds, its not a lost cause for some....

 

Naivete has nothing to do with it.

Christ, this gets tedious... If you want to see what oppression really looks like go to Moscow, or Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, etc. We have a really disturbing crisis of democracy in the US, compared to the rest of the industrialized west. HOWEVER, thankfully, the US is still a comparatively extremely free society, and we should all take pains to ensure it stays that way, and try to make it better, NOT WORSE. We can have websites like this, we can hand out leaflets, set up our little Anarchists groups and clubhouses without fear of being executed or imprisoned indefinitely for thoughtcrime. That is, until people like Ungovernable get into power. Then it's "the people's razor" for whomever, whenever.

A threat to what, exactly? A threat to me or you? Maybe. However, like I said, 99.9% of America (And Britain, Canada, etc., etc.) sees a guy with a swastika tatooed on his head and thinks he's a fucking freak. These people have absolutely no mass appeal whatsoever, they are marginal fanatics.

I really recommend you think about that seriously. You're suggesting that people should be imprisoned, etc., for things they MIGHT do. Simply for their ideas. There is no fucking way that that can be rationalized or twisted around to be consistent with the spirit of Anarchism. Is that really a society you'd want to live in? Why do you think you won't be next?

No, no, no. I used language that is in our laws. It also happens to be true. I think it IS goddamn self-evident that all men have inalienable rights, basic human rights. I believe freedom of speech, the freedom to express and exchange ideas is the most basic and fundamental of those rights. Once that's gone, it's all over. Call it whatever the fuck you want, these concepts are fundamental to Anarchism. I mean, do human rights exist? Should we promote and protect human rights? Do we want to live in an open and democratic society? Call me fucking crazy...

 

You clearly didn't comprehend anything I said. You're a lost cause.

 

Haha, Ungovernable, no... read the thread you'll see my stance, I said something like "hey if your a pedophile, your a piece of shit and all, THINK what YOU WANT, but your still a piece of shit TO ME that should be shot whether you act on it or not". Or something like that. Except i have a personal issue with pedophilia as well. Racists dont try to fuck little girls and boys (unless they do, then their pedophies)

How is me not agreeing with racists authoritarian? My views on racists might different from yours, i feel that some should be shot rather than staying alive AKA HITLER, or anyone who has killed a "colored person" for their skin type and still live. Like i said, i dont AGREE WITH WHAT YOUR SAYING, but YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SAY IT. Your not going to change my mind on the matter of FREE SPEECH.

 

I agree with NGNM85. People should have the right to say anything they want. Today I said "I declare today 'if you wear socks you are a poser' day." because I wasn't wearing socks. It was stupid. But I would fight for my right (or any one else's) to say it. Honestly Ungovernable, some of the things you say make anarchism sound no better then Stalinism. I'm interested in liberation. Not a new era of a different kind of oppression.

 

Like a breath of fresh air...

 

bleh. lately I'm not in the mood to do much anything but sleep, let alone argue imaginary people, you win buddy.

 

I'm willing to lose my freedom and/or life and have put it to practice all my life against these Luddites, what are you willing to lose in order to defend Racist/Nazi freedom of speech? Do you even believe or participate in any direct action or is it all just internet bravado and oneupsmanship? If a KKK rally were held in your front yard, you're honestly telling me you would go stand next to them and defend their right to rally in direct opposition to antifa anarchists?

By the way we all know Ungov's first language is not English, it is French so poking fun at his syntax is just as bad as anything he's said and also childish.

 

If white nationalists were in my front yard (unlikely they'd make it there, I live at the end of a cul de sac and all of my neighbors are black or Jewish) I would rally against them because I don't beleve in what they say, not because I don't believe in their right to say it.

 

Clearly, you missed the point, or you wouldn't ask. The point is freedom of speech doesn't work like that. Jeapordizing theirs jeapordizes ours. Once you declare certain speech, certain ideas, off limits, when you start burning books, that affects EVERYBODY. Not to mention it's completely authoritarian.

I think 'direct action" is a little nebulous, but yes, I protest, march, sit in, petition, vote. I act and express myself politically on a regular basis in a myriad of ways. I just wish I was able to do more.

If they were in my front yard I'd call the cops. However, on Boston common, they have the right to be there.

Seriously, I'm going to have to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being disingenuous for some reason because I can't believe you could misunderstand so horribly as to ask that question. I think you're smarter than that. Also if said activists were "real" Anarchists they'd be taking issue with what they were saying, not trying to take away the right to say it.
Censorship, burning books, etc.,... It aint cool, and it definitely isn't Anarchist.

Lastly, I think anybody who describes themselves as "antifa" is kind of a nimrod. It's redundant and stupid. Maybe in Croatia, or somewhere that might be a legitimate classification, but to my ear it just sounds dumb.

I'm not poking fun at his english, in fact I've tried to be diplomatic about it. He obviously speaks the language sufficiently where he understands at least most of the individual words, but the ideas obviously aren't getting through. It's not a language problem.

 

Alright, why don't we want nazis here? BECAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING IDIOTS and we don't believe in what they say.
And also don't put words in peoples mouths. did I say that I would wait until it was in my front yard? No. So sit down and shut up. I would rally against white nationalist
A. if I wasn't 14
B. if they ever organized. There IS white nationlist presence where I live. the houses of Jewish people who live near me have been vandalized numerous times with terms like "kike" and swastikas as well as slashes tires and spray painted over liscence plates. If I could find the people who did this, I would strangle them. But I have yet to because they've never made an attempt to organize that I have been aware of.
Also I refer to you all as "imaginary" because I've never met any of you. I don't actually doubt your existence or something
And I would gladly tell my neighbors I believe in the free speech of those who want to kill them. I also believe in the free speech of emo kids and hipsters on 13th street. Free speech is for every body, not just the people I agree with.

 

So now because I do describe myself as antifa I'm a nimrod, so let me get this straight NOGODSNOMASTERS85,

1.Its's only childish when someone else resorts to disrespect and name calling
2. All the Anarchist Revolutionaries in the past that put their money where their mouths were, are "So called Anarchists".
3.We should thank the USA for our freedoms and fight to make this a "better place".
4."No, you’re not being “logic.”", isn't you poking fun.
5. Direct action is nebulous and includes things such as voting, marching, and petitioning?
6.When confronted with hate in a direct manner you would call the police.

just want to make sure we're on the same page here