Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

favorite anarchistic philosopher

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by stinagen, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,123

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I find this debate rather odd at times. 'Censorship', the 'hierarchy of ideas' (employed as a tool to criticise others' behaviour), who wants to be a 'fascist' and burn books, etc, is not the point at all.

    This is not a question on whether censoring nazis is right or wrong, but rather on what our goals as anarchists are. From my perspective, I desire a free society, socially constituted, thus my desire is to build social relations that are open, free and non-hierarchical. Insofar as this is concerned, I cannot possibly allow such antisocial behaviour as fascist politics (whether physical or verbal) to exist within my community. To do so would be to undermine my integrity as an anarchist and responsible social being.

    Further, social freedom can not exist in an 'anything goes', 'u can't tell me what to do' society. Freedom is not the ability to say anything you want and be given protection due to some 'natural right' you have innately. Rather, one must take responsibility for one's own actions. Your 'free speech' may negatively affect others, and you should be held accountable for that.

    The Second International's phrase:
    "No rights without obligations, no obligations without rights"
    is one i identify with a lot.

    Ungovernable:
    your right, direct action is misused a shitload.
    this is a lil' definition i really like (for the benefit of others, more than for you :beers: )
    Sauce: Franks, B., 'Rebel Alliances: The means and ends of contemporary British anarchisms', AK Press & Dark Star, 2006, p. 115.
     
  2. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     

    You are defending the nazis' right to say and think what they want and i assure you they don't speak nicely about most anarchists

    This really indicates to me again, a very fundamental misunderstanding. You have the RIGHT to say whatever the hell you want, nomatter how wrong it is. However, that doesn't mean I am obligated to quietly sit back while others perpetrate falsehoods, spread lies, or just say things that are really flat-out wrong. See, this is my approach I argue. I contest what I find objectionable. I don't believe in censorship, or book burning. I'm not muzzling anybody, I'm arguing, I'm disagreeing.


    See above.

    Consider you completely missed my central point I'm very skeptical of your judgement. I'm perfectly willing to engage in REASONED, RATIONAL, ADULT debate. Compared to the shit that gets slung at me I've been reserved by comparison.

    Unlike Ungovernable, I am not, and would not presume, to forcibly compel you. However, if you are an honest person, and if you have common decency, than you should have more character, more integrity than to make up vicious lies about someone, and then post it right in front of me as if I can't see it. As for the last part, everyone knows I am a vehement atheist, it's just a figure of speech.
     
  3. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    I didn't understand a word you were saying? In that case i don't seem to be the only one that doesn't so maybe you should try to form your words so that they say what you want them to. Expecting some witty reply to that about how english is not my first language.
    No you are not obligated to sit back while i spread lies (not that i do) and this is just the thing you see, because nor am i obligated to sit back while for example nazis spread lies, and them i do concider to do so. You may tell me i'm flat-out wrong but i in that case get to tell you the same thing.
    Did i ever say i am for censorship and bookburning..? Please find where i wrote that cos that must have been during quite a trip that i have never been on. Not defending nazi rights is not the same as being for bookburnings.


    Yes, my judgement is what is wrong, naturally... Saying that would not be slinging dung at me i suppose. Very reasoned, rational and adult debate you got going there.

    I am an honest person, i have plenty common decency and you don't know me so don't come here telling me i have no character or integrity. I have not made up any vicious lies about you and and i have not thought you can't see what i write. What would those lies be? That you by defending the free speach of nazis defend the nazis themselves..? If anyone here is making up lies about anyone else it would be you writing about how i lack integrity and character, etc. Also i don't see your point about Ungovernable as being much else then vicious lies posted right in front of him as if he could not see it.
    I did try to see your point earlier about animal testings, i really did, even though i don't agree with you but i'm just so sick of how you are being so unwilling to try to even once see the point of what anyone else thinks in any matter and that is why i even replied to this freedom of speach thing in the first place.
    I know it is a figure of speech but it was just so perfect how you wrote that after telling people what an anarchist does and does not say or do.
     
