Pocket Plane Group

Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: neriana on July 10, 2004, 10:54:45 PM

Title: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: neriana on July 10, 2004, 10:54:45 PM
A question I've been pondering lately:

How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Eral on July 11, 2004, 12:04:48 AM
So do laws like our(Australian) Racial Vilification laws impose censorship or protection of individuals?
I think the truth lies in how any community enables free exchange.
Free exchange/free speech is obviously hindered in those communities where punishment for dissent results in isolation and loss of freedom, even death: but in those countries many people don't believe and trust their govt and media, and resistance can be strong. The Chinese govt is trying to monitor texting, to prevent dissent. So what will the Chinese people come up with next? Something, I'm sure.
In countries where free exchange is a prized part of culture, the opportunity for free speech is limited by access, not by law. If you or I want to dissent, what do we do? Strike, demonstrate, write a letter to the editor. How effective is that dissent? Only if a gatekeeper in the media lets it through. Look at Michael Moore. Even rich successful writer/directors have trouble with access. It isn't the law  trying to stop him from speaking, it's the publishers and film distributors. And we all sit around congratulating ourselves on our freedoms.
We need to worry about how we restrict free exchange in our culture. The discussion is always high-jacked by someone with an objectionable view to someone else, fighting about their right to be insulting. In the meantime, voting for people we don't know and trust is the highest form of political expression open to us. So we get GW and John Howard.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: cliffette on July 11, 2004, 12:28:21 AM
For true freedom of speech, take an internet message board which can take a massive server load. Open it up. Don't moderate.

Free speech happens when people don't feel victimised or threatened, no matter what their beliefs, hates or likes - thus they can talk about whatever they want and express whatever opinon they want (hence the internet, with its anonymity, is an ideal playground)... However, they may not be heard amongst the babble of others exercising their rights to free speech. I don't think anybody wants true free speech.

So perhaps your answers are i) Not too much, and ii) Just enough - and the happiness of the community that results is likely your answer to whether you got the balance right.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Eral on July 11, 2004, 01:30:19 AM
But even on the InterNet people are not free from abuse. Go to The Age -Your Say site, Cliffette. It's like the playground of the lobotomised, there.
I think people do want free speech/exchange(I like how Neriana phrased that) but it's impossible to eliminate conflict.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: cliffette on July 11, 2004, 01:46:27 AM
Oh, you do get abuse on the internet, but they are just words in the end. They can only hurt you if you let them hurt you, whereas the physical world could end up with you being seriously injured - that's all I meant by 'freedom from victimisation/threats'. I should have put a 'real' in there.. However, I know some people can end up feeling very victimised on the net and end up self-censoring/leaving a community forever!, which I guess goes back to Neriana's question and your point about protection vs censorship.

So... I have no answers for you.  :-\
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 06:01:11 AM
Anarchy :D.... oh... this is not a poll right?

The main misunderstanding of anarchy is that while it is without leaders it is not without rules. Anarchy is a bad system to describe fora, because first of all people have to invest a lot of their time and energy (could be and most likely is a team effort), but someone also has to be ultimately responsible, even after everybody has abandoned ship. So it all boils down to Ken, Cam, Jason, Neil and everybody else who set up a board. Limiting a forum by certain rules is always good as it allows everybody else to adhere to these or even discuss this within the communities. Implicit rules which are enforced, but not written down somewhere can neither be followed nor disputed. Communities also evolve with their members which takes nothing away in the end from the big fish, but they thrive on members, so being widely hospitable is a good thing for any community.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Eral on July 11, 2004, 06:21:30 AM
we all barrack for anarchy, jester. How else would we have any fun? But please list the rules of anarchy for me. (I want to see if I've broken any.)
I agree that the web offers greater freedom of expression, but you still have gatekeepers: people who decide what is and isn't going to go on the board. And you still get bullies. And people who don't know what the rules are.(Usually because they don't read that sticky that says READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST)
I think there is always control on speech, whether self-censorship or external.
The factor allowing free exchange is individual courage.

Do I sound pompous, or is it just warm in here?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: seanas on July 11, 2004, 08:30:31 AM
can i modify yr post eral?

"the factor allowing free exchange is self-confidence"

where self-confidence derives from one's specific history - ie, it depends upon structural (gender, race, class, sexuality, education, social position. etc) features.

as for rules of anarchy: i'm guessing you live in melbourne - if so, try the anarchist section of the little bookshop underneath trades hall on lygon st; or in sydney, try black rose bookshop on king st. there'll be more literature there on anarchism, including on ways an anarchist society might run, than you could shake a stick at.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 11:09:17 AM
Anarchy exists for many people only as a propaganda term. Do this or else you will have anarchy (*menacing growls in the background*)! If you share a flat with friends and you discuss who has to do what when until you get a unanimous decision that would be anarchy. A majority vote would be like a democracy. The one who moved in first telling all the others what to do when would be fascism. The possibility to inherit that position would be monarchy and so on. There is a tradeoff between quick reaction and compliance. From my simple example I think one would agree that compliance is easiest in the first case, whereas decision making in the later cases. The effort you have to waste on reaching a decision ( a lot of time 'wasted' talking) can be related to the effort you have to put into enforcing the decision. Consequently any form of anarchy takes the most commiment and responsibilty.

When I ever get back to Oz I have to try those two bookshops. :)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 11:33:30 AM
Anarchy exists for many people only as a propaganda term. Do this or else you will have anarchy (*menacing growls in the background*)! If you share a flat with friends and you discuss who has to do what when until you get a unanimous decision that would be anarchy. A majority vote would be like a democracy. The one who moved in first telling all the others what to do when would be fascism. The possibility to inherit that position would be monarchy and so on. There is a tradeoff between quick reaction and compliance. From my simple example I think one would agree that compliance is easiest in the first case, whereas decision making in the later cases. The effort you have to waste on reaching a decision ( a lot of time 'wasted' talking) can be related to the effort you have to put into enforcing the decision. Consequently any form of anarchy takes the most commiment and responsibilty.

When I ever get back to Oz I have to try those two bookshops. :)

And here I thought Anarchy just meant being generally pissed over having to move out of your parent's flat and get a job. ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 11, 2004, 12:01:53 PM
 A genuine question. Has there been a successful example of an anarchistic society?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Kish on July 11, 2004, 12:10:06 PM
I believe, like communism, it's been known to work on a very small scale, but breaks down quickly once you get into double-digits.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 12:14:36 PM
It's hard enough to get unanimous agreement on what to have on a pizza, and that's dealing only with people you like. ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 12:31:09 PM
Sorry Bob for sounding so preposterous. ;) I agree it is very hard to get there and it may be true that it only works in very small numbers. :(  Like most political ideas it works sometimes, but hinges on the people involved. Theoretically I also learned about checks and balances in democracy, (doesn't work well in my country sometimes) and now the reps hold both Congress and the presidency in the States atm, if I am not completely mistaken. Having studied Economics I am too used to things only working in theory I guess.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 12:43:19 PM
Sorry Bob for sounding so preposterous. ;) I agree it is very hard to get there and it may be true that it only works in very small numbers. :(  Like most political ideas it works sometimes, but hinges on the people involved. Theoretically I also learned about checks and balances in democracy, (doesn't work well in my country sometimes) and now the reps hold both Congress and the presidency in the States atm, if I am not completely mistaken. Having studied Economics I am too used to things only working in theory I guess.

Having studied political science I am used to things not working at all. ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: seanas on July 11, 2004, 03:34:53 PM
the classical answer to the 'functioning anarchist society' question is barcelona (and catalunya more generally) during the spanish civil war. barcelona is generally understood to have been under the red+black flag for about 2 years during this time; having been overrun by the Francoists it's hard to say if it would have continued; it's equally hard to say if it would ever have come into being if it wasnt for the civil war. on the other hand, catalunya has a *long* (thousand or so years) history of self-governance - which is generally what a functioning anarchist society would default to.

some people have claimed that nestor mahkno's (?sp?) ukraine during the russion civil war was also anarchist, but this one is a lot more arguable: you could easily argue it was anarchic in the pejorative sense... ;)

a lot of cities have come under some form of anarchist and/or communist organisation during revolutionary moments over the last 150 years: paris during the commune, berlin and many other german cities during 1919-21; petrograd under the petrograd soviet until stalin took over, for example. in all cases they ended up getting squashed by reactionary forces; whether they would have continued if they *werent* squashed by reactionary forces, or whether they were unsustainable utopian moments is a question for writers of alternative histories.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 04:51:56 PM
A question I've been pondering lately:

How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
How much freedom of the press do you get from some media conglomerates who dictate the truth? Why do I get the strange feeling that this question is not as theoretical as it might seem at first glance? You could also have asked how much regulation a community needs. I mean not many people would argue for the virtues of fascism. :P
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 05:59:41 PM
You could also have asked how much regulation a community needs. I mean not many people would argue for the virtues of fascism. :P

I've always been surprised by the huge number of people who will argue for the virtues of fascism. Likely the majority. It's usually predicated on the idea of a benevolent fascism, with the subtextual assumption that those who will end up in control will have views similar to the person making the pro-fascist argument. There's an inherent appeal to simple answers and direct, compromise free solutions. Understanding that is key to understanding the current political mood in most of Asia and North America (I can't comment on the EU, as my only direct experience of that part of the world is of the UK and my views are distorted through the lense of UK, American and Japanese media).
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 11, 2004, 06:52:04 PM
I know that would be the 'my way or the highway'- faction in every country. It is just the same misunderstanding that made Platon think that a dictatorship of philosophers would be a desireable idea.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 07:45:01 PM
I know that would be the 'my way or the highway'- faction in every country. It is just the same misunderstanding that made Platon think that a dictatorship of philosophers would be a desireable idea.

I've spoken with a very large number of mainland Chinese scientists and University students over the years, the well educated and worldly people you'd most expect to be pro democracy, only to be told that the problem was not a totalitarian one party state but local corruption. It made little difference if the conversation occurred in Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo or Philadelphia. The "conservatives" in my familly and among my coworkers in America think nothing of calling for government censorship and an end to the rights of due process, free speech and free association, and the "liberals" I've known are no better. I tend to agree with Pratchett's comment that "Humanity was designed with an unfortunate tendancy to bend at the knees".
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Domi on July 11, 2004, 09:04:08 PM
I believe, like communism, it's been known to work on a very small scale, but breaks down quickly once you get into double-digits.

To my knowledge, all modern experiments in communism (like half-forgotten Owen's communes) had failed; archaic communizm of prehistory I think is up till now was the only successful model.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 09:21:00 PM
I believe, like communism, it's been known to work on a very small scale, but breaks down quickly once you get into double-digits.

To my knowledge, all modern experiments in communism (like half-forgotten Owen's communes) had failed; archaic communizm of prehistory I think is up till now was the only successful model.

Whenever some-one points to the distant past or distant lands to provide examples of the success of their pet social science theories, it may be best to let your most skeptical instincts come to the fore. Even when dealing with very recent political and ecconomic history the level of casual distortion by true believers can be absurd. Personally, I don't take on faith anything told to me by a passionate advocate of an idea when the example offered refers to current events, let alone hypothetical events that may have occurred a few millenia back. 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BigRob on July 11, 2004, 11:00:21 PM
All political systems have their problems and I don't believe there is one prefect (or even best) system. I think some control will always be required, lest everyone start assaulting one another with handy objects.  :)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 11, 2004, 11:12:39 PM
All political systems have their problems and I don't believe there is one prefect (or even best) system. I think some control will always be required, lest everyone start assaulting one another with handy objects.  :)


The Pub Brawl as Political Model: A Meta-review.

Now there's a thesis waiting to be written. ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 05:06:52 AM
Facism would allow for no free exchange - My way or the highway... hmm... "If you're not with us.." George W.  "If you don't like it..."  or the most reviled: "America, love it or leave it".

Anarchy, I agree, is too often confused with total chaos and unfairly paired with violence. 

