When Were You Radicalized? | Renegade Cut

[BossAttack]

Wanna elaborate with specifics? Genuinely curious.

Click to shrink...

It'd take a lot of effort comprised of copious cites. But for example, "Iraq was for Oil" and Obama Droned Civilians are extremely reductive.

I can't take seriously people that fail to analyze and understands the nuances and causes of an issue but instead choose to resort to simplistic rationales that tend to fit into their worldview.

 

[Orb]

Was a super-conservative in high school. In my early 20s I started shifting more liberal. Around the time of GamerGate I started becoming more leftist. I literally joined DSA the day after the 2016 election. Now I'm... I don't know. Cynical? Disillusioned?

 

[Deleted member 4346]

Obama Droned Civilians

Click to shrink...

He did, though. And he knew it was wrong, which is why his administration deliberately obfuscated the casualty numbers. It's not reductive to point that out, because that's the truth.

 

[BossAttack]

He did, though. And he knew it was wrong, which is why his administration deliberately obfuscated the casualty numbers. It's not reductive to point that out, because that's the truth.

Click to shrink...

*sigh*

As I said, I'm not free to get into such a debate now. The reductionism is not in the fact civilian casualties exist, its why they occurred in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

It'd take a lot of effort comprised of copious cites. But for example, "Iraq was for Oil" and Obama Droned Civilians are extremely reductive.

I can't take seriously people that fail to analyze and understands the nuances and causes of an issue but instead choose to resort to simplistic rationales that tend to fit into their worldview.

Click to shrink...

Hm, OK. I mean "Iraq was for Oil" is true to some degree while also not being the ONLY reason the US invaded Iraq (there were really not any good reasons though), so I get where you are coming from there. I think people use that as a shorthand for saying that the Iraq war was illegitimate and wrong, but you are right that saying it was all about oil is reductive.

"Obama droned civilians" is an objective fact so I don't see that as reductive at all. Sometimes the Obama admin specifically designated civilian targets, they also defined enemy combatants as loosely as "any male in x geographic region ages 14-45" in order to massively obfuscate civilian deaths. These were intentional decisions, not mistakes. The drone issue is not simplistic by any means but it's a complex issue with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Obama admin knowingly used drone strikes on civilian polulations quite regularly. Nothing reductive about that.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

*sigh*

As I said, I'm not free to get into such a debate now. The reductionism is not in the fact civilian casualties exist, its why they occurred in the first place.

Click to shrink...

They occurred because the administration wanted to "get their man" every time and they were willing to accept high levels of collateral civilian casualties in order to do so. Where's the reductionism there?

I don't think anyone is asserting Obama was like...picking off civilians for fun as if it were a turkey shoot or something. However, they were clearly OK with civilian casualties when it came to striking targets, knew that the resulting high civilian casualties would look bad/bring international attention to the strikes, and thus obfuscated the numbers of civilian casualties. We are talking about war crimes here.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

*sigh*

As I said, I'm not free to get into such a debate now. The reductionism is not in the fact civilian casualties exist, its why they occurred in the first place.

Click to shrink...

I really, really would like to see this argument.

(In large part because I think this is an attempt to hint at victim-blaming rhetoric you're afraid to outright say because you'd catch heat, if not worse, for posting)

 

[Deleted member 22750]

He did, though. And he knew it was wrong, which is why his administration deliberately obfuscated the casualty numbers. It's not reductive to point that out, because that's the truth.

Click to shrink...

USA uses private contractors at insanely high numbers.

So......Not only do they cook the books you don't see the contractor #s.

 

[RadzPrower]

I mean, let's be real, everyone in America was radicalized from birth, right? Not necessarily radicalized in the sense of counter to the culture, society, and government, but rather that we were brainwashed or forced into a system that, as he repeated, was "functioning as intended" despite it having clear "flaws".