  4. punkmar77

    punkmar77Administrator Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    5,532

    96

    643

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    There have been recent examples of Anti-Fascism carried too far, there is a group called 'Friends Stand United' who are responsible for several very questionable deaths in recent years and whom I think are very confused. They kicked a kid to death because he refused to remove a t-shirt with the Confederate flag emblazoned on it and in a completely seperate incident they assaulted Dave Diktor of MDC after warning him not to play the song"SKINHEAD" all this was written about a couple years back in a Rolling Stone article. This group came out of the Boston and New York hardcore scene incidentally, my point is there is a danger of fanaticism in antifa activities but that doesn't mean we afford these hate groups the same rights as everyone else either. NGNM you keep harping on 'book burning' and as far as I can tell no one has advocated it, we are simply saying we will not tolerate hatespeech and will actively seek to destroy it.
     
  5. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    I have been reading the arguments of this thread and a lot of it hinges on the freedom of speech and 'rights' to say what you want. However, one of the fundamental issues appears to be the understanding of what free speech really means. The definition of free speech is:
    By this very definition Nazi propaganda is not freedom of speech it is hate crime. People's rights or freedoms are impinged upon by singling them out in relation to their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. So Nazi propaganda or any propaganda for that matter should not be allowed to exist in any form.

    Also a definition of anarchism is:
    and therefore fundamentally disobeyed by hate-crime due to the fact that people are not being treated as equals.

    My two cents.
     
  6. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I have, and continue to show you an inordinate amount of patience, sir. I also did not call you a fascist, I implied you were behaving, or, more correctly, advocating action that could be characterized as fascist. There IS a difference. As for authoritarian, that's simply true. Forcibly seizing or destroying literature, criminalizing speech, arresting or even, as you once suggested, executing people for expressing unauthorized opinions is absolutely fundamentally authoritarian.

    No, I answered nearly all of your questions except when they were repeated too many times because it seemed redundant. You just don't seem to like the answers. I want you to really try and pay attention, here; The main thrust of you're argument seems to be that because several Anarchists in very specific circumstances, decided free speech was expendable, at least in those circumstances, that that fact alone makes the case. It does not. Recall, the central question is 'Is censorship, prohibiting the right to free expression, consistent with Anarchist ideology.' See, all your statement proves is that certain Anarchists, or self-proclaimed Anarchists made that choice. That doesn't prove anything. Even if, as you go on to suggest, as I was saying earlier, there was, and is not, any other viable alternative, under any circumstances, that still doesn't mean it's ideologically consistent. That's why it's not really relevant, because it doesn't prove anything either way.

    No, it's a fundamental statement of fact. Censorship, book burning, etc., are antithetical to the most fundamental principle of Anarchism.

    No, I just know that sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken. Also, all Anarchists in history are not remotely in question, you just mentioned the Mahknovists, Krondstadt, etc. That collectively comprises only a fraction of the Anarchist movement in it's roughly 200 years of existence. Regardless, it's really not important to the matter at hand, for reasons I explained, above.

    No, I'm just saying we should look at these groups with a critical, analytical perspective, rather than taking anything as gospel. Second, that quote was my asessment of the membership of this forum.

    This is a fundamentally dubious assertion. That the Makhnovists, etc., are the only "real" Anarchists is a pretty bogus determination. What makes one a "real" Anarchist? I would definine it as being consistently committed to and acting in accordance with the principles of Anarchism. There are many different strains and subheadings, but I think the core ideas are pretty clear and easily understood.

    First of all, if your posts are any indication, we are not on the same team. Second, again, you seem to miss the main thrust of what I was saying, otherwise you wouldn't make a statement like this.

