On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:55:03 -0000
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> >> 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. 

        You hit a nerve only in a general sense. Psychiatry is a
        especially vicious tool for political manipulation and

        I didn't mention the 'cure' of homosexuality for personal
        reasons but just because it's a great (and horrid) illustration
        of what kind of very bad joke the field is.

> 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.

        Your niece is shy. But now being shy has been turned into a
        'mental disorder' a 'syndrome' or whatever. We should be glad
        that science is fixing the world...

> >> 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.

        I'm not really butthurt. If anything I'm slightly frustrated. 

> 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.
        ...and so we have a discussion...of sorts. You can call it a
        pissing match, but I think it remains a more or less rational
        discussion. And I'm not arguing just for fun.

> 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.

        Yes, to some extent.

> 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.

        I'm not denigrating it, but pointing out that it's open to some
        degree of rational criticism. 

> >     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 see it as a discussion. Just like you said above, you are
         stating a position, and I disagree with it. 

        I specifically disagree with putting too much emphasis on the
        fact that some 'majority' of people have 'mainstream' views.

        Although at first sight that indeed seems to be the case,
        treating it as some kind of biologically determined outcome
        doesn't strike me as either correct or useful.

> 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. 

        At this point I'm not sure how the topic of social conformity
        was started, but the idea I'm advancing is that social
        conformity should be shredded to pieces, not 'explained'.

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.

        I'd hope not, but who knows...

> >>
> >> 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.

        More than a few slaves managed to actually run away, a rather
        risky action. It seems fairly safe to assume that a lot more
        thought about runing away even if they didn't try to. 

        So the dreary picture you painted about people born in slavery
        not even being able to think about freedom is...let's say too
        biased towards pessimism.

> 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.

        Well, as far as I can tell, you sound a bit too elitist even if
        you don't intend to. I'd rather assume that the majority of
        people can think for themselves, even though they are not doing
        it at the moment. If I assumed that they can't, then I'd have
        to conclude that the situation is...hopeless.

> >     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:

        I've never lived in a commune. I'm not exactly a communalist,
        communist, or <insert appropriate label>. I suppose they are OK
        for people who...don't belong to the individualist category =P

> 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.
        Well, yes, that may be true, especially regarding the most
        brainwashed individuals, the most self-serving or 'patriotic',
        etc, but for that to happen there's been a lot of
        indoctrination and coercion involved. 

> 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.

        Not sure if that was directed personally at me but rest assured
        that I'm not a patriotic tax payer...

> 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.

        Which is the same thing as a discussion. Trying to sum it up :
        you gave 'free advice' that amounted to "suck it up" "do
        something 'useful'". I don't think you got an unreasonable
        reaction on my part...

> >
> >     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, 

        Ah, you'll have to take that up with him =P

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.

        As is to be expected, I disagree. Limiting state power
        is...just what the sentence literally means. If the state can
        'regulate', spy, tax, fine, kidnap, kill, etc, limiting its
        power amounts to stoping it doing that kind of thing. 

        All the services that the state has monopolized like education,
        'health care', whatever. can be provided by the market/the
        people/the commune once the state is gone. 

        It's true that competing with the state can weaken it somewhat
        but only to the degree that they allow you to. Which is of
        course not going to be any meanigful degree that could threaten
        their power. 

        "all about providing alternatives to state services" 

        ...on the other hand there's a particular 'service' that
        the state allegedly provides, called 'security'. If you are
        talking about THAT service, then you are right. So how good is
        your army? 

> >
> >     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.


        But then, I don't believe in restricting the discussion only to

> >>
> >> 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.

        I don't think it was that bad.

Reply via email to