Slashdot Mirror
'Eco-Anarchists' Targeting Nuclear and Nanotech Workers
scibri writes, quoting Nature: "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists. A group calling itself the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa. The same group sent a letter bomb to a Swiss pro-nuclear lobby group in 2011; attempted to bomb IBM's nanotechnology laboratory in Switzerland in 2010; and has ties with a group responsible for at least four bomb attacks on nanotechnology facilities in Mexico. Another branch of the group attacked railway signals in Bristol, UK, last week in an attempt to disrupt employees of nearby defense technology firms (no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK's railways). A report by Swiss intelligence says such loosely affiliated groups are increasingly working together."
That bombs and guns are a product of science? Or is that part of their message - to destroy science with science? Fucking assholes.
I can't wait for Captain-Anti-Planet. Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Profit!
Some people fear what they don't want to understand....
It's only going to get worse.
At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK.
Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.
I would bet that the group is filled with not terribly tech-savvy people which means they're definitely going to get caught very quickly.
At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing ). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK. Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.
The author of "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" spends a few pages at the start of the essay stressing that he just means paranoid Style, not clinical paranoia, and that it is hardly limited to America, but has cropped up all over the world.
Well, it sure seems to be alive and well in Switzerland and Mexico, to name two places that have suffered these attacks. The rhetoric in the Mexican note, about nanotech, from the "ITS" ("Individuals Tending to Savagery", at least they're honest) rings with your standard conspiracy-theory stuff about it ending the world. The anti-nuclear rhetoric in the other is similar towards nuclear armageddon, with the deaths from the "European Fukushima" just around the corner. (Amazing how France has avoided them for 40 years of 77% nuke power generation).
From the original "paranoid style" essay:
"The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization . . . he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish." ...that pretty neatly explains how they can go around blowing up engineers and professors. Since the "paranoid style" essay has become popular again lately because it also jogs memories of some Tea Party fears about Obama taking away all guns or rounding up Christians into camps or whatever, it's worth noting that this is where that kind of thinking eventually takes you if pursued to a logical conclusion. The author also stresses that the "paranoid style" is not a left or right thing, but found on both sides.
What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing? Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
It's a great co-incidence that they decided to name it Olga like my ex-wife. Fitting name, really. Wonder if they will fail just as badly.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Funny they had to add "informal" in the name of their federation :)
How does anarchists organize a meeting btw?
Is it just me that finds the 'label' Eco-Anarchist' to be as blatant of an oxymoron as 'politically correct', 'Patriot Act', and 'military intelligence'?
I guess 'weasel wording' is the new trend....:-(
Eco-Anarchist......Hmmm...anarchy to the ecosystem?!?!?...does not make sense in the context of their stated goals.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Except to those who want to take away of what little freedom we have left.
Yes, we tried to organise a small anarchist community a few years ago... but people wouldn't follow the rules.
(Thank you, I'll be here all week)
FGD 135
Here's some of the ramblings from this anarchist group. Almost reads like the speech the bad guy gives in some C-level movie. I think next time I have to give a speech to my employees I'm going to start off with "human beings are made of flesh and dreams" and see if anyone laughs.
"Human beings are made of flesh and dreams. Our dream is that of a humanity free from every form of slavery, that grows in harmony with nature. A dream that we make live in the moment in which we fight to realize it. Our dream has for us a name, âoeanarchy,â and we are ready to gamble everything in order to realize it. We are not alone in this adventure, in the whole world a new anarchy is blossoming opposite of an ideological and cynical anarch-ism, an anarch-ism empty of any breath of life, which only finds its realization in theory and attendance at assemblies and manifestations, the whole cowardice of a citizenism that stinks of death. A new anarchy is rising from the ruins of this anarch-ism, thousands and thousands of cells that speak among each other through thousands and thousands of actions".
Anarchists stand for obolition of governments, these retards are simply ludite/eco terrorists. I say kill them all, kill all ludites and eco tree huggers. The world would be a better place.
...or does this story feel like something from the Deus Ex universe? Holy shit, it's the (dystopian) future!
A taste of their own medicine would resolve the issue handily.
Luddites are scum.
It'll probably just make me a target for making fun of them, but... IAFIRF? Really? And as long as we're picking, isn't "Informal" superfluous? What would a "Formal" Anarchist federation look like, anyway?
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
I see anarchism as a valid viewpoint but shooting random people doesn't create anarchism, at least not the kind you actually want. It just makes people think that all anarchists are stupid.