    He's more inclined to call himself a Libertarian Socialist these days. Libertarian being used synonomously with Anarchism in the past, as it still is in every place but America because in the 50's a bunch of right-wing assholes co-opted the word. However, his core principles haven't changed. "A rose by any other name.."

    Also, again, I was much more diplomatic than this. I said your expressed views are inconsistent with Anarchism, there's a difference.

    Because I want a society with less poverty, less exploitation, more freedom, etc? Funny, I thought that was the whole point.

    See, again, words have meanings. You can say it's a flawed premise, but my statements were not thoughtless, or careless. I very clearly articulated myself. You can say it's wrong, or it's a ridiculous premise, but you're just being spiteful and vicious for the sake of it.

    Again, he asked, as I read it, two questions which I answered simultaneously.

    I just think 'direct action" is again, sort of a dubious phrase. I get what you mean by it, and what it means in the parlance of this community.

    Again, you just make these declarative statements.


    That might be valid if it wasn't so obviously clear what I meant. You're referencing the Proudhon quote; "Property is theft.", which doesn't apply. Proudhon meant property in the sense of capital, like factories, farms, etc. It isn't applicable. My home may be property in the literal sense, but not property in that sense. I could have just said "my home" or used a different word like "posession", but I thought it was so abundantly clear there was no point.

    You have no point. Yes, absolutely. It doesn't apply in that sense. If I got robbed I'd call the police, if a woman gets raped she should contact the police. (As well as take any other appropriate availible measures to both ensure her safety at that moment, and ensure the perpetrator gets caught.) As much as you might not like it, they do serve a social purpose in some respects. There is a reason rape and murder are illegal, why there would be a need to prevent these things from happening, and so forth. There are many laws I disagree with, I object to this government and the way it operates, but I live in this world, not the world as I wish it was. If violent people come to my home and threaten my family and I cannot resolve the situation myself of course I would contact the authorities. That's just being realistic.

    Again, you make it clear you don't understand freedom of speech. Take this conversation. I profoundly disagree with you and find your ideas to be wrong, abhorrant, etc. However, even if I had the power to, I would not move for you to be arrested, for any literature you produce to be seized, to be imprisoned or worse, simply for having ideas, regardless of what I think of them. What I do is fight these ideas, argue, confront them. This is not an infringement on freedom of speech. You have the right to express these ideas, and I express contrary ideas. That's how it should be. Censorship is the complete opposite. That's deliberately making any kind of discussion or argument impossible.

    This is really elementary, but I'll take another stab at it... My house is my own private little space, just as is yours, etc., etc. You can do whatever you want there, within reason. If I were to come into your home I would be required to respect you and your things, to not come in unless invited, to leave when asked, etc. However, the public sphere belongs to everybody. I can tell you what I will tolerate in my own private home, but forcing the general population what they cannot do in their public lives is a much taller order. That's a different standard.

    ...Again,when they're in my living room, I can set the rules, that's it, that's not an infringement on free expression.

    Again, I'm the one arguing for confronting it. Censorship is not confronting it.

    This is getting tedious... Like i said before, I despise religion, but I don't want to make it illegal and herd all religious people into internment camps. I want to argue their beliefs, to challenge them. To engage in a struggle of ideas. Do you see the difference?


    I'm not entirely sure what to make of that sentence but it doesn't sound like what I was saying.

    In Canada? I'm really not an authority. However, I think these groups tend to be comprised of poorly educated working class people. Oftentimes, their parents are racist, or they live in an environment that condones or fosters racism and xenophobia. I mean, I think it's pretty clear, especially if you look at the demographics. I think it's very clear why hate groups are the largest among the poorest, most poorly educated segments of society. Same with crime. I think it's more of an issue of economics and infrastructure, but that doesn't mean these ideas shouldn't be challenged.

