Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

America needs a second revolution

BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 4:38:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You know, I would keep this to the polls, but you always have some idiot spamming 9 of the same exact polls, devouring all the regular standalone polls.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 4:45:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
America is in a state of oppression and authoritarianism. Our freedom is being regulated and controlled further every waking day, yet political rhetoric and spin has led people to replace authoritarianism with more desirable words, such as "progressive."

Real freedom has to be earned through victory over struggle. This can only be achieved through the actions of the individual. I have become convinced that all of you do not want freedom and empowerment. Society desires entitlement and obligation, because entitlement and obligation do not hold the individual accountable. Instead society shifts the responsibility on others, which is the path of a coward.

Screw democracy too. We worship the constitution and our system of government, but like all other attempts to liberate mankind from the endless cycle of war and oppression, the root of the problem was left in neglect. It doesn't matter if we have a king or a congress, the minority is always going to be controlled by the majority unless some of us decide to fight back.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 8:26:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:45:31 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
America is in a state of oppression and authoritarianism. Our freedom is being regulated and controlled further every waking day, yet political rhetoric and spin has led people to replace authoritarianism with more desirable words, such as "progressive."

Real freedom has to be earned through victory over struggle. This can only be achieved through the actions of the individual. I have become convinced that all of you do not want freedom and empowerment. Society desires entitlement and obligation, because entitlement and obligation do not hold the individual accountable. Instead society shifts the responsibility on others, which is the path of a coward.

Screw democracy too. We worship the constitution and our system of government, but like all other attempts to liberate mankind from the endless cycle of war and oppression, the root of the problem was left in neglect. It doesn't matter if we have a king or a congress, the minority is always going to be controlled by the majority unless some of us decide to fight back.

Are you saying the first one was a mistake?
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 12:28:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 8:26:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Are you saying the first one was a mistake?
No, in fact, it was better than staying British. It wasn't good enough though, given how deluded the modern US has gotten from what it was back then. Such a thing was unavoidable with the system the founding fathers put in place.

