PDA

View Full Version : Widely-accepted bad analogies



Mota Boy
06-16-2005, 11:01 AM
I hate these. I hate how certain parts of public rhetoric are shaped by false analogies. Analogies are useful because they allow people to quickly associate one thing that's fairly complicated or unknown with something on which they already have a strong opinion. This often leads to situations where people have equally strong opinions concerning things that they don't fully comprehend. This isn't always a bad thing, but it ain't always good either. I especially hate the current rhetoric surrounding taxes.

Taxes = stealing.

It's a fairly easy connection to make - every week or month or year or so, money disappears from your paycheck, sucked up into an indescribably complex organization for a variety of reasons, none of which offer immediate benefits. Usually when you dole out money, you get something both beneficial and tangible in return - a good, a service, a debt removed. With taxes you get none of these, the money just seems to vanish. Obviously then, it's the government stealing your cake. This is not only a wrong analogy, but a dangerous one.

Taxes pay for a wide variety of government services we all know and love - roads, schools, police, firemen, the military, various regulatory commissions, public parks, public transportation, etc (another fallacy is that many people think that their taxes go to welfare - often the image is an urban black woman raising kids herself - this feeds off of racist stereotypes, but only 2% of the federal budget goes to welfare programs as we think of them, social security and Medicare/Medicaid are a different story). However, nobody equates calling 911 or driving down the street or using the military/intelligence forces to wage the war on terror with stealing. In fact, people like government programs. A lot.

People hold on dearly to budgets. Bush rode into office with a "mandate" to push through his programs, yet Medicare reform gets nowhere. People kick and scream over even the most obvious military cuts (billions to develop a ponderous artillery weapon in an age of aircraft?). Schools need more funding - think of the children. Roads need work, museums need updating, pork keeps rolling in. Americans have a horrible opinion of Congress in general but love their own congressman. Why? Because s/he fights for locals! A rallying cry that usually means giving them government money. There's a huge disconnect going on here.

Americans hate cuts in government spending, but fully support cuts in taxes. For this reason, many politicians, largely Republican, vow not to raise taxes. It's an easy message - people hate taxes, so lets stop them. However, people like what the government does with their taxes, so the movement to trim government spending has far less momentum. This leads to budget deficits. To oversimplify, a continued budget deficit will eventually burden the economy, possibly to the point where it seriously threatens national economic security.

And yet the reasons behind it are quite complex and I get off from work in ten minutes, so I'll leave with a quick analogy.

America = a late 90's dotcom

That the majority of Congress have signed a pledge never to raise taxes doesn't bode well, but the national aversion to taxes must change at some point, because we are apparently unable to effectively cut the budget.

wheelchairman
06-16-2005, 03:43 PM
Here's one I've been pondering lately,

Private Property = Freedom
(by Private Property, I mean your home, not your goddamn comb or mirror.)

This is a slogan of the libertarian right.

I wonder why they use it though.

It means very few people have any freedom whatsoever, yet it's somehow a slogan for the masses.

Very confusing. If it was a slogan among farmers, I'd fully understand, but it seems to be really a rallying call for the people who *want* to own private property but probably never will until they are rather old (if ever.)

Betty
06-16-2005, 04:17 PM
Lawyers/politicians = assholes/crooks/etc?

This one annoys me a bunch. Thinking about it more though, I'd probably call it a stereotype rather than an analogy. And I'm generally for stereotypes... so... maybe that's hypocritical.

RXP
06-17-2005, 01:03 AM
Here's one I've been pondering lately,

Private Property = Freedom
(by Private Property, I mean your home, not your goddamn comb or mirror.)


As I posted in the dangerous books thread:-

"liberty, equality and the wealth of nations - all these were linked with the emancipation of private property"

i.e. it started off as a revoulatioanry idea from the old order but ended up something far different. Similar to Marxism ending up as Stalin's depostism. Good intentions leading to bad consequences because of ideological abuse.

It remains a good idea but it has become corrupted and extended to absurd levels (i.e. intelletcual property rights)

Dead Cheerleader
06-17-2005, 01:34 AM
Mota Boy, that was an incredibly intelligent observation and an impressive and articulate presentation of said observation. Props man. I agree but I'm drinking and I'm not going to try to comment. But did congress really sign a bill like that, if so, holy fuck, it's all worse than I thought.