    It's a metaphor. In brief, you don't beat ideas with bullets. I gave the example of the war on terror, which is an absolutely grotesque failure. It's dramatically increased terrorism in a number of regions and substantially boosted sympathy for jihadists. If the standard of living could be improved, if there was less poverty, better education, especially, and the US wasn't engaging in it's own state terrorism, etc., I think you'd see a change. That's how you actually confront these things, not just by beating people or locking them up.

    I never said that. What I said was I find the idea of a full scale violent revolution in the modern west would probably result in a very unstable society, even if it was successful, and I think it would just lead to much much more death and suffering. I'm not a pacifist, I just don't believe violence is the answer to every problem. You have to ask yourself if it's justified by the circumstances, what are the other options, if any, and what are the likely outcomes. In a police state like Russia or North korea, violence is essentially the only possibility because these are brutally repressive police states. However, in the west we have other options, as well. It depends on the circumstances.

    You're drawing a line that doesn't exist. I believe in freedom, I would like to live in a very free society. However, that does not mean all individuals should be completely free to do anything at all. First of all, Anarchism is based on a secular humanist ethics, moral principles. In order to have a functioning society there have to be limits. The more severe the limits, the heavier the burden of proof. If someone is doing real harm to other people, they are violating the basic tenets of civilization. Obviously, we have prohibitions against rape and murder. A society where everyone lied all the time couldn't function. It's circumstance dependant.

    No, not remotely.

    First of all, it was in context of a greater argument, I didn't simply leave it at that. The claim was absolutely ludicrous, and slanderous. Also my intention was not so much to be insulting or to hurt her feelings as to strongly rebuke her offensive, and bogus statements.
     
  7. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Holy shit, 5 pages on debates only because you want to defend the freedom of fascists and nazis. Dude you are fighting the wrong fight. The nazis would laught their ass off if they'd see that. There are so many victims of the repression, so many anarchists in jail, so many political prisonners (not talking about fascists)... but you prefer to defend the nazis rather than fighting against the real injustice

    you don't care about topics talking about nazis trying to make a "no illegal day" and you prefer to argue during 5 pages to defend their freedom of speech, instead..

    Yes, you are a nazi hugger.

    No gods no masters my ass, you are not fighting against masters you are fighting for the master's freeedom of speech

    Same thing, you are still disrespectful and provocating, don't be surprised of my answers.

    Stupid comparaisons with fascism like you are doing is called the GODWIN POINT. It's for dumbasses who are out of arguments

    As for authoritarism, then following your definition ALL ANARCHISTS IN THE HISTORY ARE AUTHORITARIAN. How many times i must repeat until you understand ?

    But oh yeah i forgot, you are the only real anarchist and everyone else is a fake anarchist. NO, YOU ARE A HIPPY.

    No you never answered the fundamental questions. You never said anything about all the anarchists in the history who had the same ideas as me. You also FAILED mutliple times to explain how your stupid theories can be applied in real life. How to give freedom of speech to those we are fighting against ?

    No, they decided to not give freedom of speech to their ennemies in ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Even before the spanish revolution, the anarcho-syndicalists were against free speech for the fascists. Same thing for all the other examples

    I thought your main argument was to never break others freedom of speech in any circumstances ? you said that as soon as you break someone's freedom of speech you break everyone's freedom, and now you are pretending in some circumstances it's not the same... You are soooo contradictory

    no the central question is "is it anarchist to fight for our ennemies freedom of speech like fucking idiots"

    And fighting for the freedom of our ennemies is counter-revolutionnary, counter-productive, AND DEFINATLY NOT ANARCHIST

    You are closer to nazism than anarchism.

    I quoted ALL POSSIBLE examples of anarchism in action and all examples of revolutions, and it proves that they ALL believed we have to limit our ennemies freedom of speech

    I asked you many times and i will repeat again : i defyyou to find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of anarchism in action, ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a revolution where the anarchists gave freedom of speech to their ennemies fighting against them.

    Here's another proof that you don't answer questions. You keep saying some stupid bullshit and pretend my questions are irrevelent instead of answering them.