Time to overthrow the constitution as well.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 1:19:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Depends on who you talk to. Some would say that America needs a socialistic revolution. We all know what that would lead to. There are those who still believe that a nation ran by a central government under the supposed control of the people will lead to utopia.
When you say revolution, however, I think what you mean is getting back to our roots. This revolution can only happen when the people realize that they are heading down the wrong road. There's an old adage that says, "love is what makes the world go round". This hasn't changed. It is still the deepest yearning of a humans desire, to find that special person, and spend the rest of their lives with them.
Whether this yearning is biological, or just taught, doesn't really matter. It is true that love and marriage and family is the pinnacle of happiness, and it is what drives us to work and to succeed.
This drive for family and marriage is trampled upon every day by the media. The media sells us a quick pleasure. It teaches women to be easy. It teaches men to sleep with as many women as possible. It also teaches that recreational sex is better for everyone. But it's a gimmick, for without loyalty, faithfulness, monogamy, and respect, most men will not work hard or build anything. What a man builds for is for the future, a future involving a woman and children. Without these two things as part of the deal, the man will not work hard, nor will he build for the future. Instead, he will wack off to porn, and play video games. These men aren't stupid, rather they are wise. They see what has happened to the American woman, and they have decided to forget about marriage. They realize that marriage is a bad deal, and that todays women know nothing of respect, kindness, love, loyalty, trust, and mutual affection.
There is even a movement to push men into the caves of society. This movement is directed at masculinity. It says that men are no longer needed because technologies have advanced so much that muscle isn't needed anymore. And women are buying into this notion. You can find postings all over the internet, and sometimes on TV, about the end of men, and how they should be castrated, and kept off the streets. This kind of thinking sends a message to men. So they drop out of society and live a hermits life. This is very dangerous, for no society can survive without the masculine energy to protect it. It's bad for women because without the men, there will be an army, someday, that will take over, and will take whatever they want. Women pay horribly when their nation is overtaken by another nation. Generally they are treated like sex slaves.
It's a sad deal because we are on the cusp of some unbelievable technologies. We are sitting in a technological rocket ready to take off. Just as the internet was nothing in the 1980's, so to are our future technologies right now. But just as the internet changed our lives forever, so to will the new technologies. But if we don't get back who we are as people, there will be no hope for the future. A revolution must happen, but it needn't be violent. Basic truth must be embraced again. A revolution will change nothing without the truth because the people of this nation are so messed up that they can't tell their right from their left, and it's not just the younger generation. Many older people are also being duped.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:27:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 1:19:27 AM, j50wells wrote:
Depends on who you talk to. Some would say that America needs a socialistic revolution. We all know what that would lead to. There are those who still believe that a nation ran by a central government under the supposed control of the people will lead to utopia.
When you say revolution, however, I think what you mean is getting back to our roots. This revolution can only happen when the people realize that they are heading down the wrong road. There's an old adage that says, "love is what makes the world go round". This hasn't changed. It is still the deepest yearning of a humans desire, to find that special person, and spend the rest of their lives with them.
Whether this yearning is biological, or just taught, doesn't really matter. It is true that love and marriage and family is the pinnacle of happiness, and it is what drives us to work and to succeed.
This drive for family and marriage is trampled upon every day by the media. The media sells us a quick pleasure. It teaches women to be easy. It teaches men to sleep with as many women as possible. It also teaches that recreational sex is better for everyone. But it's a gimmick, for without loyalty, faithfulness, monogamy, and respect, most men will not work hard or build anything. What a man builds for is for the future, a future involving a woman and children. Without these two things as part of the deal, the man will not work hard, nor will he build for the future. Instead, he will wack off to porn, and play video games. These men aren't stupid, rather they are wise. They see what has happened to the American woman, and they have decided to forget about marriage. They realize that marriage is a bad deal, and that todays women know nothing of respect, kindness, love, loyalty, trust, and mutual affection.
There is even a movement to push men into the caves of society. This movement is directed at masculinity. It says that men are no longer needed because technologies have advanced so much that muscle isn't needed anymore. And women are buying into this notion. You can find postings all over the internet, and sometimes on TV, about the end of men, and how they should be castrated, and kept off the streets. This kind of thinking sends a message to men. So they drop out of society and live a hermits life. This is very dangerous, for no society can survive without the masculine energy to protect it. It's bad for women because without the men, there will be an army, someday, that will take over, and will take whatever they want. Women pay horribly when their nation is overtaken by another nation. Generally they are treated like sex slaves.
It's a sad deal because we are on the cusp of some unbelievable technologies. We are sitting in a technological rocket ready to take off. Just as the internet was nothing in the 1980's, so to are our future technologies right now. But just as the internet changed our lives forever, so to will the new technologies. But if we don't get back who we are as people, there will be no hope for the future. A revolution must happen, but it needn't be violent. Basic truth must be embraced again. A revolution will change nothing without the truth because the people of this nation are so messed up that they can't tell their right from their left, and it's not just the younger generation. Many older people are also being duped.

Nice rant. You can have your revolution BlackFlags, just take this nutbag with you.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:34:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh dear lord.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:40:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:38:23 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
You know, I would keep this to the polls, but you always have some idiot spamming 9 of the same exact polls, devouring all the regular standalone polls.

The spamming is by accident. Whenever you submit a poll it will always say "we were unable to save your poll" and thus the person tries to submit it several times, even though it actually is submitting (usually).
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:41:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:45:31 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
America is in a state of oppression and authoritarianism.

No it is not, at least not overtly. There are systems of power that are deeply troubling (read: surveillance in the form of Facebook, Google, the NSA, Twitter, etc.) but many of those systems are voluntaristic, not coercive... but they are troubling, nonetheless.

