>> You're like autistic or something.
>
>
>       Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with
>       electroshocks and lobotomies.


Hit a nerve, did I? Sorry. No judgments. If its correct, it just means you
just think differently. It's not even a big deal. For the purposes here,
it just means you'll tend to take discussions in a more literal way.

>       "Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific
>       garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist
>       'psychiatric' 'science'.

lol. Dude, my niece has Asperger's. She's brilliant, talented, and I love
her - and there is no 'fascist psychiatry' involved. Her life, and her
relationships with her parents and others all benefited when the diagnosis
was realized, and appropriate communications techniques used.

>> You focus on the words, but seem to
>> have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or
>> seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios.
>> It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with
>> that nonsense.
>
>       Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you
>       says so, I will obey.

Oh come now. Now you're just being butt-hurt. You've called what I've
written bullshit numerous times and I didn't get all shitty about it.

And I don't "alpha" towards anyone. If I did, I wouldn't be so quick to
insult myself, say you have the bigger dick, and so on.

I don't play those games. I just recognize them.

But, when I disagree, I say so. And I defend my position and state things
how I see it. You are, of course, free to disagree and that's fine.

Like I said, I don't have enemies.

>> But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics
>
>       I bow to your superior wisdom, massa

Well stand the fuck up then.

>
>       Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing
>       people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my
>       ass off at the STUPIDITY of it.
>
>       Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if
>       it wasn't sheer stupidity...

Don't misrepresent me. I never said I thought it was right. I never said I
was a pacifist to that level.

We're talking about morality, and the ways it gets interpreted.
Specifically, how morality can be objective, or at least not relative --
and yet still get interpreted differently by different cultures and
people.

There are pacifists which interpret it that way however, and I'm just
acknowledging an interpretation that is different my own, without
denigrating it. Something you seem unwilling to do.

>       So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing
>       up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I
>       'zeroed in' on it.
>
>       Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you
>       know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some
>       mental dick-measuring contest"

No. The mental dick measuring comment was because you specifically made a
comment about "quitting while I'm ahead" which would be fine as an idiom,
except you also made it a point to parenthesize (but I never was) ..
indicating you see this as a contest.

I also already addressed the other point, trying to indicate how I meant
my comment, but I'll do so more clearly.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I PHRASED THAT PISS-POORLY AND WAS MISTAKEN.


>
>       Why would I bother 'thinking' about it when such a great
>       philosopher like you has it all figured out and is teaching us
>       poor betas?

Poor betas? I never referred to you like that. I don't claim to have all
the answers, either. I'm just giving my opinion on stuff, and the way I
see things.

You could have engaged me with "Well, that's interesting. I never thought
it of that way. I think this way, for these reasons."

Instead, you've advanced no real ideas of your own, and only proceeded in
attacking mine. It's a good tactic for a debate on your part, and I'll
engage. This sort of thing is helpful to me, because it gives me an
opportunity to focus on minutia and clarify.


>> That's why indentured servants rebelled. They had HOPE,
>
>
>       I'm glad they voted for obama!

Heh. That's actually kind of funny. They probably would have.

>>
>> A true slave, born into it? There is no hope. No one ever gets free.
>> It isn't even a concept to freely think about.
>
>
>       Nope it isn't. Now I get it. Thank you massa!
>
>       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States
>
>       In xorcist's Real Reality there are no fugitive slaves.

Of course there were fugitive slaves.

I already said in another message that there were a few strong-minded
types that could resist the fear, think freely, and so on.

Again just because something is possible for the FEW doesn't mean its
possible for EVERYONE.

I'm not interested, particularly, in tailoring a political theory to what
favors the intellectual, physical, or other elites. I'm interested in a
political theory that can cater to everyone.

>       What, on fucking earth, makes you think I'm interested in any
>       paternalistic, psychobabbling nonsense from you?
>
>       The topic, as far as I was concerned was what practical things
>       could be done to limit state power, not to "give meaning to my
>       life".

You apparently don't know very much of what it means for people to live
without a state. I've lived in squats and communes. Everyone I've met was
filled with a true passion for something apart from the politics and the
agenda. It's vitally important, in terms of the "the movement" primarily
because:

The state fills an important role: it provides structure for people. That
structure is a type of MEANING.

The patriotic soldier serves his "country" and derives meaning from it.
The daily worker in a factory, takes an "honest job" .. pays his taxes..
and derives fulfillment.. meaning from it.

Find what fulfills you, apart from what the establishment says you should
want.. that, by itself, limits state power. You're one less individual so
deeply under their control.

Live that way, and inspire others do to likewise.

>       Au contraire. I was interested in a concrete reply, but
>       admitedly, only to illustrate the flaws in your position.

So you weren't actually interested at all. What you're actually interested
in, is arguing.

The dick measuring contest. Like I said.

>
>       Are you autistic or what. YOUR first message whining about off
>       topic posts was nothing but STUPID 'confrontational' bullshit.
>       And now you are crying because you got 'confronted'? Pathetic.
>

Actually, my first post was a reply to Razer. I didn't piss and moan about
anything, actually. I bellyached about the bullshit on this list after his
panties got all in a bunch for zero reason, and he started taking me to
task for nothing at all, trying to claim that I don't know what a "front
organization is" and all sorts of other stupid shit.

>> I act as mentor for some cognitively disabled adults.
>
>
>       Has NOTHING to do with limiting state power.

Sure it does. The disabled are some of those that are absolutely reliant
on the state. A common objection from statists is "Well, who would care
for the disabled, who would build the roads, blah blah."

You're a fucking flake if you don't understand that limiting state power
is all about providing alternatives to state services.

>> I do this on top of my day job, which is in cloud infrastructure type
>> shit.
>
>
>       Oh, that's more interesting. So you have first hand knowledge
>       on how the 'infrastructure' is sabotaged, or do you even do the
>       sabotage yourself?

Honestly? The most I've seen is how federal agent types can so easily
coerce businesses into handing over info they have no real reason to hand
over. Any overt sabotage is either a bit above my pay grade, if on a
software/server side, or more likely entirely done on the network side
which isn't what I do.

>
>       Ah, 'oppressive' governents in the 'third' world. That would be
>       governemtns that didn't follow CIA/Foreign Office orders?

Have no idea what the designers of the comms intended by that. I just made
the algorithm as a way to provide plausible deniability within a streaming
cipher as a way to mitigate interrogation.

>       That is fucking obvious. What you've done is the exact
>       opposite.

Likewise. See, we're on the same side after all.

>>
>> Truthfully, this whole fucking thread is exactly what I DIDN'T want.
>
>
>       Really.

Yeah. I thought about taking this private with you initially, but didn't
because it was tangentially related to matters of state resistance, at
least in terms of how I see the the role that the state fills. I.e. why
people cling to it so passionately.

But, as may have been predicted.. we've entirely derailed.

Reply via email to