"Anarchism, historically speaking, is concerned mainly with man in his relation to society.  Its ulitmate aim is always social change; its present attitude is always one of social condemnation, even though it may proceed from an individualist view of man's nature; it's method is always that of social rebellion, violent or otherwise.  But even among those who recognize anarchism as a socio-poltical doctrine, confusion still exists.  Anarchism, nihilist, and terrorism are often mistakenly eqated, and in most dictionaries will be found at least two definitions of the anarchist."  ..(and later)..  "I shall treat anarchism, desite it's many variations: as a system of social thought, aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society and particularly--for this is the common element uniting all its forms--at the replacement of the authoritarian state by some form of nongovernmental co-operation between free individuals." Anarchism, George Woodcock

The anarchists concieve a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated, not by laws, not by authorities, whether self-imposed or elected, but by mutual agreements between the members of that society, and by a sum of social customs and habits--not petrified by law, routine, or superstition, but continually developing and continually readjusting, in accordance with the ever-growing requirements of a free life, stimulated by the progress of science, invention, and the steady growth of higher ideals.  No ruling authorities, then.  No government of man by man; no crystallization and immobility, but a continual evolution--such as we see in nature". Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin

I think those are excellent definitions.  Never really took the time to look them up, but it should come as no surprise that they strike a chord in me  ;)

I think that, too often the idea of Anarchy is maligned because Anarchists, almost by their very nature, will differ on how (or, indeed, if) anarchy needs to "be imposed" or "it will occur".  "Imposing" Anarchy implies violence - I like to think that it will occur, but not in my lifetime.  Anarchy may quite possibly remain nothing but an unachievable model society.

I really believe Anarchy is the only medium (edit: system) condusive to allowing a free exchange of ideas, as people need to listen and be capable of hearing.  (edit: And be united behind the ideal of the betterment of society as a whole - if they 'like things they way they are' then.. ...)  But for Communication to be successful people need to Really listen, and then really hear (without injecting their own 'agenda' or prejudices) what that person is actually trying to relay.

(edited for spelling and a bit of clarification)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 05:11:50 AM
How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
As soon as it's controlled, it's no longer free.

That self-moderation bit, I was trying to get at.. takes a lot of self-control, ..discipline to not let someone goad "you" into a fight, ..to not react or, indeed, over-react.  ..but I tend to believe that one-line flames have no place in any discussion.

edit: Self-moderation does not mean a moderator-less board, rather it implies responsibilty and respect to/for your community.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 12, 2004, 08:30:28 AM
Hear , hear. :P

The talking stick was a very good invention. It is actually not used to force your views upon others. :D

I always had the feeling that American fundamentalists are the perfect opponents for Islamists. It is hard to argue with someone who claims that god is on his side (Usama, Pope Urban II or GWB ::) ).

That is why sex and religion should be private endeavours and any good state should be a laicistic IMHO. If God wants anything when it comes to the religious warriors, I think he wants his money back.

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 12, 2004, 01:17:02 PM
  What is the nature of humans? (No I am not referring to Torment.)  I am not asking what differentiates humans from animals. What is the universal commonality among humans? A condition, emotion, restriction, law or laws that are common bonds that are universal and connecting among all peoples and societies?

  I think the key to understanding the original question is in understanding the commonalities of human nature.

 What are these commonalities? Is it hope, is it love, or is it murder, is it religion, is it exceptionalism, is it extremism? Or all the above and more. And what about love? Does it exist? Has it always existed or is it really a relatively recent human invention.

 Are there absolutes? What about honor killings? Not considered murder in some cultures but is an act right simply because a society believes that it is right? Is there ever an eternal wrong. Is there ever only one answer, one style fits all, or any one political system?

 Tell me the answers to the above questions, and the answers, I believe are known, and I believe you will have the answer to the original question.

 
 Now that is a pompous post!
 

 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 12, 2004, 04:28:44 PM
Tell me the answers to the above questions, and the answers, I believe are known, and I believe you will have the answer to the original question.
The original question being "What is the nature of human beings"?

The (some?) answers will be a bit subjective.  :)  When it comes to humans, there are no real absolutes except in the foundations of your belief (not necessarily religious) and that foundation will vary based on culture and religion.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 12, 2004, 04:37:16 PM
Tell me the answers to the above questions, and the answers, I believe are known, and I believe you will have the answer to the original question.
The original question being "What is the nature of human beings"?

The (some?) answers will be a bit subjective.  :)  When it comes to humans, there are no real absolutes except in the foundations of your belief (not necessarily religious) and that foundation will vary based on culture and religion.

"People can do anything they want to do if they just work hard enough, which is why we have so many immortal people who can fly." ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 12, 2004, 05:50:32 PM
Tell me the answers to the above questions, and the answers, I believe are known, and I believe you will have the answer to the original question.
The original question being "What is the nature of human beings"?


  The original topic question. "How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?" :)

 Is it true that there is no absolute wrong, or no absolute right? Is there really no commonality in humanity? Outside of the obvious, eat, sleep and procreate.

 Does rape exist only when a society says it exists? Or does it exist independantly of societal acknowledgement? If a society has no word for rape, does that mean that rape does not exist?

 To this day, "civilized societies," have problems dealing with rape, for many centuries rape was considered an act brought upon the victim by the victim's behavior. Honestly, brought upon a woman due to the woman's inherent sinfulness. That is still believed by many today. Because a society believes that, does it make it true?

 Only recently in the US has it been even acknowledged that a husband may rape his wife. To this day many people probably believe it is impossible for a husband to commit rape upon a wife.

 I would say rape exists in spite of a society or culture's refusal to acknowledge the wrong, or criminalize the act.

 Is slavery wrong if it is accepted within a society? Or even if it is accepted universally by humankind? Is it wrong? Independent of belief, society, or culture.

 Is right or wrong simply a matter of a society's collective and subjective belief? 

 It is difficult to know answers to such questions. It is difficult to have an answer to Neriana's question. The issue of group control is a difficult question.

 I am probably overthinking the topic question. ::)

 

 

 

 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 07:28:19 AM
I am probably overthinking the topic question. ::)
Maybe, but I think that a lot of what you mention has one thing in common: growing, changing, evolving, maturing society.  It is a difficult question to address, let alone answer.  I think the answer is: It depends.  ;D

Anyway.. Imo, rape is only brought on the woman 'by her own actions' in the opinion of the man/men who is/are used to objectifying women.  An oversimpilization, perhaps, but basically true.  It was only about 40 years ago that it became acceptable for a woman to work, etc, etc.

Patriarchy, racism, homophobia, and most religions are, imo, all products of an immature, fearful, closed-minded society.  Their dissolution will be the indication that we, as a society/culture, have grown yet again.  (True dissolution, as opposed to merely being driven underground.)  As human beings we have basic needs that must be met, and only then can we have emotional and spiritual needs.  Homelessness and "working poor" tells me that far too many people aren't even getting their basic needs met.  And there are the above indicators (and many more) to point out that many of us are not getting our emotional and spiritual needs met either.  Evolution.  One of these days..

Quote
The issue of group control is a difficult question.
I don't think the issue, however, is one group control; I think it is one of self-control.  Even with a moderator ready at the 'kill-switch', once something is 'said' (posted), you cannot just 'unsay' it.  Yes, the post can be deleted, but it leaves its impression on the environment and the audience.  There is a reason some things should stay 'behind closed doors' or 'unspoken', etc.  As was pointed out in that other (deleted) thread, just because one can say/post it doesn't mean one should.  After my last learn-in, it comes down to motive and being mindful of the target audience.  [I tend to forget I'm twice the average age around here, and am constantly reminding myself (now, in game-related topics) that this is only a game.  :)]

This medium (the internet) is not really ideal for free exchange because it's too easy to be misunderstood and, given what I believe to be our immature culture, we (for the most part) are just not capable of asking the questions and hearing the answers in 'any given discussion' unless we are communicating with someone like-minded.  Yes, it has the anonymity (that I once lauded) but built into that sense of anonymity is a degree of irresponsibilty, wherein it's too easy to forget we are speaking to other (emotional) human beings, as well.  And, ultimately, there is no way we can intuit how we're going to be percieved.

Ever had a log-in that was your actual name?  Ever notice how differently you posted?  I sure did.

How's that for over-thinking?  ;)  Now I just hope it made sense.  ::)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Kish on July 13, 2004, 07:46:59 AM
Anyway.. Imo, rape is only brought on the woman 'by her own actions' in the opinion of the man/men who is/are used to objectifying women.  An oversimpilization, perhaps, but basically true.  It was only about 40 years ago that it became acceptable for a woman to work, etc, etc.
I'm not sure how that relates to Regullus' point.

Take another example--take slavery.  Did it become wrong when society as a whole decided it was wrong, or was it always wrong?  "No absolutes" would appear to indicate the former, but I would say the answer is certainly the latter.  There are plenty of moral absolutes.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 13, 2004, 08:00:22 AM
If there are no absolutes, then does that mean that people who tried to act against slavery even when society endorsed it considered themselves EVIL?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 08:04:45 AM
Anyway.. Imo, rape is only brought on the woman 'by her own actions' in the opinion of the man/men who is/are used to objectifying women.  An oversimpilization, perhaps, but basically true.  It was only about 40 years ago that it became acceptable for a woman to work, etc, etc.
I'm not sure how that relates to Regullus' point.
Maybe it doesn't.  I was trying to equate what a society deems acceptable to its systems of beliefs and the basis therein.  Our society has always been patriarchal, and only changed recently, so it stands to reason that objectifying women would still be acceptable to some.  Say something enough times you'll find enough people who believe it true.. or, what ever.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 08:07:02 AM
Take another example--take slavery.  Did it become wrong when society as a whole decided it was wrong, or was it always wrong?  "No absolutes" would appear to indicate the former, but I would say the answer is certainly the latter.  There are plenty of moral absolutes.
I'm not quite sure how that addresses the original question.

edit: What does morality have to do with free speech?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 13, 2004, 10:54:02 AM
If there are no absolutes, then does that mean that people who tried to act against slavery even when society endorsed it considered themselves EVIL?

 Exactly, they considered themselves to be fighting for right. Often times they had a lot to lose by dissenting with their society.

 Just to add a clarification about rape, I used examples pertaining specifically to women but rape is a crime,obviously, that touches all, men, women, children, the aged, and every group in between. 

 Hey, I said I was overthinking the question! ;)

  I actually asked about commonalities not moralitiy. The original question was necessary control, how much or how little was needed to facilitate a community. Probably, simply, an internet forum community. Then of course governmental control, and different types of political systems were brought up, etc. Cybersquirt brought up the question of absolutes. Whether or not I took it upon myself to expand upon the statement, well, probably I did. :)

@Cybersquirt

 If we are simply talking about FW thread that was locked, unlocked, locked, unlocked and then deleted, then I don't know what to say except that it seemed strange that it was a thread that caused any controversy. W/O being able to re-read the posts, I would say that the situation only degenerated with the involvement of the admin/moderators, and the actions taken by them.

 If I posted under my real name, I would not post any differently. Hey I offend people in rl too. ;D But then again I don't believe that I am truly anonymous on the internet. I may not know how to track anyone down on the internet but SimDingo and Kish probably do.

 Well, RL calls...

 
 
 

 
 

 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Domi on July 13, 2004, 11:43:03 AM
I actually asked about commonalities not moralitiy.

I liked the question and honestly, I did not think I was able to think off hand about a positive commonality (I thought hospitality for a while, but I think there are exception to this as well) but negative commonality I think is that peoples are always capable of dividing between us and them; I would be quite happy if that theory would be proven wrong  ;) I also do not know how different it is from other animals' behaivour.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 12:06:07 PM
I actually asked about commonalities not moralitiy.

I liked the question and honestly, I did not think I was able to think off hand about a positive commonality (I thought hospitality for a while, but I think there are exception to this as well) but negative commonality I think is that peoples are always capable of dividing between us and them; I would be quite happy if that theory would be proven wrong  ;) I also do not know how different it is from other animals' behaivour.