That's not totalitarian, though. Totalitarian is what Nicolae Ceausescu did.

Our freedom is being regulated and controlled further every waking day, yet political rhetoric and spin has led people to replace authoritarianism with more desirable words, such as "progressive."

That's not totalitarian; it's just problematic, because the cultural backdrop of our political discussions are set by, for example, massive corporations who use media to advance their interests.

Real freedom has to be earned through victory over struggle. This can only be achieved through the actions of the individual. I have become convinced that all of you do not want freedom and empowerment. Society desires entitlement and obligation, because entitlement and obligation do not hold the individual accountable. Instead society shifts the responsibility on others, which is the path of a coward.

Real freedom is choice, and in the United States, we are free. Many are not as economically free as they ought to be (read: the poor), and many laws are stupid and unjustifiably oppressive (read: sending people to jail for weed). But that doesn't make our government "totalitarian".

Screw democracy too. We worship the constitution and our system of government, but like all other attempts to liberate mankind from the endless cycle of war and oppression, the root of the problem was left in neglect. It doesn't matter if we have a king or a congress, the minority is always going to be controlled by the majority unless some of us decide to fight back.

Democracy is the least worst form of government. And few worship the constitution. The only people who do (read: tea baggers and their compatriots like, for example, Clarence Thomas) are monumentally stupid trolls who bastardize its meaning for their own purposes.
Tsar of DDO
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:42:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:45:31 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
America is in a state of oppression and authoritarianism. Our freedom is being regulated and controlled further every waking day, yet political rhetoric and spin has led people to replace authoritarianism with more desirable words, such as "progressive."

This is quite normative.

You might think you're oppressed, but that claim doesn't necessarily match reality. What I consider freedom and what you consider freedom to be isn't one in the same.

Real freedom has to be earned through victory over struggle.
Debatable
This can only be achieved through the actions of the individual. I have become convinced that all of you do not want freedom and empowerment. Society desires entitlement and obligation, because entitlement and obligation do not hold the individual accountable. Instead society shifts the responsibility on others, which is the path of a coward.

Doubtful. Have you ever seen the comments on welfare? If americans hate responsibility so much, then why do they hate welfare exactly?

Screw democracy too. We worship the constitution and our system of government, but like all other attempts to liberate mankind from the endless cycle of war and oppression, the root of the problem was left in neglect. It doesn't matter if we have a king or a congress, the minority is always going to be controlled by the majority unless some of us decide to fight back.

annnnddd you really need to lay off the weed my man.
Thank you for voting!
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:58:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:27:29 AM, TBR wrote:
Nice rant. You can have your revolution BlackFlags, just take this nutbag with you.

We are obviously polar opposites mate
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:19:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:41:44 AM, YYW wrote:
No it is not, at least not overtly. There are systems of power that are deeply troubling (read: surveillance in the form of Facebook, Google, the NSA, Twitter, etc.) but many of those systems are voluntaristic, not coercive... but they are troubling, nonetheless.

How is the NSA voluntary? Just that example really, because the other ones I agree with. I particularly think the NSA is interesting, because it represents many of the things that George Orwell alluded to being a strong possibility in future democracies.

When fear and a desire for safety overwhelm societies love for freedom and independence, then authoritarianism will be met with roaring crowds and applause. -That is kind of what is happening in the US and other countries.

What I am really talking about is how much more the government is interfering in the daily routines of the individual. Life for a lot of people feels more controlled and regulated. Sure, you can talk to different people and have different occupations, but you still undergo the same trials and regulations for making an individual choice.

That's not totalitarian, though. Totalitarian is what Nicolae Ceausescu did.
The Romanian? Odd example to be honest, because you would think most people would remark about Stalin before Nicolae Ceausescu.

That's not totalitarian; it's just problematic, because the cultural backdrop of our political discussions are set by, for example, massive corporations who use media to advance their interests.