 

[Orb]

I mean, let's be real, everyone in America was radicalized from birth, right? Not necessarily radicalized in the sense of counter to the culture, society, and government, but rather that we were brainwashed or forced into a system that, as he repeated, was "functioning as intended" despite it having clear "flaws".

Click to shrink...

It retrospect I always find it incredibly fucked how I was made to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day.

 

[Deleted member 7130]

During the latest primary. I started off favoring Warren, then Bernie. Then one day, I listened to Richard Wolff and he described communism and capitalism. Communism as an alternative to capitalism trying to achieve a more equitable society. He also said Africans were enslaved for others to profit from sugar and cotton... and then it all clicked. I was on my way to being communist. Suddenly Bernie was my compromise candidate from the left.

 

[Deleted member 31817]

It'd take a lot of effort comprised of copious cites. But for example, "Iraq was for Oil" and Obama Droned Civilians are extremely reductive.

I can't take seriously people that fail to analyze and understands the nuances and causes of an issue but instead choose to resort to simplistic rationales that tend to fit into their worldview.

Click to shrink...

Bullshit. They're more complex than that sure but they're both terrible fucking things that no sane person should ever defend. Yet they do.

 

[Deleted member 31817]

*sigh*

As I said, I'm not free to get into such a debate now. The reductionism is not in the fact civilian casualties exist, its why they occurred in the first place.

Click to shrink...

What good reason do you have for double-tapping first responders, blowing up a hospital, droning al-Awlaki and his son etc.

Please respond whenever you're free to actually do so :)

 

[Deleted member 4346]

*sigh*

As I said, I'm not free to get into such a debate now. The reductionism is not in the fact civilian casualties exist, its why they occurred in the first place.

Click to shrink...

I'd be interested in your argument here. I also wonder how you'd explain the "why" of the Obama "double-tap" policy which was targeted DIRECTLY at civilian first-responders. The geopolitical value of drones strikes, and overall justification of the program as desirable because it has the potential to minimize American casualties, I think could be characterized as a complex set of issues, but what I posted is pretty clear-cut fact.

 

[Equippedwithtowel]

I was radicalized in the wake of 2016. I kind of followed American politics from a distance and trusted the process. That was a mistake. Then you actually read some history and you realize that we've been circling the civilizational drain since WWI and we're heading for the super fun techno-dystopia phase.

if that won't radicalize you what will?

 

[dabig2]

Don't know the actual crystallization point for me, but I usually consider this 2012 post from me on Gaf in a thread asking why it was so left-leaning as sorta the starting point for where I'm at now:

What the fuck does "left" even mean in context of America and GAF at large? Virtually all of the Democrats in power today are center-right.

Obama himself is a centrist, corporatist, authoritarian individual whose biggest accomplishment is enacting the Conservative version of "universal healthcare".

No, Gaf isn't left leaning per se. It's just that the line in the center has been drastically shifting more and more to the right for 20+ years now (don't get me started on the "liberal" Bill Clinton...)

So again I ask, what the fuck does left mean?

Click to shrink...

I was still an Obama supporter and Dem supporter for years to come after, but I was clearly fed up by that point.

And then as climate change continued to heat up in the 2010s, I became even more radicalized against this status quo of feeble agendas and climate change plans that amount to nothing more than hopes and prayers.

Now that I think about it, climate change is probably the biggest radicalizer for me. Obama and the Yemen humanitarian disaster are probably next. And then Dubya presidency being followed by Obama and then followed by Trump and watching in real-time as our systems and laws utterly fail to protect us would also be up there. It's a process.

Bullshit. They're more complex than that sure but they're both terrible fucking things that no sane person should ever defend. Yet they do.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. I can't imagine defending Obama's first drone strike for example, which happened 3 days after his inauguration. I don't think the victims find all of this very complex.

Victim of Obama's first drone strike: 'I am the living example of what drones are'

Faheem Qureshi was 14 when a drone attack on his home left him with horrific injuries, several family members dead and his dreams for the future in tatters

www.theguardian.com

Faheem Qureshi's uncles sat with their neighbors, chatting, cracking jokes and sipping tea, in their family's lounge for male guests. Qureshi, almost 14, stood nearby, bored and restless, thinking about when he could go to the nearby playground where he and the other Ziraki village kids played badminton and cricket.

