Slashdot Mirror

The thread was about terrorism. Both are terrorists.

Actually, that's debatable — but irrelevant. We were discussing, whether the Irish terrorists were motivated by religion or other sentiment(s).

Out of the blue you switch the topic to Jews, claiming, incorrectly, that they were the first terrorists.

Even stipulating for a second, that targeting an occupier's administration is still terrorism, there certainly have been acts of terrorism before that. Your claim, that the Jews, somehow, were the first, was wrong. False. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Four Pinocchios. Full Stop.

And, of course, it was and remains off-topic. We are done here.

Diplomacy worked with the IRA.

Scores of people remain in prison — kept there on pain of violents.

you're wrong because the IRA advertised religious, not nationalist rhetoric

Now you are talking — back on topic again. Of course, you offer no citations and I'm already too tired of your lies, exaggerations, and topic-switching attempts. As I said, we are done here...

No it doesn't. That's like saying, "getting a job to stay alive is an endorcement of US capitalism, even though the only other options are starving or illegal activity (which can result in very nasty side affects)".

As for the quote, it's from the Unix fortune cookie program. Do a search, you can find it in lots of places.

The point is though, that just because I use tech, doesn't mean I support or endorse capitalism, the state, or any other damn thing associated with the production of the tech. Sure, maybe the "Western" should be dropped. I'll take that into consideration.

If you want to discuss this further, feel free to head over to RevLeft, make an account, and start a thread (in the Opposing Ideologies section at a guess, unless you are a leftist of some sort). Oh, that's a referrer link, I don't get anything from that except knowing how many people signed up because of it. If you really don't like it, just remove it. (I only mention that 'cause some person got uppity once.)

Actually the idea of "no platform" has got nothing about words hurting ears, and a lot to do with actions hurting people.

For a discussion, start reading this thread The Philosophy of Anti-fascism at RevLeft.

No Plaformism rejects the right of fascists to organise, because they are a menace.

Anyway, lots of anti-fa types (including myself), reject any and all government censorship, but at the same time support community efforts to fight fascism and racism.

Anyway, so I guess you support the right of fascists, and other scum (inc. the KKK in the USA), to organise, go around encouraging violence against "non-whites" and even beating up "immigrants" (many of whom were born in the country, and who's parents were born in the country). ). (The sort of violence I'm talking about happens a lot in the UK and other parts of Europe.)

Anti-Fa opposes fascists because their actions are dangerous, not their words.

So funny, on RevLeft there is a "socialist" who argues the opposite. That the "Green movement" is a capitalist plot.

I guess crazy people exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

Some examples of the brillient mind of "VanGuard1917" can be found in the thread Recession = good for the environment?.

Only if you accept the false premise that there is something anti-capitalist about environmentalism could you possibly mistake a Marxist attack on environmentalism with support for capitalism.

Those of us who recognise that environmentalism is infact a bourgeois ideology know full well that criticising environmentalism is central to a critique of contemporary capitalism.

And i 'mention socialism' frequently. For me, a socialist critique of capitalism (which criticises capitalism for holding back material progress) is the direct opposite of environmentalist apologism for capitalism.

Another good quote is from the thread Is scarcity a myth?

Ideological emphasis of 'scarcity' has long been part and parcel of capitalist politics. Capitalism takes scarcity as its starting point and bourgeois ideologues construct their ideological defence of the capitalist system on that basis. Scarcity, it is argued, is an eternal condition which cannot be overcome, meaning that the market is needed to regulate consumption.

Socialists, on the other hand, point out that material scarcity has historical social and economic causes, that capitalism maintains scarcity, and that the historical aim of socialism is to overcome scarcity through the advancement of the productive forces of society.

Please note, I think you are both wrong.

------

As to the subject of terraforming, I think that it is obvious that humans can terraform a planet. Maybe not in a predictable manner, but it is certainly possible. Humans as a species have done a heck of a lot of damage to ecosystems around the world, and are pumping out so much carbon dioxide ... You know the rest.