Yes I agree, but not only that, the way the majority has been influenced to think has led to constant oppression of the minority class as well.

Real freedom is choice, and in the United States, we are free.
No, having choice is not the same thing as being free. At least if you associate freedom as having stronger connotations than liberty, and subscribe to early enlightenment interpretations.

This is actually apart of the problem, because modern society has redefined the terms that the revolutionaries throughout Europe wrote about during the enlightenment age.

Many are not as economically free as they ought to be (read: the poor), and many laws are stupid and unjustifiably oppressive (read: sending people to jail for weed).
But that doesn't make our government "totalitarian".
You seem to be very upset with my word choice of "totalitarianism." I guess I would concede that the United States is no where near totalitarian if you compare it to other countries in which people generally all agree were totalitarian (USSR, Cuba, North Korea), but I would still contest that the United States is slowly heading in that direction through the use of democracy.

Democracy is the least worst form of government.
Democracy was a good attempt. Since it fails to hit the root of the problem though, it will always be seriously flawed.

In retrospect, the good thing about democracy is that it appeases the majority, but still at the cost of the minority being limited. Such a system, unless completely devoid of all powers of the majority to control the minority (at which point it becomes hard to justify an authoritative government), you will have a large percentage of the population being oppressed and ruled over.

And few worship the constitution.
In my experience, words like "constitution" and "founding fathers" appeal greatly to both liberals and conservatives. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Most Americans will consider any radical proposals against the written constitution to be hearsay.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:27:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:42:16 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
You might think you're oppressed, but that claim doesn't necessarily match reality. What I consider freedom and what you consider freedom to be isn't one in the same.

This is a common paradox among anarchists that we like to point out.

It isn't appeasing to our ears when we have people claiming it isn't as bad as we think. In fact, those people are part of the problem.

Real freedom has to be earned through victory over struggle.
Debatable
Then debate it

Doubtful. Have you ever seen the comments on welfare? If americans hate responsibility so much, then why do they hate welfare exactly?

Welfare is a really good example actually. Americans don't hate welfare enough to get rid of it. In fact, nearly all of Americans support a kind of welfare in some way or another.

The fact that welfare still exists is just a testament to how scared individuals are of responsibility, IE, real freedom.

Same goes for our fear of not having law enforcement to protect us, or a government to grant us money whenever we make an independent decision that doesn't exactly work out like we had planned.

annnnddd you really need to lay off the weed my man.
For every great movement, men like you spoke similar words

Promoting people to fight for strength, empowerment, and independence is not crazy.

Supporting anything other than these things is what would be considered real insanity.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:33:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:19:12 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:41:44 AM, YYW wrote:
No it is not, at least not overtly. There are systems of power that are deeply troubling (read: surveillance in the form of Facebook, Google, the NSA, Twitter, etc.) but many of those systems are voluntaristic, not coercive... but they are troubling, nonetheless.

How is the NSA voluntary?

You chose to have a computer, cell phone, etc. Without those, the NSA can't reach you on any practical level.

Just that example really, because the other ones I agree with. I particularly think the NSA is interesting, because it represents many of the things that George Orwell alluded to being a strong possibility in future democracies.

Yup.

When fear and a desire for safety overwhelm societies love for freedom and independence, then authoritarianism will be met with roaring crowds and applause. -That is kind of what is happening in the US and other countries.

Yup... but it's not that cut and dry. There is a legitimate argument (one, in fact, that I've made) about the reasons why the NSA's activities serve useful purposes. But their interpretation of Section 215 of the patriot act is perverse.

What I am really talking about is how much more the government is interfering in the daily routines of the individual. Life for a lot of people feels more controlled and regulated. Sure, you can talk to different people and have different occupations, but you still undergo the same trials and regulations for making an individual choice.

That sounds like a platitude. how has the government interfered with your life?