RXP
06-17-2005, 01:43 AM
Lawyers/politicians = assholes/crooks/etc?


I'm talking from experience here. People in my year are all so money minded, so selfish, so 'preppie' that they will turn into crooks. Even if it's legitmised crookdom they're still crooks. Charging 70 for 30mins advice that I could have looked up in any Land Law text book is crookdom, but legistmised by our society.

I disagree strongly about politicians being crooks tho, alot do set out to make the world a better place. A good example of that was the debate on the European Union UK Rebate on question time last night. The CAP came up and a lot of politiciions (bar the French(!)) wanted to reform it because of the 3rd world.

Kerr
06-17-2005, 03:42 AM
I like your interpretation, Mota Boy. Cleverly put.

Here is a bad analogy:
School Uniform = Immaculate

Whereas I see it as:
School Uniform = rejection of liberation

NOAMR
06-17-2005, 04:45 AM
I don't like your interpretation, Mota Boy, because taxes force you to give money to a system, thing you don't necessary support. You pay money which you don't even know where it is going to. I don't wonna give money to a war that costs thousants of people their life(I don't live in America, but we(Belgium) still have a weapon industry supported by the government and an army), a justice system which support the unequalness of the society(the poor always get higher punishment than the rich), and as an anarchist, I don't wonna support the state at all. But we are forced to do. That's not just thief, that's harming of our freedom. I don't have a problem with paying for welfare... so that everyone can have food and a place to live, but the government doesn't take care of it a lot(they also put people out of their houses and so on). It would allready be better if we could choose where ir goes to, that would be allready more true democracy.

I have a big problem with the analogy
anarchy= chaos, violence

Anarchy is self-governance, everyone is responsible for what he does. By making strict laws, people don't think anymore what they think is good or bad, and so doesn't really see they harm someone if they do a crime. You also commit crimes when you feel oppressed, and there is no-one who oppress you in anarchy.

Jesus
06-17-2005, 05:17 AM
It would allready be better if we could choose where ir goes to, that would be allready more true democracy.

You already do that by voting, different parties different preferences.
But anyway, I don't think I'm able to decide where all my taxes (you including VAT btw?) would have to go too and make longterm judgements since I'm not Einstein^46546465 and specialised in everything.




Anarchy is self-governance, everyone is responsible for what he does. By making strict laws, people don't think anymore what they think is good or bad, and so doesn't really see they harm someone if they do a crime. You also commit crimes when you feel oppressed, and there is no-one who oppress you in anarchy.

I don't want my kids to be responsible for everything they do nor my death grandparents who had alzheimers. Anyway luckily we don't have strict laws here in Belgium, since I'm still able to think about good and bad and don't always follow the law ; )(for instance Intellectual property rights).
And I really don't think many people commit crimes because they are oppressed, or you must be talking about a police state where everything is a crime.

Sin Studly
06-18-2005, 07:18 AM
I have a big problem with the analogy
anarchy= chaos, violence

Anarchy is self-governance, everyone is responsible for what he does. By making strict laws, people don't think anymore what they think is good or bad, and so doesn't really see they harm someone if they do a crime. You also commit crimes when you feel oppressed, and there is no-one who oppress you in anarchy.

You're an absolute idiot and know nothing about the darker side of human nature. If there were no enforced laws, I'd be on my way to your house right now to slit your throat, hoping that nobody slits mine on the way there, and that when I kick your door down I don't find you with your throat already slit.

And relatively speaking, I'm a nice person. Imagine what the bad motherfuckers would be doing.

Anarchy would equal chaos and violence because I'm sure all of us know at least twenty people we'd murder if we thought we could get away with it.

wheelchairman
06-18-2005, 07:20 AM
Except the buffoon is wrong. Murder would not be a socially acceptable offence in anarchism. The buffoon is just a token anarchist who only understands the meaning of the word, but nothing more.

God I hate those people. Slit his throat Justin.

Sinister
06-18-2005, 07:24 AM
Except the buffoon is wrong. Murder would not be a socially acceptable offence in anarchism. The buffoon is just a token anarchist who only understands the meaning of the word, but nothing more.

