/pol/ - Politics Thread

What strains of political philosophy interest you? Is there a reason to be active in politics?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, In future please elaborate on what in particular you want to discuss about politics, and don't just post two questions with no opinion, your OP is soykaf and reads like lazy bait.)

Interesting, you can post a subject containing the letters p, o and l, but if your post contains those three same letters next to each other you'll be accused of being a spammer by the system...

I have been really much interested in anarcho capitalism and anarcho primitivism in the past year or so merely because it resonates with me on a deep level that I can't really explain. It feels like a right way things should be. The world of ancap and anprim is on a need to know basis that strips any interaction between humans of any fluff of modern fake world and just is honest to yourself and to others.

>>9286 >anarcho capitalism If you know about that, can you explain to me how this ideology proposes to have capitalism without property, and/or property without a state?

>>9287 >this ideology proposes to have capitalism without property Personal property exists under anarcho capitalism, what are you talking about buddy? >property without a state State isn't the only thing that can protect my property or that gives legitimacy to existence of my property.

>>9288 Personal possessions of course, but that doesn't cover owning a factory where other people are working and you reap the profits. What do you do when the workers decide that you're useless and keep the profit to themselves? , if there isn't a state to enforce your claim of property? You protect your supposed property where you haven't set foot in years with your gun against a hundred workers? You recruit mercenaries with the money that the workers are holding?

>>9289 >What do you do when the workers decide that you're useless and keep the profit to themselves? We can talk all night and day about "what ifs" but they are in contractual commitment with them, no? If they don't want to work with me they can work with someone else. If they don't want to leave my property then I will make them leave. >if there isn't a state to enforce your claim of property? I will enforce it. Me and my group against yours. Whaddup. >You protect your supposed property where you haven't set foot in years with your gun against a hundred workers? Well, a good enough bunker, machine gun and my family and friends that reap the benefits of my property, yes. >You recruit mercenaries with the money that the workers are holding? As I stated before, we can talk all day about what ifs. The system I would put in would make it so that I would cash them out in crypto every month and would have enough to recruit mercenaries if be so. Also, a lot of times when you work with other people it isn't about violence itself but threat of violence that makes others listen to you. Think about how mafia operates. Nobody really goes around killing THAT many people, it is just the threat of violence that puts people in order. Kinda the same with the state except in this scenario you have 2 people trusting each other just based on their own ability to protect themselves if things go sour. That means both non-violent and violent means of protection.

>>9290 Violence and then more violence he? Good luck with that, and make sure to maintain your technological superiority through systematic oppression of the working class if you don't want to get overrun. "Anarcho" capitalism my ass, you just became the state yourself. Your own little state dedicated to maintaining the power structure in your little corner of the world. I could see it happening of course, that's pretty much what happened when the Roman empire disappeared and left a string of small kingdoms in its wake.

>>9286 >strips any interaction between humans of any fluff of modern fake world such as all the systems in place to make sure that there is always an easier solution than killing your neighbour to steal his food. Welfare isn't just out of the kindness of our hearts, it's also to a practical measure to avoid violence. >and just is honest to yourself and to others. >Do what I say or me and my brother will smash your head!

>>9291 >Violence and then more violence he? You proposed the violent uprising first. I say that there are other ways of solving issues, non violent. Violence is the last thing that should be considered, but nevertheless should be considered. What is the end of the stick when state enforces property rights? A gun and police. Same things with me. >Good luck with that, and make sure to maintain your technological superiority through systematic oppression of the working class if you don't want to get overrun Sure will. Thanks for kind thoughts and good wishes. >"Anarcho" capitalism my ass Just because it isn't your flavor of anarchy doesn't mean it isn't anarchy. >you just became the state yourself. And everyone else is the same? How is that the bad thing? >Your own little state dedicated to maintaining the power structure in your little corner of the world. Still, don't know what your biggest beef here is. >I could see it happening of course It is far more likely future than anarcho socialism that is for sure. >>9292 >such as all the systems in place to make sure that there is always an easier solution than killing your neighbour to steal his food. Did you know that US states that had lax gun laws and free open carry laws have less crimes overall and more free citizens stopping crimes on their own? Hmmm, it's as if a criminal is weary to do any bad things when he/she knows that they might get killed if they do something they musn't be doing. >Welfare isn't just out of the kindness of our hearts, it's also to a practical measure to avoid violence. Or you could just give everyone guns. >>Do what I say or me and my brother will smash your head! That is why you carry a gun with yourself at all times. I don't get you people, things always go to the worst possible outcome for you guys. It is almost like that "fear of violence" got to you mentally.

>>9293 >You proposed the violent uprising first Refusing to give the profit of your work to some guy because he claims to own the factory in some abstract manner isn't violent uprising. You want me to give you the product of my work when you do nothing, or you'll come with your guns an your thugs? >Just because it isn't your flavor of anarchy doesn't mean it isn't anarchy. No, it isn't anarchy because you maintain the hierarchy of power through threat of violence. There is more to anarchy than lack of formal state. >And everyone else is the same? Except all those that started with nothing, and stay this way because every piece of land is owned by someone who will kill you if you try to farm it without paying tribute to them. >Or you could just give everyone guns. >That is why you carry a gun with yourself at all times. Yeah, that's the kind of world I want to live in, MAD at the individual level. Wait no.

>>9293 I thought about join a DSA chapter not to far from where I live, 'bout an hour drive. But, if I did join a political group; I would want to have an affect on what I'm doing. I wanna fight for an actual cause. Any DSA members can talk about their experience >Or you could just give everyone guns. It works so well in America, get into a gun fight for basic needs. Who doesn't love fallout IRL

>>9294 >Refusing to give the profit of your work to some guy because he claims to own the factory in some abstract manner isn't violent uprising Well then miscommunication happened, sorry. They are in contractual agreement with me, no? If they don't like the conditions of work and salary I am giving them then they can easily go and collectively make their own factory, who is stopping them? >You want me to give you the product of my work when you do nothing Well I gave you ability to work and make that product. I invested in factory and inventory. Got sellers of raw material and buyers. Etc etc. Do you really think CEOs just sit on their asses when two thirds of 100 most richest people are self made? The fuarrrk. >it isn't anarchy because you maintain the hierarchy of power through threat of violence Purely contractual hierarchy with agreements from both sides. Out of that agreement there is no hierarchy enforced and anyone can break their end of the bargain but will have to suffer the consequences. >There is more to anarchy than lack of formal state Teach me oh wise one. >Except all those that started with nothing And 100 richest people on the planet also never had a rich daddy who invested in their dumb business ventures but actually made their own companies. >and stay this way because every piece of land is owned by someone who will kill you if you try to farm it without paying tribute to them So? Either get a gun and own a piece of land that is remote enough or just work for someone until you get enough money to buy property yourself or get property that nobody else is owned? >Yeah, that's the kind of world I want to live in, MAD at the individual level. Wait no. Better than walking down the street not knowing if a thug that acts douchy in front of you has a weapon. All that until you hear: >"Give me your money glitterboy" What? You are going to call the police? Good luck on waiting 10 minutes until you bleed out, the thug is already gone. >>9296 >It works so well in America, get into a gun fight for basic needs. Who doesn't love fallout IRL Or you could look at switzerland where everyone has a gun? The simplest example is putting yourself in Detroit or somewhere where people assume they are hot soykaf because they have a gun and think the other guy doesn't have a gun. The idea is to make it so that EVERYONE has a gun and that EVERYONE knows everyone else has a gun. Like in Switzerland. >the thumbnail little picture of strawman not going to even entertain that pathetic excuse of trying to bait me