    A contradiction again. God it's so stupid to debate with you, you are so contradictory. First you say that we are fake anarchists and we act like fascists because we break our ennemies freedom of speech, you also say that everyone who think the same is a fake anarchist.... And now you pretend that you didn't say that all examples i have given (makhnovtchina, spanish revolution, commune of paris, first international, zapatistas, etc) are not fake anarchists. HOWEVER, THEY ACTED EXACTLY THE SAME. They correspond to your description, why it's only us who are fake anarchists ??

    Find me one single example of an anarchist revolution or anarchism in action where freedom of speech was given to the ennemies.
    Find me one single example of an anarchist revolution or anarchism in action where freedom of speech was given to the ennemies.
    Find me one single example of an anarchist revolution or anarchism in action where freedom of speech was given to the ennemies.
    Find me one single example of an anarchist revolution or anarchism in action where freedom of speech was given to the ennemies.
    Find me one single example of an anarchist revolution or anarchism in action where freedom of speech was given to the ennemies.
    Find me one single example of an anarchist revolution or anarchism in action where freedom of speech was given to the ennemies.

    For once i agree with you : nazi huggers and collabos like you are definatly not on the same team as anti-fascists.

    Noam chomsky said : "i am not an anarchist, i am a companion for anarchists"

    You do the same when you say it is contradictory with anarchism to fight against the nazis freedom of speech

    WOW you are a fucking idiot, yes proudhon's property is theft apply to the homes... It is the first place where we should get rid of proprety.

    Read about auroville, an anarchist town where private proprety was abolished, even for homes. The zapatistas are also against private proprety for homes, and so were the spanish revolutionnaries.

    You know nothing of anarchism. You are a stupid reformist hippy, a nazi hugger who believe voting, who use police to defend himself, and a partisan of private proprety


    WHEEEE !!! THANKS THE POLICE FOR PROTECTING US !!! that's so anarcho.

    You are a collabo.

    You just said above that you would use the police to defend your ass against the nazis if they protest in front of your house.

    No, you are just an idiot who waste his time defending their freedom of speech.

    You said we win a war by finding an arrangement with our ennemies and some bullshit like that....

    so the USA won the war against neo nazis because they tolerate them and give them freedom of speech ??

    You are an ignorant. There are far more well educated far-right militants than in leftish movements... a lot of the upper classes are far-right militants, unlike in far-left.

    And i was talking about USA. There is a shitload of neo nazis and they are growing more and more. So your argument is false, it's not because the USA tolerated their freedom of speech that they "won the war" like you are pretending

    Then how the fuck do you abolish capitalism, private proprety and the bourgeoisie? Dumbass. You are a hippy.

    Comparing war on terror with anti-fascism is fucking stupid.

    USA always gave freedom of speech for the nazis, and it is a grotesque failture because they are getting more and more numerous and stronger

    Unstable society ? dude a revolution is a civil war, wake up.

    Yes you are a pacifist and a hippy : you are against violent revolution and you say we must not harm anyone.

    Oh, so for freedom of speech it's "either you believe in total freedom of speech or either you are against it"
    and for freedom some individuals can have limited freedom

    you are so contradictory...

    ONE OF THOSE PRINCIPLES IS TO BE RADICALLY ANTI-FASCIST AND NOT TOLERATE THE NAZIS, dumbass.

    Same for me


    I give up with you, you are a fucking idiot and an ignorant. You are counter-revolutionnary and counter productive, you think you are the only true anarchist and you think everyone else is a fake anarchist. You say that all examples of anarchism in history are fake anarchists who are fascists and authoritarian but you can't find one single example of anarchism in action following your ideas and giving freedom of speech for their ennemies. You are alone in your immaginary world, a revolution with your ideas would be a big failture and those who you give the freedom of speech to would be the new peoples who would take the power and break YOUR freedom of speech. You are not an anarchist, you are an hippy and a nazi hugger. Peoples like you are a nuisance to the revolution, you are counter-revolutionnary. You defend what we are fighting against. I wasted enough time with you, you will never understand and you refuse to question yourself and think about the fact that it is impossible to apply your ideas (history proven it). Go fight on the nazi side, we are not fighting the same fight.