God I hate those people. Slit his throat Justin.

WCM you're one of the few actually clever people here. so I suggest you devote your time to something more important than this forum.

wheelchairman
06-18-2005, 08:42 AM
WCM you're one of the few actually clever people here. so I suggest you devote your time to something more important than this forum.
I go on here when I have nothing to do, so don't worry.

Sin Studly
06-18-2005, 10:53 AM
Except the buffoon is wrong. Murder would not be a socially acceptable offence in anarchism.

I think it would be acceptable. Under anarchy, small squabbling gangs would end up the dominant factions, and murder in the name of your gang (or militia or family clan or whatever) would be not only socially acceptable, but encouraged. In the absence of some type of frontier justice-esque militia or police force (which would negate the status of anarchy in the first place) the biggest strongest most brutal motherfuckers would rule. They'd take whatever they wanted and bash anybody to death who resisted. The obvious solution for everybody who isn't a big strong brutal motherfucker, get weapons to defend yourself. Since everybody will be getting weapons pretty damn quick, including the big strong brutal motherfuckers, what's the next obvious solution to give yourself some kind of edge over everybody else? Form together into some type of gang that looks out for one another. Society under Anarchy would descend into anarchy.

And hence, anarchy is a perfectly good euphenism for chaos, violence and destruction. Because that's exactly what it would be (until one gang manages to claim supremacy and create some kind of political heirarchy, or a neighbouring power that has its shit together invades and whips everybody into line with brutal facism).

NOAMR
06-18-2005, 02:14 PM
I think you schould think a bit longer than how it looks on the first sight. People commit crimes cuz we live in a system where we are all enemy's of each other. We allready get brainwashed in the concurential system when we are a kid: we always have to do the best on school and always listen to mam and dad and... Everyone who can't fit in, can't succeed in all fields, get kicked out. That's what I mean with 'oppressing': people can't hold the system, they get economical problems(or they just feel like they are a total loser and blame society for it), and so they commit crimes. We allready lives in the "survival of the fittest" system. People can't just do something for something else anymore, you schould earn it. And anarvhism is against that all. Gangs who are leading the country, isn't anarchism, anarchism is the lack of all rull, authority, all leaders. But if people doesn't want leaders and they deny their authority, someone can't have a lot of power. Not cuz something is possible, that it would be neccessary done, you schould take away the origin.

wheelchairman
06-18-2005, 03:03 PM
I think you schould think a bit longer than how it looks on the first sight. People commit crimes cuz we live in a system where we are all enemy's of each other. We allready get brainwashed in the concurential system when we are a kid: we always have to do the best on school and always listen to mam and dad and... Everyone who can't fit in, can't succeed in all fields, get kicked out. That's what I mean with 'oppressing': people can't hold the system, they get economical problems(or they just feel like they are a total loser and blame society for it), and so they commit crimes. We allready lives in the "survival of the fittest" system. People can't just do something for something else anymore, you schould earn it. And anarvhism is against that all. Gangs who are leading the country, isn't anarchism, anarchism is the lack of all rull, authority, all leaders. But if people doesn't want leaders and they deny their authority, someone can't have a lot of power. Not cuz something is possible, that it would be neccessary done, you schould take away the origin.

And this is completely irrelevant to any topic we were discussing before.

However, riddle me this riddler. Here is my fundamental problem with anarchism. You nutballs say you want a revolution that will immediately abolish all forms of government and create a class-less, leader-less, society. However, this won't work. The "Counter-Revolution" will exists. A revolution isn't made up of 100% of the population. There will be people who will not want anarchism, there will be people who fight against it. The rich for example. The class struggle will live on, long after you take the money from the rich. That is why socialism is necessary, a classless society is impossible, unless there is a gradual transition to it. Forcing it on, is doomed to fail.

Sin Studly
06-19-2005, 04:31 AM
Gangs who are leading the country, isn't anarchism, anarchism is the lack of all rull, authority, all leaders. But if people doesn't want leaders and they deny their authority, someone can't have a lot of power.

