|
This world is not ours
|
|
05-19-2005, 04:41 AM
What in the world, can not be used as a tool of oppression?
Anyway are you high when you post(Im seriously curious on that question.) 
05-19-2005, 04:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2005, 04:46 AM by Chaerophon.)
Ghostiger,May 18 2005, 08:41 PM Wrote:What in the world, can not be used as a tool of oppression? That's a question that could lead to some interesting responses. For example, I say cardboard, and somebody tries to prove me wrong. Cardboard. No way to oppress with cardboard.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is, With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased With being nothing. William Shakespeare - Richard II 
05-19-2005, 04:55 AM
Chaerophon,May 18 2005, 09:46 PM Wrote:That's a question that could lead to some interesting responses. For example, I say cardboard, and somebody tries to prove me wrong. Maybe I can't prove that wrong but I can rip that cardboard apart, which amounts to around the same thing.
With great power comes the great need to blame other people.
Guild Wars 2: (ArchonWing.9480) Battle.net (ArchonWing.1480) 
05-19-2005, 05:00 AM
Ghostiger,May 18 2005, 11:35 PM Wrote:Do you really have to ask? Do you? I am an Anarchist. Tried and true. I am somewhat technocratic, in that I believe in education and enlightenment, and lean toward true democracy. Somewhat. I am the extremist that tips the scales to one side so there is something resembling balance in the middle. In my lifetime, I have assisted and had my part in overthrowing a ruling social order. Even worse, I am a tried and true iconoclast. Not only do I dislike facist authority figures, but I will smash their idols just to be a prick. And long before flag burning became popular, I pulled down a Confederate flag in Bama and pissed on it in a public place. That damn near get me killed by the sheriff and his boys. I have been tried and convicted in a court of law for being an 'anarchist' and a public menace. Lets look at definitions, shall we? The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: âHe was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformityâ (Bertrand Russell). I have resisted and committed acts of terrorism against the great United States. I am proud of this. My actions were for good, intended to make this a better place to live. No regret. I will most likely do it again. Sitting at a lunch counter for whites only constituted an act of public terrorism. Pissing on the flag was destruction of state property, and crimes against the state are considered terrorism. Resisting unfair authority caused a lot of social unrest. And I am unrepentant. I have done it, I will do it again, and I will never once be made to feel guilty for my actions. And I damn sure reject arm twisting authority. Like Occhi and I mentioned a bit farther up the thread... Try to impose arm twisting on me or unfair inhumane laws, and I will reply with bullets. Lots of them. Not all anarchists are bad people. Some are, some are not. Some people become anarchists by accident, like Rosa Parks or Harriet Tubman. A situation can make or break a man. (Or woman) Some men rise to the occasion, rise up and resist. Does this make us bad? Should we not be proud of our actions? George Washington was an Anarchist. So were most of our Founding Fathers. They resisted an unfair authority. Does this make them bad people in your book, or would you discount their actions and lessen their worth by calling them something other than what they are?
All alone, or in twos,
The ones who really love you Walk up and down outside the wall. Some hand in hand And some gathered together in bands. The bleeding hearts and artists Make their stand. And when they've given you their all Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy Banging your heart against some mad buggers wall. "Isn't this where...."
05-19-2005, 05:12 AM
And damn. I let it be known that I am a public menace. My reputation at the Lounge is now forever ruined, people will forever look at me with suspicion and secretly think I am some terrible rabblerouser.
Oh whatever shall I do? I am so embarassed, I wish all of you were dead! Er, should that say I wish I was dead? Why should I be the one to die... It's easy to hide the bodies and hide my shame... :ph34r:
All alone, or in twos,
The ones who really love you Walk up and down outside the wall. Some hand in hand And some gathered together in bands. The bleeding hearts and artists Make their stand. And when they've given you their all Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy Banging your heart against some mad buggers wall. "Isn't this where...." 