>>9296 >joining a DSA chapter(You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. A single image isn't an argument)

>>9297 >The idea is to make it so that EVERYONE has a gun and that EVERYONE knows everyone else has a gun. Like in Switzerland. Except the fact in Switzerland everyone (able body male) is military trained and understands firearm safety. Switzerland laws also are design to prevent people from getting firearms. Even will all of that Switzerland has one of the highest gun violence rates. >source: https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2#but-the-swiss-arent-perfect-when-it-comes-to-guns-10

>>9298 I'm guessing that's a no then? What would you recommend...? Inb4 thread gets locked for soykafposting

>>9300 >Except everyone in Switzerland is military trained and understands firearm safety Firearm safety should be a must in US and every gun enthusiast must know it. It is a shame when someone geta into guns but doesn't know their basic gun safety. So, what you are suggesting is mandatory military service and mandatory firearm safety course before getting a gun? I am all for it brother. Will maybe make men out of todays pússies. >Switzerland laws also are design to prevent people from getting firearms. They still have them? My argument was that high amount of people owning guns make the country safer. Don't see the contradiction. >Even will all of that Switzerland has one of the highest gun violence rates. First of all, wrongly quoted FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE Second of all, partially quoted FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE Here is the quote > Switzerland still has one of the highest rates of gun violence in Europe, and most gun deaths in the country are suicides So, not all over the world just in Europe... and in "gun violence" chategory you add the suicide which nicely bumps up your statistics because everyone knows that people that kill themselves usually like to do it quickly and painlessly, and without second thought (which is why gun is convenient) Thirdly, of course there will be more deaths caused by drownings in area where you have a lot of pools or water. And lastly, you have shown, with your pathetic quote mining that you have no real interest in arguing sincerely. Good day sir.

>>9286 > anarcho capitalism and anarcho primitivism ...which are completely opposed to one another. You could not possibly find two anti-authoritarian philosophies that are further apart. They are completely incompatible. You are aware that one believes industrialism to be the worst form of oppression ever created?

>>9301 Spend some time on 8chan’s leftpol and figure out from there what your interests are. You can always read some works on marxists.org and the Anarchist Library as well.

Anarchism for pure political philosophy, the night watchman sate for real world politics. >Is there a reason to be active in politics? Not really, there's little chance that people will rise up and smash the state, or that the state will divest itself of it's considerable powers. We're kind of fuarrrked in that regard, in one or two decades a state of total surveillance will be feasible and likely established. Autonomous weapons and other force multipliers will further enhance the efficacy of the state's "legitimate" monopoly on violence and domination of the populous. Best to keep your head down and hope you don't get singled out as a seditionist and get disappeared in the future.

>>9306 >Anarchism for pure political philosophy, the night watchman state for real world politics. This would probably be a good summary of my ideals. At heart I’m an Egoist and always will be, but part of that means learning to exist under whatever system you’re placed into by birth. And the best one is a small government with the enforcement of laws if necessary.

>>9304 I never said that I believe them both, just that I am interested in them. Reading comprehension much?

Apparently anarchotranshumanism is a thing. How do I into it?

>>9311 I don't know about now but there was always a strong libertarian current in transhuman or posthuman thought. They thought the state would become not only irrelevant but impossible eventually as encryption and digital currency made taxation impossible. It was never my thing but thrrre was an Extropy Institute which dissolved about 20 years ago, not because they were giving up but because their current form had reached the end of usefulness and it was time to progress to other things. How very meta.

>>9310 Yeah whatever. Your post came across as interpreting primitivism as some kind of extreme rugged individualism, like a world full of Teddy K's. Nothing could be further from the truth. You want a brief overview then? They idealize a society where complete communalism in the form of bands of 20-40 people (no more, no less) is a necessity of survival, and private property hadn't even been thought of yet. Definitely no "muh land" like the AynCraps believe, since they could be required to pick up and move any day for a variety of reasons.

>>9339 Anarchoprimitivism actually has grounding in Marxist theory. Look into the concept of “primitive communism” if you’re interested.

>>9358 That's not really true. Mao mentioned "primitive communism" to justify that humans are inherently communal creatures, that's where that term came from. Anarcho-primitivism certainly didn't start from that. It started when some anarchists became disillusioned with leftism altogether and started reading about anthropology, cherry picking a lot of course. Some individual primitivists may have been Marxists previously but in becoming primitivists they rejected communism and capitalism together, arguing that these are just two different ways to manage the same oppressive machine. I can't reference anything offhand but I have heard from several places that now some anthropologists have become curious about anarchism, due to the writings of various an-prims over the last 30 years or so, now that the ideas have matured somewhat. If I find anything I'll get back to this thread.

>>9339 I think you're "reading" too much into my post and not taking my words for what they are. I am interested for the last year into both these political movements. They both sound interesting to me. Stop putting words into my mouth or adjoining some soykaf to what I didn't say.

>>9363 The second response was meant to be helpful. I guess you're not interested, no problem.

>>9364 nobody is going to read into your second response after a barage of insults and buzzwords your words of "help" aren't that worthy to read through a pompous douche mouth off what their imagination tells about anonymous people over the internet get over yourself

I'm primarily into U/Acc but I have certain anarchist leanings too

>>9284 >What strains of political philosophy interest you? I've been an anarchist for years, if I had to pick a tendency I would say anarcho-communism. I am also interested in ecology, Marxism, communization theory, post-left anarchy and anti-civilization thought. >Is there a reason to be active in politics? If you have time and are passionate about your beliefs, then yes. >>9367 Could you summarize accelerationism and its main branches? Also, is there such a thing as accelerationist practice or is it just theory?