It had been a long day – Friday prayers, a food shopping errand at his mother's behest, hosting – but also a happy occasion, as people stopped by to welcome an uncle home to North Waziristan, in tribal Pakistan, from a work excursion to the United Arab Emirates. Then he heard a sound like a plane taking off.

Click to shrink...

About two seconds later, the missile punched a hole through the lounge. Qureshi remembers feeling like his body was on fire. He ran outside, wanting to throw water on his face, but his priority was escape. The boy could not see.

This was the hidden civilian damage from the first drone strike Barack Obama ever ordered, on 23 January 2009, the inauguration of a counter-terrorism tactic likely to define Obama's presidency in much of the Muslim world. It was the third day of his presidency.

Reportedly, the strikes did not hit the Taliban target Obama and the Central Intelligence Agency sought. Instead, they changed Qureshi's life irrevocably.

It took nearly 40 days for Qureshi to emerge from a series of hospitals, all of which he spent in darkness. Shrapnel had punctured his stomach. Lacerations covered much of his upper body. Doctors operated on the entire left side of his body, which had sustained burns, and used laser surgery to repair his right eye. They could not save his left.

Click to shrink...

All Qureshi knows about Obama, he told the Guardian from Islamabad, "is what he has done to me and the people in Waziristan, and that is an act of tyranny. If there is a list of tyrants in the world, to me, Obama will be put on that list by his drone program."

Seven years to the day after the strike, Qureshi has never received so much as an admission from the US that it happened. The CIA declined comment for this article, deferring to the White House. Although Obama expressed "profound regret" for a 2015 drone strike on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that killed two western hostages, the White House would not comment on "specific cases", said a National Security Council spokesman, Ned Price.

Click to shrink...

I legitimately want someone to defend the above bullshit and tell this man, robbed of his childhood and some family, that it's just a super complex problem with many reasons as to why it had to happen and that Obama is still a swell guy with good intentions.
Defend the murders of at least 20 innocent civilians just enjoying their day.
Defend the years of excuses and pretending that it even didn't happen aka cover-up.

And then in context of this drone strike and all the others where we regularly murdered impoverished brown civilians unlucky enough to be born into a region that we helped turn into hell, I'd love to hear others defend Obama saying "Turns out I'm really good at killing people, 'Didn't know that was going to be a strong suit of mine." during his reelection campaign like a fucking sociopath serial killer.

Cause I've always been interested in seeing how far the depravity goes. I'm used to it with Repubs, but there are plenty of smiling fox allies out there still pretending that they're simply decent people in an indecent world; Obama still very much one of those deluded people.

 

[Famassu]

It'd take a lot of effort comprised of copious cites. But for example, "Iraq was for Oil" and Obama Droned Civilians are extremely reductive.

I can't take seriously people that fail to analyze and understands the nuances and causes of an issue but instead choose to resort to simplistic rationales that tend to fit into their worldview.

Click to shrink...

He doesn't say Iraq was ONLY for oil, it's just the obvious example, but he does point out it was for US interests in general & based on nothing but lies (not faulty intel, deliberate lies). You can't deny the US has a hard-on for wanting to be a hegemony overseeing big portions of the world. And Obama did run on promises of ending all kinds of atrocities, yet he didn't and even did worse in some aspects. Not all of it was the Republicans blocking his efforts.

 

[Weltall Zero]

A very touching, relatable, and alarming video. I'm not into anarchy, though. I almost feel like he ruined his whole point with that ending.

Click to shrink...

I think the core issue is that people are using "anarchy" to mean two different things:
- The original meaning, "dismantle any authority or control systems forever".
- A relatively recent meaning of "dismantle the current authority and control systems" (and presumably replace them with something else).