I don't agree with this. It's a very rare and short lived society that doesn't come up with "care for your children", "care for your familly", "care for your neighbors", etc, etc. All the basic moral urgings that you find in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. You do get to things like "Don't eat shell-fish","Don't let women walk about in public" and "Don't have sex with people of the same sex" that vary widely from culture to culture, and the people involved ignore rules all the time, but the core ideas are always there.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 13, 2004, 02:26:11 PM
I don't agree with this. It's a very rare and short lived society that doesn't come up with "care for your children", "care for your familly", "care for your neighbors", etc, etc. All the basic moral urgings that you find in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. You do get to things like "Don't eat shell-fish","Don't let women walk about in public" and "Don't have sex with people of the same sex" that vary widely from culture to culture, and the people involved ignore rules all the time, but the core ideas are always there.


 I would agree with BT that those are pervasive and sensible examples of commonality. All of the above examples can be also be applied to animals society. Faith or religion cannot be attributed to the animal world. (At least we don't know about it yet.)

Digression:

Religion has caused many problems over the centuries but I also think that religion came about for many reasons, several reasons are hope and control, passing on of knowledge, and health warnings, ie pork and trychinosis (sp?).

 I once had a discussion with someone about religion and the suffering it has caused versus the good it had accomplished. Under the auspices of religion there has been monumental human accomplishment. Art forinstance. Learning and philosophy. If we had a scale and some how we could put the good of religion on one side, and evil on the other, I don't know how the scale would tilt. (BTW religion in general, no specific religion.)

 To dismiss organized religion as an aberration of history is perhaps overly dismissive. After all, faith is beautiful, and can move mountains and has. (In case of curiousity, I am not particularly religious. Organized religion is too patriarchal for my taste and my gender.)

 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Domi on July 13, 2004, 02:28:24 PM
well, the question was what makes difference between aimal and human the way I read it, and the care for mate/children is animalistic, I think; while care for a stranger (hospitality) is probably human (to me). but I would not argue about it - I have unsufficient knowledge of the subject.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 03:33:55 PM
Many animals demonstrate hospitality. :) Dogs, feral cats (female), chimps, horses, anything that is used to opperating in groups is willing to take on a new member that respects the hiearchy. Humans probably have some unique behavoirs, but other than accumulaed culture and the brains that came up with it I can't think of any.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Imrahil on July 13, 2004, 03:43:19 PM
What sets humans apart from animals?  The capacity for Evil, I think.  Murder, genocide, hatred, betrayal, N'Sync... you never see animals doing any of these things.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 03:46:10 PM
What sets humans apart from animals?  The capacity for Evil, I think.  Murder, genocide, hatred, betrayal, N'Sync... you never see animals doing any of these things.

- Imrahil

Chimps do all of them. Except N'Sync.

Not even chimpanzees would sink that low. ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: SimDing0™ on July 13, 2004, 03:49:25 PM
I once had a discussion with someone about religion and the suffering it has caused versus the good it had accomplished. Under the auspices of religion there has been monumental human accomplishment. Art forinstance. Learning and philosophy.
It seems to me that the majority of the desirable effects would have occurred equally effectively without religion. Much like morals, they're matters of common sense which are prone to evolve anyway. I'm fairly sure human creativity and artistic nature developed long before anything resembling religion.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Imrahil on July 13, 2004, 04:02:18 PM
What sets humans apart from animals?  The capacity for Evil, I think.  Murder, genocide, hatred, betrayal, N'Sync... you never see animals doing any of these things.

- Imrahil

Chimps do all of them. Except N'Sync.

Not even chimpanzees would sink that low. ;)

Hmmm.... I *have* often heard that chimps are more human than we give them credit for.  How about torture?  pedophilia?  line dancing?

- Imrahil 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 04:06:10 PM
What sets humans apart from animals?  The capacity for Evil, I think.  Murder, genocide, hatred, betrayal, N'Sync... you never see animals doing any of these things.

- Imrahil

Chimps do all of them. Except N'Sync.

Not even chimpanzees would sink that low. ;)

Hmmm.... I *have* often heard that chimps are more human than we give them credit for.  How about torture?  pedophilia?  line dancing?

- Imrahil 

Torture yes, pedophilia yes, line dancing no.

I think we've hit on the pattern. :)

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 06:02:17 PM
@Cybersquirt
 If we are simply talking about FW thread that was locked, unlocked, locked, unlocked and then deleted, then I don't know what to say except that it seemed strange that it was a thread that caused any controversy.
I was only talking about the FW thread in the paragraph I mention it, but that thread was supposed to be about free speech.

Just like... Er.. right, well, anyway, whatever.  ::)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 13, 2004, 06:38:05 PM
 Unfortunately, those darn chimps, I believe, have a rudimentary form of music too, use tools, have self-recognition, and animals have culture.  They do commit pedophilia, do murder, are racists, and torture, etc, or at least of form of that.
 
 Many people decry the fact that humans attribute human emotions to animals. An example, saying your dog is jealous of the new puppy. Animal experts would agree that most animals are territorial, and I would argue that description is an accurate definition of jealousy.

 I am confused to who this comment should go to, either Simdingo or Bob Tokyo:

 I am not directly linking religion and creativity but I would disagree that there is no link between the two.  There are the line drawings in South America, and Stonehenge for two examples, or statue of Easter Island or...huge amount of inarguable examples, none of which I can think of at the moment. ::)

 But back to my question of commonalities that exist in all societies and cultures. Surely there is something that is unique to humans and shared by humanity. How about nervousness? Or self-regulation or religion, or ambition? 

 Here is what I think is humanity's greatest strength and greatest flaw, the ability to subvert, pervert and convert.

@Cybersquirt - I did not mean that sentence in a rude way. I was puzzled by the way the thread was handled too. I simply meant that if we were only discussing free speech on internet forums, well, I was definately overthinking the subject.  :)

 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 06:51:39 PM
But back to my question of commonalities that exist in all societies and cultures. Surely there is something that is unique to humans and shared by humanity. How about nervousness? Or self-regulation or religion, or ambition? 

Nervousness, self regulation, and ambition are not unique to humanity (or even to primates), and as to religion, we can't tell. :)

Incidently, Sapolsky makes great reading on this kind of issue for non-specialists.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-3226907-7989418
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: cliffette on July 13, 2004, 06:55:57 PM
But back to my question of commonalities that exist in all societies and cultures. Surely there is something that is unique to humans and shared by humanity. How about nervousness? Or self-regulation or religion, or ambition? 


I would have said laughter, but rats also laugh.
Perhaps it's the spirit of voluntary altruism. There is no genetic advantage in being nice to someone/a forest on the opposite side of the world (I'm talking about charities), yet people still do it.
Altruism exists in the animal world, but it's either involuntary, eg being born albino, or it is for someone an animal knows, eg their babies or flock are in danger, so they run in to save them. So maybe it's a social, extremely large conscience that distinguishes humanity?

Creativity and being able to connect cause and effect in a purely abstract way are also human traits, although I'm not sure those are ingrained as opposed to learned. Chimps (and fairly recently, a female crow) can do it to a point, but humans surpass them.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 07:03:13 PM
I am extremely (violently) biased against religion - how could it not be unique to humanity?  Servitude to one supreme "god".  Please.  Why does it always worm it's way into these discussions?

(Regullus, I didn't take it that way.)

I think humanity's commonality is free will; subvert, pervert and convert just have too many negative connotations to my aged brain.  It's uniqueness, however, is debatable.  Likewise, I could see chimps arguing over freedom of speech - and thowing banana peels at each other.  ::)

(edit: that chimp bit was not prompted by cliffette's post - she posted while I was composing)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 07:08:47 PM
But back to my question of commonalities that exist in all societies and cultures. Surely there is something that is unique to humans and shared by humanity. How about nervousness? Or self-regulation or religion, or ambition? 


I would have said laughter, but rats also laugh.
Perhaps it's the spirit of voluntary altruism. There is no genetic advantage in being nice to someone/a forest on the opposite side of the world (I'm talking about charities), yet people still do it.
Altruism exists in the animal world, but it's either involuntary, eg being born albino, or it is for someone an animal knows, eg their babies or flock are in danger, so they run in to save them. So maybe it's a social, extremely large conscience that distinguishes humanity?

Creativity and being able to connect cause and effect in a purely abstract way are also human traits, although I'm not sure those are ingrained as opposed to learned. Chimps (and fairly recently, a female crow) can do it to a point, but humans surpass them.

I'd say that those are both just matters of degree rather than unique human traits. In the cae of altruism, from a genetic point of view it's pro-survival to help other members of your group (familly, pack, nation, species). Some humans sometimes define their groups in very large terms ("all of humanity") and so they reach out to help those group members. It may be a pro-survival bbehavoir being used in a survival-neutral way, but that happens all the time.

Incidentaly, many mamals (including cats, dogs, bears, and all primates) will sometimes adopt abandoned children, even children from outside of their familly or pack groups. This is an "altruistic" behavoir that is pro-survival on the group and species level, but may be anti-survival on the individual level.   
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: cliffette on July 13, 2004, 07:16:17 PM
I sort of thought it was in terms of scale as I was posting, but hoped nobody would notice. :)

Likewise, you could argue that abstract thought is also a question of scale and degree.

Then it might be the scale of humankind's thoughts, inventions, curiosity, territory that distinguishes man. We like being on top. We invent guns to bring down large animals that would normally eat us so that we can be on top of all species, not just those we live in close proximity to. We have scientists working to cure the most minor of diseases, and curiosity has led us to the discovery of DNA, which no other animal gives a toss about. So maybe scale is the answer. Other animals have ambitions, but ours is particularly great.

Edit: I can usually speak english. Just not this morning.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 07:16:43 PM
I am extremely (violently) biased against religion - how could it not be unique to humanity?  Servitude to one supreme "god".  Please.  Why does it always worm it's way into these discussions?

I'd argue that any type of belief in spirits, souls, or magic is ultimately religious in nature. I do not know what a group of elephants trumpeting death songs around the corpse of a fallen herd-mate are thinking, but it would not surprise me to learn that they had some vague belief that their mate had gone "somewhere else". There are also the recent studies on religion and the brain that seemed to indicate that some people were genetically more inclined to feelings of religious need and extasy than others; if those studies were correct, then religious inclination at least may be pre-determined, in which case some kind of religious element may exist in the thinking of non-human species.

Note that I myself am an Agnostic-Athiest, and it's fine with me if you do or do not serve whatever gods you like. ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 13, 2004, 07:23:53 PM
I am extremely (violently) biased against religion - how could it not be unique to humanity?  Servitude to one supreme "god".  Please.  Why does it always worm it's way into these discussions?
I'd argue that any type of belief in spirits, souls, or magic is ultimately religious in nature.
And I'd agree, but this has ..what to do with free speech?  :-[

Elephants, indeed.  I do believe that religion and it's counter-part, philosophy, are unique to humans.  The elephants.. just.. this conversation is going to make my brain explode.  ::)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 13, 2004, 07:26:07 PM
I am extremely (violently) biased against religion - how could it not be unique to humanity?  Servitude to one supreme "god".  Please.  Why does it always worm it's way into these discussions?
I'd argue that any type of belief in spirits, souls, or magic is ultimately religious in nature.
And I'd agree, but this has ..what to do with free speech?  :-[

Elephants, indeed.  I do believe that religion and it's counter-part, philosophy, are unique to humans.  The elephants.. just.. this conversation is going to make my brain explode.  ::)

See! Too much free speech makes your brain explode!

So good to be back on topic. :)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BigRob on July 13, 2004, 08:46:39 PM
I sort of thought it was in terms of scale as I was posting, but hoped nobody would notice. :)

Likewise, you could argue that abstract thought is also a question of scale and degree.

Then it might be the scale of humankind's thoughts, inventions, curiosity, territory that distinguishes man. We like being on top. We invent guns to bring down large animals that would normally eat us so that we can be on top of all species, not just those we live in close proximity to. We have scientists working to cure the most minor of diseases, and curiosity has led us to the discovery of DNA, which no other animal gives a toss about. So maybe scale is the answer. Other animals have ambitions, but ours is particularly great.

Edit: I can usually speak english. Just not this morning.