Crypto-centrism

Why are you arguing about those edgy ideologies? ML are the ones who made the revolution, for the better of everyone

>>9369 > is there such a thing as accelerationist practice or is it just theory Different Lain here but isn't it the same as insurrectionary anarchism, where you provoke the authorities with direct attacks and aim to create situations that make non-political people choose a side? Basically hasten whatever the future holds, for better or for worse. There was that group in Mexico but they renounced anarchy in favour of some spiritual mumbo jumbo and everyone renounced them for murdering random people anyway. I forget their name. >>9365 > get over yourself Ha ha... re-read your last temper tantrum with that in mind.

>>9372 Though the idea of hasting the future is present in accelerationism I don't think it's the same as insurrectionary anarchism. They seem to focus on the economy and/or technology rather than planning direct attacks. During the US elections some people advocated voting for Trump because his policies would make capitalism so unbearable that the masses will revolt, and called that stance "accelerationism" (which may have been a vulgar understanding of ACC tho). >I forget their name. You're thinking of ITS/Atassa.

>>9373 I thought accelerationism was basically just people who drank the singularity/post scarcity koolaid.

>>9374 Nah, there are a few different things called Accelerationism. There is Nick Land, there is the more naive techno-utopians who maybe read Nick Land, and there is the Leftist accelerationism, which may have some precedent in Marx, where if you believe communism will arise out of a crisis of capitalism, instead of trying to win electoral politics, you try to "win" by encouraging said crisis. Which >>9373 basically already explained.

My main political opinion is that "Future Primitive" is the stupidest essay I've ever read. I was kinda interested in anprims, and then I read Future Primitive, and said, Oh, this is stupid, nevermind.

>>9376 I don't really remember it but it's about a quarter century old. There has been a lot added to primitivist thought since. I've been digging through Kevin Tucker's Black & Green podcast lately, it's a lot more stimulating..

>>9377 Its comments on birth control are goofy (its probably true that hunter gatherer women were less fertile than agricultural women, but that could indicate malnutrition, and isn't the same thing as the pill), it exults the "undomesticated people" as being "in tune with their physical selves," (whatever that means) and blames the hierarchy found in Native American tribes on tobacco cultivation and dogs.

>>9376 Yeah FP is pretty wacky in a crazy hippy idealist kind of way, and really misconstrued the archaeological and biological facts. That said not all of the movement is a total wash. I'm not really into the movement, so I've only read some of the early stuff, but I thought Industrial Society and Its Future was decent. Even though he was generally considered even more unhinged than most Anarco-primitivists I felt Kaczynski's manifesto was much better at laying out his points in a reasonable way.

>>9379 papa Ted is probably the most coherent primitivist.

>What strains of political philosophy interest you? I prefer national socialism. >Is there a reason to be active in politics? It's important to be active in politics because politics ultimately impacts majorly on lifestyle, especially for people living in cities but also in the countryside. Groups of people who hate politics to be all edgy and k00l (>Lel i haet both sides XD) tend to get stomped on quite a lot IRL.

>>9382 Forgot pic.

>>9382 > other people are edgy and kewl > I prefer national socialism

>>9384 Gassing the jews, gays and muslims was a bad move, but aside from that there is nothing edgy about the idea of national socialism.

>>9382 >Groups of people who hate politics to be all edgy >is a nazi >Gassing the jews, gays and muslims was a bad move, but aside from that there is nothing edgy about the idea of national socialism. > but aside from that there is nothing edgy about the idea of national socialism. The reason why Nazism is hated that much is because of that, don't try to gloss over it like it's not a big deal.

>>9385 Sending political activists to gulag for 25 years at a time, starving 40 million citizens to death, making irreversible ecological messes and creating strife and conflict in contested countries between the west were all bad ideas... but all in all industrial communism was great too. I mean the trains ran on time at least.

I like this joke. Keeping entire segments of the world in a state of perpetual war, keeping 6.5% of your population in for-profit prisons, wrecking the world economy by failing to regulate your markets, and intentionally getting poor people addicted to life-destroying drugs are all pretty bad... but all in all the US is a good country. Hey, at least we have iphones.

>>9386 >Gassing the muslims Nazis didn't gas Muslims. Hitler actually admired them, Islam is basically an early form of fascism. Shame about the skin color though. >>9387 >Sending political activists to gulag for 25 years at a time, starving 40 million citizens to death, making irreversible ecological messes and creating strife and conflict in contested countries between the west were all bad ideas... but all in all industrial communism was great too. Nazis vs Communists is like watching the kid with one arm making fun of the kid with one leg.

>>9386 >Nazis didn't gas Muslims. Hitler actually admired them, Islam is basically an early form of fascism. Shame about the skin color though. Your missing the point, Daily reminder that Nazis always cry "pro free speech, until they get power https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/18/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-florida-free-speech http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/richard-spencer-the-alt-right-is-not-pro-free-speech/

>>9390 >Your missing the point, I know, I just thought it was worth pointing out. If we're talking about violent intolerance and killing gays and Jews for merely existing then Nazi's and Muslims are on the same page, they're not enemies. Modern neo-nazis openly support hardline nationalist Iranian leaders for that reason. >Daily reminder that Nazis always cry "pro free speech, until they get power That's true of any political system without enough substance to support itself through merit. Don't make the mistake of assuming anybody who is pro free speech must also a Nazi though. That's just wrong.

>>9390 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/18/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-florida-free-speech >this month the school had no choice but to allow Spencer to rent a public campus venue to discuss his [ideas] >But the details of ticketing and media credentialing would have been negotiated by private contract, not constitutional law >The university had originally planned to set aside 100 seats inside the venue for press. The number of requests for media credentials has exceeded that number, Sikes said. >“We’ve gotten over 200 requests – so somebody had to decide,” she said. "Liberal" college students behave like animals whenever somebody they don't like comes to speak on their territory. The only way Spencer will be able to run a civilized event is by taking control of the tickets. I don't think anyone can objectively fault him for that. The free speech argument depends entirely on who he lets in. Are they reputable journalists from across the spectrum who can be trusted to keep their biases tethered to reality (Spencer's implication) or is he actually only inviting his buddies (the article's implication)? Since the article doesn't go into that I don't think you can draw any solid conclusions from it. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/richard-spencer-the-alt-right-is-not-pro-free-speech/ >403 Forbidden >Your access to this site was blocked by Wordfence, a security provider, who protects sites from malicious activity. Oh the irony.

>>9396 >why wont people let me spread lies in peace?! >Can't I just threaten minorities and praise Hitler without these snowflakes telling me its wrong!?!

>richard spenserstein He's not a fascist or national socialist. All "Alt-right" movement is soft-controlled by globalist elites. These fools unironically admire Alexander Dugin who advocates for Eurasian globalism and dissolution of Eastern European ethnicities. Please stop injecting 4chan memes every day if you want to keep sanity. I'm not even starting with Wash Your Pennison , BASED MAGA Black men and Donald Tumpinstein which is too far off to liberal populist territory and bipartisan USAian "democracy".