That's not totalitarian, though. Totalitarian is what Nicolae Ceausescu did.
The Romanian? Odd example to be honest, because you would think most people would remark about Stalin before Nicolae Ceausescu.

Yes. He is more contemporary than Stalin, and would have been worse if given the opportunity.

That's not totalitarian; it's just problematic, because the cultural backdrop of our political discussions are set by, for example, massive corporations who use media to advance their interests.

Yes I agree, but not only that, the way the majority has been influenced to think has led to constant oppression of the minority class as well.

There is a "code" for how the media have to report about black people. They are always victims. Never aggressors. The cause of their problems is always white people. These things are true.

Real freedom is choice, and in the United States, we are free.
No, having choice is not the same thing as being free. At least if you associate freedom as having stronger connotations than liberty, and subscribe to early enlightenment interpretations.

To the extent that you can chose, you are free. That's the definition of freedom.

This is actually apart of the problem, because modern society has redefined the terms that the revolutionaries throughout Europe wrote about during the enlightenment age.

I think you just want to tear down the establishment.

Many are not as economically free as they ought to be (read: the poor), and many laws are stupid and unjustifiably oppressive (read: sending people to jail for weed).
But that doesn't make our government "totalitarian".
You seem to be very upset with my word choice of "totalitarianism." I guess I would concede that the United States is no where near totalitarian if you compare it to other countries in which people generally all agree were totalitarian (USSR, Cuba, North Korea), but I would still contest that the United States is slowly heading in that direction through the use of democracy.

Accuracy is important, and language is the means to that. Word choice matters. Though to the extent that you're expressing the sentiment that there are activities and things that the US government engages in which raises suspicion, I would not disagree.

Democracy is the least worst form of government.
Democracy was a good attempt. Since it fails to hit the root of the problem though, it will always be seriously flawed.

In retrospect, the good thing about democracy is that it appeases the majority, but still at the cost of the minority being limited. Such a system, unless completely devoid of all powers of the majority to control the minority (at which point it becomes hard to justify an authoritative government), you will have a large percentage of the population being oppressed and ruled over.

This is why our government is structured the way it is: to avoid tyranny by the majority. The problem is that the same structure is predisposed to idiocy from the minority (read: house Republicans).

And few worship the constitution.
In my experience, words like "constitution" and "founding fathers" appeal greatly to both liberals and conservatives. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Most Americans will consider any radical proposals against the written constitution to be hearsay.

Just because the words are invoked doesn't mean that people bow to them. It's a method of appealing to tradition. There is nothing so useful to some perverse new political cause (like teabagging republicanism) as to cloak itself in the past.

Mao did the same thing in China. He colored every speech he delivered in the rhetoric of appeals to classic Chinese literature, and in so doing he met "the people" where they were. He appealed to the Chinese' sense of favoritism for the "underdog" and in his instance, the "underdog" was the working class.

Same method; different context as what the tea baggers do.

Everyone does it, though. Abolitionists sought historical precedent in the bible. Southern slave owners did the same. Blah blah blah.

That's why it's important to *really* know history: (1) so that you can use it to your advantage; and (2) know when you're being hoodwinked by some crafty politician with a seductive tongue who cloaks his ideology in historical tradition.
Tsar of DDO
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:47:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:33:39 AM, YYW wrote:
You chose to have a computer, cell phone, etc. Without those, the NSA can't reach you on any practical level.
That is a slippery slope there.

Where does it end? Having property is inviting the government to cease it when I cannot pay my taxes?

That sounds like a platitude. how has the government interfered with your life?
Every way and shape. Forced education, excessive taxation, laws and regulations, influencing the way society thinks, ect.

There is a "code" for how the media have to report about black people. They are always victims. Never aggressors. The cause of their problems is always white people. These things are true.
I am not sure what you are saying. Does that last statement, "These things are true," imply you agree with that style of reporting?

One of the most abhorrent things people do in my opinion is self victimize.