I think that pretty much sums it up. There's nothing we do (or nothing I can think of at the moment) that animals don't do on some level. We just do it better than they do. Humanity are animals still, we're just very clever animals.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Imrahil on July 13, 2004, 11:47:23 PM

Quote
Hmmm.... I *have* often heard that chimps are more human than we give them credit for.  How about torture?  pedophilia?  line dancing?

- Imrahil 

Torture yes, pedophilia yes, line dancing no.

I think we've hit on the pattern. :)

Hrmm... FWIW, as often as you might say "well chimps do it, too" leads me to think a couple of things right off the bat...

1)  Chimps don't actually do any of that stuff - Bob can keep saying they do but just 'cause Bob says it don't make it true (I'm starting to think if I said "embezzlement", Bob would say "chimps embezzle all the time")  :)

...or...

2)  Chimps are the only animals aside from humans that have the Capacity for Evil

Neither actually changes my take that the thing that separates us from (99.9% of) animals is the Capacity for Evil... or line dancing... take your pick.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 14, 2004, 05:09:05 AM
@ BigRob: We do it better? After we have drained, killed and polluted everything on this planet the transcendent principle (with the beard) will look down on this poor infested planet and say: Damn, I almost saw it coming.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 14, 2004, 05:32:20 AM
Other animals have ambitions, but ours is particularly great.
Being at the top of the food chain has it's benefits.

One must wonder, I do anyway - if we only use 10% of our brains, what's the rest for?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: cliffette on July 14, 2004, 05:41:00 AM
Other animals have ambitions, but ours is particularly great.
Being at the top of the food chain has it's benefits.

One must wonder, I do anyway - if we only use 10% of our brains, what's the rest for?

Maybe we only use 10% of our brains at any one time... we probably access different parts for different memories/info. Plus alot of our brain is not actually the 'thinking' neuron cells - there are also scaffolding cells and cells that insulate the neurons, which accounts for some of the percentage. Besides, using 10% means we are efficient, as opposed to blowing a brain fuse every time we try to think. :)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 14, 2004, 05:54:15 AM
 :o

Someone knows their biology.  Damn.  :)

Sounds like you use more'n 10% of yers..  ;)

(What's this about a brain fuse?  I think that's where more'n a bit of my grey matter went by way of.  :P)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 14, 2004, 07:18:13 AM

Quote
Hmmm.... I *have* often heard that chimps are more human than we give them credit for.  How about torture?  pedophilia?  line dancing?

- Imrahil 

Torture yes, pedophilia yes, line dancing no.

I think we've hit on the pattern. :)

Hrmm... FWIW, as often as you might say "well chimps do it, too" leads me to think a couple of things right off the bat...

1)  Chimps don't actually do any of that stuff - Bob can keep saying they do but just 'cause Bob says it don't make it true (I'm starting to think if I said "embezzlement", Bob would say "chimps embezzle all the time")  :)

...or...

2)  Chimps are the only animals aside from humans that have the Capacity for Evil

Neither actually changes my take that the thing that separates us from (99.9% of) animals is the Capacity for Evil... or line dancing... take your pick.

- Imrahil

Read Sapolsky, or spend a few hours on EBSCO host reading peer reviewed articles on primate behavoir.

Embezzelment is just another form of theft; the little buggers would do it if someone was fool enough to hire them. Then we could complain about damn dirty chimps taking our jobs. ;)
 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: neriana on July 14, 2004, 01:26:41 PM

Maybe we only use 10% of our brains at any one time... we probably access different parts for different memories/info. Plus alot of our brain is not actually the 'thinking' neuron cells - there are also scaffolding cells and cells that insulate the neurons, which accounts for some of the percentage. Besides, using 10% means we are efficient, as opposed to blowing a brain fuse every time we try to think. :)


This is actually a myth. People use all of their brains (even if it doesn't seem like it sometimes). It would be rather inefficient to have a bunch of unused meat up there, after all :).  http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on July 14, 2004, 02:14:57 PM
So, how about that Hitler?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 14, 2004, 02:35:12 PM
He did not like Chianti and was a vegetarian. He would not have used any of the brain and just have a pasta instead. :D
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 14, 2004, 03:09:24 PM
 An example of perversion: Unintended consequence. Lobby group in a democratic system. Buying votes. Redistricting, etc.

 An example of subversion: The Chinese using text messages for free communication.

 An example of conversion: Moving from a totalitarian society to a democratic society.

The perversion of ideas, rules, ideals, is a totally negative trait of humans. However I don't find subversion, nor conversion negative aspects of humanity. I find them venerable aspects of humanity and possibly what does seperate us from animals.

 When I asked for commonalities in humankind, I actually was thinking along these lines.

 Humans do have commonalities, forinstance, there are communistic aspects to cultures, however, humans not are totally communistic. Every human society has authoratarian tendencies but are usually not completely authortarian, fascists aspects exist in all societies, etc. As does chaos, anomalies, the ideas of exceptionalism, racism, sexism, inequalities, blah, blah, all exist in human cultures.

 Some of it exists through evolution. Take racism for example, at one point in our evolution it behooved people to be cautious and suspicious of differences. Why? Survival. Another reason? Scarcity of resources. Overcrowding. This is not any different from the animal world. Animals are racist or specistic (Is that a word?). At one point or another slavery has been present in all human societies. These are examples of commonality. Why was it prevalent? One of the reasons? Human beings, horses, sheep, are example of resources, or wealth. Slavery is a human invention.

 So if we go back to the original question, anarchy or facism, how much control is necessary to facilitate free speech? How about reactive? As Cybersquirt pointed out humans evolve, humanity is in a state of flux, it is not static, so why should control be static? Law and morality are aspects of control, and are invented to prohibit know human negative behaviors, as well as subjugation, and other reasons too. There are absolutes. Slavery and rape or two examples of absolute wrongs. One exists in the animal world, one does not.*
 
 Let me ask a really strange question.

 In Germany there was a case of man who wanted to butcher a human and eat them. He found a willing participtant over the internet. He butchered the man and ate him. Technically cannabalism is not illegal in Germany, neither I believe is  illegal assisted suicide. In Germany the perpetrator was convicted of some technicality and sentenced for 8 or 9 years.

 What kind of law or control should be put in place to prevent a similiar occurence, or deal with similiar situation in the future?

 The above are opinions and beliefs of Regullus. In no way does the Pocket Plane Group endorse these opinions. ;)

 
*BigRob has pointed out that insects indulge in slavery. Slavery is a voided example of unique human behavior. I am actually pleased that the behavior is not a unique human trait.

 
 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: St. Josephine on July 14, 2004, 03:51:51 PM
So, how about that Hitler?

Do you mean as a forum administrator or in general? 

As a forum administrator, I picture Hitler just locking threads left and right all the while looping his MP3 of Ride of the Valkyries.

In general, I'll have to agree with jester.  ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: cliffette on July 14, 2004, 07:12:49 PM

Maybe we only use 10% of our brains at any one time... we probably access different parts for different memories/info. Plus alot of our brain is not actually the 'thinking' neuron cells - there are also scaffolding cells and cells that insulate the neurons, which accounts for some of the percentage. Besides, using 10% means we are efficient, as opposed to blowing a brain fuse every time we try to think. :)


This is actually a myth. People use all of their brains (even if it doesn't seem like it sometimes). It would be rather inefficient to have a bunch of unused meat up there, after all :).  http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

Heh - the 10% number does sound like a myth, but I still don't think we use all our brain all the time. I lay stress on 'all the time' - over the course of a month, we probably access a huge percentage of it, but I suspect not all at once. We do seem to leave different portions of the brain in the resting state at different times, so it's a case of definition of 'use' in the original statement - as the article said, is a neuron which hasn't reached its firing threshold being unused? It will eventually be used - just not at the moment of measurement. 

The smartest people are the ones who use the shortest neuronal circuits in their brain. These circuits are set up as we learn and as more neurons make connections with each other. The more connections = the more shortcuts around the brain. So smarter people are the ones who use the shortest paths - and therefore the least % of their brain, which is really interesting.

Efficiency seems to be the key to cleverness (at least in the eyes of first year biology). It's sort of like programming - it's better to have a small block of carefully looping code than to have ten pages of code that does the same thing.

Ok, enough nerdy science lesson. :D
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BigRob on July 14, 2004, 10:26:05 PM
@ BigRob: We do it better? After we have drained, killed and polluted everything on this planet the transcendent principle (with the beard) will look down on this poor infested planet and say: Damn, I almost saw it coming.
All life kills, polutes, and drains. It's just most of the time some other life form is doing it in the other direction. Elephants, for example push down trees that they do not eat. They just clear them away. This results in the spread of grasslands, which further north are turning into desert. The elephants are therefore, in part, responsible for the desertification of northern Africa.

And we're not the only species to cause a mass extinction. When the plants first evolved they started spewing out oxygen, which is a corrosive gas that damages DNA and was highly toxic to most other life forms of the time. An estimated 99% of all species alive at the time became extinct and only those who learned to use or tolerate oxygen survived.


We may be the very first species that is able to look ahead, see the consequences of our actions and do something about it.

Quote
Slavery is a human invention.
There are several species of ants that raid the nests of other species and take their larvae to be slaves.

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 15, 2004, 03:26:18 AM
We may be the very first species that is able to look ahead, see the consequences of our actions and do something about it. Why doesn't this sentence (though you are definitely right about the elephants/ plants) fill my heart with hope?

@ Regullus: I think they got him for assisted suicide IIRC which like euthanasia is ilegal in Germany. As weird as it sounds I find it questionable, if neither of them was drugged or unable to decide for whatever reason (mentallly deranged etc), to acquit someone for an act that is a weird form of consenting adults as repulsive as the act itself may appear (and is to me).
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 15, 2004, 07:31:37 AM
We may be the very first species that is able to look ahead, see the consequences of our actions and do something about it. Why doesn't this sentence (though you are definitely right about the elephants/ plants) fill my heart with hope?

@ Regullus: I think they got him for assisted suicide IIRC which like euthanasia is ilegal in Germany. As weird as it sounds I find it questionable, if neither of them was drugged or unable to decide for whatever reason (mentallly deranged etc), to acquit someone for an act that is a weird form of consenting adults as repulsive as the act itself may appear (and is to me).

 I could not remember what the government convicted it him on. I just remembered the repulsiveness and oddness of the case, and that the prosecutors were somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed.  As you say there is a arguement for no crime having been committed. Take away the disgusting details and you have an assisted suicide. But should assisted suicide be an arbitrary and individual choice or should it meet a set of circumstances, and be overseen by state authority? Just because behaviors takes place between consenting adults of (theorectically) sound mind, should any type of behavior be allowed, and of course that is a slippery slope. Which is why I used the hideous example that I did.

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BigRob on July 15, 2004, 10:19:10 PM
We may be the very first species that is able to look ahead, see the consequences of our actions and do something about it. Why doesn't this sentence (though you are definitely right about the elephants/ plants) fill my heart with hope?
Because you know a human being or two?  ;D

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 08:26:24 AM
We may be the very first species that is able to look ahead, see the consequences of our actions and do something about it. Why doesn't this sentence (though you are definitely right about the elephants/ plants) fill my heart with hope?
Because we're supposed to be better/smarter/better than building the bomb because we can - we're supposed to know, by now, that weapons like that serve One purpose but..  I'll just refrain from continuing.  We're supposed to know better and still "we" do it anyway.  I wonder.. are we still selling DDT to one or another 3rd World Country?

Fossil fuel, nuclear power, over-crowding, over-fishing, etc, etc, etc.  <puke>

edit:
But should assisted suicide be an arbitrary and individual choice or should it meet a set of circumstances, and be overseen by state authority? Just because behaviors takes place between consenting adults of (theorectically) sound mind, should any type of behavior be allowed, and of course that is a slippery slope. Which is why I used the hideous example that I did.
For some.. strange reason, I don't find that example so hideous, but maybe I'm just beyond help.  Probably because they were consenting adults and, theoretically, didn't harm anyone by engaging in their ..er ..choices.  But also because I unequivocally support someone's right to end their own life when they so choose.  Period.  Although there is a part of me that hopes they're sure, I think it's more of a crime to tell them they must live on and endure and suffer (SuFFARRRR!).  *ahem*  Free will and all that rot.   ;)   Dr. Kevorkian, while not a Saint, surely does not deserve to be imprisioned.