>>9397 It doesn't matter who is talking or what they're saying, soykaf like this is not acceptable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28&t=09m40s

>>9398 if you want to keep your little political scene fragmented, I'm not going to complain. soykaf like this is why leftists haven't had any real political clout in 80 years lol. >>9399 why not? Serious question. Can you point to something besides some metaphysical ideal of "free speech" that makes that wrong?

>>9400 >why not? Bad ideas are countered by good ideas. If you don't have any good ideas to counter with and use censorship instead then the next logical step is violence from the censored side. Just behaving like adults in the first place is better for everyone.

>>9400 >if you want to keep your little political scene fragmented, I'm not going to complain He was brought up by the media as a "central" figure of "our political scene" as you would put it. He was implanted in, and brought to popularity out of pure obscurity. Once you grow up you will see that centralized political movements are not only easily destroyed and stopped but also easily subverted. That is why there is left vs right dichotomy. That is why there are always "head figure" of every political movement that is bullseye for anyone else to destroy and take down and slowing down that political movement with that easy power move. Look around yourself. Right wing is spreading, and it will continue to spread as long as we have our ideas spread, not through some false gods and leaders, but only ideas. After the political market is saturated enough then there will be few people that might come out of that whole melting pot to take the throne, but even then we will assure to test them before they are ready. Hell, most of the "extreme right wingers" are doxxxed by right wingers themselves for not being far enough right wing and having some cringy soykaf involved with themselves. Think of it as a purity test.

>>9399 I can't get over how these kids are acting at the end. How's people with a logical mind supposed to survive with a wave of truly repulsive ignorance vastly taking over the entirety of society?

>>9399 When you bring up complete make up bullsoykaf you shouldn't be surprised to get called out. The right wing always plays this game, when left calls you out anti freespeech. But, when rightwingers run over protesters it's bothsides(tm).

>>9406 >Look around yourself. Right wing is spreading, and it will continue to spread as long as we have our ideas spread I don't think it's so much the Right has "good" ideas but more like the Left is becoming increasingly authoritarian and abhorrent. You might find that many of your new Right sympathizers don't agree with you as much as they simply hate the alternatives more. >>9412 Running over protesters with a car is also not acceptable. What's your point?

>>9416 >You might find that many of your new Right sympathizers don't agree with you as much as they simply hate the alternatives more. The pendulum is coming over to our side regardless and with it they will start to listen and hear the message. They are running away from the left, but at the same point looking out for the better alternative and other than extreme right there isn't any. I am a literal soykaflord IRL and have a lot of friends and enemies on both sides of political spectrum and I found out that general r/the_don user mentality is the norm (and all people I just soykafpost IRL to are STEM people). I mean there are a lot of people who don't hold my views but we are good friends. They might get buttblasted by me spreading those ideas to others in their presence but most often than not they usually shut up when they see that they don't hold the information and knowledge to win a debate like that.

>>9417 If anything, then the pendulum is swinging between neoconservatism on the right and neoliberalism on the left. It has been doing that for the last seven decades and it will continue to do so. It is delusional to think that without a major human crisis or technological breakthrough, that we will ever have a another political order in the short to medium-term future, be it communism or fascism.

>>9419 The neoliberals lost control this last election. The demographic they tried to cater to lost their affection and pushed further to the left and then the right wing people, or even people on the fence, reacted accordingly. >that we will ever have a another political order in the short to medium-term future I think it will be another economical crisis. Fiat petrodollar will probably fall, and with it a lot of western countries and either fringe left or fringe right will come to fruition out of desperation of the people. And that is much closer than you would be willing to believe. We saw how close we were to that in 2008, and that is why they brought in the quantitative easing tactic, just to buy them more time eventually. Seeing how little stakes US has in Syrian war and how they are losing power to China and Russia on global power, it seems to me like they are not only fragmented inside US, but also losing overall control over global politics and with it they will lose their petrodollar. China funded Syria through Russia for a reason, and that is oil needs. Even they got the control of south china sea with their fake islands which is filled to brim with oil, breaking the international waters laws and sparking potential wars with US, but US didn't react. Economic breakdown is close and everyone can sense it.

>>9404 this whole "free marketplace of ideas" thing is a fantasy. People evaluate ideas based on their pre-existing values, no amount of rational debate will change those values. There is no baseline from which political ideas can be compared, there is only emotional and political clout. >just behaving like adults in the first place is better for everyone people involved are adults. Ipso facto they are behaving like adults. If you mean "just shut up and let it happen", then say that.

>>9420 pretty much this, the only thing trump is really good for is accelerating the collapse.

>>9422 >no amount of rational debate will change those values I believe that belief in these types of ideas is paramount to self fulfilling prophecy. The people who believe that they won't get anywhere with rational debate with others are the ones that are most likely not willing to listen to rational debates in first place. Sure, there are some people out there who are much easier to be persuaded with emotional arguments than with rational ones involving statistics and such, but I would believe those are because people can't discern clear information out of pure numbers and stats. >[people behaving are behaving badly], people involved are adults. Ipso facto they are behaving like adults. LOL, no. "behaving like adult" isn't purely characteristic of adults and it isn't transitive. property. It is more of a moral ideal of behaviour and you can't really act this ignorant of that fact. You understand it for sure because it is already culturally engrained that adults should behave like adults and not like children. But I assume you want to "challenge" this notion? I mean, if you are so pretty sure of yourself to challenge this cultural value then come out and say it bluntly and not weasel around thinking you are making some deep argument. >If you mean "just shut up and let it happen", then say that. See? You, I assume, have some deep seated ideas around cultural norms and how they should be challenged, for whatever the reason (I assume you won't say it out right) and therefore assume others have the same? Jesus man, truth doesn't need to fear or make dumb arguments. Truth is universal and wins in the end. So no need to make these kinds of arguments, just come out and say what you want to say.

>>9422 I am >>9404 >there is only emotional and political clout. I can think of at least 6 more ways to affect change, sandwiched between sheer violence and rational debate. Some work better than others. Others are more desirable than some. >people involved are adults. Ipso facto they are behaving like adults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy >If you mean "just shut up and let it happen", then say that. I didn't say that. I said if you disagree then you respond on the same level. You counter ideas with ideas, words with words. Dude made a speech, you make a speech. You never counter words with violence. Once you escalate then ideas become irrelevant. You shift from who has the best ideas, to who can shout the loudest, to who has the biggest guns. This is the answer to the earlier question of why is free speech important.

>>9406 Nice pic.