    You are very contradictory. In your house you would censor nazi ideas but in a commune you think they should be allowed, that's fucking stupid.

    How would you react if a commune decide that the majority of peoples want to censor nazism and racism ? you would go and call them fake anarchists ??

    I'm not talking about burning books or censoring everyone, i'm talking about disallowing racism and nazism in the communes where the peoples have chosen to.

    For example, i'm pretty sure everyone here agree that nazism shouldnt be tolerated on anarcho-punk.net, because the vast majority of peoples chosen that they do not want this kind of shit here. Well it would be the same thing in anarchist communities, and if the majority of peoples chose to censor nazis ideas YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG ANRCHO, especially in the name of anarchism.
     
  8. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    It's alternately "Friends Stand United" or "Fuck Shit Up" which is more apropos. I've had some unplesant run ins with these characters. I'm aware of it's roots but most of the new recruits, at least around here are anything but ideological. They're simply violence-for-pleasure seeking hardcore thugs. They'll beat the crap out of anybody. They bring weapons to shows just looking for an excuse. I try to give them a wide berth. Bad news.


    This is part of the problem, nobody seems to have a fully developed sense of what freedom of speech means. It's not their freedom of speech, or mine, or yours. It doesn't work like that. You restrict freedom of speech you do it for everybody.


    Ungovernable has, indirectly. He's suggested harsh punishments for the expression of unauthorized opinions, even going so far as to entertain the possibility of capital punishment. Obviously this would apply to all speech, which includes printed media. Also, the material in question in the Faurisson case was a series of published articles, which is speech, the same as spoken words. So, it's pretty clear he's in favor of confiscating/destroying ideologically unacceptable literature which amounts to the same thing. There's no other possibile interpretation.


    Here's where words get really important. The "tolerate" and "seek to destroy" is pretty slippery. I've certainly never suggested hate speech should be encouraged, nor have I ever suggested that we should passively ignore it. However, there's a difference of approach. You can fight with somebody without censoring them. There's a difference.
     
  9. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    Coming back to this thread after a good sleep. All that I've collected is one question for Ungovernable (or any one else who wants to provide their honest opinion). It's not an attack, just a question that I want you to provide an honest opinion on, so please don't hurt me :(
    Reading your posts on here since I was a little sprout on this messageboard I've noticed that you seem to have quite an infatuation with the 19th and 20th century anarchists, respect to them is DEFINITELY due. They were instrumental in providing a clear understanding of what anarchism is and many of them did what we have yet to-make it all "happen" (revolutions etc.). I feel we need to honor their spirit as well, but I also understand that the world changes. 1936 is long gone. So while we honor their spirit, is it entirely necessary to remain chained directly to their ideals word for word? Anarchism (to me) seems like something that need to stay in flux. That's why I get giddy when I here a tech-geek like NGNM85 talk about singularity and that's also why I get giddy when I here an anti-civilization kiddo talk about their theory. It's new, and adaptive and a lot of it makes sense for the age we are living in, while still meshing with anarchist ideals which were laid out for us in the past, not (imo) as set rules, not as ideological laws, but as tools to be updated. Anarchist philosophers of all sorts left us a hammer, it's up to us to make it a jackhammer, is it not? So when something like book-burning was done in the past, is it not up to us to re-evaluate it? Question it? Because isn't questioning the anarchist way?
    Please don't hurt me.
     
  10. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I really don't know how can simplify it further. I've tried analogies, I've tried re-wording it, re-stating it in various permutations. If it's truly a communication gap than I'd be thrilled for some feedback on how can phrase it more clearly.