So funny, on RevLeft there is a "socialist" who argues the opposite. That the "Green movement" is a capitalist plot.

I guess crazy people exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

Some examples of the brillient mind of "VanGuard1917" can be found in the thread Recession = good for the environment?.

Only if you accept the false premise that there is something anti-capitalist about environmentalism could you possibly mistake a Marxist attack on environmentalism with support for capitalism.

Those of us who recognise that environmentalism is infact a bourgeois ideology know full well that criticising environmentalism is central to a critique of contemporary capitalism.

And i 'mention socialism' frequently. For me, a socialist critique of capitalism (which criticises capitalism for holding back material progress) is the direct opposite of environmentalist apologism for capitalism.

Another good quote is from the thread Is scarcity a myth?

Ideological emphasis of 'scarcity' has long been part and parcel of capitalist politics. Capitalism takes scarcity as its starting point and bourgeois ideologues construct their ideological defence of the capitalist system on that basis. Scarcity, it is argued, is an eternal condition which cannot be overcome, meaning that the market is needed to regulate consumption.

Socialists, on the other hand, point out that material scarcity has historical social and economic causes, that capitalism maintains scarcity, and that the historical aim of socialism is to overcome scarcity through the advancement of the productive forces of society.

Please note, I think you are both wrong.

------

As to the subject of terraforming, I think that it is obvious that humans can terraform a planet. Maybe not in a predictable manner, but it is certainly possible. Humans as a species have done a heck of a lot of damage to ecosystems around the world, and are pumping out so much carbon dioxide ... You know the rest.

I call myself an "adjective free anarchist", and accept individualists as being equally anarchistic as "anarcho-communists". I reject "anarcho"-capitalism as being actually anarchistic, because they seek to enable an economic situation where hierarchy can exist. And, the way I see anarchism, it is a rejection of hierarchy and oppression.

I don't see anything wrong with voluntarily signing up to have a boss or whatever, but I don't see why anyone would. (And if anyone tries to enforce a worker-boss relationship, then that stops being anarchistic there as well.)

Have a browse around RevLeft, you may be interested in this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/organic-revolution-and-t91249/index.html which is a debate between two "Commie Club" members (i.e. they are "respected" members of the site, and have a say in how it is run, I was in the CC, but I left voluntarily due to various issues) regarding Individualist Anarchism. There is also the response thread from other members http://www.revleft.com/vb/organic-revolution-and-t92045/index.html in which I object to both posters.

If you can find yourself agreeing with either of the two debtors, or with me, then you could find a place on RevLeft. Hope to see you joining up.

I call myself an "adjective free anarchist", and accept individualists as being equally anarchistic as "anarcho-communists". I reject "anarcho"-capitalism as being actually anarchistic, because they seek to enable an economic situation where hierarchy can exist. And, the way I see anarchism, it is a rejection of hierarchy and oppression.

I don't see anything wrong with voluntarily signing up to have a boss or whatever, but I don't see why anyone would. (And if anyone tries to enforce a worker-boss relationship, then that stops being anarchistic there as well.)

Have a browse around RevLeft, you may be interested in this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/organic-revolution-and-t91249/index.html which is a debate between two "Commie Club" members (i.e. they are "respected" members of the site, and have a say in how it is run, I was in the CC, but I left voluntarily due to various issues) regarding Individualist Anarchism. There is also the response thread from other members http://www.revleft.com/vb/organic-revolution-and-t92045/index.html in which I object to both posters.

If you can find yourself agreeing with either of the two debtors, or with me, then you could find a place on RevLeft. Hope to see you joining up.

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal...

Don't be fooled this election won't change anything.