Sound mind.. well, while there are lots of clear cut cases, where does one draw the distinction?  By someone's standards homosexuals and cross-dressers are not of sound mind.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 16, 2004, 09:39:08 AM
Do the guys who burn the crosses count as cross-dressers? :P
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: BobTokyo on July 16, 2004, 09:43:47 AM
Do the guys who burn the crosses count as cross-dressers? :P

Don't you mean flaming-cross dressers?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Domi on July 16, 2004, 02:50:57 PM

Because we're supposed to be better/smarter/better than building the bomb because we can - we're supposed to know, by now, that weapons like that serve One purpose but..  I'll just refrain from continuing.  We're supposed to know better and still "we" do it anyway.  I wonder.. are we still selling DDT to one or another 3rd World Country?

Fossil fuel, nuclear power, over-crowding, over-fishing, etc, etc, etc.  <puke>

I'm not sure that burning wood for warmth is much better practice than burning coal or producing nuclear energy. I do not say that unsustainability is some sort of a human right, but I think that  consuming to selfanihilation is being finally acknowledged as a sin and amendments are being made... slowly but surely.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 16, 2004, 10:31:35 PM
Wood and coal are certainly no better.  I was thinking of renewable energy (and fuel efficiency, etc).  ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 17, 2004, 03:28:06 AM
Okay.  In my last attempt to steer this conversation back, did anyone see that Whoopi Goldberg was dropped from the SlimFast Ad campaign after she made some anti-Bush comments?  I originally posted the whole thing, but that's probably a no-no  ;D  so read it here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/16/political.whoopi.ap/index.html

Whoopi has always bashed Bush.  8)  So what gives?

Opinions?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 17, 2004, 10:53:01 AM
I believe, like communism, it's been known to work on a very small scale, but breaks down quickly once you get into double-digits.

I tend to think of the Native Americans as having a communistic society before the European Invaders arrived and screwed everything up.  The Incas, for example, were a very powerful, huge, long-lived Socialist Theocracy.  Really, just read a couple of history books about them.  They were commies.  Additionally, in North America, many tribes lived in ways that closely resembled communism.

That leaves us with a question, however.  Why did it work?  How could the Native Americans pull it off for 20,000 years, encompasing millions of people and not have their structure break down until White people began to commit genocide on the Native Americans?  Personally, I think that the Native Americans could do it because they were cut off from the rest of the world.  While the rest of the world was developing money (and, thus, corruption, greed and apathy), the Native Americans were developing more ways of producing foodstuffs and community projects.  Basically, the Native Americans could make it work because they were not part of a technological revolution that actually caused a backwards leap in culture, kinda like the tech in 1984.

Another example of communism working on a rather large scale can be found in the rural parts of America, particularly Pennsylvania and the West.  The Amish, my friends, are certainly not extinct.  Based upon what I know about them, they certainly come off as being socialists.  They work together, share their products, help each other build each other's houses, tend each other's animals, and a great deal of other community-based things.

Thus, I would like to request that no one ever suggest that communism is flawed.  It is the human desire for technology(technology that may, in fact, be taking away from our knowledge and ingenuity) that has failed us.  Remember- without knowledge there can be no ignorance.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm

If you are looking for Anarchy working on a grand scale..... Well, I'll work on that.  I know it happened somewhere, it just had to.  We must remember that not all anarchy is derived from the core fundementals of the anarchist philosophy.  Taoism, for instance, is deeply entrenched in anarchy, but it is not anarchy.  Rather, it is a different look at a form of government- an Eastern look.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 17, 2004, 11:35:52 AM
In the Old Testament, the book of Exodus tells the story of manna, the miracle food which Yahweh provided for the Jews as they wandered the desert for 40 years after escaping from slavery in Egypt. Every morning, a coat of dew would appear all around the camp with the manna beneath it in a delicate, powdery film. The Jews were instructed to gather it, morning by morning, each according to his needs. The manna spoiled if it was hoarded, so it was not possible for opportunists to turn it into a commodity for profit or speculation.

Now there is a good socialist concept. :D

from
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/economics/ec_dhfromland.htm
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 17, 2004, 11:48:56 AM
What gives is that the right is getting desperate.  As Michael Moore has said many times before, we are winning.  Liberalism is gaining ground, while conservatism is a fading nightmare of the past.  However, as such fundemental changes occur, I must wonder who will rally behind the proletariat?  Liberals are, historically, bourgeoisie (middle class).  Rich are worse.  Read 1984, specifically the quotations from Goldstein's book.  The poor, working-class has been forever exploited by the Middle and Upper classes.  The Liberals use promises (which are then broken) to gain power, and then convert to being conservative.  The conservatives are simply conservative, refusing to hand power out to anyone.  At the same time, socialism has a bad rep because of the Cold War.  It seems to me that, for another cruel cycle, the poor shall once more be exploited and pacified, lest this new breed of liberals finally come through on their promises.

As for the Anarchy versus Fascism argument---

In order to understand such an argument, we must understand the principles behind both sides.  Anarchy (in a working, harmonious form) and Fascism both derive their entire philosophies from one idea- the inherited morality of humanity.  Anarchy (Taoism) assumes that humans are innately good, while Fascism (Legalism) assumes that humans are corrupt, greedy creatures to be controlled into goodness by restrictions.

I am of the school of thought that humans are inherintly good.  As naive as this may sound, I believe that the evil of humanity comes from a multitude of different conditions which we choose (consciously) to adopt.  Basically, I am accusing humanity of choosing to be evil.  Hatred, though always a useful tool for destruction, was never a boon concerning progress.  Weapons were (sometimes) invented because of hatred, but one must ask- is technological advancement truly advancement?  Does each invention push humanity forward, or do some have the potential to drive progress in the opposite direction?  Yet, for all of hatred's costs, many humans choose to hate.  Class warfare, racism, the two party system- America is a machine designed to convert good human beings into weapons of hate, mindless and frenzied.  Yet America is not alone in its efforts.

As such a system has obviously suceeded in its efforts, parts of the world have adopted such a philosophy.  Japan, for instance, has progressed quite far in its attempt to assimilate/import America.  Japan is not alone in its folly.  All across the world our machine has spread- I only hope it is not too late to stop it, for I don't really look forward to Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.  Ingsoc, Neo Boshevism and Death worship stink.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 17, 2004, 03:52:24 PM
Okay.  In my last attempt to steer this conversation back, did anyone see that Whoopi Goldberg was dropped from the SlimFast Ad campaign after she made some anti-Bush comments?  I originally posted the whole thing, but that's probably a no-no  ;D  so read it here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/16/political.whoopi.ap/index.html

Whoopi has always bashed Bush.  8)  So what gives?

Opinions?

  Do you have the right to express your opinion? Yes. Does someone have the right to disagree with your opinion? Yes. There may be consequences when one speaks one's mind, these consequences may come in any form.

 I am, luckily, unfamiliar with the SlimFast company, but perhaps their goal is to sell their product, and they want to sell their product to everyone. So they don't want their company to be associated with partisanship. I may be mistaken but I believe I read that the chairman of SlimFast is a Democrat who has donated $2000 to Kerry's campaign. It was Whoopi Goldberg's decision to speak her mind but one must be aware that there is potential consequence for speaking one's mind.

 If WG went to this event and instead of speaking about GB she instead spoke about her dislike of homosexuals, after the event she is fired from Slim Fast. You would applaud. Yet I would argue that she would have been fired for the same reason. Problem with free speech, it cuts both ways. People can say what they want but there may be consequences.

 What you basically want is exceptionalism. :) You agree with WG's remarks and believe there should be no consequence for genial and true comments. I am doubtful that WG will suffer too much from being removed from Slim Fast.  Or are you suggesting that this is a form of suppression?  ;)

PS: Over at the "Stating the Obvious" thread, Daerthax posted that he/she were opposed to gay marriage. Gave reasons for opposition, and did not advocate harm to homosexuals, or whatever. Stated his/her opinion. At least Neriana and Jester (or I hope he was deriding) opposed and mocked Daerthax's post. Did Neriana and Jester oppress Daerthax? Will Daerthax feel free to state his/her belief in future posts or has he/she been effectively muzzled?  Opinions? In an attempt to stay on topic. ;D

 

 
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 17, 2004, 09:11:21 PM
Do you have the right to express your opinion? Yes. Does someone have the right to disagree with your opinion? Yes. There may be consequences when one speaks one's mind, these consequences may come in any form.

I am, luckily, unfamiliar with the SlimFast company, but perhaps their goal is to sell their product, and they want to sell their product to everyone. So they don't want their company to be associated with partisanship. I may be mistaken but I believe I read that the chairman of SlimFast is a Democrat who has donated $2000 to Kerry's campaign. It was Whoopi Goldberg's decision to speak her mind but one must be aware that there is potential consequence for speaking one's mind.
Indeed.  But should the consequences be allowed to take any form?  I'm sure you're familiar with the term backlash.   

"The Slim-Fast Foods Co. is based in West Palm Beach, Florida, where President Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

The company's decision to drop Goldberg likely has more to do with consumer complaints than the politics of the executives. Slim-Fast was run by S. Daniel Abraham, who has donated large sums to the Democratic Party. The company was sold to the conglomerate Unilever in 2000."


The previous owner did donate to the democratic party, but ownership has changed - your point is?  Based on my political discussion* in the other folder, it is assumed that I am saying this move was political?  I did not.  So, since SlimFast is a product for people who want to lose weight, is it also assumed that I buy the product?  I do not.

*Edit: that should read postings.  I'm actually trying to steer clear of most discussion.

Quote
If WG went to this event and instead of speaking about GB she instead spoke about her dislike of homosexuals, after the event she is fired from Slim Fast. You would applaud. Yet I would argue that she would have been fired for the same reason. Problem with free speech, it cuts both ways. People can say what they want but there may be consequences.

What you basically want is exceptionalism. :) You agree with WG's remarks and believe there should be no consequence for genial and true comments. I am doubtful that WG will suffer too much from being removed from Slim Fast.  Or are you suggesting that this is a form of suppression?  ;)
Of course I want exceptionalism - the absolutes, remember? - but I also wanted opinions.  And you are assuming what I want based on what you think you know about me (based on the words I have typed in this little box as they relate to a few topics).  Humans are more than that, are they not?  :)

This was a real-world example of freely speaking and real consequences.  Yes, I am suggesting this is a form of sup/oppression.  I would also suggest that there is a vast difference between mocking Bush, and stereo-typing/mocking a group of people.

Quote
PS: Over at the "Stating the Obvious" thread, Daerthax posted that he/she were opposed to gay marriage. Gave reasons for opposition, and did not advocate harm to homosexuals, or whatever. Stated his/her opinion. At least Neriana and Jester (or I hope he was deriding) opposed and mocked Daerthax's post. Did Neriana and Jester oppress Daerthax? Will Daerthax feel free to state his/her belief in future posts or has he/she been effectively muzzled?  Opinions? In an attempt to stay on topic. ;D
"At least Neirana & Jester... opposed and mocked.." ...at least?  Daerthax probably has been "muzzled", to use your word, and I think that is unfortunate.  Your point is?  (I certainly hope you didn't think I was happy to see it, because I wasn't.)  Are you saying that a consequence of Daerthax speaking their mind is being "mocked"?  Is this acceptable?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 17, 2004, 11:04:44 PM
"Indeed.  But should the consequences be allowed to take any form?  I'm sure you're familiar with the term
backlash
." 

 Within the law. No physical harm, harassment, etc. I will maintain that the company's goal is to sell their product and the company probably does not wish to lose any potential business through potential controversies.

 "The Slim-Fast Foods Co. is based in West Palm Beach, Florida, where President Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor."

 Are you suggesting conspiracy? Is Unilever a provable partisan company?

"Humans are more than that, are they not?"

 Indeed they are.

"I would also suggest that there is a vast difference between mocking Bush, and stereo-typing/mocking a group of people."