There's issues with both stances, however.
- The first one is self-obviously catastrophic and is only really espoused by two groups: naive teens that really haven't give it much thought, and non-naive anarchocapitalists who seek to increase the money gap, not reduce it, by getting these pesky state regulations, taxes and social policies out of the way of complete subjugation of the poor through money and goods.
- The second one tends not to concern itself too much with explaining in detail what the "something else" is, and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent it from being just as corrupted system as the current one simply through the natural properties of power, like accretion and self-preservation.

 

[Deleted member 4783]

I think the core issue is that people are using "anarchy" to mean two different things:
- The original meaning, "dismantle any authority or control systems forever".
- A relatively recent meaning of "dismantle the current authority and control systems" (and presumably replace them with something else).

There's issues with both stances, however.
- The first one is self-obviously catastrophic and is only really espoused by two groups: naive teens that really haven't give it much thought, and non-naive anarchocapitalists who seek to increase the money gap, not reduce it, by getting these pesky state regulations, taxes and social policies out of the way of complete subjugation of the poor through money and goods.
- The second one tends not to concern itself too much with explaining in detail what the "something else" is, and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent it from being just as corrupted system as the current one simply through the natural properties of power, like accretion and self-preservation.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, but don't talk about Anarchism if you HAVE 0 KNOWLEDGE about it. Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 31817]

Don't know the actual crystallization point for me, but I usually consider this 2012 post from me on Gaf in a thread asking why it was so left-leaning as sorta the starting point for where I'm at now:


I was still an Obama supporter and Dem supporter for years to come after, but I was clearly fed up by that point.

And then as climate change continued to heat up in the 2010s, I became even more radicalized against this status quo of feeble agendas and climate change plans that amount to nothing more than hopes and prayers.

Now that I think about it, climate change is probably the biggest radicalizer for me. Obama and the Yemen humanitarian disaster are probably next. And then Dubya presidency being followed by Obama and then followed by Trump and watching in real-time as our systems and laws utterly fail to protect us would also be up there. It's a process.



Agreed. I can't imagine defending Obama's first drone strike for example, which happened 3 days after his inauguration. I don't think the victims find all of this very complex.

Victim of Obama's first drone strike: 'I am the living example of what drones are'

Faheem Qureshi was 14 when a drone attack on his home left him with horrific injuries, several family members dead and his dreams for the future in tatters

www.theguardian.com

I legitimately want someone to defend the above bullshit and tell this man, robbed of his childhood and some family, that it's just a super complex problem with many reasons as to why it had to happen and that Obama is still a swell guy with good intentions.
Defend the murders of at least 20 innocent civilians just enjoying their day.
Defend the years of excuses and pretending that it even didn't happen aka cover-up.

And then in context of this drone strike and all the others where we regularly murdered impoverished brown civilians unlucky enough to be born into a region that we helped turn into hell, I'd love to hear others defend Obama saying "Turns out I'm really good at killing people, 'Didn't know that was going to be a strong suit of mine." during his reelection campaign like a fucking sociopath serial killer.

Cause I've always been interested in seeing how far the depravity goes. I'm used to it with Repubs, but there are plenty of smiling fox allies out there still pretending that they're simply decent people in an indecent world; Obama still very much one of those deluded people.

Click to shrink...

Great and depressing post. Still waiting on that explanation.

 

[Juan29.Zapata]

I think the core issue is that people are using "anarchy" to mean two different things:
- The original meaning, "dismantle any authority or control systems forever".
- A relatively recent meaning of "dismantle the current authority and control systems" (and presumably replace them with something else).

There's issues with both stances, however.
- The first one is self-obviously catastrophic and is only really espoused by two groups: naive teens that really haven't give it much thought, and non-naive anarchocapitalists who seek to increase the money gap, not reduce it, by getting these pesky state regulations, taxes and social policies out of the way of complete subjugation of the poor through money and goods.
- The second one tends not to concern itself too much with explaining in detail what the "something else" is, and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent it from being just as corrupted system as the current one simply through the natural properties of power, like accretion and self-preservation.

