Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

favorite anarchistic philosopher

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by stinagen, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    You've already got the answers, you just don't like them, or you don't understand them.

    Also, I didn't see a lot of question marks, just long, convoluted rants where you accuse me of various things.
     
  2. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I think this is where you're problem lies.

    Actually, it's a couple of problems. Part of it I think has to do with the nature of reality, what can be defined as real. It sounds like you’re thinking that since human rights don’t have physical properties they cannot be proven to exist, they don’t. However, if you want to take this hard materialist viewpoint, the only thing that can actually be proven to exist is your mind. However, obviously, you’ve already to some degree moved past this and accepted, consciously or unconsciously, the limitations of human knowledge. So rights can be just as “real” as anything.

    Second, just because rights are violated doesn’t mean they don’t exist. In fact, most individuals who violate the rights of others don’t do so because they disagree about what those rights are, but because they’ve willfully decided to violate those rights. I’m reminded of a line; “..I don't think for one second that any guy who's pulled himself off a crying woman has been mistaken for one minute about what she really wanted.” In cases like this, most cases, the aggressor and the victim are nearly in agreement as to what constitutes right and wrong, it’s just that one of them doesn’t care. Now, if a perpetrator were incapacitated in some way, suffering from schizophrenia or mental retardation, perhaps, society generally considers diminished capacity as a mitigating factor, and thus making an individual less culpable. However, simply not giving a shit does not count.

    Also, this notion that because human rights are arbitrary because they have no physical properties and are not divinely inspired, therefore they are inconsequential is nihilism. This also doesn’t just negate human rights but the concept of right and wrong, altogether. Nihilism is essentially a philosophical sinkhole. It’s also completely incompatible with Anarchism. The prevailing tendency of Anarchism is secular humanist. It’s based on a moral and philosophical objection to oppression, etc., etc.
     
  3. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    no you never answered me, you are a fucking liar. You always kept repeating my questions were irrevelent and you always refused to answer me.

    Prove what you say and point us where you answered me.

    You are just a pussy, you don't know what to say so you pretend you already answered me.

    You kept repeating the same shitty arguments yet i don't complaint if i'm forced to repeat the same arguments over and over again because you don't understand.

    Then answer my arguments, stop ignoring them and acting like a fascist.
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    NGNM85 you didn't answer this:

    (he said that this is your point of view)

    Do you agree with that ? Those guys pretend they think the same as you but it's not true because you said that you refuse to beat the nazis for their ideas because they have the right to have those ideas and express themselves.

    Once again you just ignored the last couple of posts, you prefer that peoples think they have the same ideas as you even if it's not true so you have allies.

    Explain them the same thing you explained previously in this topic and tell them that "beating up fascists for what they say because we realize how awful it is" is authoritarism and fascism and it's fake anarchism.


    ...oh yeah but i forgot, you will tell me once again that you answered the questions, i just don't like the answer, blah blah blah blah..... What a great way to avoid answering the arguments !! A typical fascist strategy...


    So what do you think of bands like Oi Polloi ? They are authoritarians and fascists just like me because they sing "bash the fash" ??
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    i want an answer. Your last excuse was that you didn't see question marks, so i will re-formulate with questions. I already know that the answer to most of these questions are "yes, it's true" but i want you to confirm, just to show everybody how stupid you are.

    [/quote]



    and this was the question i posted 9 pages ago, and i still didn't get an answer:
    Also, since you think that breaking our ennemies's freedom of speech is fascism and authoritarism, please confirm us that all examples quoted above is fascism and authoritarism. (this is a question btw)


    ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR STOP POSTING IN THIS TOPIC, THIS IS NOT A DEBATE IF YOU IGNORE MY ARGUMENTS. I have the feeling to be talking with a fucking fascist. You pretend to give freedom of speech to peoples with different ideas but you ignore me and you don't consider my argument, this sounds like the pseudo "freedom of speech" that the government gives us.

    Like a famous french anarchist said "dictatorship is shut up, democracy is keep talking alone i'm ignoring you"
     
  6. AtomicKhaos

    AtomicKhaos Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    116

    0

    0

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    Abbie Hoffman
    Tom Hodgkinson
    Bakunin
    Emma Goldman
     
  7. Rathryn

    Rathryn Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Nice return to the original question posted XD
     
  8. AtomicKhaos

    AtomicKhaos Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    116

    0

    0

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    why thank you. i think if you are going to go off topic, start another topic.
     
  9. VeganElcuCuy

    VeganElcuCuy New Member New Member


    1

    0

    0

    May 10, 2010
     
    emma goldman,hakim bey,john zerzan.
     
  10. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFem Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    6

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Ungovernable, can you please refrain from using words like "pussy"...i find them offensive and am shocked to see them used on a so called anarchist forum.
     
  11. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFem Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    6

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    No i'm not at all arguing that because rights aren't physical they don't exist...that's ridiculous. Plenty of things aren't physical that exist..take emotions for example. You're either misreading my posts, or you don't understand.