 Really? Do you suggest the "mocking" of Bush is simply about Bush or is Bush symbolic for many people. Was it Bush the individual or did perhaps the "mocking" encompass more than the individual? It is potentially possible that one could be mocking 50% of voters in the US, or a couple of million people? :)

 "At least Neirana & Jester... opposed and mocked.."

 Poorly stated, at the minimum, at least two.

" Daerthax probably has been "muzzled", to use your word, and I think that is unfortunate.  Your point is?  (I certainly hope you didn't think I was happy to see it, because I wasn't.) "

 No my point was not to imply that you were happy to see Daerthax censored. :) My point was to point out a mundane example of censure that may or may not have (as I don't know what Daerthax thinks) had the effect of inhibitng opinion and censoring free expression. An example too that exists in the everday world.

"... a consequence of Daerthax speaking their mind is being "mocked"?  Is this acceptable?"

 Is it acceptable? Hmm. What is acceptable? :-\

 Could it be expected? Yes.

 I will maintain that person has a right to state opinion and another person or company has the right to dissent, or distant themselves from an opinion giver. Whether it is changing spokespeople, mocking or stating an opposing point of view, simply responding poorly, or simpy not responding at all.

 In the US free speech has never meant that you could do or say what you wanted without potential consequence, theorectically, a consequence within the law. It is a right to burn the US flag but you will probably get arrested for starting a fire without a permit.

 Still on topic. ;)







Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 18, 2004, 12:14:00 AM
"The Slim-Fast Foods Co. is based in West Palm Beach, Florida, where President Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor."
 Are you suggesting conspiracy? Is Unilever a provable partisan company?
The articles wording, not mine.  I was merely clarifying that the current owner is not a democrat as you had stated in your response, iirc.  I would prefer the politics of the company remain unknown.  Since I do so little actual speaking in that other thread (or no more than I feel I must) I will say that neither party holds particular appeal for me.  The lines have become so blurred.. but that's enough of that.

Quote
"I would also suggest that there is a vast difference between mocking Bush, and stereo-typing/mocking a group of people."
 Really? Do you suggest the "mocking" of Bush is simply about Bush or is Bush symbolic for many people. Was it Bush the individual or did perhaps the "mocking" encompass more than the individual? It is potentially possible that one could be mocking 50% of voters in the US, or a couple of million people? :)
I'm not going to say anything until you make your point because, either you lost me or you're leading me.  :)

Quote
" Daerthax probably has been "muzzled", to use your word, and I think that is unfortunate.  Your point is?  (I certainly hope you didn't think I was happy to see it, because I wasn't.) "

 No my point was not to imply that you were happy to see Daerthax censored. :) My point was to point out a mundane example of censure that may or may not have (as I don't know what Daerthax thinks) had the effect of inhibitng opinion and censoring free expression. An example too that exists in the everday world.
A good one it is.

Quote
"... a consequence of Daerthax speaking their mind is being "mocked"?  Is this acceptable?"

 Is it acceptable? Hmm. What is acceptable? :-\

 Could it be expected? Yes.
And this is where personal responsibility must intervene.  This is where I need to ask myself what I would say to that person were they right in front of my face.  ..how would I feel if I heard what I just said/typed.  (Yes, a kinder, gentler.. is it really such an obscene concept?  To think before we speak?  None of us are made of teflon, especially when most of us don't know who we're talking to on the other end of the post.)  Hateful/biased comments are particularly hard to address and/or ignore - and hate/bias is easily masked.  MisInterpreted.  Assumed.  The internet is just a poor medium when coupled with our own short-comings.

Quote
I will maintain that person has a right to state opinion and another person or company has the right to dissent, or distant themselves from an opinion giver. Whether it is changing spokespeople, mocking or stating an opposing point of view, simply responding poorly, or simpy not responding at all.

 In the US free speech has never meant that you could do or say what you wanted without potential consequence, theorectically, a consequence within the law. It is a right to burn the US flag but you will probably get arrested for starting a fire without a permit.
So it's not really free, then, is it.

Quote
Still on topic.  ;)
Yes, yes.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on July 18, 2004, 03:29:53 AM
I did not mock Daerthax' opinion, but rather tried to exagerate his point to show the consequence of this reasoning as I see them. He can think and express whatever he wants. Sometimes satire is the only way.

The internet is just a poor medium when coupled with our own short-comings.

I think this medium complements my shortcomings just fine. :D :P
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 18, 2004, 04:28:48 AM
Satire is one way.  ;)

But, sometimes, it only serves to lower or lessen the level of the conversation.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 18, 2004, 07:54:35 AM
I did not mock Daerthax' opinion, but rather tried to exagerate his point to show the consequence of this reasoning as I see them. He can think and express whatever he wants. Sometimes satire is the only way.

sat·ire   n. 1. a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature. 2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. ;)

   I was merely clarifying that the current owner is not a democrat as you had stated in your response, iirc. 

 I must take umbrage at the above sentence, my "statement"  was conditioned by "I believe...and...I may be mistaken."

 I'm not going to say anything until you make your point because, either you lost me or you're leading me. 

 To imply that it was simply one public individual mocking another public individual at a public gathering would be disingenous. That sentence would ignore several pertinent facts. The event was a political event, WG was making her comments not at Bush the individual but Bush the incumbent, at a party for the political opposition. Bush is the head of the Republican party and by mocking Bush and his policies she is potentially mocking at least a couple of million or more republicans of which as much as 50% may be overweight and potential Slim Fast users.

And this is where personal responsibility must intervene.  This is where I need to ask myself what I would say to that person were they right in front of my face.  ..how would I feel if I heard what I just said/typed.  (Yes, a kinder, gentler.. is it really such an obscene concept?  To think before we speak?  None of us are made of teflon, especially when most of us don't know who we're talking to on the other end of the post.)  Hateful/biased comments are particularly hard to address and/or ignore - and hate/bias is easily masked.  MisInterpreted.  Assumed.  The internet is just a poor medium when coupled with our own short-comings

 I once had an argument or discussion with a person at a party about whether or not wolves should be re-introduced into Yellowstone Park. His stance was that wolves should be re-introduced, and he gave all the attendent reasons for his point of view. My stance was that wolves should be protected in the areas that they had migrated and not re-introduced to the park. If re-introduced the wolves would likely come into conflict with man, and the wolves would lose the conflict.

 He stated his point of view, I stated my point of view. I would have described the discussion as mild. Barely was the last word out of my mouth when he turned to me, his mouth tight, his eyes glittering with suppressed fury, and said angrily, "You're a WASP aren't you?" I said, "Huh. What does that have to do with anything?" After several minutes of questioning his reasoning in a benign manner, I wandered off. ::)

 I mention that to point out that you don't need to be on the internet in order to feel unconstrained by social niceties, nor to be strange or rude.  :)

So it's not really free, then, is it.

 Is personal responsibility and consequence really an anathema to freedom?

 

 






Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: nurgles_herald on July 18, 2004, 08:02:40 PM
I love to be the person to break down people's rhetoric (because I'm really a nasty, cruel person), so here'goes....

What did WG actually say?  Because it is possible, Regullus, that WG commented on something that pertains not to Bush's incumbency but Bush himself.  She may have stated that Bush was dumb.  Now, it is an easy feat to read between the lines and connect such a statement with a hate/dislike for/of Bush's incumbency, but that would require being a conspiracy nut (like me  ;D  haha!).

So, in a totally non-critical way, I ask anyone on this thread-

What did Whoopi even bloody say?!
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 19, 2004, 08:56:47 AM
To imply that it was simply one public individual mocking another public individual at a public gathering would be disingenous. That sentence would ignore several pertinent facts. The event was a political event, WG was making her comments not at Bush the individual but Bush the incumbent, at a party for the political opposition. Bush is the head of the Republican party and by mocking Bush and his policies she is potentially mocking at least a couple of million or more republicans of which as much as 50% may be overweight and potential Slim Fast users.
That's ...a strange train of logic.  I can't even begin to address it, so we'll have to agree to disagree until I'm struck with an epiphany.  I understand half of what you're saying, but the rest.. just doesn't 'jive'.  :)  It's mixing what are supposed to be two seperate entities.  Business and politics.  Or is politics a business?  Business is like politics, I won't dispute that; the flip-side of your argument, though, is that they (slimfast) have now alienated Kerry supporters.  I mean, which side do you give in to?  Then there's also the fine line of - what if you were fired for voicing opinions at a political rally?  What if your employment contract did Not expressly forbid you from doing so, but the company did it anyway?

Whoopi Goldberg has always bashed Bush, she has always engaged in explicit humor, she just had a show on TV in which she took all kinds of jabs at Bush, this is an election year... 2 + 2 = 4.

You know what I find most offensive?  The crap (from both sides) I'm reading while trying to find out exactly what she said.  Both sides just keep trading barbs.  It's ridiculous.  As if one side is more "right" or "genuine" or "upstanding" than the other.  We need serious help.  (Including me - I can't talk about politics anymore) :D

Quote
I mention that to point out that you don't need to be on the internet in order to feel unconstrained by social niceties, nor to be strange or rude.  :)
Some people are just strange and rude by design, or willfully, some aren't.  Unless they have a reasonable vocabulary (for starters) how do you know the difference?  What if they speak broken english, type broken english, misuse words, mispell words - how do you interpret what they're saying?  Sometimes "your" vocabulary is 'too good' - Or, what if they use the same 'tired rhetoric' you've heard a million times before?  I wasn't talking about being unconstrained, I was actually talking about being constrained by our own abilities - because all we have to relay our intent/convey our meaning/speak our piece (or even just shoot the shit) are the words we (choose to) put into this box.

Quote
So it's not really free, then, is it.
 Is personal responsibility and consequence really an anathema to freedom?
ana- what?  :P  You're going to have to rephrase that.  :)

(Nurgles, all I can find, since it was a PRIVATE fundraiser, is: "During the event, comedian Whoopi Goldberg made sexually explicit comments that were puns on Bush's name.." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/fundraiser.flap/index.html) But that's been done before.. I've got a(n explicit) t-shirt from when his daddy ran  ;D  It's just too easy - oh the outrage  ::)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 19, 2004, 01:57:25 PM
Whoopi Goldberg has always bashed Bush, she has always engaged in explicit humor, she just had a show on TV in which she took all kinds of jabs at Bush, this is an election year... 2 + 2 = 4.

You know what I find most offensive?  The crap (from both sides) I'm reading while trying to find out exactly what she said.  Both sides just keep trading barbs.  It's ridiculous.  As if one side is more "right" or "genuine" or "upstanding" than the other.  We need serious help.  (Including me - I can't talk about politics anymore) :D


  It is perfectly true that WG is a saucy comic, and has not only made comic use of Bush Jr.. She referred to Edwards as a youthful, which in turn caused Kerry to refer to Edwards as manly, which of course sounded silly.

@Nurgles - The controversy comes from the purported crudity of the remarks.

OFF TOPIC: Did you know there is a Kerry/Edwards slash site? I think it is meant in a nice way. ???

Topic On: I could not agree with you more about the trading of barbs.

 Is personal responsibility and consequence really an anathema to freedom?

and- what?  :P  You're going to have to rephrase that.  :)

 I should know by now that I cannot get away with shortcuts. :)

 Does freedom of expression mean that the individual may express themselves in any manner the individual deems acceptable? I would say yes but there is or may be a consequence and there is personal responsibilty for the choice in how the individual has chosen to use their freedom. If the individual chose to assualt another individual than the consequence could be arrest. May I claim that my freedom of expression has been curtailed because I chose an unsuitable way to express myself? Is freedom of expression curtailed because the individual has chosen to act and there may be a known or unknown consequence?

 In Italy, two individuals got into a minor disagreement, one individual told the other individual that he was "nothing," The man was taken to court and fined several hundred euros for his "insult." In the US, if I wrote an individual and insulted the individual's race, sexual orientation, or religion, and wrote that I did not like x,y or z,  I could, in theory, be charged with a hate crime. A federal crime. How about Political Correctness? These are far more tangled topics than whether or not WG was unfairly treated by Slim Fast. I still maintain that WG had every right to say what she wanted and Slim Fast had every right to replace her.