Well no shit. That's why anarchism wouldn't work, even in theory. But if somehow the world miraculously converted to anarchism, gangs would take over because attaining power is part of human nature, and eventually power would be consolidated, first by squabbling gangs and communes and family clans. As the gangs, communes and family clans become bigger and bigger, individuals will have to join them for protection or be victimised and slaughtered because they have nobody else to protect them. Then conglomorated alliances of gangs, communes and family clans will develop, and as the conglomerates become bigger and bigger the smaller gangs, communes and family clans will have to join them for protection or be victimised and slaughtered because they have nobody else to protect them. Eventually, after a lot of bloodshed and pain and killing the conglomorated gangs will own city-states, then groups of city-states, and eventually empires the size of modern countries.

As for your "people only commit crimes because they're oppressed" argument, that's total bullshit. Some people commit crimes because they're alienated from society, sure, but that's mostly a social thing, not a polticial thing. Even in Anarchy some people aren't going to fit in, and they're going to become resentful and bitter and violent. Some people commit crimes because they're poor, of course, and under Anarchy, with the unavoidably shitty organisation of trade and work allocation famines will be rife. You think a starving person isn't going to slit other starving throats for a scrap of bread or meat? And then theres crimes of passion. You think that under anarchy husbands and wives aren't going to kill their cheating partners and their lovers? You think husbands and wives aren't going to kill each other to run off with their lovers? And then there's the fact that some people commit crimes because they're quite simply born with miswired brains. You think paedophiles molest their children because of oppression and class struggle? You think sexual slayers and serial rapists do what they do because of the big mean nasty government? You think their victims grow up violent and angry because of their political ideas, or because Daddy stuck his finger inside them?

What crimes exactly is Anarchy going to stop?

Honestly man, you're a fucking idiot. Just admit it, the only way Anarchy can ever work is with indoctrination and brainwashing on a level that no facist regime in history has ever managed to accomplish.

SicN Twisted
06-19-2005, 12:06 PM
In the many books and thesises I've read on different kinds of anarchism, I never heard anything about small squabling gangs roaming the world. I think you're mistaking the enlightment socialist political system of Anarchism with the Mad Max trilogy. Anarchism actually requires incredibly organization and requires that it's people enforce standards.

SicN Twisted
06-19-2005, 12:12 PM
YOu're all so completely wrong on your definition of anarchism that it's hillarious. None of you no ANYTHING about the meaning of anarchism, no matter how well intended and well informed you think you are. For one, who says anarchists believe in no leaders? Of course there'd be leaders, workers collectives would hire representetives to organize and lead political meanings. It's also untrue that there would be no government. Anarchists believe entirely in the neccesity of government and leaders. The only difference is anarchists don't believe in a centralized State. Instead, we believe that trade unions from different communities should form, and also workers collectives from different factories would exist to represent the interests of their own factories - but comptetition would get too extreme because unions would have representetives from different factories. Anarchists of many different kinds of similar elaborate forms of government to replace a federal State, because we believe a State only exists by oppressing it's people. It's a complete misconception that anarchists don't want any rules, authority, or leaders, we just don't one one institution controlling us, anarchists prefer to be directly represented through communes and collectives.

NOAMR
06-19-2005, 12:52 PM
And this is completely irrelevant to any topic we were discussing before.

However, riddle me this riddler. Here is my fundamental problem with anarchism. You nutballs say you want a revolution that will immediately abolish all forms of government and create a class-less, leader-less, society. However, this won't work. The "Counter-Revolution" will exists. A revolution isn't made up of 100% of the population. There will be people who will not want anarchism, there will be people who fight against it. The rich for example. The class struggle will live on, long after you take the money from the rich. That is why socialism is necessary, a classless society is impossible, unless there is a gradual transition to it. Forcing it on, is doomed to fail.


Well, I personnally don't believe anarchism can work immediately, I more believe in an evolution into it. People are used to be controlled, and they won't make it if the power is suddenly destroyed, they will just create another power(surely the ones who now have the power will have problems with it). I'm against forcing anarchism onto the people, cuz that is against anarchism. If people want to be lead, that's their choice. But they harm our freedom if they force us into following their rulez. So I think one of the first steps is letting us live by our own. The problem I personnally have with communism and 'taking the power first to destroy it', is that power is a dangerous thing, it's hard to take distance from it(look how bad Sovjet-Unie worked out).