    If that's the case I certainly can't tell.

    Also, I'm not going to listen to any more crap about how I'm such a bad guy. I may not be Mr. Congeniality, but what I've dished out is nothing compared what I let slide. After Ungovernable's last post this is a dead issue.


    You got it, you just didn't know you had it. That's it! freedom of speech isn't mine or yours it's both. THis is how you confront ideas, in the open, back and forth. I NEVER suggested we should passively listen to hate speech, but that we should confront it, like this, not censor it. That's something different.

    Again, you have to realize that there is no such thing as Nazi rights, there's just human rights, one, in particular, that is relevant to this conversation.

    You didn't make any distinction between yourself and Ungovernable, who clearly advocates strong punishment, even capital punishment, perhaps for unauthorized expression which includes both spoken and written word, which we collectively call 'speech.' This is bolstered by the fact that the Faurisson case, about which he made his feelings abundantly clear, was about published articles. So, it's pretty clear he's in favor of either confiscating or destroying unacceptable media. (Or both.) You seemed to endorse his position completely so I naturally assumed there was total agreement on this point.


    If I'd meant it to be insulting I wouldn't have been so subtle. I meant exactly what I said. You attributed sentiments to me that were very nearly the opposite of what I said. If in fact you misinterpreted what I was saying it wouldn't be possible to draw any valuable conclusions.


    Well, I see only two possibilities. Either a genuine misunderstanding, or deliberate falsification. I was inclined to think the former but it just gets increasingly difficult to do so. From that it naturally follows.

    The charges you made were not small, and should not be made lightly. To deliberately label someone as such would be a vicious slander.

    It's like talking about someone, in their presence, in the third person. Also, charges THAT severe you should make directly.

    That's completely untrue, yes. For reasons that should be obvious. I have never defended individuals who are neo-nazi's or neo-nazi ideology. Quite the opposite.


    I'm not a telepath, but while I'm doing my best to extend my disbelief, I find it really difficult to believe that the mischaracterization was anything but deliberate. That would certainly be an indictment of one's integrity and character to spread such vicious libel.


    No, I didn't attribute anything to him that he didn't say or very strongly imply. He did mention capital punishment as a viable retribution for unathorized speech. Etc., etc. I think he made himself extremely clear. He's very firmly against free speech.


    I understand what's being said perfectly. Like anything I read it, evaluate it, and come to a conclusion. There ARE two sides to every story, but only one truth. Also, the perponderance of evidence is usually dramatically greater on one side than the other.

    I'm not unwilling to change my mind, nobody is completely free of prejudice, but I genuinely just try to interpret the evidence. If I heard a new argument for animal rights that somehow solved all the philosophical problems I see in it, I believe I would change my viewpoint.

    Getting back to the point, I understand the revulsion to certain types of speech, I feel it, myself. However, that doesn't mean I can ethically, morally, or philosophically justify censorship, especially of the kind proposed. It's fundamentally authoritarian. It's antithetical to Anarchism. Free speech is the most basic fundamental human right on which all others rest. There is a reason why it was included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lastly, when societies start cracking down on these fundamental rights they have a nasty habit of doing it again, and again. As per Niemoller's quote. That was his point, that he thought it was inconsequential that communists or trade unionists or jews had their rights taken away because he wasn't one. His whole point was that he was wrong. That once violating basic human rights becomes institutionalized it keeps happening, ad infinitum. He was saying we have to be extremely cautious and ever vigilant in defense of these rights. That's why it's so tragic that his words would be twisted around backwards to defend the very thing he preached against.

    I don't know how much clearer I can be.
     
  11. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Unauthorized thought is strongly prohibited. Prepare to be euthanized for the common good.
     
  12. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Nothing changed. I can quote you as many examples of anarchism in action in 2010, and it's the same story.

    Auroville, ungdumshuet, autonomy in argentina, the zapatista movement, commune of oaxaca / chiapas, etc...