05-19-2005, 07:26 AM
Chaerophon,May 18 2005, 10:35 PM Wrote:Much obliged, but I must owe you for at least one of those (probably a few more, to boot)! :D Ever tried Kilkenny? Kilkenny, oh yes, many thanks! :D Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete
05-19-2005, 07:29 AM
Doc,May 18 2005, 11:00 PM Wrote:Do you? Doc, is an activist by definition an Anarchist? I did not see Rosa Parks as an Anarchist, but rather an activist, and to a certain extent, using passive aggression to use Non Violent means of protest, which is endorsed by our Constitution. Maybe I am unclear on just what an Anarchist is. I know what the Antichrist is, and his name is George Lucas. Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete
05-19-2005, 10:40 AM
Doc,May 19 2005, 03:42 PM Wrote:I have been called an Anarchist. I have been accused of being an Antichrist. ... because speed readers think you are saying Antichrist :P Anarchy works well in a society of one person ;)
05-19-2005, 10:51 AM
whyBish,May 19 2005, 11:40 PM Wrote:... because speed readers think you are saying Antichrist :P Doh, snapped by Occhi. That will teach me for posting before reading the most recent three pages of a thread :mellow:
05-19-2005, 10:54 AM
Occhidiangela,May 19 2005, 03:34 AM Wrote:Beautifully put. Certainly, but I was having enough trouble cleanly putting across the static view... and yes, I am suffering from "Stupid Software Developer Definitions" condition :P
05-19-2005, 11:36 AM
Abramelin,May 19 2005, 09:58 AM Wrote:If you don't grasp why nobody has a moral right to own anybody,then I can't explain further. And there lies your problem. You are making a claim that it is wrong to own land. You tried to prove so, by giving three axioms, and not enough logic to glue them together. So, anyone wanting to show that you may not be correct in your proof must either show a flaw in your logic (which has been done), or must argue about wether the axioms you base your logic on are actually true(also done). E.G. I will define (since no other definition has been given) an object as anything composed of inanimate matter. Humans are composed of inanimate matter. Therefore humans are objects not subjects. To counter this you will need to find a flaw in my logic (there are none), or question my axioms (obviously the definition of an object is weak) Can you now see why I was asking? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as 'right' and 'wrong' (especially not in the absolute sense, but even in the specific). I believe that the concept of 'right' and 'wrong' stem from an individual learning the response patterns of others to their actions. A shared definition of right and wrong between members reduces the uncertainty of what a response to an action will be, thereby reducing the need for trial and error in finding out what others will do (also including God/s as meta-'other/s'). Is it wrong to kill someone? Why/not? I believe that how others will view this action will be based on the context of the action and the belief systems of the 'others'. - Is it morally wrong for a soldier to kill someone that they are ordered to kill? ... is it morally wrong to oppose an order? - Is it wrong to kill someone if not doing so will result in your own death (i.e. killing in self defence)? - Is it wrong to kill someone that has killed others (e.g. the death penalty)? - Is it wrong to kill someone because you wanted their shoes? - Is it wrong to kill someone because you didn't want to starve to death? Some people will give a different answer to each of the questions above, due to context. Some people will give the same answer to all of the questions, more likely due to personal belief (e.g. it is always wrong/right to kill) Anyway, enough rambling for one post... here's some last left-fielders... - Why shouldn't people to own others? - In a society where "it is wrong to own land", what is society like? What effort would be required to make it different to Communist China under Mao (for example)? - Is there a difference in the above arguement if we allow 'control/land use rights' while still dis-allowing ownership? (and of course the meta question of who 'allows' the control rights to be allocated, and isn't it those that do who essentially 'own' the land then?) Sweet dreams.  Ghostiger,May 18 2005, 08:35 PM Wrote:Do you really have to ask? I'm fond of the anti-societal nature of Anarchy. I don't think anyone would be better of in a society ruled by anarchists, but I do think it would cut down on the bureaucracy. Besides that, the punks who claim be anarchists ranting against the world they don't understand are amongst the few I can cut to ribbons in a philosophical debate (they believe it enough to argue it, but not enough to stand behind it when someone raises real questions like the religious boys do). I'm all for encouraging the spread of "popular" anarchy.
"AND THEN THE PALADIN TOOK MY EYES!"
Forever oppressed by the GOLs. Grom Hellscream: [Orcish] kek
05-19-2005, 12:53 PM
Oddly you are little different than the teenage punks with respect to your use of the word.
You dont seem to understand the definitions that you yourself quoted. You use Anarchy(with a cpatital "a" none the less) for cases that are not anarchy. Your view on anarchy is so simplistic that you arent even to the point where I would bother getting into the obvious and ironic failure that is inherent to all Anarchist paradigms. Fighting a bad social system is not the same as fighting against the notion of social systems.
05-19-2005, 03:52 PM
Ghost, has the irony escaped you that anarchy is it self a form of social order?