And yeah, this is out of topic, but exally I just started it out as a detail of my post against taxes:).

NOAMR
06-19-2005, 12:59 PM
YOu're all so completely wrong on your definition of anarchism that it's hillarious. None of you no ANYTHING about the meaning of anarchism, no matter how well intended and well informed you think you are. For one, who says anarchists believe in no leaders? Of course there'd be leaders, workers collectives would hire representetives to organize and lead political meanings. It's also untrue that there would be no government. Anarchists believe entirely in the neccesity of government and leaders. The only difference is anarchists don't believe in a centralized State. Instead, we believe that trade unions from different communities should form, and also workers collectives from different factories would exist to represent the interests of their own factories - but comptetition would get too extreme because unions would have representetives from different factories. Anarchists of many different kinds of similar elaborate forms of government to replace a federal State, because we believe a State only exists by oppressing it's people. It's a complete misconception that anarchists don't want any rules, authority, or leaders, we just don't one one institution controlling us, anarchists prefer to be directly represented through communes and collectives.

Well, I think I know bit about anarchism(I read a lot about it...), but you are right in essence. The essence of anarchism isn't no rulez and be possible of doing whatever you want. The agreements will exist voluntary and can be changed. The leaders represent the community for trade organisation..., and do't force something on the people. But I think their is a big difference of authority who force his believs on the 'lower' ones, and authority who has simply more knowledge and so represent the community, learns it something...

RXP
06-19-2005, 01:31 PM
I think you're mistaking the enlightment socialist political system of Anarchism with the Mad Max trilogy.

Fuckin gold.

wheelchairman
06-20-2005, 03:48 AM
I'm flummoxed. I had always assumed that an analogy was a similarity-seeking process, eg "souls are to the devil what shades are to starlets", while stating that sth equals sth else, or amounts to sth else, was nought but an equivalence.

Maria
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/wheelchairman/rat.jpg
best pwn3 ever. (Maria's, not the pic's.)

Sinister
06-20-2005, 05:25 AM
dont try to understand WCM

Sin Studly
06-20-2005, 07:00 AM
The "enlightment socialist political system of Anarchism" has equal grounding in reality to the Mad Max Trilogy. Instead of calling yourselves Anarchists, you should call yourselves "smelly commune hippies".

SicN Twisted
06-20-2005, 08:40 AM
The Chiapans who have lived in anarchist harmony for the past forty years would probably disagree with you. The Spanish anarchist societies were also very succesful until Stalin's tanks destroyed their "smelly hippy communes."

And anarchists do believe in a limited authority structure, it's just not imposed from the top down, rather the bottom up, as in communities and their representetives decide if someone has committed a socially unacceptable act and according to their ordinances will either exhile them or punish them accordingly. The only difference is this process would exist without judges and federal marshals - there'd be no centralized system of laws and punishment, communities would democratically decide how to deal with criminals based on individual cases. If you think my system isn't grounded in reality, point to one that is. If you believe the current western plutocracies of America and Europe "work," then we're obviously on different wavelengths. I think the idea of the world being controlled by roving gangs best applies to modern America, the roving gangs being conglomerate corperations that bully society into submission. You've unsuccesfully made any sort of a point to why anarchism would fail, so now try and propose something that would succeed, and please, no thunderdome.

Sin Studly
06-20-2005, 09:41 AM
I wonder whose tanks will crush the Chiapans?

Sinister
06-20-2005, 09:58 AM
I wonder whose tanks will crush the Chiapans?

I wonder whose tanks will crush YOU.

P.-S.: no offence meant

RXP
06-20-2005, 02:48 PM
It is rather stupid for a lay person like Justin or even me (well lay for the timebeing) to argue against Anarchist political theory.

You ahve to read the books and sources. You think anarchists haven't heard the types of arguments (we, you) put to people here? of course they have and they've responded.

Sin Studly
06-21-2005, 06:49 AM
They're still all smelly hippies. I've seen Mad Max 2 and Waterworld. I know what they're after. They need a good facist hand to keep them in check.

wheelchairman
06-21-2005, 01:24 PM
Sounds like "frontier-justice" you're describing their Sic, I would've thought anarchists would favor rehabilitation, over some hypothetical situation of "the tribe voting a member off the island." or whatever.