Click to shrink...

Do you want more resources about anarchism, or are you going to stay in the mainstream (and frankly wrong) definition of it?

 

[BBboy20]

Same, but for me it was a slow transition out of conservatism between 2006 and 2007 and then the leap into communism in 2008.

Click to shrink...

Like, I just stopped paying attention to politics after Bush's W until the 2008 election came around. Guess not being submerged in conservatism made me stop being one.

 

[Deleted member 75819]

I think the core issue is that people are using "anarchy" to mean two different things:
- The original meaning, "dismantle any authority or control systems forever".
- A relatively recent meaning of "dismantle the current authority and control systems" (and presumably replace them with something else).

There's issues with both stances, however.
- The first one is self-obviously catastrophic and is only really espoused by two groups: naive teens that really haven't give it much thought, and non-naive anarchocapitalists who seek to increase the money gap, not reduce it, by getting these pesky state regulations, taxes and social policies out of the way of complete subjugation of the poor through money and goods.
- The second one tends not to concern itself too much with explaining in detail what the "something else" is, and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent it from being just as corrupted system as the current one simply through the natural properties of power, like accretion and self-preservation.

Click to shrink...

This is very incorrect, I'd suggest doing some more reading by anarchists.

 

[Deleted member 23212]

Learning about drone strikes/US foreign policy is what radicalized me.

 

[Deleted member 7130]

Apparently I have a lot to learn about anarchy. I shall do some research and revisit this thread.

Click to shrink...

Thanks for keeping an open mind. The barrier for a lot of people is the popularized view they get from media about anarchy being synonymous with chaos and disorder. The reality is that anarchism has had overlap and common organization with communism. "Anarcho-communist" is a legitimate moniker. Dismantling hierarchies does not mean there has to be no organized society.

 

[collige]

Living in a district heavily gerrymandered by Democrats while watching them not really give too much of a shit about the hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised (mostly black) people near me in DC taught me pretty quickly that the system is pretty thoroughly fucked. That plus Obama "Deporter in Chief" shit, drone strikes, etc that other people have mentioned, but that was later.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Sorry, but don't talk about Anarchism if you HAVE 0 KNOWLEDGE about it. Thank you.

Click to shrink...

Do you want more resources about anarchism, or are you going to stay in the mainstream (and frankly wrong) definition of it?

Click to shrink...

This is very incorrect, I'd suggest doing some more reading by anarchists.

Click to shrink...

Three anarchists piling on my "lack of knowledge" (making a lot of assumptions about it), yet avoiding any specifics beyond "you're just wrong", "read more", nor citing any of the myriad, mutually contradicting anarchist thinkers they believe represents it. Such a microcosm of anarchism that it's almost poetic.

The truth is that anarchism concerns itself much more on what it's not (as befitting a theory whose very name is a "lack of"), but has considerably more trouble (and conveniently, puts much less energy in) agreeing on what, exactly, it is that replaces the state. This is, of course, because every theoretical implementation of anarchist society makes a number of naive and demonstrably wrong assumptions about human nature.

I'm beyond happy to read (either through posts here or links to someone else's description of it) what realistically funcioning and long-term incorruptible system the state should be replaced with. Let's see if the three of you manage to agree on what it is.

 

[How About No]

Three anarchists piling on my "lack of knowledge" (making a lot of assumptions about it), yet avoiding any specifics beyond "you're just wrong", "read more", nor citing any of the myriad, mutually contradicting anarchist thinkers they believe represents it. Such a microcosm of anarchism that it's almost poetic.

The truth is that anarchism concerns itself much more on what it's not (as befitting a theory whose very name is a "lack of"), but has considerably more trouble (and conveniently, puts much less energy in) agreeing on what, exactly, it is that replaces the state. This is, of course, because every theoretical implementation of anarchist society makes a number of naive and demonstrably wrong assumptions about human nature.