No, Hitler didn't admire the Muslims like a real friend would; he was twofaced. Muslim isn't the right word either, it should be Arab. To Hitler they were political tools: British and French imperialism had to be expelled, along with Marxism and Zionism. His worst opinion, probably his sincere feelings, was that Arabs are half-apes. What Hitler admired was Islamic jihadist theology, since Christianity promotes ethics of love, tolerance, and forgiveness. As a result, it's hard to justify social Darwinism, or state violence despite the divine right of kings.

>>9438 so you think I should counter violence against trans/black/etc people with violence? Because that violence exists. People are killed every month for being what fascists hate. You're saying I should start killing fascists?

>>9477 >so you think I should counter violence against trans/black/etc people with violence? No, not outside of an emergency situation. Because it is the duty of the police, courts and penal system to repay violence with violence in our civilized society. I'm not sure what "trans/black/etc" is supposed to mean. People from all backgrounds are victims of crime for all kinds of reasons. The identity of the perpetrator and victim is not at all relevant to the law. >People are killed every month for being what fascists hate Citation needed.

>>9485 I don't want to speak for Lain but I think you might need a cursory knowledge of current events to understand that post. People are definitely killed solely for the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their beliefs and not in the midst of some other crime with any different motivation.

>>9486 >need a cursory knowledge of current events to understand that post Seriously? It's not even clear what fuarrrking country he's talking about. More likely I need knowledge of whatever ciclejrek echochamber he gets his "news" from. >People are definitely killed solely for the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their beliefs and not in the midst of some other crime with any different motivation. In Saudi Arabia yes. >People are killed every month Who are this month's victims then?

>>9488 Do you even read the news? No I suppose that's a silly question. Also you're quoting two different Lains now as if we were one person.

>>9489 > read the news Cite your sources.

>>9493 I wasn't the one who said every month or whatever so there's nothing to cite. You seem flustered.

>>9489 >Do you even read the news? What news? You realize the world is bigger than your doorstep. We're probably not even in the same country.

>>9488 here's a wikipedia page for trans people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people#2018 here's one that showed up after a simple duckduckgo search https://sputniknews.com/us/201807241066627970-pennsylvania-bar-patron-murder-racial-slur/ here's the FBI hate crime page https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes I could probably find more. This isn't even counting murder by police. attatched is a government report detailing huge numbers of past crimes, mostly committed by "militiamen", islamic extremists, or neo-nazis.

>>9497 1 >In 2016, an estimated 1,248,185 violent crimes occurred nationwide 2 >In 2016, the nation’s law enforcement agencies reported that there were 7,615 victims of hate crimes. Even if all the "hate crimes" were violent, which most definitely weren't, then it accounts for only 0.6%. This is literally the definition of hysteria. 1 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/violent-crime 2 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

>>9489 >Do you even read the news? The very definition of news is "something that almost never happens." When something is so common that it's no longer news—car crashes, domestic violence—that's when you should worry about it. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/the_cost_of_fea.html

>>9502 it's literally the definition of hysteria to respond to violence with violence, as you said was reasonable before?

>>9289 if they want a company, they can create, manage, and finance their own like every other business owner. but they don't, because they're unwilling. so instead they sell themselves to people more successful who can put them to use. they didn't pay for the land, or the construction of the factory, or the raw materials, or the machinery inside. the person who owns the factory did. that's why only they have the right to own it. nobody is stopping these workers from building their own empire, they just refuse to because it's easier to work for someone else.

>>9502 and yet most of interracial hate crime is black on white.... hmmmmm

>>9535 That's not really true according to the 2016 US hate crime statistics. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016

>>9536 sorry, meant the "interracial violent crimes"

>>9537 Correct. "Hate crime" law is an "un-blind" law. Even with an identical fact pattern, with white and black races reversed, it is exceedingly rare to have a nigger charged with a hate crime. That's because nobody expects niggers to be smart enough to commit crimes of premeditation, or smart enough to conceive of a prejudice, other than a basic animal level of tribal identity.

>>9538 Replies like this illustrate why it's always a waste of time to indulge "citation needed" requests. You'll just brush aside any proof or statistics that make you uncomfortable anyway.

>>9539 What a horrendous thing, that I have told you, an idiot, the truth. If you had a gold goblet you would soykaf in it and eat your own soykaf.

>>9543 > I have told you, an idiot, the truth Actually you (or someone else perhaps) was begging for citations. When given statistical evidence, rather than conceding the point you ignored it. That's what just happened here.

>>9547 Well, you are a certified imbecile. You take as fact something which is merely the product of social practice and prejudice. The process of selection of cases, you know nothing of this, it isn't by some computer somewhere, some cold arbiter. You're an idiot, you know nothing, and you are worthless, you are a garbage creature so stupid that you only do as told, even though those who tell you what to do are always and forever in all dimensions failing you.

Consider this: Recently, experts at an ivy league university discovered, and likely underestimated, the number of illegal aliens to be 2x that previously thought. The previous number was a "government statistic."

>>9547 What is your opinion on the statistical evidence of blacks being less intelligent than whites and asians? Why is modern (leftist) academia ignoring the statistics to this research?

>>9561 > Why is modern (leftist) academia ignoring the statistics to this research? How should I know that? Try asking a leftist.

>>9539 >Actually you (or someone else perhaps) was begging for citations. When given statistical evidence, rather than conceding the point you ignored it. That's what just happened here. I'm not >>9538. I asked for citation. I didn't ignore your"statistics" I responded in >>5202 The thing is, the number of "hate crimes" is vanishingly small. Way more "trans/black/etc" people are killed in car crashes than murdered by "fascists". Hell, more people are probably killed by lightening. If you actually cared about "trans/black/etc" lives, then that's what you would spend energy on. In reality, pretending to care about "trans/black/etc" lives is just a cover for kicking your political enemies. >>9530 >it's literally the definition of hysteria to respond to violence with violence, as you said was reasonable before? It's literally hysteria to worry about "fascists" and "hate crimes" when they account for such an insignificant percentage of total crimes committed (proved to you with your own fbi source). Either you've been brainwashed by liberal media with ulterior motives or you have some serious problems with logic.

>>9561 Because the few citations of "racial science" aka Bell Curve have been proven false several times and showed obvious bias to justify racism. "Racial science" also fails to address several systemic problems such as black poverty being at far higher levels than whites, and asians. >>9572 >It's literally hysteria to worry about "fascists" and "hate crimes" when they account for such an insignificant percentage of total crimes committed It's not that they are small, it's the dramatic rise in these crimes that are worrying. The murdering of protesters done by the right for political ends.

>>9572 > In reality, pretending to care about "trans/black/etc" lives is just a cover for kicking your political enemies. ...because one couldn't possibly be a part of one of those demographics themselves, right?