Malcolm X has a lot of support among anarchists because he actually promoted the black community accepting responsibility for their own circumstances, and fighting for empowerment without the help of the government.

Today's African American society represents everything Malcolm X preached against.

To the extent that you can chose, you are free. That's the definition of freedom.
Maybe the literal definition, but it isn't the same kind of freedom that I read so much about when I was big on enlightenment philosophy.

Freedom, in the interpretation I picked up from some of my favorite authors, is having the willpower to seek independence from control.

I think you just want to tear down the establishment.
Of course, I thought I made it pretty clear that the establishment is broken.

Many are not as economically free as they ought to be (read: the poor), and many laws are stupid and unjustifiably oppressive (read: sending people to jail for weed).
But that doesn't make our government "totalitarian".
You seem to be very upset with my word choice of "totalitarianism." I guess I would concede that the United States is no where near totalitarian if you compare it to other countries in which people generally all agree were totalitarian (USSR, Cuba, North Korea), but I would still contest that the United States is slowly heading in that direction through the use of democracy.

This is why our government is structured the way it is: to avoid tyranny by the majority.
And it fails to do that

The problem is that the same structure is predisposed to idiocy from the minority (read: house Republicans).

This is another paradox. Republicans are notorious for fighting the presupposed minority groups, but in reality they are the honest to god minority, while the presupposed minority groups have assimilated themselves with the majority.

This needs to be recognized, because many arguments from conservative citizens are more than legitimate. I think the liberals won most people over on social issues, which is why you are going to see Republicans morph more into libertarianism, which actually has a lot of legitimacy compared to the status quo of economic authoritarianism.

That's why it's important to *really* know history: (1) so that you can use it to your advantage; and (2) know when you're being hoodwinked by some crafty politician with a seductive tongue who cloaks his ideology in historical tradition.
How many people do you think are truly smart and well informed on politics, and are worthy enough of casting votes on decisions that will determine how others are ruled over?

Probably not a lot of people I am guessing.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 1:22:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like how people agree that the government sucks, and caters to big business instead of the common man, but still want to keep it, and in most cases want to extend the size and scope of it's powers. Whenever you support or vote for a politician that wants to add new laws, regulatory organizations or new things to the government as opposed to taking those things away, you're acting in a treasonous way.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 2:58:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You chose to have a computer, cell phone, etc. Without those, the NSA can't reach you on any practical level.
That is a slippery slope there.

Where does it end? Having property is inviting the government to cease it when I cannot pay my taxes?

You may have the device, but when you want to use it on our collective network, you are subject to the risks. You do NOT own the internet, you did NOT make the internet. The insistence that everyone can live entirely off their own hard work is insulting to everyone else s hard work. If you want to live as free as possible, go get a mule and wander the country. Want to live in a collective society, man up.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:06:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The first revolution was to abolish slavery from the American constitution. The second revolution is to guarantee "Black lives matter" in the American constitution. Obviously another revolution will be needed to guarantee "all lives matter" in America. So Mexicans and Asians will have to put up with the inconvenience for a bit. 9/11 settled the Muslim issue.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:35:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:27:25 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:42:16 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
You might think you're oppressed, but that claim doesn't necessarily match reality. What I consider freedom and what you consider freedom to be isn't one in the same.

This is a common paradox among anarchists that we like to point out.

It isn't appeasing to our ears when we have people claiming it isn't as bad as we think. In fact, those people are part of the problem.

I never said "it isn't as bad as you think", that's a strawman, I said that freedom is subjective.

Communism sought to offer freedom from capitalism, as has capitalists from the tyranny of the command economy. Clearly, freedom is subjective.

Real freedom has to be earned through victory over struggle.
Debatable
Then debate it

No interest.

Doubtful. Have you ever seen the comments on welfare? If americans hate responsibility so much, then why do they hate welfare exactly?

Welfare is a really good example actually. Americans don't hate welfare enough to get rid of it. In fact, nearly all of Americans support a kind of welfare in some way or another.