Anarchist movements today, are solely the past-time of students and their circle of friends. They have no connection to the working class, they simply can't talk to the working class. And without being able to do so, they won't get anywhere. That isn't a criticism of anarchism, that'd be a criticism of the anarchist strategy. I personally think it's quite impressive what's happening down in Mexico, the Chiapas. (the Zapatista's is what they are called, no? And they aren't just anarchists, but a conglomeration of left-wing ideas.)

And as far as functioning governments go Sic, what about Libya? It's a bottom up system that in my view, has been far more democratic than any parliament we have in Europe today.

NOAMR
06-22-2005, 02:16 AM
Okay Sid Studly, it's clear you don't have any good arguments anymore, you just try to save yourself by calling names. About Waterworld, I've seen the movie, and I don't remember their was much violence or problems cuz their was no central government. But even if their was, it's fiction, so they don't proove a thing. It's stupid to think you can know something by seeing a movie. Anyway, I would recommend a forum where anarchist try to discuss with(right now) mostly right-wingers. There is also a topic about why anarchism is possible and why it won't come out as violence:
http://phpbb88.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=blackenedglory
Another forum, but more for anarchists working it all out(and if their would be anarcho-capitalism or...)(so if you are really interested):
http://anarchism.net/forum/board.php

Mota Boy
06-22-2005, 02:25 PM
I'm flummoxed. I had always assumed that an analogy was a similarity-seeking process, eg "souls are to the devil what shades are to starlets", while stating that sth equals sth else, or amounts to sth else, was nought but an equivalence.

Maria

Dictionary definition of an analogy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy).

Sin Studly
06-23-2005, 02:01 AM
Okay Sid Studly, it's clear you don't have any good arguments anymore, you just try to save yourself by calling names.[/url]

No, I've just realised if reality can't dissuade you, my arguments certainly won't. If you want that commune collective farming type anarchy, go join a commune, there are already plenty of them. Just don't forget that even though you're trying to live in a society without leaders, you still have leaders. Those with enough firepower to destroy you filthy bog hippies.

NOAMR
06-23-2005, 12:06 PM
I think Mota Boy means this definition:
3.A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.

And Sin: there are several examples of anarchism working (Paris Commune, Spanish...), that didn't lead to chaos. There is never been true anarchism that lead to chaos and violence( and anarchism is not if a country was so political instable and had so much problems that the government was taken out of place, and some gangs/enemy army's lead the country). I don't know if anarchism is possible, I know how stupidly following of a leader a lot of people are, but I think it's the best system. And I hope they want follow that much if there is no-one 'big' anymore to follow.

wheelchairman
06-23-2005, 12:39 PM
The Paris commune lasted for 3 months because the leaders were bumbling buffoons. The Spanish Republic was crushed by fascists before they could make any real public institutions. Those aren't the best examples of anarchism in action, and contradict your former opinions on anarchism.

Sin Studly
06-24-2005, 09:01 AM
There is never been true anarchism that lead to chaos and violence

What you're talking about isn't true anarchism. It's a form of collective communism named anarchism or syndicoanarchism or whatever you want to call it. The only true anarchists I recognise are the ones like the early english bomb throwers, who had no clear idea of what they were doing apart from killing the royals and clergy because they were all really really really pissed off at them. And the extras from Mad Max 2, obviously.

SicN Twisted
06-24-2005, 02:14 PM
No, what we're talking about is true anarchism. The word anarchism first existed to describe the political philosphies of Bakunin and Proudhon. You're talking about anarchy, completely different.

White punk on dope
06-24-2005, 05:11 PM
not sure if this one's been done, but: radical muslim fundamentalists = terrorists.

Panzerfaust92
06-25-2005, 12:33 AM
Here's something Carlin said: Israeli murderers are called Commandos and Arab Commandos are called Terrorists. It makes him so sick, that sometimes he wants to vomit. Well, not vomit. Engage in an involuntary protein spill.