>>9576 >because one couldn't possibly be a part of one of those demographics themselves So basically purely self serving political goals that have nothing to do with any moral truths or a way of fair organization of society? Gotcha

>>9579 ...it's called self defense?

>>9576 >So basically purely self serving political goals that have nothing to do with any moral truths or a way of fair organization of society? >Gotcha What gotcha? These are people who are organizing for better treatment, people who organize for a more fair society is a self serving goal because people benefit from it. The idea you're bring up that saying that it's impossible to care about others because it's not in your political interest is wrong. cooperation in society is always in your interest.

>>9582 This. Read about primitive communism if you want an example of this in nature.

>>9582 >The idea you're bring up that saying that it's impossible to care about others because it's not in your political interest is wrong. cooperation in society is always in your interest. It's more nuanced than that. With limited resources we should be aiming to help as many people as we can. Obsessing over an insignificant handful of minorities, like we've seen in this thread, is 100% self serving, whether you are part of those minority groups or not. It is not at all in the interest of society.

>>9598 Whenever a decision making body of any kind tries to manage an entire society like that it's always bad. In the 20th century they called it "communism".

>>9599 many avowed communists(or more generally leftists) don't believe that centralized governance is the way to foster cooperation.

>>9600 I was being facetious but other alternatives include fascism I suppose (and I might still be being facetious!). I know, council communists or anarcho-communists, whatever, don't fit the description I was replying to. They imagine a world where small groups of people organize the things that they are actually working on, not trying to run the whole country for some "greater good".

>>9497 >2018 >usa >19 transgender_people murdered (for unknown reasons) >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people#2018 >2018 >usa >20 people killed by lightening >https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities >>9580 >...it's called self defense? It's called hysteria.

>>9599 >>9601 >I can twist everything you say to make it sound like <scary bad thing> Keep sage'ing little fellow

>>9602 If you take into consideration the percentage of the population that is transgender, that statistic is a lot more significant. > It's called hysteria. So is endlessly harping on it like you are.

>>9603 You're right, people shouldn't organize to protect their own interests. The government will organize everything for the common good.

>>9604 >If you take into consideration the percentage of the population that is transgender, that statistic is a lot more significant. Did you actually check? Or is this just wishful thinking? >In 2016, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 17,250 And 28 of them were transsexuals according to your brilliant wikipedia page Apparently there were 1.4 million transexuals in 2016 at 0.6% making 230 million normal people I make that out to be: Probability of normal person getting murdered 0.007% Probability of a transsexual getting murdered 0.002% So no, it's not significant after all. To be honest you should have taken a hint from the wikipedia page. There is no statistical analysis at all (because exactly this reason). Instead it's just a list of names with snippets of personal details just to stir the reader's emotions. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/violent-crime https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html >>9605 >You're right, people shouldn't organize to protect their own interests. The government will organize everything for the common good. People absolutely should organize to protect their interests. But they also need to figure out what their interests are. Some people in this thread are brainwashed by liberal media into thinking "fascists" are their biggest problem when anyone with a brain can see it's not, you're just being used as pawns in someone else's fight.

>>9604 If you take into consideration the amount of population that is black (13% of US) the amount of crime they do per capita is vastly larger than any other race (50% of all violent crimes, robberies and thefts)

>>9618 Ignore them, their whole shtick is identity politics Just backhand them with more of identity politics just to rile them up like >>9619

>>9620 They're not bad people they've just been brainwashed by liberal media. I don't mind taking 5 minutes to expose the lies they've been fed. If we're lucky someone of them might wake up.

>>9575 I could list a litany of mainstream academic studies which have been proven false and yet remain the dominant view in academia because of liberal bias. Anti-academia backlash hasn't gotten nearly enough traction yet, but it will.

>>9626 please. do.

>>9633 I don't feel like it.

>>9619 >If you take into consideration the amount of population that is black (13% of US) the amount of crime they do per capita is vastly larger than any other race (50% of all violent crimes, robberies and thefts) We totally glossed over that earlier in the thread. >>9497 >I could probably find more. This isn't even counting murder by police. Orders of magnitude more blacks are murdered by other blacks than killed by police (both justified and accidental). Orders of magnitude. If you actually give a soykaf about black lives why don't you stop them killing each other first? Obsessing over trivial corner cases like 1 or 2 police shootings is counter-productive to your supposed goal.

>>9639 >>9619 >If you take into consideration the amount of population that is black (13% of US) the amount of crime they do per capita is vastly larger than any other race (50% of all violent crimes, robberies and thefts) I've been very slowly working on the mostly recent data (2017 crime data) for this. Here you go. It's easy to see the differences..It's harder to communicate it properly and even more difficult to figure out how to solve these problems.

This entire thread makes Lain sad.

>>9639 > If you actually give a soykaf about black lives why don't you stop them killing each other first? Because the point of BLM is point out the specific and large scope of targeting African Americans by authorities and overscale punishment and police brutality, where as black on black crime is being not looked at in this scenario, not because blacks don't want that changed, but because police are suppose to be held to a higher standard than criminals.

>>9649 Reminds me of the typical "house on fire" analogy used in "all lives matter" discussions, except in this case, someone's saying "Why are you so upset about cherry-picked examples of house fires? The majority of houses are destroyed by other means. Why not protest demolition crews?"

>>9640 >When you could cite sources buy you still don't even after being exposed as a wage slave

>>9657 Sorry forgot to sage

>>9650 >Reminds me of the typical "house on fire" analogy used in "all lives matter" discussions, >typical analogy Otherwise known as a strawman. >except in this case, someone's saying "Why are you so upset about cherry-picked examples of house fires? The majority of houses are destroyed by other means. Why not protest demolition crews?" More like, smoking is the leading cause of house fires, if you actually care about house fires why don't you target smokers instead of losing your soykaf over something that basically never happens like teenage arsonists. Oh right, because preventing house fires is not the point. You want to go after the arsonists because of their identity, not because it would make any difference. >>9649 >specific and large scope of targeting African Americans by authorities and overscale punishment and police brutality, More crime = more police attention. How about you stop committing crimes instead of protesting that the police are doing their job? Or better yet, why not go back to Africa, or Jamaica or wherever? See how an all black police force operates. >because police are suppose to be held to a higher standard than criminals. What is this even supposed to mean? It's ok for black people to commit crimes because they're "only" criminals but it's not ok for police to stop them?

>>9673 > smoking is the leading cause of house fires Did you watch a home safety film from 1974 recently? Because that hasn't been true since before your parents even met.

Since I don't have so much influence in the world and I lack time to waste, I am apolitical. However, I admire some forms of social organization, like the ancient european tribalism, Rome, and above all: Laconia, I like the minimalism and how the polis was united, this is why they were so strong, confort is a weakness, simplicity is power. I also like the Iron Guard ( if you remove all the dumb jew conspiracy ), the Iron Guard and Sparta have very similar values: simplicity and concise speaking.