----

Let's have a looked at some of the differences between the parties shall we?
Republicrats, want to bomb Iraq, bomb Afghanistan

Democans, want to bomb Iraq (but say they won't do it for quite so long), and bomb Afghanistan

Republicrats, want to keep the same shitty capitalist system which oppresses the vast majority of people, and want to keep making the rich richer
Democans, want to keep the same shitty capitalist system which oppresses the vast majority of people, and want to keep making the rich richer

And to make the point even clearer,

For all the "Obama is the lesser evil, McCain is the devil!" people:
During the debate, Obama went out of his way to state his agreement with John McCain no less than 11 times. On issue after issue, whether it be foreign policy, the economy, Obama concurred with the "evil Republican" McCain repeatedly ad-nauseum.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-obama-lesser-t90625/index.html

Pick one, I don't care. But don't start crying because the one you picked got elected and is screwing you over. (And don't start crying that the one you picked didn't get elected either, by voting you agree to support whomever got elected.)

Damn, I just moderated so rather then post non-anon, I'll just post anon.

I think of that Carmack guy, who wrote Doom and Quake. I think of Billy G, who isn't famous for writing code exactly (or at least not only because of that).

Richard Stallman and Linus "rare Finnish/Swedish name" both come to mind.

I'm having trouble thinking of the name of the SAMBA dude, and what are the names of the two Google founders?

And that's about it. I've run out of ideas.

apathy maybe.

Here is a radical idea, how about don't vote? I originally posted this in various posts on RevLeft (my "homepage"), and in that context. However, most of the messages in here count for everyone. In short: your vote doesn't count, and when you vote you are telling "the system" that you support the person and everything they stand for.

------
Basically, it doesn't matter who *you* vote for, your vote doesn't count. It is one vote out of thousands, and with the shitty system (first past the post in most places, along with the electoral college), it doesn't mean shit.

OK, so assuming you *do* vote (for whatever fucked up reason you justify to yourself), and you vote for "Obama". You just endorsed capitalism, the state, Christianity, and a whole lot more bullshit. You just supported all Obama's of policies on every single issue. Even if you didn't mean to (the USA presidential system democratic? Not even the term "representative democracy" makes sense in this case).

OK, so don't vote, and the politicians say, people are happy with the status quo. However, we all know that is bullshit, especially in this case where the present president cannot be re-elected. The reasoning behind the claim is totally flawed. To not vote, does not endorse the status quo, because the status quo is changing! OK, what about not voting as "accepting the system"? Yeah, if you vote you are endorsing the system and whomever gets elected, and by not voting the same... Actually, only the first is the case. Not voting depends on your motivation, and when I don't vote I'm objecting (even if only close friends and family know that I don't vote and the reason why).

OK, lets examine burning a tire on the hireway. What does it do? Well, it might rate a mention in the local paper, and it is possible that it might be linked to anti-voting activity (anti-system). But it isn't about to bring about a revolution (but it will do a shit load more then [i]voting[/i] for any of the candidates, whether "socialist" or not). But, it could be fun, and it might cost the state a bit of cash.

But when since is voting fun? Especially when it means that (whether your vote is counted or not, and we all know how many votes aren't counted, whether because you are black or from a Democratic county, or because you foolishly used (or didn't have a choice in using) Diabold machines (regularly giving votes to Republicans and losing Democratic votes, every time) endorsing (tacitly and implicitly, even if not explicitly) a system that you are fundamentally against.

So yeah, if you are against the present system of exploitation etc., then use bullets, the ballots aren't going to change the system.

-----

The lesser of two evils is... evil.

If you are going to vote for evil, vote for Cthulhu, the greater evil.

-----

The rich will always be "the #1 heard voice in America", because they can buy access to politicians, to media, to judges whatever they want. Their vote is worth twice or more of yours.

[About Nader] Another old rich white heterosexual male. Have fun with that.

-----
From an old essay of mine http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-presidential-elections-t21651/index.html

However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule.

However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule.

The current US Presidential electoral process produces a weak mandate

It is accepted in the US by many political theorists that if a person does not vote, then they are happy with either the status quo or with whoever got elected. Generally from minorities, many people do not vote because th

Yeah, actually there are heaps of people who objected to the fencing off of common land, and now there are heaps of people who object to inheritance. I can't think of any good reasons for inheritance beyond a certain amount, and I fully support the community "inheriting" anything beyond that certain amount.