    I agree with you about many people violating other people's "rights" knowingly, especially in the case of rape (where most people acknowledge that is obviously is wrong). However, it's not always as simple as that, there are still some people who don't. Still some people who don't think many terrible things are wrong. So personally, I think rights have to be agreed to by everybody before you can say they truly exist.

    What do rights mean for you NGNM85?? Because personally my definition of rights would mean that they cannot ever be compromised.

    Anyways just to repeat what I already said...just so you can read it again, because you clearly didn't catch this the first time round....

    So don't for a second try and argue (or even hint) that I am a nihilist. I already have stated (in block capitals to make it clearer for people like you) that people should have rights. I find it incredibly upsetting that they don't. Hopefully in an anarchist society where it should be obvious what's wrong and what isn't and where many of the other factors that contribute to violation of "rights" are eliminated, then I will believe in rights. But in today's society....rights are a fucking joke.
     
  12. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    yeah the topics tend to always go off-topic here, we should post a topic saying to stick on-topic and create new topics if the thread goes off-topic

    but anyway, no point in starting another topic if NGNM still refuse to answer my question and ignore my arguments

    oh really, so if you are an anarchist and you use insults it is contradictory now ???

    politeness is for bourgeoisie, fuck good manners, especially with those who insult you
     
  13. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFem Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    6

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    Yes Ungovernable, an anarchist society is all about being rude and using offensive words, because that would work so well. Actually, the bourgeoisie are the least likely to have good manners...in case you are forgetting they are the ones who oppress us.
    Mutual aid, mutual respect fundamental tenents of anarchism.
     
  14. Anom

    Anom Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Gotta say i'm not really a fan of the word pussy being used like that either. Please don't, and i won't call you a dick for using it in such way... :p
     
  15. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    I was talking about being polite. Yes, the bourgeoisie are always polite.

    in english, is "pussy" considered as a sexist insult or what ? if so, i just didn't know


    Anyway, facts are still that NGNM85 is scared to answer me.
     
  16. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFem Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    6

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    I guess it all depends on what your definition of what polite is, but I seriously beg to differ. You've obviously never had a boss (or even heard of) who treated you like crap....oh well...

    And even IF you could somehow argue that the bourgeoisie were infact polite (impossible)....I think it is an incredibly childish stance to take in suggesting that because that's what they do...we should do the exact opposite.

    Well, I find "pussy" to be quite sexist, though some feminists are of the idea that we should reclaim words like that...I'm not quite so sure...anyways that's not relevant. No worries if you didn't know!
     
  17. Anom

    Anom Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Think it is but i might be wrong, at least the swedish most similar word for it is very much not ok to use like that and is very sexist. Might be so that in french it's not concidered to be but still since we at least are two women here that does find it sexist and would rather not see it like that, i think maybe in the future it could be avoided, right? Kinda like how most of us agree to not call eachother fag...

    Sorta unrelated here but about pussy... Since that isn't the swedish word for it i didn't know what it meant at that time, i was about nine or ten i think and had just gotten a pet bunny and on our way home in the car they were on the radio playing Tom Jones' Pussycat. With my very limited knowledge in english and a childs perspective on things i thought it was about a cat named Pussy that he loved very much and i loved my bunny very much so i named her.... Pussy! Worked well until i a few years later got to know what it meant.
     
  18. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Yes it is sexist in english to call someone a 'pussy', it implies that they have 'no balls' and thus it infers that masculinity is far superior than femininity. Now lets hear from all the sexist trolls......
     
  19. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    …And people call me hostile. What incentive do I have to dialogue with you?

    That’s about 1% true. Spreading propaganda, very possibly, depending on context. However, to claim that I stated or even implied that white supremacists should be allowed to deface and destroy people’s property is ridiculous. That isn’t free speech, that’s antisocial violence. See, you still seem to have this very loose grasp on this concept that makes for a major stumbling block in conversation.

    Another part of the problem is this nebulous language. When you and I discuss tolerance in this context, it’s pretty clear we’re talking about two very diffirent things. Second, you have this shtick going, you construct all these intricate hypotheticals, can you not see that the freedom of speech which allows the hammerskins to have their little powwows is the same freedom of speech that allows you and your posse to agitate for…..whatever. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that freedom of speech applies to everyone, equally, and just because someone you disagree with is expressing themselves, that in no way prevents you from expressing yourself.

    Who the fuck is “you guys”? Human rights, of which the freedom of speech is one, is central to Anarchist ideology, as is the opposition to authoritarianism. I didn’t say they were fascist, (However, I postulated you might be.) or authoritarian, I said in that particular respect they were acting authoritarian because that’s what the word means. Unilaterally, forcibly placing restrictions on people that cannot be questioned, or disobeyed. That is authoritarianism, yes.