Sin Studly
06-25-2005, 06:53 AM
Then it's derived from a wrong word. I still refuse to consider "anarchists" anarchists until they start killing leaders for no cogent reason.

NOAMR
06-25-2005, 07:12 AM
Well, 'anarchists' who kill aren't even real anarchists, cuz anarchists are against harming someone's freedom, and killing someone is clearly harming someone's freedom. Inform yourself about anarchism and don't be so biased.

wheelchairman
06-25-2005, 07:14 AM
hahahah good luck with your "non-violent" revolution then! haha.

haaha I had no idea anarchism was so moral, Sic.

Sin Studly
06-25-2005, 07:17 AM
Your definition of "real anarchists" is condusive with my definition of "bullshit teenage leftwing political-wanker anarchists"

It won't work because anyone instituting it will soon find themselves conquered by facists.

Hooray for facism.

NOAMR
06-25-2005, 07:21 AM
Well, I still don't know if we can get rid of the violent leaders without using a little bit of violence, but then the people schould allready want anarchism in contradiction to the leaders, who would still exploit their people. But today, it is at no use at all, anarchism has allready enough a bad name. It doesn't help a shit, so it would be stupid and harmfull for the leaders.

Sin Studly
06-25-2005, 07:26 AM
Anarchism has a bad name because it's stupid, it won't work, and it's a pipedream of the extreme left.

wheelchairman
06-25-2005, 07:41 AM
Well, I still don't know if we can get rid of the violent leaders without using a little bit of violence, but then the people schould allready want anarchism in contradiction to the leaders, who would still exploit their people. But today, it is at no use at all, anarchism has allready enough a bad name. It doesn't help a shit, so it would be stupid and harmfull for the leaders.
These "leaders" are going to have followers. It won't just be the leaders who will need to die. It will be the followers who are going to try and *kill* you, and the only way you're going to stop them is with the barrel of a gun, not some nice slogans from the 60's.

SicN Twisted
06-25-2005, 09:33 AM
A non violent revolution is not possible. Do you expect an entire army to simply lay down their fire power because of civil disobedience? No, they'd be more likely to shoot the protestors. A revolution isn't a fucking high school walkout, it's serious business. And by no means are anarchists against harming people. Most anarchists acknowledge the neccesety of a violent coup.

Sin Studly
06-25-2005, 11:46 AM
Do they acknoweledge the fact they'll never hold any territory for longer than a month before a stronger power strips them of it and culls off all agitators?

NOAMR
06-26-2005, 12:40 PM
Well, but before the revolution can happen, people schould first be convict from the good things of anarchism, and how much the political leaders harm their freedom. Cuz otherwise, you obliterate people by force to anarchism, and that's against it. Maybe we schould first peacefully demonstrate, and when people see how the state uses his force against innocents, they'll see the true earth of the state, and so we can get rid of it(by force prolly).
And yes, wheelchairman, also the followers are 'dangerous', they make it possible the oppressors can do there job. Without any followers, their wouldn't be any leaders, and so also no freedomharming to. But I hope we can change tthe most by propaganda.

wheelchairman
06-26-2005, 01:17 PM
Are you really this stupid?

Cuz like, anarchists invented propaganda, and are the most effective at it. bejaysus.

T-6005
03-26-2009, 06:58 PM
Bump because this thread is beyond amazing from the very beginning.

It almost makes me miss NOAMR.

_Lost_
03-27-2009, 11:23 AM
geeze! I was reading this and i saw Dead Cheerleader and thought to myself "Holy crap! Dead Cheerleader! I thought she was long gone." And then I realized that you had revived a 4 year old thread.

I miss discussions like these.

sKratch
03-27-2009, 11:30 AM
Was NOAMR that kid with spikey hair, glasses, and black fingernails or am I thinking of someone else?

T-6005
03-27-2009, 11:43 AM
NOAMR was the one who would go on incredibly long-winded rants about how anarchy would and will work, endlessly showing examples and charts and referring to how things would really work, none of which really had anything to do with anarchy.

And then when someone would answer with a derisively sarcastic comment like "But if everyone is an anarchist, can girls still go to the bathroom together?" he would take it as a serious question, and do it all over again, comparing "well known" instances of anarchy in history that show what proper toilet behavior would be like in the new world.