Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[caveman1917]

Only within Germany, and only during that short period of time.

What about resistance groups that operated against the Nazis? Would, by your logic, your response to them be: "the Nazis are evolutionary superior, don't you people understand basic science"?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What reality? We are talking about your delusions involving several anthropomorphized invisible unicorns, and your belief that one unicorn is more "evolutionary superior" than another (and all of them are "evolutionary superior" over no unicorn at all) if more people you assigned to it kill more people you assigned to the other.

You have yet to explain why anarchy is superior to hierarchy. After all, it's no coincidence that tribal systems of government have fallen out of favour for more complex systems.

 

[Ziggurat]

What about resistance groups that operated against the Nazis? Would, by your logic, your response to them be: "the Nazis are evolutionary superior, don't you people understand basic science"?

Well, no. As I said, evolution is value-free. But values are motivators.

Furthermore, even within this social evolutionary model, we can consider resistance groups to be part of a larger social ideology that extends beyond the resistance groups themselves, to include the states that fought against the Nazis. As such, resistance groups were in fact helping to prove the evolutionary superiority of these other societies over Nazism. So you really have it backwards.

 

[caveman1917]

You have yet to explain why anarchy is superior to hierarchy. After all, it's no coincidence that tribal systems of government have fallen out of favour for more complex systems.

And I don't have to explain any such thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

What reality?

The reality that sometimes the strong kill off the weak.

We are talking about your delusions involving several anthropomorphized invisible unicorns, and your belief that one unicorn is more "evolutionary superior" than another (and all of them are "evolutionary superior" over no unicorn at all) if more people you assigned to it kill more people you assigned to the other.

I don't assign people to one group or another, people choose one group or another. And the results speak for themselves. Anarchism can't survive. Even nihilism is a loser's philosophy.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, no.

Well, yes. Don't like the implications of your crappy definition? Choose another one.

As I said, evolution is value-free. But values are motivators.

Nobody is talking about values except you.

Furthermore, even within this social evolutionary model, we can consider resistance groups to be part of a larger social ideology

What model? All you've really done so far is say that you think that killing off people you define to be in another category makes you "superior".

And with any two groups you can combine them and say they are part of a "larger social ideology". This isn't newspeak but nullspeak.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

And I don't have to explain any such thing.

So go on, if you say Anarchy is good, why is it so?

 

[caveman1917]

The reality that sometimes the strong kill off the weak.

What does that have to do with your unicorns?

I don't assign people to one group or another, people choose one group or another.

People get assigned one of your unicorns at birth. More generally people clearly don't choose their skin colour or something.

And the results speak for themselves.

Of nationalism and racism? Yes they do.

 

[caveman1917]

So go on, if you say Anarchy is good, why is it so?

I didn't say is it good. I said that punching Nazis work, that people should punch Nazis more often, and that Zig's (and others') belief system about "private property" is crappy, violent and murderous.

 

[dudalb]

There is no anarchism in either Syria, Iran, Libya or Egypt. Are you trolling?

There is no real anarchism in any country on earth because Anarchy simply does not work in the real world,however cool it might sound in a college dorm Bull Session.

 

[dudalb]

I didn't say is it good. I said that punching Nazis work, that people should punch Nazis more often, and that Zig's (and others') belief system about "private property" is crappy, violent and murderous.

So having Private Property is violent and murderous?

I remember in college we had a anarchist who screamd about how private property was evil,quoted Prodhon's "Property Is Theft" to the point of making people nauseous, but when his apartment was burgled and his stereo and television stolen, he acted like it was a Crime Against Humanity.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, if someone screams "Hitler was Wrong!" that gives you a right to shoot them. The person who was shot was an anti-fascist and the shooter a neo-nazi who was let go without charge.

Meanwhile the arrested non-violent protestors at the inauguration protests are facing charges for up to 10 years imprisonment.

So if I'm getting it straight, talking about a disbelief in private property is a huge no (10 years in jail for rearranging a window and stuff), punching a Nazi is somewhat ok if you can get away with it and can stand the liberal whining that follows, shooting an anti-fascist protestor as a Nazi is ok even if you can't get away with it. Interesting developments so far.

You can talk about your disbelief in private property all you want. What you don't get to do is unilaterally act on it in ways that result in damages to others without any liabilities to yourself.

If not being allowed to cause harm or damage to others is the worst oppressive force in your life, what's so bad about the system you're living under that you feel it needs to be destroyed?

 

[dudalb]

And I don't have to explain any such thing.

So prove your point by not presenting any evidence. Nice.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, yes. Don't like the implications of your crappy definition? Choose another one.

It's not a matter of me liking it, it's a matter of you being wrong.

What model?

Evolution. Duh.

All you've really done so far is say that you think that killing off people you define to be in another category makes you "superior".

Not quite. I've said that survival is evolutionarily superior to extinction. Tis should be self-evident, but apparently you have a hard time with even the most basic scientific concepts. But that's no surprise. After all, you're an anarchist.

 

[Joe Random]

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[caveman1917]

There is no real anarchism in any country on earth because Anarchy simply does not work in the real world,however cool it might sound in a college dorm Bull Session.

So having Private Property is violent and murderous?

I remember in college we had a anarchist who screamd about how private property was evil,quoted Prodhon's "Property Is Theft" to the point of making people nauseous, but when his apartment was burgled and his stereo and television stolen, he acted like it was a Crime Against Humanity.

I suppose if screaming at you in college didn't work to cure you of a peculiar selective blindness then telling you on this forum is unlikely to either, as it is showing to be:

You should also maybe be mindful of the difference between private property (ie of the means of production) and personal property (yeh toothbrushez) - no homes or so are getting damaged, are they?

Maybe you should read some Proudhon, unless reading makes you nauseous as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say is it good. I said that punching Nazis work

If you want to approach things from a purely utilitarian perspective, then maybe punching Nazis works. But by the same token, anarchism doesn't.

Zig's (and others') belief system about "private property" is crappy, violent and murderous.

This is funny, because earlier in the thread you were very insistent on drawing a distinction between violence and property damage. So apparently owning property is violent, but destroying it isn't. #anarchylogic, I guess: why stop at abolishing rules for society, why not abolish rules for reasoning.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suppose if screaming at you in college didn't work

Did you do a lot of that? Screaming at people in college? Might explain a thing or two.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[caveman1917]

You can talk about your disbelief in private property all you want.

No you observably can't.

What you don't get to do is unilaterally act on it

Of course you do. Besides, there is no "unilaterally acting on a belief" but "failing to act on a unilaterally imposed belief".

in ways that result in damages to others

What damages to which others?

without any liabilities to yourself.

Liability for what? Speech failing to include a certain assumption in its communicated ideas?

If not being allowed to cause harm or damage to others is the worst oppressive force in your life, what's so bad about the system you're living under that you feel it needs to be destroyed?