>>9673 Whatever. The point is that disproportionate police violence directed towards black Americans is a demonstrable problem. This doesn't mean that crime in black communities isn't a problem, and it's not as if that's something that isn't addressed by activists. They aren't mutually exclusive. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it is also a very complex issue that demands nuance. Bringing it up in this context is a complete non sequitur that aims to derail legitimate and important discussion.

>>9693 >it is also a very complex issue that demands nuance. Bringing it up in this context is a complete non sequitur that aims to derail legitimate and important discussion. You wouldn't say that if you read the thread and realized it was your side brought it up >>9477 >so you think I should counter violence against trans/black/etc people with violence? Because that violence exists. People are killed every month for being what fascists hate. You're saying I should start killing fascists? Now you're getting your asses kicked you want to drop it. Good job. >The point is that disproportionate police violence directed towards black Americans is a demonstrable problem Assuming the police response *is* actually disproportionate to the level of crime then why? Why should I care?

>>9697 > Now you're getting your asses kicked you want to drop it. Good job. What?

>>9681 >can't counter the argument >pokes hole in the analogy instead Keep sage'ing little buddy you're doing great

>>9697 >it was your side brought it up >"us vs them" mentality And they say that average leftist has bigger IQ lol

>>9703 >>>can't counter the argument What argument? That he can read into my intentions of "because of their identity you go against arsonists" lol. This guy is a psychic and a great debater.

>>9703 Did you get called out once for spelling it "saging" and now add a superfluous apostrophe every time just so everyone knows that you know it's sawgaying and not sayjing? Are we supposed to care either way? >>9704 That's not even a leftard you're replying to now. Try and keep up.

>>9707 >Try and keep up. OOF on that trying to play the upper hand because it is obvious, from how inane and emotionally motivated your comment is, that you're overcompensating. So you were only pretending to be retarded? Because it is really retarded to argue in terms of "them" or "us" even though you said you aren't lefty, I have no incentive to believe you So what is it? What do I have to "keep up" with? Simple inane emotional replies that add nothing to original discussion? What is the score here? Where do we go from here?

>>9705 >What argument? That he can read into my intentions of "because of their identity you go against arsonists" lol. Just to clarify >>9639 I'm saying I think BLM is not actually about black lives since they exclusively protest almost the least common cause of death imaginable >>9650 (you?) deliberately misrepresent my post with a dumb analogy >>9673 I try to move things forward by modifying your analogy to bring it closer to my actual position Now you're beating up your own strawman analogy in the hopes that it will make *me* look dumb. Good grief. >>9707 It's a Japanese word so mangling it to fit English conjugation rules doesn't seem right. Maybe it's just a programming thing. Most people write printf'ing not printfing for example just because it's not really an English word you're verbing so it would be confusing without the apostrophe. >>9704 >And they say that average leftist has bigger IQ lol Do you know why that is? It's an evolutionary thing. To impress potential mates, some humans show off their affluence and virtue by squandering resources on pitiful hopeless causes that don't affect them in any way. That's the foundation of liberal politics. Middle class white folk pretending to care about black lives is just a subtler form of white supremacy when you get down to it. In theory liberals do have higher IQs since they manage to acquire enough resources not worry about their own comfort and can play pseudo-altruistic games and pretend to care about other people's problems instead. But don't forget that this whole "social justice" meme is what all the cool kids are doing these days. And on top of that they've started going full gestapo on the infidels. Most people go along with liberal politics because they want to appear cool to their peers or they're afraid they'll be ostracized if they don't. Or both. I'd say many people in this thread fit that profile. The ones so uncomfortable talking about illegal topics like race and crime that they do everything they can to derail the discussion. It seems like >>9693 might be the only one with a triple digit IQ and actually has anything intelligent to say.

>>9711 > So you were only pretending to be retarded It's obvious that you're attributing posts to me that were made by someone else. That's what I meant by keeping up. >>9712 Then there's this guy trying to justify his own double digit IQ.

>>9702 >> Now you're getting your asses kicked you want to drop it. Good job. >What? You've been reduced to screeching about irrelevant details like spelling and trying pull the discussion off course with sage meta posts like this. It's not exactly going well is it?

>>9719 Where did I correct any spelling!?

I thought there would be more Moldbug references, or even Nick Land. The only non bullsoykaf modern political philosophy

I just know I dont like western society or thought. Generally I do everything I can to undermine it. I dont think a revolution is possible until the people in power in the west confuse the system a little, so I see that as the goal in my lifetime. I was provided many of the benefits of western society so I see it as my job to basically bite the hand that feeds me so that I can contribute to an overall self destruction, so that after my lifetime a revolution can happen. My entire basis for this is literally just I like people who are unsuccessful in this society or dont understand this society and I hate those who have gained a lot from it. Sometimes I look at my friend whos a drug dealer and think "this person is such an intelligent and benevolent human, they should be royalty or in power". Then I look at my aunt and uncle who are very affluent and think "Wow you guys are terrible people, I cant believe society rewards your character". Its not some grand idealogical belief, but thats because I dont think I can speak for whats best for that many people. Plus people seem to change ideologies all the time including myself in the past, imagine you had all the power. How could you even trust yourself when one year you are a diehard communist and then the next you are a libertarian. And its such a tricky situation because if you just stick with one then how can you trust thats correct, you havent even explored the other options. Fundamentally I think our choices in politics have nothing to do with intelligence and knowledge and everything to do with simply what we like and dont like. I see people thinking they "graduated" from liberal to conservative and I see others thinking the opposite. One of my teachers said something I find true, that knowledge does not equate to understanding: rather its how the knowledge is framed. That is a conservative can learn everything about liberal ideaologies and still think they are just crybaby snowflakes. A liberal can learn everything about conservative ideaologies and still think they are just ignorant racists. Without empathy when we learn about something we dont like we just learn to also not like the specifics, Im certain if everyone could step into eachothers heads we'd find nobody was more right or more wrong and we all just hold different values and worldviews that make one ideaology appear stronger to us. So i'd rather speak directly to the source, my values. And these values are reflected in the people I respect, and so il do what I can to make sure those people and myself are safe and at the forefront. Do what I can being keyword, I dont expect to have a big impact, but maybe something I say to someone will.

>>10032 To add on, because im capable usually of understanding any side for awhile this made me politically incapacitated. I decided to arbitrarily act as if my values were universal, because I saw myself doing absolutely nothing otherwise and that would be ignoring the suffering of friends. While I can understand a racist, I still have to just draw the line and say I dont like you, because they are a threat to friends I have.