Revolting Peasants - From the film 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. ARTHUR and PATSY riding. They stop and look. We see a castle in the distance, and before it a PEASANT is working away on his knees trying to dig up the earth with his bare hands and a twig. ARTHUR and PATSY ride up, and stop before the PEASANT ARTHUR Old woman! DENNIS Man! ARTHUR Man. I'm sorry. Old man, What knight live in that castle over there? DENNIS I'm thirty-seven. ARTHUR What? DENNIS: I'm thirty-seven ... I'm not old. ARTHUR: Well - I can't just say: "Hey, Man!' DENNIS Well you could say: "Dennis" ARTHUR I didn't know you were called Dennis. DENNIS You didn't bother to find out, did you? ARTHUR I've said I'm sorry about the old woman, but from the behind you looked ... DENNIS What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior ... ARTHUR Well ... I AM king. DENNIS Oh, very nice. King, eh! I expect you've got a palace and fine clothes and courtiers and plenty of food. And how d'you get that? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our society! If there's EVER going to be any progress ... An OLD WOMAN appears. OLD WOMAN Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here ... Oh! how d'you do? ARTHUR How d'you do, good lady ... I am Arthur, King of the Britons ... can you tell me who lives in that castle? OLD WOMAN King of the WHO? ARTHUR The Britons. OLD WOMAN Who are the Britons? ARTHUR All of us are ... we are all Britons. DENNIS winks at the OLD WOMAN. ... and I am your king .... OLD WOMAN Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective ... DENNIS You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ... OLD WOMAN There you are, bringing class into it again ... DENNIS That's what it's all about ... If only - ARTHUR Please, please good people. I am in haste. What knight lives in that castle? OLD WOMAN No one live there. ARTHUR Well, who is your lord? OLD WOMAN We don't have a lord. ARTHUR What? DENNIS I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. ARTHUR Yes. DENNIS ... But all the decision of that officer ... ARTHUR Yes, I see. DENNIS ... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs. ARTHUR Be quiet! DENNIS ... but a two-thirds majority ... ARTHUR Be quiet! I order you to shut up. OLD WOMAN Order, eh -- who does he think he is? ARTHUR I am your king! OLD WOMAN Well, I didn't vote for you. ARTHUR You don't vote for kings. OLD WOMAN Well, how did you become king, then? ARTHUR The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ... That is why I am your king! DENNIS Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. ARTHUR Be quiet! DENNIS You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! ARTHUR Shut up! DENNIS I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away! ARTHUR (Grabbing him by the collar) Shut up, will you. Shut up! DENNIS Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system. ARTHUR Shut up! PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching. DENNIS (calling) Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed! ARTHUR (aware that people are now coming out and watching) Bloody peasant! (pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off) DENNIS Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away. ARTHUR Come on, patsy. They ride off. DENNIS (in the background as we PULL OUT) did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've been on about ... Not all anarchists have to be bad people, or boogeymen. Look at Jesus and the story of his life. Sure, there is a bit of slant in that writing, but the point is easily enough made. PBS of all folk ran a whole week of documentaries on American Anarchists. From Emma Goldman to what are called the Accidental Anarchists. These are people that become social reactionaries or revolutionaries because of circumstance or situation. For Rosa Parks, and the movement she indirectly started, it was because her feet were dog tired, and she wasn't getting up for nobody. Some people are labeled as Anarchists because the current ruling body needs a boogeyman to demonize. I will give you that there is both a broad and a narrow sense of definition to the word. Some bad, some good, some sensationalism, and some hype. I don't deny that at all. The word it self has changed over time, changing, adapting, taking on and losing old meanings. From antiarch, to anarch, meaning one who slays a monarch, and now anarch means one who leads and organises an anarchy or anarchistic movement... Which is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. And there is a modern day problem of confusing a syndicalist for an anarchist. Emma, for all her anarchy, was more of a syndicalist at heart. She was all for labour parties and unions controling as a ruling body. Which is in a very very loose sense, democracy. Or Marxism depending how you slice it. For me, personally, I don't agree with all of the laws. If a governing body must use strongarm tactics to enforce the law, then it's probably not a very good one. Our Constitution is a good example of self evident laws and common sense. By it self it is a good document. I love it, hold it dear to my heart, and believe in it. But the mockery it has become is vile, making it worth little more than soiled toilet paper. It's so twisted and abused that it is rapidly becoming worthless. Unfair laws that only serve the law makers and not the public need to be resisted. They should not be followed. Unfair taxes, laws that go against the greater good of the public, laws that make no sense... All of these things and more should be resisted. Our current tax policy is the worst. I have not paid taxes since I don't know when. I don't think I paid taxes when Reagan was in office... Might have been Carter. I make sure to cover my own ass and send money where it actually needs to be. I don't want my money spent in ways I disagree with. I do not wish to be taxed unfairly. And I don't want my hard earned dimes and nickles going into some slimy politicians pocket. So I spend into charities and worthwhile causes. I make sure that money gets to where it needs to be with out worthless scumballs taking their cut out of it and leaving scraps for those that really need it the most. And every year, I could get this money back and send Uncle Sham a bill saying he owes me. This year, for reasons I can not explain, I was cruely, and unfairly I might add, audited. It made my whole damn life a mess, it is a tactic of goonery and intimidation. They looked so hard to find something, anything, so they could commit strong armed robbery on me. Even tried to use a legal loophole to make me pay through the nose. My lawyers took care of that, and this year, I am sending a bill to Uncle Sham for the money he owes me... A seven figure bill. And my lawyers are well aware that that money will not be paid for quite some time... The government is making money off of the interest being generated while they glacially move the mountains of red tape it takes to get that kind of money out to me. Every single penny of interest generated by those funds will also be sent to me as well, I am making sure of that right now in court. Infact, I have just found out it is well within my legal rights to lay claim to all the backpay I could have asked for over the decades. I might just do that. I might just get a lot of other people I know to do so as well, people who keep money in tax shelters and do good things with their cash other than fund the current facist police state. I suspect such an act would leave quite a wound in the current financial situation of the US government. The IRS does nothing to actually tell people that they are fully entitled to the money generated in interest while the money awaits transfer. Infact, they hide it quite well, down in the basement... "But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available [and on display] in the local planning office for the last nine months." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" Oh look... I just turned this into a rant. Sorry. I hope it's been fun and somewhat educational. Some things are worth resisting simply because they are wrong. Does this make me a bad person?