I'm beyond happy to read (either through posts here or links to someone else's description of it) what realistically funcioning and long-term incorruptible system the state should be replaced with. Let's see if the three of you manage to agree on what it is.

Click to shrink...

Good video series that envisions an anarchist society



Also worth reading Peter Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread if you haven't

 

[collige]

Good video series that envisions an anarchist society



Also worth reading Peter Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread if you haven't

Click to shrink...

This seems a little bit ironic when the video straight up says that telling people to read that book isn't very productive

 

[How About No]

This seems a little bit ironic when the video straight up says that telling people to read that book isn't very productive

Click to shrink...

It's a pretty easy and short read

 

[Xaszatm]

Three anarchists piling on my "lack of knowledge" (making a lot of assumptions about it), yet avoiding any specifics beyond "you're just wrong", "read more", nor citing any of the myriad, mutually contradicting anarchist thinkers they believe represents it. Such a microcosm of anarchism that it's almost poetic.

The truth is that anarchism concerns itself much more on what it's not (as befitting a theory whose very name is a "lack of"), but has considerably more trouble (and conveniently, puts much less energy in) agreeing on what, exactly, it is that replaces the state. This is, of course, because every theoretical implementation of anarchist society makes a number of naive and demonstrably wrong assumptions about human nature.

I'm beyond happy to read (either through posts here or links to someone else's description of it) what realistically funcioning and long-term incorruptible system the state should be replaced with. Let's see if the three of you manage to agree on what it is.

Click to shrink...

Jesus Christ this is so patronizing and insulting that quite frankly why should I respond to you? There is a discussion in that anarchy has multiple schools of thought, but with how you're acting, you seem to think Anarchy as nothing more as something only people who are naive should follow. You insulted anarchy by that, than double down and laughed at people who took offense. There cannot be any good faith discussion here.

 

[Deleted member 4783]

Three anarchists piling on my "lack of knowledge" (making a lot of assumptions about it), yet avoiding any specifics beyond "you're just wrong", "read more", nor citing any of the myriad, mutually contradicting anarchist thinkers they believe represents it. Such a microcosm of anarchism that it's almost poetic.

The truth is that anarchism concerns itself much more on what it's not (as befitting a theory whose very name is a "lack of"), but has considerably more trouble (and conveniently, puts much less energy in) agreeing on what, exactly, it is that replaces the state. This is, of course, because every theoretical implementation of anarchist society makes a number of naive and demonstrably wrong assumptions about human nature.

I'm beyond happy to read (either through posts here or links to someone else's description of it) what realistically funcioning and long-term incorruptible system the state should be replaced with. Let's see if the three of you manage to agree on what it is.

Click to shrink...

Oh noes, poor you being piled on because you were wrong about anarchism, and then being a dick when they told you that's not anarchism.

I wonder why no one wants to engage with someone who acts like this, and thinks anarchocapitalism (lol) is even a branch of anarchy...

Maybe drop the condecending tone, and put real effort in wanting to learn about it.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

What books should I read if I want to learn about anarchism? (besides Conquest of Bread)

 

[Weltall Zero]

Good video series that envisions an anarchist society



Also worth reading Peter Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread if you haven't

Click to shrink...

Thank you, will watch later. I would also like to know if the other people I replied to also agree with the vision of anarchy you posted.

Jesus Christ this is so patronizing and insulting that quite frankly why should I respond to you? There is a discussion in that anarchy has multiple schools of thought, but with how you're acting, you seem to think Anarchy as nothing more as something only people who are naive should follow. You insulted anarchy by that, than double down and laughed at people who took offense. There cannot be any good faith discussion here.

Click to shrink...

Then don't. I have no more interest in discussing ideas with people that feel insulted when they are challenged, than I have to discuss religion.

Oh noes, poor you being piled on because you were wrong about anarchism, and then being a dick when they told you that's not anarchism.