I'm an anarchist. I'm partial to the mutualist school of economic thought, but it doesn't really matter since once you have anarchism you have the freedom to do one thing in a mutualist way, do a different thing in a syndicalist way, and do another thing in a communist way.

>>9303 lol, and never got a reply back seems like he really was trying to make propaganda posts and lie through their fuarrrking teeth just to win a debate

>>10032 > Fundamentally I think our choices in politics have nothing to do with intelligence and knowledge and everything to do with simply what we like and dont like. I believe the same thing. I believe that every person has both "left wing" and "right wing" part of his personality, but one is almost always dominant. I think that this "left wing" part of our personality is a "herbivore" mentality, while the "right wing" part of our personality is a "carnivore" mentality. Humans as omnivores inherited both herbivore and carnivore mentalities from their primitve ancestors, but every individual almost always has one dominating over the other. This is probably caused by a random chance, by both genetic recombination and also influence of the enviroment.

>>10037 I think its not this clear cut but I agree with what your speaking to. It probably stems from something very fundamental like that, but id argue that at this point who has what type of personality is independent of the left and right political spectrum. However I noticed you put quotes around right and left wing so I imagine you also recognize its a generalization.

>>10037 >I think that this "left wing" part of our personality is a "herbivore" mentality, while the "right wing" part of our personality is a "carnivore" mentality. >Humans as omnivores inherited both herbivore and carnivore mentalities from their primitve ancestors, but every individual almost always has one dominating over the other. Exactly. People who have what we call today a left wing mentality are those with predominantly farmer ancestry, while those with right wing mentality have predominantly hunter-gatherer and herder ancestry. Among the changes that invention of agriculture brought was making farmers able to feed themselves without having to kill animals anymore (which obviously had an impact in development of empathy, universal compassion etc in them), and after agriculture was invented, it didn't spread across the world overnight but farmers and hunter-gatherers/herders were living their lifestyles for thousands of years before farmer's migrations gradually spreaded agriculture.

>>10074 >while those with right wing mentality have predominantly hunter-gatherer and herder ancestry. I can think of some ways in which this is not true. It is true that early left-wing movements were primarily farmers, but there are also plenty of Kurdish pastoral leftists. And there is a strong right-wing tendency among American farmers. So it's really not that deterministic.

>>10077 > So it's really not that deterministic. The proper term is "bro science".

>>10077 We were talking about lineage going back to ancient times. Today everybody has mixed ancestry. Turns out it is possible that farmers and hunters were living separately for a bit longer even after farmer's arrival and settling in Europe. http://www.shh.mpg.de/665255/parallel-palaeogenomic-transects

>>10034 cybernetic socialism is mutualism done better

>>10037 how can you believe this nonsense? it's pretty much confirmed at this point that being right wing comes from having higher levels of disgust hormones in your amygdala. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025552

Guess you could call me a Marxist communizer. Obviously I have some interest in the communist tendencies that were predecessors of sorts to contemporary communization theory. The classical ultra-left, Situationist International, autonomists and post-autonomists. Before that I was largely influenced by anarchist literature and it still holds a special place in my heart.

>>10100 fundamentally thats not that different from what hes saying in my opinion. both are just claiming the reason is irrelevant and people just lean towards one typically because of something genetic/imprinted at young ages. I mean if you want to overcomplicate it into hunter gatherer farmer dynamic or oversimplify it into "its just disgust hormones" they are still largely in agreement about one major thing.

>>10099 That book is *wildly* authoritarian and skips over anything relating to freedom that might stand against it. Why you would even reference this book to an anarchist like myself is beyond me.

>>10122 honestly one of my biggest beefs with anarchism is it's cult-like need for individuality and individual expression, while not having any real solutions to anything outside direct action.

Politics is a problem without a solution.

>>10400 >there is literally no way in which humans can create social hierarchies that are more productive and humane at same time, so let's just stop trying to find the solution remember kids, only losers buy into defeatism

>>10399 we view individuality as essential to human flourishing. If you don't well... I guess we won't see eye to eye. >while not having any real solutions to anything outside direct action. what other solutions do you need? "direct action" basically just means "doing stuff". Everything is predicated on people doing stuff. Anarchism doesn't give many prescriptions besides "do what's right" because we don't believe there is any one-size-fits-all solution; there are many different struggles that require different solutions. What works for San Francisco probably won't work for Greely Nebraska. Whats important right now is a shared sense of purpose and communication, everything else is in flux and should not be treated as static.

Elitist type of nationalism, I strictly oppose any kind of populist movements like mussolini's fascism or national socialism. I also think having well set of ideologies should be for people who are culturally upper class (no clear definiton tho) your avarage commoner being politicized often leads bad things.

>>10401 not entirely correct. a self organized hierarchy such as that in the universe of "brave new world" is actually very reasonable... free will can stand in contrast with productivity as a body, and organizing society to maximize efficiency and pleasure is actually very humane... the downfall in all of this is it requires one to convince all of society to surrender to an incomplete and blinded worldview in exchange for a tenfold increase in productivity and lack of physical suffering (in a brave new world, the mental anguish was eliminated by the use of a sort of opioid that ensured the bliss of the masses) with enough automation, you can turn mankind into docile creatures lounging in abundance,and you can even organize them based on intellectual ability, but you can never eliminate the mental anguish of individualism unless you get people to give up their individuality (perhaps this is zuckerbergs grand plan to turn a normsie into generic user number123444)

>>9291 >you just became the state yourself I don't think you understand what the state actually is, the state has the violence monopoly and uses it to enforce its arbitrary "laws" upon everyone even if they haven't agreed on anything and goes against private property, someone defending their own property through violence (if needed) doesn't turn them into a state

I don't know but I sure don't like liberal democracy

>>10462 Haven't read BNW yet, but in every utopia there is a risk, even if small, that something will go wrong and that the utopia will collapse, or degrade into an unjust society. The only permanent solution to suffering is the voluntary extinction of humanity, but convincing everyone, (or even just enough people with power) is virtually impossible. And even if we could convince some part of the population, it's almost certain that some group will survive and start the cycle of suffering once more.

>>10465 Private property is an arbitrary law you enforce upon everyone else even if they haven't agreed What gives you more right to access and use the forests, fields and land than anyone else? not the lainon you responded to

>>10473 I have no right. I simply choose to use the resources as I see fit. I expect everyone else to do the same to the limits of their ability.

>>10474 then you do not believe in private property, since you don't think people who don't use and maintain a thing have rights to control it.

>>10475 I don't believe in rights. If they have the might to take and control the thing, now, or in the future, near or far, I say that thing is their property. Ergo, their private, if not always exclusive property.

>>10478 an-prim Christianity is the most based form of Christianity

>>10477 what if something is held in common?