Tell them "welfare" and they do hate it, tell them the "snap program" and its going to illicit a completely differing response.

Regardless, there is a general belief against social programs. You'd have to be insane to deny that. Almost every single republican debate, and presidential debate in the neoliberal era no one has defended the welfare state, not even close.

The fact that welfare still exists is just a testament to how scared individuals are of responsibility, IE, real freedom.

I doubt that.

Same goes for our fear of not having law enforcement to protect us, or a government to grant us money whenever we make an independent decision that doesn't exactly work out like we had planned.

What? That doesn't make sense. I would agree with you that many a security stuff that is in public is simply designed to make one feel safe (security theatre as it is called), however the police forces exists for some very good reasons.

annnnddd you really need to lay off the weed my man.
For every great movement, men like you spoke similar words

Promoting people to fight for strength, empowerment, and independence is not crazy.

Supporting anything other than these things is what would be considered real insanity.

What are you, some kind of martyr?

Anarchism, simply does not work. Especially in Revolutionary Spain. The problem with a stateless society, is that the next state over will conquer it rather easily.

I suggest you read a history book or two on it.
Thank you for voting!
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:01:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 6:35:15 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Anarchism, simply does not work. Especially in Revolutionary Spain. The problem with a stateless society, is that the next state over will conquer it rather easily.

I suggest you read a history book or two on it.

Yes, I have read about a hundred history books. I actually have pitied this fact before, because my initial belief was that I had attained all this useless knowledge about history and had wasted my time.

In the two times a real modern anarchist society was attempted, it worked both in Ukraine and Catalonia. It does rely on the strength of the people to organize and fight for their independence.

Anarchist revolutions work no differently than other revolutions. It requires collective force to reject the oppressors, and it can be done. Read the first quote in my signature too.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 2:58:34 PM, TBR wrote:
You may have the device, but when you want to use it on our collective network, you are subject to the risks.
None of this obligatory nonsense again. Your belief that societies have rules and obligations is bullshitt. Society is nothing more than a collective of people, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate yourself from this collective, whether you live as a freedom driven nomad or a self righteous trotskyist.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:06:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wish the idiots who know nothing of classical anarchist literature, at least knew the difference between abolishing authority and abolishing all social interactions.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 1:22:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
I like how people agree that the government sucks, and caters to big business instead of the common man, but still want to keep it, and in most cases want to extend the size and scope of it's powers. Whenever you support or vote for a politician that wants to add new laws, regulatory organizations or new things to the government as opposed to taking those things away, you're acting in a treasonous way.

It isn't treason. The constitution supports this kind of behavior.

These people are definitely acting self righteous, and/or ignorant.

Self righteous for convincing themselves that they actually care about the collective, and/or ignorant if they choose to see the world as a collective rather than from an individual or bloodline based view.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:01:32 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/19/2015 6:35:15 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Anarchism, simply does not work. Especially in Revolutionary Spain. The problem with a stateless society, is that the next state over will conquer it rather easily.

I suggest you read a history book or two on it.

Yes, I have read about a hundred history books. I actually have pitied this fact before, because my initial belief was that I had attained all this useless knowledge about history and had wasted my time.

In the two times a real modern anarchist society was attempted, it worked both in Ukraine and Catalonia. It does rely on the strength of the people to organize and fight for their independence.

Except, that the Ukranians lose it in the 1905 revolution, and Franco takes over Catlonia with ease.

Not to mention the defeat of Nestor Makhno's army by the white army.

Its over dude. If it had worked, both states would continue to be stateless. They aren't because frankly anarchism doesn't account for the aggression of other states.

Anarchist revolutions work no differently than other revolutions. It requires collective force to reject the oppressors, and it can be done. Read the first quote in my signature too.