All alone, or in twos,
The ones who really love you Walk up and down outside the wall. Some hand in hand And some gathered together in bands. The bleeding hearts and artists Make their stand. And when they've given you their all Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy Banging your heart against some mad buggers wall. "Isn't this where...."
05-19-2005, 04:29 PM
No
I already alluded to the irony. And the irony is not that "anarcism" is a form of social order. The irony is that as soon as you end one social order another will arise - unless there is only 1 person left. I could care less how PBS redefined the term. In fact I hate people who redefine terms. The more classical definitions you gave are what I was addressing. Anarchism has a specific meanings. Standing up against a perverse culture of racism is not one of those meaning. 
05-19-2005, 04:38 PM
Ghostiger,May 19 2005, 10:29 AM Wrote:No A reformer is not by definition an Anarchist. It seems to me that a revolutionary adopts some of the forms of Anarchy to achieve an end to a standing social order, the aim being creation of a new one, and an end to temporary Anarchy and Chaos. Sort of an act of creative destruction? Or am I playing too fast and loose with definitions here? Occhi Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete
05-19-2005, 04:42 PM
Ghostiger,May 19 2005, 11:29 AM Wrote:No Ah but when that perverse culture of racism is the ruling body, standing up to it is a dicy proposition at best. And kudos to you Ghost for a good post... I like the choice of words in that line. Do you realize that at one time, the entire state of Indiana was controlled by the Klan? And both the Senate and Congress were filled with Klansman? Words change in time. They adapt, grow, change with location and dialect, and redefine themselves either in adaption of changing times of evolving out of necessity. As mentioned with anarch, if we went soley by the original meaning it would mean somebody that has slain a king. It went on to become a blanket term for social activism and those who resist an unfair ruling body. It doesn't have to mean an act of murder on some guy with a crown. As for social order, some are more favourable than others. When Washington and our Founding Fathers decided enough was enough and they engaged the revolution, they acted as anarchists. In the classical sense even, as they were killing actual agents of the Crown. They toppled one social order, settled down, and attempted to create a new experiment in a newly formed conceptual democracy. While there had been democracies before, this was quite a bold experiment... Did it work? Umm... No. And it's time for another revolution most likely to throw off the current powers that be and try again. It's still the greatest failure ever... And it's amazing that it still works as well as it does inspite of those failures.
All alone, or in twos,
The ones who really love you Walk up and down outside the wall. Some hand in hand And some gathered together in bands. The bleeding hearts and artists Make their stand. And when they've given you their all Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy Banging your heart against some mad buggers wall. "Isn't this where...."
05-19-2005, 05:18 PM
You do revolutionaries, activist and etc a disservice calling them Anarchists.
Anarchism is a fundamentally flawed concept at its purest(as has been addressed by many in this threa). So in its practical implementation, it cant help but have its meaning twisted into something more reasonable. You(Doc) are then taking that new meaning and applying it to concepts and people that alter have fitting names(ie. revolutionaries). Thats just bad form and makes for disagreements based on symantics rather than substance. Which is particularly odd since you started this by mentioning young punks miss using the term.
05-19-2005, 06:24 PM
Count Duckula,May 19 2005, 10:36 AM Wrote:Abremelin lost. Can we eat Ghostiger? No, but Ghostiger can eat me. Sorry Ghostiger, very much J/K. I could not pass on that set up. :whistling: Two minute minor, into the penalty box I go. Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