(In the present shitty system that would amount to what is sometimes called a "death tax", but it isn't a tax, because the dead stop being taxed when they die. Just like the dead stop having rights when they die.)

There have been some discussions of property and inheritance over at RevLeft.com

http://www.revleft.com/vb/inheritance-t34696/index.html
(Someone made a really good point in that thread, "There are [no arguments for inheritance]. Anyone who agrees with inheritance should also agree with reperations. After all, the slaves did work hard and their descendants should inherit money from the children whose white anscestors neglected to pay them."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/emergence-hereditary-upper-t46268/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-usage-conception-t51371/index.html

Yeah, actually there are heaps of people who objected to the fencing off of common land, and now there are heaps of people who object to inheritance. I can't think of any good reasons for inheritance beyond a certain amount, and I fully support the community "inheriting" anything beyond that certain amount.

(In the present shitty system that would amount to what is sometimes called a "death tax", but it isn't a tax, because the dead stop being taxed when they die. Just like the dead stop having rights when they die.)

There have been some discussions of property and inheritance over at RevLeft.com

http://www.revleft.com/vb/inheritance-t34696/index.html
(Someone made a really good point in that thread, "There are [no arguments for inheritance]. Anyone who agrees with inheritance should also agree with reperations. After all, the slaves did work hard and their descendants should inherit money from the children whose white anscestors neglected to pay them."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/emergence-hereditary-upper-t46268/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-usage-conception-t51371/index.html

Yeah, actually there are heaps of people who objected to the fencing off of common land, and now there are heaps of people who object to inheritance. I can't think of any good reasons for inheritance beyond a certain amount, and I fully support the community "inheriting" anything beyond that certain amount.

(In the present shitty system that would amount to what is sometimes called a "death tax", but it isn't a tax, because the dead stop being taxed when they die. Just like the dead stop having rights when they die.)

There have been some discussions of property and inheritance over at RevLeft.com

http://www.revleft.com/vb/inheritance-t34696/index.html
(Someone made a really good point in that thread, "There are [no arguments for inheritance]. Anyone who agrees with inheritance should also agree with reperations. After all, the slaves did work hard and their descendants should inherit money from the children whose white anscestors neglected to pay them."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/emergence-hereditary-upper-t46268/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-usage-conception-t51371/index.html

I'm not. I use this name on two places here (where it doesn't even turn up as the first link) and on http://www.revleft.com/ (which doesn't turn up on the first two pages).

It would be possible to work out who I really was just from that information, but it is probably difficult.

I use a different name everywhere else on the web, mostly common names or phrases. I don't sign into search, and I don't save my search preferences. I auto-delete cookies, and have JavaScript disabled (NoScript) on most places.

Of course, I'm not an uneducated member of the public. Bugger that hey.

Funny, with a handle like "Christian Anarchist", I would have thought you were an anarchist...

Funnily enough, I am. And I did suggest that the solution to all our identity "theft" problems was to get rid of capitalism and the state. (Just up the thread a bit).

Indeed, the problems you mention, and a heck of a lot more, are problems of government.

Anyway, just a final plug for this other board I goto... http://revleft.com/ you'll find lots of anarchists, Marxists, and various other sorts there. Fun place.

I'm an anarchist. I hate your civilisation, I want to destroy capitalism, states and all hierarchy.

My use of computers is an endorsement to a limited extent of technology, not "civilisation" (whatever that means...). See also my "blog" entry over at RevLeft on subject of "civilisation".

Basically, I love clean green technology (though I know computers aren't great in that regard, but the concept is great), but I hate the system of government, capitalism and so on. I'm also not interested in discussing this here, head over to http://www.revleft.com/ if you want to debate how capitalism is needed for technology (if you think it is), there are a few people who disagree.

I'm an anarchist. I hate your civilisation, I want to destroy capitalism, states and all hierarchy.