It is sad that we have so many people thinking they have profound understanding of things they actually know nothing about. It is actually slightly true that all things have a negative aspect but in the case of nano tech and nuclear power they can both do far more good than any harm likely to flow from them. A simple example if we had no nuclear power plants we would have far more coal power plants. The use of coal murders people in large numbers. Take a look at W. Virginia's official sites about fishing. One meal a year is the maximum of fish allowed in a diet in many streams and lakes while the rest is one meal every six months. In essence there is no place in W. Va. that coal has not loaded with mercury and lead to the extent that all surface water is now toxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites
The more we progress, the more we still get stupid ass people who are stuck in the mud of the past.
Yes, I'm talking about the movie and music industries, but it applies to these weirdo's also.
Be seeing you...
/soapbox/ when you send mail bombs and make assassination attempts you're a fucking terrorist. this whole pussy-footing around the label is horse shit. Calling a terrorist an 'anarchist' because you don't want to use the word terrorist is as horse-shit as saying only white people can be a racist and is right up there with calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant. Whats next? Calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmacists? Piss or get off the pot.. they're fucking terrorists. Anarchists reject organized authority and prefer mass chaos. An 'Eco-Anarchist' would be someone who would want to screw up the planet, not assassinate people to 'save' it from the big bad corporation or science. Calling them anything other than terrorists is a complete disservice to anarchists. I know a few anarchists and theyre hardly sending letter bombs and trying to assassinate people. They simply think that if we got rid of all the laws on the books people would step up and whip the shit out of their neighbors that get out of line and the problems would solve themselves. These eco-assholes are just terrorists of opportunity /endSoapbox/
These people are morons.
You are not a Anarchist when you are willing to use violence to force people to conform to your personal agenda. You are a Fascist.
What the OP called "cognitive dissonance" isn't limited to murderers, terrorists, and other violent basketcases. It extends even to relatively well-adjusted individuals. Take for example, Albert Einstein. Brilliant in formulating the Theory of Relativity, he resisted for a long time the idea of quantum chaos. "God does not play dice." These eco-anarchists might have the insight to see the dangers of science while being unable to the see consequences of their own actions.
When anarchist Émile Henry detonated a bomb in a cafe, people asked him
why he hurt so many innocent people. The psychopath replied
"..there are no innocent bourgeois."
This is indeed how anarchists think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Henry_(anarchist)
I normally oppose capital punishment,
but it is the only way to deal with these inhuman
scumbags.
Several of you have helpfully provided info and links to educate me on what 'Eco-Anarchists' were about.
I truly thank all of you for your desire and willingness to 'give a helping hand' to another. /. originally, and has kept me here.
That's the main thing that attracted me to
*the other shoe drops*
Most of this info I was aware of.
I was merely, and only, pointing out the trend in labeling getting more oxymoronic lately. At least that's how I see it.
Kudos for an informative and potentially helpful comment, nicely worded, concise, and polite. :-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
All of the common arguments for the normalisation
of homosexualism, such as "what consenting adults
do in their bed is neither right nor wrong" work equally
as well for polygamy, polyandry and incest.
So why the hypocrisy?
There is a general tendency for media world wide to call any group that isn't backed by some government or known major religion to be called anarchists when they engage in terrorist type activities
Do you have any evidence or at least a couple of examples of that?
http://www.ifatreefallsfilm.com/
Really good documentary on a few of the ELF arsons back in the day. I'd suggest it to anyone browsing these comments, looking for more.
The Eco- Anarchists are a bunch of pussy cowards. They refuse to target the hard targets like the people that club baby seals, oil companies, mines, etc.. I.E. people that are armed and have explosives.
They are nothing but a bunch of pussy thugs trying to harass people that are easy to harass.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In fact you don't want even one scientist ganging up against you. You know, the kind that gets into the dark side.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The blurb starts with "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists." But then one of the links is to Raytheon. By and large Raytheon does not have scientists working for it studying black holes and the like. It has engineers, and those engineers are designing missiles, to be used in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth. I see mention that eco-anarchists are launching violent attacks when they shut down train tracks, not much mention that engineers at Raytheon are involved in violent attacks all over the world.
Also the "nuclear engineering" executive mentioned in the blurb was working at Finmeccanica, another merchant in the death trade. He's an executive at another company in the death trade. Not a scientist, not even an engineer. Yet Nature headlines the article "Anarchists attack science".
There has been bombing, executions and sabotages against Iran's nuclear program. A nuclear power program which at one time the US establishment whole-heartedly endorsed. Why the hue and cry about an attack on a nuclear executive in Italy, which is an "attack on science", but not a word about this. Isn't shooting nuclear scientists in Iran an "attack on science"? Where are the articles on Slashdot, Nature and so forth bemoaning this?