    For the most part that’s also wrong. First, because, again, you just see freedom of speech as applying to people you dislike.
    Second, you seem to subscribe to this very 19th century, simplistic, black and white view of Anarchism. “Counter-revolution”? Never mind, let’s move on…
    They would technically be allowed to say they wanted all black people dead, as long as they left it at that. (Just as any of us would have the right to offer a rebuttal.) As long as it’s theoretical, it’s within the bounds. For example, I’m allowed to say;”I hope you die”, or “I hope someone kills you.” However, if I express intent (Ex:”I’m going to kill you.”) that is criminal, and not free speech.
    Are they allowed to say gas chambers ever existed? Technically, yes. At which point it’s up to the rest of us to make sure the few who don’t know better find out. Frankly, this is so easily disproven, and so widely known to be false I don’t see this as a serious threat.
    It depends completely on what you mean by “oppose.” If you mean silencing people, imprisoning or executing them simply, and ONLY for expressing ideas, burning/confiscating literature, limiting public discourse, etc., that is authoritarian, and sort of fascistic.

    Both private and public schools are not just open to anybody, any neo-nazi who was not a student or a family member there for a conference or to pick up a student would be trespassing.
    Let’s also get real for a moment. There might be a problem with racism in the US, and I’m not exactly thrilled with the amount of hate groups but let’s get real. Neo-nazi’s comprise less than one 20th of one percent of the population., they have no political representation, and the majority of Americans, even white Americans, think they’re fucking freaks. So this idea of the US teetering on the brink of a neo-nazi putsch is ridiculous.

    Technically yes, in the sense I don’t think the literature should be collected by some agency and destroyed. However, you just pick these arbitrary and thoroughly negative examples. Why not Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”? “Letters from a Birmingham Jail”? Or the “Tao Te Ching”? This just exemplifies the fact that you are thoroughly opposed to free speech, which is really philosophically contrary to the spirit of Anarchism.

    First of all this is really just dodging the issue. Second, I can do both, simultaneously. When human rights go out the window we’re all in danger. Without it dissent is impossible.

    That’s completely asinine. Seriously, you’ve crossed the line into total insanity. Next, you’re going to somehow hold me retroactively responsible for the holocaust and start mangling quotations, again.

    Asked and answered.

    Again, this “freedom of speech” concept is a stumbling block, I don’t know how else to explain it. Ask somebody else. Yes, they have the right to believe that, they don’t necessarily have the right to act on it in any way that directly, unjustifiably infringes on the rights of others. Just as I have the right to say that’s complete bullshit. This is part of the problem of your limited perspective. You will never defeat religion with violence. It won’t happen, at least not without an unacceptable cost. Religion has been declining steadily in the west because we have education, a secular culture. If you want to defeat religious extremism, don’t build bombs, build schools.
    Second, you seem to have this simplistic notion that it’s the good guys against the bad guys and if we can just find all the bad guys, capitalists, religious fanatics, neo-nazis, etc., we can just imprison/expunge/kill them and then it’s all beer and skittles. This is totally incompatible with reality.

    I’ve said it many times, I’m not a pacifist.

    Not necessarily. The means of production are paid for and operated by the employees, the producers. It’s just a sort of basic logic that they should be entitled to some discretion over their own proceeds. It would be capital or property in the Proudhonian sense.

    My “revolution” is nothing like what you’re talking about. Frankly, I don’t think you know enough about my politics to judge.

    Zealots will never change, ever. However, thankfully, they just represent the crazy, fundamentalist epicenter of the religious community. They may represent the dogma of their faiths, but they in no way represent the rank and file. There are millions of cafeteria Catholics, and so forth, who are possibly open to dialogue. However, the real battle is for their children, which is why education and creating an open space for dialogue is so important.

    Again, “in action” is a dubious criteria, I said “ACTING authoritarian”, and my comments were only limited to the few provided examples, that’s all.

    Ok, now you’re just repeating yourself…

    Yeah, you got answer, you just didn’t like it or didn’t understand it. I’m going to try another analogy. The central issue is; what is the consistent Anarchist position on free speech?” All of this is completely irrelevant to that, which is the conversation we’re supposedly having. If there was a law of physics that made it impossible not to eat beef, that wouldn’t make it any less incompatible with Hinduism. Even if I accept you’re conclusion that in a revolution, in you’re crude, literal interpretation, it’s completely impossible not to rescind freedom of speech, that still doesn’t make it consistent with Anarchism.



    Under you’re limited definition, I can’t think of one. Not that it makes any difference, although you’ll no doubt see otherwise.

    [/quote]

    Or what?
    No matter, you have you’re answers,…again, I’m not going to keep explaining it, it’s pointless.
     
  20. ozf

    ozf Member Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    I'm just gonna chuck my view in.
    I agree with NGNM85 that we should support freedom of speech, if we say that others should listen to what we say and restrict another's speech then that is a form of authority.
    To support a person's freedom of speech is not to support their actions.
    If we restrict another's speech and instead tell them that their views are wrong, then we can not debate them. And if we debate them, then we can learn from each other and understand each other better, and see that we might be able to help each other. For example we could understand more about how another person thinks and why they think that way.

    An individual has the right to say what they want, but we also have the right to ignore them and not take them seriously, if we fear what a person says then that just empowers their words.

    I also believe that the Harm/Liberty principle is quite good. And that we should not restrict people from what they do to themselves, but if they harm others, then they should be restricted. And yes, i do see that this could contradict my earlier point.
     
Loading...