My use of computers is an endorsement to a limited extent of technology, not "civilisation" (whatever that means...). See also my "blog" entry over at RevLeft on subject of "civilisation".

Basically, I love clean green technology (though I know computers aren't great in that regard, but the concept is great), but I hate the system of government, capitalism and so on. I'm also not interested in discussing this here, head over to http://www.revleft.com/ if you want to debate how capitalism is needed for technology (if you think it is), there are a few people who disagree.

While it is certain if Nader had not been running, that many of the people who voted for him would have voted for Gore, many others would have voted for one of the Socialist candidates (who all received more then 500 votes each in Florida [Source Stupid White Men, M. Moore. (HyperColins Publishers Inc.: USA, 2001.) p.255]).

Please don't be fucking stupid. The whole think of the children shit is bullshit. Don't fear monger. The following is from a post I made at another forum (RevLeft.com) http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66768&v iew=findpost&p=1292321122 .

If nothing else, as I said earlier, most sexual abuse on children is by relatives and close family friends. It isn't by "paedophiles", but is rather simply opportunistic. The people we should be worried about are those who actually are abusive, not just those who have thoughts that maybe abusive (or maybe about consensual sex for all we know).
QUOTE (http://www.nncc.org/Abuse/sex.abuse.html)
Eighty-five percent of sexual assaults on children are committed by someone the child knows and usually trusts - an immediate family member, a relative, a neighbor, or a friend of the family.

QUOTE (http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/publications/Pub 1154text.asp)
In many cases reported in New York State and nationwide, children are sexually abused by people they know and trust - relatives (even parents or siblings), friends of the family, and authority figures (teachers, youth group leaders, clergy, etc.). Sexual abuse usually occurs in places where children feel comfortable or safe - at home or in the home of a family friend.

QUOTE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/your_kids/safety_s exual.shtml)
Sexual abuse is far more likely to be carried out by someone a child knows, such as a relative or friend of the family, than by a stranger. And sometimes older children abuse younger children.

And the USA is a "democratic and free country"? I for one think not. (And I've written an essay on why the presidents position in particular isn't democratic or particularly free, which can be found at a fine website.)

Also, bitch and moan about how the embargo has done absolutely nothing (except keep the "Miami Cubans" happy and voting for whichever party). Face it, the embargo has done nothing, the USA trades with regimes that are much worse (Saudi Arabia for example, and previously Iraq (where did they get those chemical weapons from again?)) and the UN has voted every year for ages to have it removed (with only ever about 3 or 4 countries (and normally two, can you guess which two?) opposing and a similar number abstaining I think). And you wonder why US foreign policy is hated around the world.

I can't speak on why RMS hasn't been publicised objecting to "nasty" regimes (though I wouldn't be surprised if he has said something...), but I can say that calling him a "lame hypocrite" is stupid. I'm glad the whole of the Free Software Movement is not like you.

You do realise that no president is ever elected by the people. (At least in the good ol' US of A.)

You have a little thing called the Electoral College.

See also my academic paper (which I just so happen to have put on a site called Revolutionary Left, though that doesn't detract from the quality at all!) on the matter over at RevLeft http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734. In it I talk far to much about the Electoral College.

Here is *my* experience. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60672&v iew=findpost&p=1292270782

I had had trouble with Debian and Knoppix before, but Ubuntu installed like a breeze. I admit I'm not your average computer user, having used GNOME/X/GNU/Linux for a few years now.

Once I had Internet (which as I mentioned required knowing the name of the network in the default install, at least as far as I could tell), I quickly installed a very nice tool called "Wifi-radar" which picks up networks and connects. A pity this isn't installed by default.

I recommend Ubuntu, and for people who aren't happy playing around or who don't have much experience, having a friend or other person who knows a bit to hold your hand might be the way to go.

I forgot to link to my university essay (which I published on a site called revolutionaryleft.com yes, just because it isn't posted on a scholarly site means it isn't scholarly) which explains why the USA is not a democracy. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734&h l=