I wonder why no one wants to engage with someone who acts like this, and thinks anarchocapitalism (lol) is even a branch of anarchy...

Maybe drop the condecending tone, and put real effort in wanting to learn about it.

Click to shrink...

Literally added nothing to the discussion, so thank you, next.

 

[Xaszatm]

Thank you, will watch later. I would also like to know if the other people I replied to also agree with the vision of anarchy you posted.



Then don't. I have no more interest in discussing ideas with people that feel insulted when they are challenged, than I have to discuss religion.



Literally added nothing to the discussion, so thank you, next.

Click to shrink...

What you said was not a challenge. Lol anarachists are all naive is not a challenge. If I went "lol all moderates are just racists in disguise" is that a challenge? Or a cruel dismissal meant to piss off people? It's not accurate in the slightest and serves no purpose but to enrage people reading.

 

[Sketchsanchez]

You're being a shit head and you know it. Challenging doesn't mean being condescending.

 

[Deleted member 4783]

Literally added nothing to the discussion, so thank you, next.

Click to shrink...

That's rich coming from someone who mansplained Ketkat into a ban.

 

[Deleted member 4783]

You're being a shit head and you know it. Challenging doesn't mean being condescending.

Click to shrink...

If you are going to challenge something, at least come knowing something about the idea, and use a different tone.

He was not challenging shit.

 

[Sketchsanchez]

If you are going to challenge something, at least come knowing something about the idea, and use a different tone.

He was not challenging shit.

Click to shrink...

I originally wrote that before you posted, but I guess we were posting at the same time. That was directed at him. I totally agree with you.

 

[Weltall Zero]

You're being a shit head and you know it. Challenging doesn't mean being condescending.

Click to shrink...

Ideas do not deserve respect. I'm under no more obligation to respect the idea of anarchy that I do homeopathy, especially when there's the exact same amount of actual evidence of either working, and its adherents circle the wagons with the exact same "respect other's beliefs" whenever challenged.

Watching the video and it's downright embarrassing. Starting with "anarchy might work even though it's never been proven to work, because when the US invented democracy (!?!?) it was also a wild experiment (!?!?) and it worked!", to the usual 80% of the time devoted to explaining how the current systems are wrong (because apparently it needs to be explained) and 20% applause lights like "democracy" and "higher representation" without ever, ever explaining how to actually implement policies to achieve that.

Also LOL at seriously suggesting communes as a viable long-term basis for society in 2020.

 

[Deleted member 4783]

I originally wrote that before you posted, but I guess we were posting at the same time. That was directed at him. I totally agree with you.

Click to shrink...

:P all good mate!

 

[Xaszatm]

Ideas do not deserve respect. I'm under no more obligation to respect the idea of anarchy that I do homeopathy, especially when there's the exact same amount of actual evidence of either working, and its adherents circle the wagons with the exact same "respect other's beliefs" whenever challenged.

Watching the video and it's downright embarrassing. Starting with "anarchy might work even though it's never been proven to work, because when the US invented democracy (!?!?) it was also a wild experiment (!?!?) and it worked!", to the usual 80% of the time devoted to explaining how the current systems are wrong (because apparently it needs to be explained) and 20% applause lights like "democracy" and "higher representation" without ever, ever explaining how to actually implement policies to achieve that.

Also LOL at seriously suggesting communes as a viable long-term basis for society in 2020.

Click to shrink...

So, if ideas don't desrve respect, why take offense when people know you aren't respecting them?

 

[Deleted member 23212]

Ideas do not deserve respect. I'm under no more obligation to respect the idea of anarchy that I do homeopathy, especially when there's the exact same amount of actual evidence of either working, and its adherents circle the wagons with the exact same "respect other's beliefs" whenever challenged.

Watching the video and it's downright embarrassing. Starting with "anarchy might work even though it's never been proven to work, because when the US invented democracy (!?!?) it was also a wild experiment (!?!?) and it worked!", to the usual 80% of the time devoted to explaining how the current systems are wrong (because apparently it needs to be explained) and 20% applause lights like "democracy" and "higher representation" without ever, ever explaining how to actually implement policies to achieve that.