 You know Cybersquirt, you and I write exceptionally long posts. ;D

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 20, 2004, 05:14:25 AM
Quote
You know Cybersquirt, you and I write exceptionally long posts. ;D
Ah yes.  But when does good conversation consist of merely one line?  Don't answer that..  ;)

Is personal responsibility and consequence really an anathema to freedom?

ana- what?  :P  You're going to have to rephrase that.  :)

I should know by now that I cannot get away with shortcuts. :)
I actually had no idea what you were trying to say.  That's just not a word I use in my vocabulary.  :)

Quote
Does freedom of expression mean that the individual may express themselves in any manner the individual deems acceptable? I would say yes but there is or may be a consequence and there is personal responsibilty for the choice in how the individual has chosen to use their freedom. If the individual chose to assualt another individual than the consequence could be arrest. May I claim that my freedom of expression has been curtailed because I chose an unsuitable way to express myself? Is freedom of expression curtailed because the individual has chosen to act and there may be a known or unknown consequence?
But who deems it unacceptable - society?  I can accept that (when it truly is representive of my actual society), but when one is arrested, under whose law are they being arrested?  "The peoples"?  Not in all cases.  When one is tried, in a court of law, who is actually judging them?  If it's a jury trial, their peers?  Who picks 'their peers'?  Were justice truly blind... the flag burning you mentioned actually resonated; protesters, last year - thousands of people arrested, some for merely walking down the sidewalk.  When did the American people decide that protesting is illegal?  Er..  next!  :P

Individual choice and consequence I can accept.  But when did every other (read: four in five) consequences become a legal action?  Pretty soon people are going to start getting sued for engaging in flame wars on the net.  ::)

Anarchy v Facism  :o  ;D

Quote
In Italy, two individuals got into a minor disagreement, one individual told the other individual that he was "nothing," The man was taken to court and fined several hundred euros for his "insult." In the US, if I wrote an individual and insulted the individual's race, sexual orientation, or religion, and wrote that I did not like x,y or z,  I could, in theory, be charged with a hate crime. A federal crime. How about Political Correctness? These are far more tangled topics than whether or not WG was unfairly treated by Slim Fast. I still maintain that WG had every right to say what she wanted and Slim Fast had every right to replace her.
Okay.  I'll just say: They are both, eventually, settled in courts of law and I don't want to/cannot debate law to any real degree.   Slim Fast only had the right to -fire- her if they implicitly/explicitly told her she could not make political statements, far as I know.  They hired her to do a job and she did that job.  Besides, even Kerry is distancing himself from her.  ::)

We can par this down and drop the WG/SlimFast debate.. Although it is a matter of free expression/suppression, the damage is monetary, ultimately, and not the direction I'd like to head in at all.  ;)

As to the first example - Not that I don't think law has its place in todays society, but.. it just complicates things.. er.. further  ::)  And there are many laws relating to op/suppression, before the Patriot Act and after, that I do not agree with.

Quote
May I claim that my freedom of expression has been curtailed because I chose an unsuitable way to express myself? Is freedom of expression curtailed because the individual has chosen to act and there may be a known or unknown consequence?
Again, who deems it unacceptable/unsuitable?  Society or Law?  I believe the 2 are not as closely related as they once were - if they ever were.  And the term 'Political Correctness' is now so maligned that we sh/could just chuck that.  ::)

I spent a considerable portion of my young adulthood on a gay BBs and we had verbal 'bashers' coming in all the time.  We just couldn't stop them.  Suing them wasn't an option and, frankly, I'm glad - What we learned to do was ignore them.  'It takes 2 to tango' and once we weren't yelling back they weren't having any more fun - the cycle continued, but we learned.  (don't forget that many states do not recognize sexual orientation in their definition of hate crimes.) 

Am I free to say what I want?  Well, I used to say that the only thing I have to do is die.  While that is still fundamentally true, the legal (and, sometimes, emotional) consequences of doing and saying what I want are not worth facing.  Is that a "bad/good" thing?  I don't know.  But I do know that it's only in learning to deal with things, on a personal level, that we ever really get anything resolved. 

Stick and stones?  Hell no, words have extreme power.. but where does the regulation stop?  ..especially on this medium?  Only with ourselves.  The more we rely on external regulation (law) the more we bind ourselves.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 20, 2004, 09:23:55 PM
Slim Fast only had the right to -fire- her if they implicitly/explicitly told her she could not make political statements, far as I know.  They hired her to do a job and she did that job.  Besides, even Kerry is distancing himself from her. 

  This situation does come back to law as well. In every contract there is what used to be called a "morality" clause. These type of clauses are purposefully broad outs for a company to use. WG is no neophyte. There was also probably a clause that prohibited her from gaining a certain amount of weight, both clauses are standard to contracts of this type for obvious reasons. This will end up in court if WG has a case.

 Individual choice and consequence I can accept.  But when did every other (read: four in five) consequences become a legal action?  Pretty soon people are going to start getting sued for engaging in flame wars on the net. 

 Unintended consequence. Well intentioned but... :(

Am I free to say what I want?  Well, I used to say that the only thing I have to do is die.  While that is still fundamentally true, the legal (and, sometimes, emotional) consequences of doing and saying what I want are not worth facing.  Is that a "bad/good" thing?  I don't know.  But I do know that it's only in learning to deal with things, on a personal level, that we ever really get anything resolved. 

 Specifically @ consequences, history and the present are full of people that spoke when it was not in their interest to speak and the consequences of their speaking against an established practice meant the potential loss of liberty and life. Good or bad? The answer is both. PC may have gone overboard but it does make people think too. Substantially I agree with the above.

What we learned to do was ignore them.  'It takes 2 to tango' and once we weren't yelling back they weren't having any more fun - the cycle continued, but we learned.  (don't forget that many states do not recognize sexual orientation in their definition of hate crimes.)

 To ignore is often the best way of defusing a situation, and on the internet a very powerful control.  I was thinking of federal law as opposed to individual state laws but I am unfamilliar with the specifics, I assumed that sexual orientation was covered.

But who deems it unacceptable - society?  I can accept that (when it truly is representive of my actual society), but when one is arrested, under whose law are they being arrested?  If it's a jury trial, their peers?  Who picks 'their peers'? 

 Society, history, established morality have all contributed to the creation of laws. Unfair laws have been challenged and changed. Justice is not blind and sadly there are convictions that end in death or long term imprisonment that are unfair. That said, who may judge me or you or anyone? What would be a fairer system? A judge alone? May a woman judge a man? In some societies,the answer would be never.  May Asians only judge Asians. May a black man ever be the only fair judge to another black man? Or a wasp to another wasp? I would say no it is not necessary for fairness.

..words have extreme power.. but where does the regulation stop?  ..especially on this medium?  Only with ourselves.  The more we rely on external regulation (law) the more we bind ourselves.

 Very true but there has been and will be extreme violations of conduct that will result in legal restrictions, and diminishment of freedom in this medium.

Ah yes.  But when does good conversation consist of merely one line?  Don't answer that.. 

You said not to answer but...I cannot stop my impulse to comment. That is one of the politest sentences that I have ever seen in an internet conversation. :)

 Does this response make any sense? I am basically answering by sentence. If what I said does not make sense, just ignore it. ;)

 

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 20, 2004, 11:44:00 PM
It made sense.  I'm still chuckling because I think we've come to the egde of the abyss.  ;)

edit: edge, even..  ::)

In all that ranting, I realize I may have come across as.. saying that we ought never need laws.  That's not what I was trying to relay.  There are extreme, vile, dire situations werein reprecussion needs to be immediate and decisive.  But even law needs to be responsible.

..if that makes sense to you, we need to buy each other a beer or an espresso.  ..or both.   :D
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 21, 2004, 12:10:35 AM
(take 2)
But who deems it unacceptable - society?  I can accept that (when it truly is representive of my actual society), but when one is arrested, under whose law are they being arrested?  If it's a jury trial, their peers?  Who picks 'their peers'? 

 Society, history, established morality have all contributed to the creation of laws. Unfair laws have been challenged and changed. Justice is not blind and sadly there are convictions that end in death or long term imprisonment that are unfair. That said, who may judge me or you or anyone? What would be a fairer system? A judge alone? May a woman judge a man? In some societies,the answer would be never.  May Asians only judge Asians. May a black man ever be the only fair judge to another black man? Or a wasp to another wasp? I would say no it is not necessary for fairness.
A fairer system would be an unbiased system.  There do exist unbiased people (no, I am not exactly one of them) but they are rare.  This, of course, speaks to men judging women, blacks judging whites, even rich judging poor.  And what happens when the channels to challenge the laws become corrupt?   :-\

This, to me, ties into the whole concept of evolution, change, growth, renewal, transcendance, whatever you want to call it.  We are (imo, obviously) not ready for lawless society.  Perhaps, by our very nature, we never will be.

Morality.  Well, we can think of more than a few things that I would find perfectly "normal" and many others would find immoral, no?  ;)

..I just had a thought (uh-huh  ::))  What laws actually regulate speech?  A hate crime is action, far as I know; there is no law about being PC in speech, far as I know.. although, in my 'hate crimes' search I saw plenty of garbage tying the 2 together.  Seems to me there was a case, recently, that basically decided someone could not be coerced into actions based on ..hateful or biased speech.  Didn't I?  (or maybe it's mentioned in the book I'm reading.)

Edit #15:
Quote
civilrights.org
June 16, 2004

Supporting federal laws against hate crimes, the Senate on June 15 approved (65 to 33) the Local Law Enforcement Act (LLEEA), which among other changes, expands federal hate crime protection to include sexual orientation, gender, and disability.

Offered as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill by Senators Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., LLEEA allows for better investigation and prosecution of bias-motivated crimes.

The current federal law on hate crimes was passed after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1964. Critics say that the outdated law includes far too many restrictions requiring proof that a victim is attacked.

"The Smith-Kennedy Amendment strengthens the federal hate crimes statute by removing unnecessary obstacles to federal prosecution and by providing authority for federal involvement in a wider category of bias-motivated crimes," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Current hate crimes law leaves federal prosecutors powerless to intervene in bias-motivated crimes when they cannot also establish that the crime was committed because of the victim's involvement in a "federally-protected activity" such as serving on a jury, attending a public school, or voting.

LLEEA enhances federal response to all hate crime violence and now includes violent crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, and disability, in addition to the existing categories of race, color, religion, and national origin.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Guest on July 21, 2004, 05:30:21 AM
What sets humans apart from animals?  The capacity for Evil, I think.  Murder, genocide, hatred, betrayal, N'Sync... you never see animals doing any of these things.

Take the following groups of individuals:
  The Imfirm
  The young
  The elderly

In the human world, we take [special] care of those groups.

In the animal world those groups are the first to be eaten
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 21, 2004, 09:33:47 AM
What sets humans apart from animals?  The capacity for Evil, I think.  Murder, genocide, hatred, betrayal, N'Sync... you never see animals doing any of these things.

Take the following groups of individuals:
  The Imfirm
  The young
  The elderly

In the human world, we take [special] care of those groups.

 The animal world, at least the mammals that I know, take great care of their young. I have seen  domesticated animals defend elderly or infirmed animals from danger. I believe that does take place in the wild too if the predator is fightable. I have actually never seen "bad" parenting done by an animal. I seen better parents than others but never bad in the way that humans can be bad. At times in different cultures children were a source of wealth or resoure.

 "Exposing" an unwanted child and infanticide are not uncommon. Luckily it seems to be in the minority but it exists. The Romans exposed children and this act continues today in some societies. Care of the infirm is getting better today than perhaps at any other point in history but throughout history and culture the infirmed have not always been well treated. Again elder respect and good treatment vary with the times and culture.

..I just had a thought (uh-huh  )  What laws actually regulate speech?  A hate crime is action, far as I know; there is no law about being PC in speech, far as I know.. although, in my 'hate crimes' search I saw plenty of garbage tying the 2 together.  Seems to me there was a case, recently, that basically decided someone could not be coerced into actions based on ..hateful or biased speech.  Didn't I?  (or maybe it's mentioned in the book I'm reading.)