It's just simple propaganda. An executive making money on explosives killing people is himself attacked. So the lie must come into play, it is an attack on science. Disrupting Raytheon's blood profits by shutting down railroads for a day are a violent attack on scientists.
From a moral standpoint, I have no problem with what these bombers and gunmen are doing. At best it would be justified, at worst it is simply eye-for-an-eye, tit-for-tat - one band of killers attacking another band of killers. I feel more secure that people are out there attacking Raytheon, Finmeccanica etc. executives than not. So mark that down, NSA listeners who are now monitoring domestically due to the Patriot Act.
While I feel it's certainly morally justified, or at least equivalent, from a tactical and strategic standpoint I don't see this as a necessary thing for the average American to do. There's plenty of legitimate and legal work that can be done - organization, education and the like, which is ultimately more effective. Even at Reagan's height HE was the one who had to go underground to fund Contras, not the domestic opposition to him. With elections, the first amendment, right to assemble and so forth still intact, I can't see much tactical or strategic reason for an American to do this sort of thing in the US. In Italy, with its history ( P2, Gladio, elections fixed by foreign powers) it may make more sense, I don't know the situation on the ground there as well. The people who lit bombs in the 1960s like Bill Ayers, Diana Oughton etc. were generally children of the wealthy, working class activists like the Black Panthers and other organizations were not at that level of militancy, they felt free breakfast programs and organization and education was the important thing.
These are luddite terrorists not anarchists. You can be an anarchist and not hate scientists. Their anti-science position has nothing to do with anarchism in the political sense of the word.
Some here have fallen under the spell that somehow environmentalist would associate themselves with these ghouls. eco-anarchist is an oxymoron.Look up the word anarchist in the dictionary -its nihilism and destruction of any organized system. Ecology is an organized thus the anti-thesis of anarchy.
BTW most 'environmentalists' are proponents of science and evidence based decision making.
Some here have fallen under the spell that somehow environmentalist would associate themselves with these ghouls. The term 'eco-anarchist' is an oxymoron.Look up the word anarchist in the dictionary -it's nihilism,refutation, and destruction of any organized system. Ecology is an organized system thus the anti-thesis of anarchy.
BTW most 'environmentalists' are proponents of science and evidence based decision making.
Do you blame the inventor of scalpels because someone used one in a murder? Scalpels are also used to save people. The products of scientific research can be used for good or evil. Control (and therefore, responsibility) is in the hands of the wealthy/powerful.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
These people in the Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front are just delusional idiots.
-- At least compared to the International Revolutionary Front of Anarchist Federations who really hate all these imperialist scientists (excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture).
If anarchists ruled the power plants, cities would go dark.
If Islam controlled the Louvre - will the Mona Lisa survive? One man's art is another man's idol...
http://memegenerator.net/instance/21120659
You do realize that by thinking the way you do you are only demonstrating that you are exactly like the people you hate, perhaps worse?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with surprise attacks on civilians meant to kill, then you and your enemy are the same, and so whomever wins, it makes no difference. no moral progress has been achieved
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with measured wisdom and forceful lawful action and political agitation, then you are morally superior to your enemy, and if you prevail in the court of public opinion and the resulting political will, then you have achieved moral progress
but killing war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists by surprise in civilian settings only makes you the moral equivalent of war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Bible was not originally written in English and all Englsh translations should be take with a grain of salt.
Translation in an absolute sense is of course not possible, especially between two languages as different as English and Classical Hebrew. People often naively assume that two separate words in Hebrew will isomorphically map to two distinct English words, eg, HRG to kill and RTsCh to murder. It isn't that easy.
It's "thou shalt not MURDER"
Not necessarily, no. Had you bothered actually to read the page you cite all the way to the end you would have found the author arguing something very different, namely: tempting though it might be to translate RTsCh as 'murder' ...
As usual careful study teaches us that what initially appeared ridiculously obvious is really much more complex than it seemed at first glance.
Indeed ...
[W]e may appreciate that the translation "thou shalt not kill" was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.
The real problem here, IMHO, is a desire to shoehorn the meaning of Hebrew words into a translation that will conveniently eliminate the apparent logical inconsistencies as to when the Tanakh proscribes and prescribes killing. But the Bible is not book, it's a library (and even each 'book' of the OT is not necessarily a book). Searching for logical consistency across an entire library is likely to be a thankless endeavour.