Also LOL at seriously suggesting communes as a viable long-term basis for society in 2020.

Click to shrink...

Are they viable? Who knows. Are they necessary? I'd say so, considering the rate that we're destroying our planet. It's not like I support communism because I just feel like it sounds cool, I support communism because I think it's the only way we're going to avoid completely disaster.

 

[Weltall Zero]

That's rich coming from someone who mansplained Ketkat into a ban.

Click to shrink...

... are you for fucking real right now?

So, if ideas don't desrve respect, why take offense when people know you aren't respecting them?

Click to shrink...

Why in the hell would you think I'm taking offense?

 

[Deleted member 3093]

Y'all, don't give Weltall the time of day. This is just what he does.

And yeah, Weltall, y'all got a big ol' mansplaining problem that you need to learn to not do.

 

[How About No]

Whyd I even bother lmao

 

[Deleted member 4783]

Y'all, don't give Weltall the time of day. This is just what he does.

Click to shrink...

Yup, what a waste of time.

 

[Xaszatm]

... are you for fucking real right now?



Why in the hell would you think I'm taking offense?

Click to shrink...

You responded in a way that was even more dismissive, said "typical" than started talking about how anarchists can't agree on anything. You want to talk about how Anarchy has multiple schools of thought? There is a legit discussion there. But nothing in your dismissive attitude indicated that you are even remotely interested in having that discussion. So yes, you took offense that others reacted negatively to your dismissive attitude.

 

[Deleted member 3093]

Anyway, my radicalization started during the second Obama admin, where it became apparent to me that liberals we're not entirely that different from conservatives. War, deportation, drone strikes, these were all things I witnessed during the Obama admin, and it made me realize that the party was not as far left as I wanted it to be.

I don't recall when I became anti-capitalist though.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Are they viable? Who knows. Are they necessary? I'd say so, considering the rate that we're destroying our planet. It's not like I support communism because I just feel like it sounds cool, I support communism because I think it's the only way we're going to avoid completely disaster.

Click to shrink...

The modern interpretation of communism is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from anarchism. Communism advocates for a stronger state than capitalism, while anarchism advocates for the opposite. If you're concerned with saving the planet (and you should), the only way is through a strong state that can effect STRONGER regulations on companies, not a weak or non-existent state that has no power to stop them.

You responded in a way that was even more dismissive, said "typical" than started talking about how anarchists can't agree on anything. You want to talk about how Anarchy has multiple schools of thought? There is a legit discussion there. But nothing in your dismissive attitude indicated that you are even remotely interested in having that discussion.

Click to shrink...

I'm not interested in that discussion because it's never-ending goalpost moving. You point out the immediately obvious flaws in one school of anarchism, then someone else comes along and says "well, there's this other school of though...". The point is that so far I have yet to find (and not for lack of searching, because, I get it, the idea is so enticing) even a single one that describes any society that makes any sense at all from an economical and political sense. Not in "this wouldn't be that good, but still probabl better than capitalism" sense (I'd be all to that), but in "this would obviously not work at all because it's trivially exploitable, and bad faith actors would immediately turn it into a dictatorship of the capital without the checks and balances of e.g. labour law".

Anarchism (and to a lesser extent, communism) hinges on the idea that there's no such thing as bad faith actors out to exploit them. Time has proven once and again that this is a supremely naive view; communism regimes inevitably turn into corrupt totalitarist states, while anarchy, being even more easily exploitable, never takes off the ground in any meaningful, large-scale way.

So yes, you took offense that others reacted negatively to your dismissive attitude.

Click to shrink...

I literally have no clue how you jumped from the paragraph above to this conclusion. I am not dismissive because I'm "offended" (and what the fuck is the deal with everyone else trying to prove that other people are offended online as if that won the argument?); I'm dismissive because anarchy is just that broken as a concept.