Given the history of those anarchists, clearly it cannot.
Thank you for voting!
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:17:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:11:33 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Except, that the Ukranians lose it in the 1905 revolution
So it is you who needs to read the history book, because when anarchists discuss Ukraine, they immediately know that the discussion is about the Free State formulated during the Russian Revolution.

Given the history of those anarchists, clearly it cannot.

Nestor Makhno and the Black Army held off the Soviets and White Army for three years through the use of force, against overwhelmingly larger forces.

Force is the only currency that counts in a revolution. Force is not exclusive to any ideology. Force can create an anarchist nation absent of an authoritative body, just as easily as it can create a dictatorship like Franco put into power in Catalonia after defeating ARMED and ORGANIZED anarchist rebels.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:17:49 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/19/2015 7:11:33 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Except, that the Ukranians lose it in the 1905 revolution
So it is you who needs to read the history book, because when anarchists discuss Ukraine, they immediately know that the discussion is about the Free State formulated during the Russian Revolution.

Given the history of those anarchists, clearly it cannot.

Nestor Makhno and the Black Army held off the Soviets and White Army for three years through the use of force, against overwhelmingly larger forces.

Force is the only currency that counts in a revolution. Force is not exclusive to any ideology. Force can create an anarchist nation absent of an authoritative body, just as easily as it can create a dictatorship like Franco put into power in Catalonia after defeating ARMED and ORGANIZED anarchist rebels.

Keep dreaming.

You eventually have to answer why no one country is anarchist right now, including those who attempted it.

The answer is simple: it doesn't work.
Thank you for voting!
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:26:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:21:33 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
You eventually have to answer why no one country is anarchist right now, including those who attempted it.
That is a fallacy, not an argument.

Like the quote I told you to read says...
"Is anarchism possible? The failures of men to attain freedom does not mean the cause is lost." - Joann Most

The answer is simple: it doesn't work.

Baseless.

Keep dreaming? Okay, I will continue believing that the values of absolute freedom and equality can be won over authority.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 8:37:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:05:05 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/19/2015 2:58:34 PM, TBR wrote:
You may have the device, but when you want to use it on our collective network, you are subject to the risks.
None of this obligatory nonsense again. Your belief that societies have rules and obligations is bullshitt. Society is nothing more than a collective of people, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate yourself from this collective, whether you live as a freedom driven nomad or a self righteous trotskyist.

Dance like always. What, in anarchy, protects you from any intrusion into your traffic on another network? Nothing. Anyone living "by their own merits" can't possibly use a network that they did not build. As soon as they choose to USE the works of another, the control is not theirs - it is the very government you despise that protect anything. In your world, any company could suck the data for any reason they like
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:49:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:37:01 PM, TBR wrote:
Dance like always. What, in anarchy, protects you from any intrusion into your traffic on another network? Nothing. Anyone living "by their own merits" can't possibly use a network that they did not build. As soon as they choose to USE the works of another, the control is not theirs - it is the very government you despise that protect anything. In your world, any company could suck the data for any reason they like

Sorry mate, but sometimes your posts are not that expressive or articulate, so I am left wondering what you were attempting to say.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:55:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:49:55 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:37:01 PM, TBR wrote:
Dance like always. What, in anarchy, protects you from any intrusion into your traffic on another network? Nothing. Anyone living "by their own merits" can't possibly use a network that they did not build. As soon as they choose to USE the works of another, the control is not theirs - it is the very government you despise that protect anything. In your world, any company could suck the data for any reason they like

Sorry mate, but sometimes your posts are not that expressive or articulate, so I am left wondering what you were attempting to say.

Sorry, I was drinking. What I meant to say is you are a cowardly conservative who can't possibly justify your use of society's resources. You assume that you can "make it on your own" without any rational thought about what that means. You dismiss the accomplishments of the society you live in, and arrogantly dismiss its benefits.

Basicly, you are a giant hypocritical a$$. Calling others names while using the very tools of the society you despise.