 As to specific laws there are libel or slander (I always forget which is the legal definition) laws. After I believe the Paul Johnson beheading, somebody wrote a letter in PJ's neighborhood to a Muslim family that asked what the deal was with Islam, and beheading people, and what I read was pretty mild, but it was listed as an example of a anti-Muslim hate crime and reported as a hate crime.

..if that makes sense to you, we need to buy each other a beer or an espresso.  ..or both.

 It made sense and I agree with you. I think the best we can do is a "virtual" beer or expresso or both. ;D

 Thanks for the definition of the hate crime statue.   


 


Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 21, 2004, 07:52:43 PM
As to specific laws there are libel or slander (I always forget which is the legal definition) laws. After I believe the Paul Johnson beheading, somebody wrote a letter in PJ's neighborhood to a Muslim family that asked what the deal was with Islam, and beheading people, and what I read was pretty mild, but it was listed as an example of a anti-Muslim hate crime and reported as a hate crime.
Ouch.  Well, I'd have to see the letter -- I'm sure the Muslims (here and there) are a little touchy these days.  ;)

It was in the book I'm reading - I'm not sure if it's changed today, but in 1942, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire established the Fighting Words Doctrine.  These are (were?) the exceptions to First Ammendment protections.  "Rather than insisting that the target of the [offensive] speech control himself, it tells the offending speaker to shut up." Nigger, Randall Kennedy.

After a minor search, I found this:
Quote
Legal definition of 'fighting words'
Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.

The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.

(SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition)

Quote
Thanks for the definition of the hate crime statue.
Well, it was just an excerpt from an article about the hate crime addendum that was passed, only a month ago, to add sexual orientation, gender, and disability.  :)

edited to clarify quotations.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 22, 2004, 12:00:40 AM
I'm sure the Muslims (here and there) are a little touchy these days.   

True. (Not meant sarcastically.)

Legal definition of 'fighting words'

 Very interesting. Sounds fairly sensible.  I have never heard it used as a defense. I wonder if it is used regularly or successfully?

 However it is akin in some ways to blaming the victim, or perhaps in blurring the lines between who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. Forinstance, "What could she expect if she acted and dressed provocatively?" Or the Teena Brando case in which it was alleged that the victim instigated his/her own murder by inappropriate behaviors. Don't even get me started on the Haidl case. >:(

 The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech

 I think that sums it up quite well. Good Job. :)

 Well, it was just an excerpt from an article about the hate crime addendum that was passed, only a month ago, to add sexual orientation, gender, and disability

 It just seemed an obvious that it should be law and so I assumed it was law. :)



 


Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 22, 2004, 06:05:32 AM
Legal definition of 'fighting words'

 Very interesting. Sounds fairly sensible.  I have never heard it used as a defense. I wonder if it is used regularly or successfully?
Interesting question; One that I don't have an answer for.  ..don't feel like looking for one, either.  :D  But, if I'm reading the quote correctly, it was used at least twice, successfully.

Quote
However it is akin in some ways to blaming the victim, or perhaps in blurring the lines between who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. For instance, "What could she expect if she acted and dressed provocatively?" Or the Teena Brando case in which it was alleged that the victim instigated his/her own murder by inappropriate behaviors. Don't even get me started on the Haidl case.
I think you're misunderstanding what it's saying, or I'm not following you.  Who the victim is would be uncontested; The perpetrator, the person using the word, bears the 'blame' (automatically guilty) for ..actually using the word.  The Fighting words doctrine says that they shouldn't have used the word in the first place.  I'd say it's one of the few "common sense" laws I've seen.  :)

Teena Brando, the girl that dressed like a boy?

Quote
The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech
 I think that sums it up quite well. Good Job. :)
Pat Blacks Law on the back, not me  ;D  (guess I should have made the quoted parts a bit more obvious.)

(cheers, btw  ;))
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 22, 2004, 10:28:26 AM
Interesting question; One that I don't have an answer for.  ..don't feel like looking for one, either.    But, if I'm reading the quote correctly, it was used at least twice, successfully.

 That's alright. I think you have already done quite a bit of research.

 I think you're misunderstanding what it's saying, or I'm not following you.  Who the victim is would be uncontested; The perpetrator, the person using the word, bears the 'blame' (automatically guilty) for ..actually using the word.  The Fighting words doctrine says that they shouldn't have used the word in the first place.  I'd say it's one of the few "common sense" laws I've seen. 

 I agree it does seem a common sense law. Obviously if you speak "fighting words" at someone then the potential for an extreme reaction is great. Again yes, the word or words should not have been spoken. I assume the cases involved assault in response to the "fighting words" and the response was considered legally justified.

 I was just extrapolating that often a victim's behavior is used to negate a perpetrator's behavior or crime. Which may result in a blurring of lines between victim and perpetrator. At times it will make it very difficult to get a crime even into the legal system.

 A classic example is a rape victim, she was "provocative" hence she deserved the rape, she brought the crime upon herself.  It is also a fairly common human reaction. Not necessarily a fully negative response, I think probably people are simply horrified and uncomfortable with awful events and they try and find reasons why a terrible event occurred and how it can be avoided. Why the courts do it, I don't know.

 Potential consequence, deserved consequence, expected consequence etc. Just a glimpse into my undisciplined thought processes.  :D

 An Aside: I was watching "Monster" the other day and my main reaction was that murder was a possible consequence if you picked up prostitutes from a highway. Not a deserved consequence but a potential consequence.

Teena Brando, the girl that dressed like a boy?

 Oops Brandon and yes.

Pat Blacks Law on the back, not me    (guess I should have made the quoted parts a bit more obvious.)

 I realized but you found it and you put it up. You deserve the praise. ;)







Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Odruith on July 23, 2004, 11:41:17 PM
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses." Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

J. Stalin - "Anarchism or Socialism?" 1907
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on July 24, 2004, 06:09:38 AM
(^ Uh.. huh.. and?  :))

A classic example is a rape victim, she was "provocative" hence she deserved the rape, she brought the crime upon herself.  It is also a fairly common human reaction. Not necessarily a fully negative response, I think probably people are simply horrified and uncomfortable with awful events and they try and find reasons why a terrible event occurred and how it can be avoided. Why the courts do it, I don't know.

 Potential consequence, deserved consequence, expected consequence etc. Just a glimpse into my undisciplined thought processes.  :D
I think the 'she deserves what she got' is multi-faceted.  One of the facets being bias or jrejudice, another being a possible (and LAME) attempt at an explaination.

Quote
An Aside: I was watching "Monster" the other day and my main reaction was that murder was a possible consequence if you picked up prostitutes from a highway. Not a deserved consequence but a potential consequence.
Not familiar with that ..movie?  Well, yeah, but a potential consequence of eating is choking to death  ;D
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Regullus on July 24, 2004, 06:40:17 PM

Not familiar with that ..movie?  Well, yeah, but a potential consequence of eating is choking to death  ;D

The biopic of Aileen Wournos. Starring Charlize Theron in an academy award winning performance. I once read a statistic that 5000 people were rushed to the emergency room every year for pillow induced injuries in the US.  Best not to overthink such stats.  :o

Sorry I am off topic again.  ;)
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 06, 2004, 06:08:14 AM
A question I've been pondering lately:

How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
Why *did* you start this thread, anyway?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on August 06, 2004, 06:46:18 AM
Academic interest, I bet. :P Unrelated to any events anywhere else.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: neriana on August 06, 2004, 08:01:03 PM
A question I've been pondering lately:

How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
Why *did* you start this thread, anyway?

Why do you care? That question's certainly not on topic. Do you want a full psychoanalysis of all my motivations or something?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Cybersquirt on August 06, 2004, 09:26:51 PM
Er ..I suppose it was prompted by the fact that you started the thread and only commented on it once - In an OT comment, at that.  I was actually just curious.

peace, eh?  o_o
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: neriana on August 06, 2004, 10:00:16 PM
Believe it or not, I started the thread for exactly the reason I stated. I've been watching the discussion with interest and haven't had anything to add.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Joe on August 07, 2004, 10:25:35 PM
Anarchism and fascism are extremes that should never, ever be reached by any society.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on December 08, 2004, 06:35:36 PM

 if 'reached by' means 'forced upon', we're in total agreement.  but that's not what i've ever taken 'reached' to mean.

 if 'reached' means 'achieved' or 'put into actual practice', wtf?  in the chase of anarchism*  - what's so unacceptably extreme about individuals holding themselves, by extension each other, accountable within a community/society?

 we've seen the damage fascism can do, yes.  at least there we have the benefit of more prolific documentation (e.g. of axis italy) - as opposed to anarchism (the spanish civil war being a slight exception, thanks in part to george orwell), which has major bogeyman residuals (and attendant fact-clouding) attached to it by centuries+ of various stati (stata?) quo.
  like all political philosophies that have ever been conceived, regardless of their relative/comparative 'success' or 'shelf life':  if not everybody in the great big petri dish agrees to it, it's doomed to 'exhibit flaws'.  i hope i won't be forced to trot out the truism that 'true democracy' is Mob Rule... :-*
 to carry that argument to capitalism for just a moment {forgive the OTness}: the market is not free.  the keel was never even - in recorded/historical memory.  and so on.  all forms of politics and economics have ideals that have never been actualized on a nationwide scale.

 *bonus points for using the term of political philosophy, not 'anarchy'.  i was hoping for more such precision to be established much earlier in the discussion - not that Joe was the first to do so, of course; i have indeed read all extant posts on the thread.  but this is what i would've piped in about first and foremost 'had i been there at the time'.
 
 eek.
 Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM 

  (emphasis theirs)
  actually, i find it very dubious (not to mention minor-league conspiracy-theory fodder ;)) that b and c are subsets of 1.  i would expect that kind of substantial difference (i.e. utopian society vs. state of disorder?) to warrant another digit instead of tacking on a 'c'.  it is also the only form that would routinely justify [structurally] the phrase "an anarchy".  idle shorthand for "anarchist utopia", i suppose.  (i'm sure it's logically justified by dint of their both being 'societal states', but that won't stop my eyebrow from a-raisin')
  not to mention that their inclusion of {3} is horribly lazy:  hello?! wasn't the point of developing the word 'anarchism' to distinguish it from its root in the first place?  not that i ever held the merriam-webster conglomerate in high esteem, mind you.
 
 wow, it gets worse! ::):
 Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
 
 (emphasis theirs)
 
 funny, i never knew gandhi was an anarchist.
 at least he wasn't an especial one.
 i hope we all remember this next time i discount someone's citation of a dictionary definition as though it's what 'we' have to go by. 

(but we must have structure!  order!  it has to start somewhere!)
(talk to the manus nigrum. :pirate)
 
  where is c-squirt, anyway?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: discharger12 on December 08, 2004, 07:17:26 PM
Just a question, but is anyone here an anarchist or fascist?
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on December 08, 2004, 08:56:43 PM
 
  ideals - anarchist.
  attitude - fascist.  :P
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Joe on December 15, 2004, 04:51:23 AM
Anarchism shares with communism that it just looks good in theory. An anarchist society would never, ever survive, and has not ever in the history of the world.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on December 15, 2004, 06:15:39 AM
Sadly that is a trait fascism does not share with them. :( It works very well in practise albeit only for a short while. After that period has expired the people responsible are either to old to be tried in courts or have successfullly brought their stolen wealth to other places and retired to France or the US.

@Discharger: All anarchists in the house say HO!

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html to find out, if you should.

Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Ghreyfain on December 15, 2004, 03:26:06 PM
Anarchism shares with communism that it just looks good in theory. An anarchist society would never, ever survive, and has not ever in the history of the world.

I can't think of a single political ideology that this doesn't apply to.  Except Canadianism, obviously.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: jester on December 15, 2004, 04:53:12 PM
From what I hear Canadianism is not to bad. Even Churchill had to concede this somewhat.
Title: Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
Post by: Ghreyfain on December 15, 2004, 09:33:25 PM
Tommy Douglas and Pierre Trudeau, baby.  Where it's at.