Libertarians and anarchists are rather far apart in philosophy. Do not confuse the two.
It makes perfect sense for anarchists to be blowing things up, none at all for libertarians.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
some Tea Party fears about Obama taking away all guns or rounding up Christians into camps
Those thoughts have nothing to do with the Tea Party. Some members may believe those things, but the Tea Party agenda is simply reduced spending, smaller government.
A far better example would have been Occupy and the rabid fears the large majority have about business and the police. That's because without a clear core message such as the Tea Party has, the extremists end up forming the core of your group instead of occupying the fringes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is video footage of the "masked black-clad men" you describe from a summit meeting in Montebello Quebec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1nHvvkzvA
They were later admitted to have been police, but nothing was done about it.
When we relatively soon will move from representative democracy to democracy, thanks to technological advances, there will be big changes. Some of them will truly be the people's wish and some of them will be stolen votes, like today.
Non-violence is simply not enough. What we need is more bombs and bullets. That's the language power speaks. But caveat emptor, governments and large corporations they serve possess a very large number of bombs and bullets.
For a healthier society there is a great need for bulletproof e-voting. And Wikileaks on our current corporate plutocratic masters. Then and only then we can judge the real merits of a democracy.
“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." Matthew 12:25b
I really hope they are not using this newfangled "Internet" thing to coordinate their attacks. Unless they are using devices with vacuum tubes only, the computers and cell phones they use are definitely products of nanotechnology -- the popular sense of 'nanotech' simply involves the application of the same Integrated Circuit fabrication technologies to MEMS (Micro Electro Mechanical) devices.
The idea that these devices will start self-reproducing has the same amount of credibility that computers will gain consciousness by themselves all of a sudden...
(Neither is necessarily impossible, but highly unlikely)
Just what the world needs. More dumb motherfuckers who think they know everything about everything and how the entire world should be run.
There should be a global task force to find these dog raping shit rags, and slit their useless throats on television. Caption: this is what happens to filthy, anti science sacks of pig shit. No fucking mercy for these scum. Brutal death only.
Shove your moral justificaton for murder up your godamned ass, and please kill yourself, you useless motherfucking psychopath.
Just a group of them, adding group hysteria to the pot of utter lunacy!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Try putting it this way "Isn't it ironic how police have to act legally even though the criminals have broken the law?". No, it's not even slightly ironic.
Irony would be if the anarchist group became so big they started electing leaders and created a constitution to govern their organisation.
Problem solved.
Thank You.
ironic captcha: menial
I'd say 'rounds to zero', but not actually zero. There ARE a few ways to get HIV other than sex; the blood supply SHOULD be clean(but vanishingly rare accidents do happen, there's yea old 'sharing needles', and the occasional cracked person (such as that dentist) trying to spread the infection.
There's a few other diseases that are 'mostly' spread sexually, but not always, as well.
I don't read AC A human right
Indeed. All the anarchists I know love science because advancements can help everyone be less reliant on each other.
Also, if you can't s/anarchist/hippie/ then they probably aren't anarchists.
...use violence.
Nobody wants to side with your goal anymore.
And those who do, are only there for the violence.
These... 'anarchists' are a handful of idiots, supplemented with warmongers.
I wonder howmany FBI agents the group consists of...
At least some one did notice.
Because we're talking about attacks of Nanotech and Nuclear workers, and you've just derailed a derailed Star War's meme joke with this Culture War bullshit.
Honestly, can we go three stories without some American Cult-War/Political derailing in the first thread. Can the mods please apply the "Offtopic" option instead of giving an "Interesting" rating to every random brain-fart?
And could people at least attempt to re-rail derailed threads back to the topic. For example: "Yeah Eco-anarchists. basically jerks who think their own views and options are more important than all other topics, and who will inject themselves drastically into even completely unrelated matters just to gain attention for their cause." So, let's get back to the topic.
May the Maths Be with you!
Although I'm not sure which bit is more amusing, the idea of a federation of anarchists or the line "no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK's railways". The answer to the rhetorical question is alsmost certainly "no".
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
...when people don't need to work for food, shelter or medical care.
They get bored, complacent and in some cases act out aggression.
It's like a monkey in captivity at the zoo. The key is a well balanced system--you don't want then to serfs who will never feed pride or happiness, but you also don't want to just hand them life's base necessities. They monkey needs to work for it's banana, but not so hard that it's miserable and half starved.
But what about those laws against "discrimination based on sexual orientation" ?
If an employer cannot fire a homosexual kindergarten teacher, then, by your logic,
he should also be forbidden to fire a kindergarten teacher who has sex with
his elderly, infertile mother.
Do you support that?
You do seem to be quite happy with this cognitive dissonance.
"Not people who share our views, but people who think it is OK to kill people they disagree with"
And you disagree and want them shot by the government.
Seriously, a bunch of f*cking ignorant Luddites wanting to burn down anything they don't understand, bringing pitchforks and torches to the observatory because someone told them the world is round and not flat.
Born to every generation is a group of asshats that refuse to be educated and want to force their way of life on everyone else.
What is their mailing address?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
When I was growing up eco was short for economical, not ecological.
That's the "comic-book" loner anarchist. True anarchists don't love science, nor do they hate science.
True anarchist are simply against the idea of the "state" because the "state" is in the way of people forming voluntary association with others. Take for example Jesus Christ. To some he was the prototypical anarchist: small groups of proto-christians voluntarily associating and making their way in life w/o the artifice of the state and the coercive way the leaders tax the citizenry and enlist their services in wars. If you didn't like his teachings, you were free to ignore it, but you didn't have to emigrate from a state to achieve that end (of course some may argue about what his teachings have morphed into, but I digress).
So contrary to worrying about making people less reliant on each other, it is all about free association (not unassociation with each other)...
On that whole "hippie" thing well, there might be some thing to that, but under the "true" definition of an anarchist, you might have to concede that members of the KKK are anarchists as well and they are probably not what you think about when you conjour up the word "hippie"...
Could such groups be approached, by force if necessary, by the protesters, their face masks removed, their faces photographed and published, and then their identities crowdsourced?
Do it a couple times and the police runs out of willing unknown provocateurs.
Why do nerds seem split like 50-50 between being freethinkers/anarcho-types and technophilic fascists?
Is my percentage wrong? What accounts for this? EXPLAIN
Once we have a fully functioning nanotechnology, we'll change their minds about it by literally changing their minds.
Don't worry, that's just a scary-ass joke.
Yeah, the possibilities are a bit scary to people who think the technology will be used that way, rather than having defensive nanotechnology open-sourced. BTW, the term "Open Source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source was originated by Christine Peterson of the Foresight institute http://foresight.org/ which is a big proponent of nanotechnology.
-- Terry
IN the US we don't have much left wing terrorism to speak of, the actions of some Earth First!-ers excepted.
But in Europe actually, you have it on both sides of the political spectrum. Sorry but killing people is a form of fascism. If you want to make your point to your fellow citizens then you need to restrict yourself to civilized means that are available to you. This is effective.
Is nanotechnology really threatening civilization the way, say, global warming is? Is nuclear power threatening civilization? I don't see it. What's more I see in the EU and now Japan that process of engaging civil society has resulted in the turning back of nuclear power in favor of other alternative energy sources.
So what's your point? Your point is you're violent and you're looking for someone to act out that violence against. Just like the right wing in this country with their abortion clinic bombings. It's disgusting and it puts you squarely outside of civilization, that thing you think you are protecting.
Some people just can't get used to the fact that society does not accord them maximum unilateral freedom to do what they want. Libertarians in this country have this bend. They accept no compromises in order to have a functioning society, they're always harkening after some mythical freedom they think they've lost by submitting to the compromises society requires of all its citizens.
I can't stand those people, on the left or on the right.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham 1858:06
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Politics is stagnated because idiots love to apply terms they don't understand to cover up their terrorism.
Killing scientists because they tested on animals doesn't mean you're a socialist. Stop listening to PETA.
Killing scientists because of ecology concerns doesn't mean you're an anarchist. Stop listening to pop punk.
Ruining society because you don't understand economics doesn't mean you're an anarchist. Stop listening to Ron Paul.
Bombing non Muslims and claiming women should be subservient to men doesn't mean you're a Muslim. In fact, Islam claims piety is both genders being respectful to each other. Stop listening to your fascist leaders.
It's because of these people who hijack terms that politics stagnated and is essentially a black box. But whatever, go watch American Idol.
How can the parent post possibly be construed as
offending Slashdot's comment guidelines?
People feel totally apathetic and powerless to affect anything corporations or the government do, so when those entities create technology that people think is dangerous, they're going to turn to unconventional methods. It's the only way they feel they have a voice, like it or not, right or wrong. Denying that is akin to saying the 'terrorists' hate us for our freedoms. Simplistic nonsense that purposefully ignores the root of the problem. Give people a stake and a voice in society and "eco-terrorism" and other forms of violent protest will abate.