    The whole book-burning stuff is fucking stupid, nobody talked about book burning except in NGNM nazi hugger immagination. I said when we are at war with the ennemies (the fascist), if they drop hate propaganda pamphlet all over the town then of course, it's going to trash.

    You talk about not sticking to the old anarchist ideology word for word, questionning everything and not following rules. Start by questionning your principles of "total freedom for everyone including our ennemies because it's sooo anarcho". Start by questionning your own principles, you and NGNM are the ones who are sticking to old anarchist concepts without evolving and learning from what happenned in the history.

    The argument of the dates is stupid. Do you really think that fascism is different today ? Do you really think it would be much different is we would make a revolution in 2010? The principle of allies and ennemies is still here. There still would be ennemies and counter-revolutions who would want to kill us and who would spread propaganda. The SAME PROBLEMS would be here.

    Explain me how the fascists of 1936 are different from the fascists of 2010. They wouldn't want to kill us maybe ? They are not a threat to freedom anymore ? A civil war against the fascists would be different in 2010 ? No. It would be the same. The fascists are still hateful, intolerant, totalitarian, they are still armed and dangerous, and they will want to kill us. Also, they would still try to brainwash us with their propaganda. So even in 2010, the anarchists would have the same reaction, they would still fight against them and say "fuck the freedom of speech for those who want to destroy this freedom of speech"

    My tolerance ends where hate begins, as simple as it. And i don't give a fuck about what you think of it, i don't care if you think it's not anarchist. To me anti-fascism is a basis concept of anarchism, just like you think freedom of speech is. I also think freedom of speech is important, that's why i don't want to let someone the freedom to be able to destroy this same freedom of speech.

    90% of the anarchists agree to say that all the historical examples i have quoted are examples to follow. Examples of true anarchism in action. This also include what you call "book burning" and this also include radical anti-fascism (what you call breaking freedom of speech)

    You sound like those tibetans who believe in peace and freedom of speech for their ennemies who are invading them... well look at what happens to them, too.... That's what NGNM calls "winning a war" since they don't censor and fight against them, well i call it a fucking big defeat.

    You don't fight against napalm with flowers.
     
  13. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    Now that I think of it "NGNM85" does sort of sound like the name of a character from Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" :p
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Wow you are a fucking idiot, i never talked about censoring or prohibiting different opinions. i'm talking about not tolerating hate and thoughts against the freedom of speech that you pretend to defend.

    why don't you answer my posts instead of posting shitty provocation. definatly you are a moron and you don't understand anything.

    you are paranoid and crazy.

    and then you talk about childish remarks, wow.... hypocrisy.
     
  15. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

    how about this ???

    THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING, THIS IS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR... And i don't want to be part of this bullshit.

    it's not information, it's HATE AND PROPAGANDA. This book inspired the most famous white supremacist to act, so don't tell me again it doesnt matter and nobody will follow what is said in this book

    and c'mon, even if you believe in freedom of speech for everyone, why are you fighting so hard for the freedom of speech for youe ennemies ? there is so many censorship on anarchist books, so many anarchist prisonners, etc... why don't you defend your own comrades before defending your ennemies ?

    You share a part of the guilt with Andrew Macdonald and the National Alliance who wrote this book, you share a part of the guilt for all the murders that were inspired by this book. Because you defend their freedom of speech. This is the result of the freedom of speech you agree to give them. In conclusion, you're not better than a nazi. You are part of the problem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner ... h_the_book

    YOU ARE GUILTY TOO, BECAUSE YOU DON'T FIGHT AGAINST IT, BECAUSE YOU DEFEND THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    Even the theoricians of freedom of speech believe that hate is not freedom of speech.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... _of_speech
     
  16. Spider

    SpiderExperienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    fucking hell.
    I'd say something but i suspect it would be somehow completely misinterpreted into a direct admission of collusion with hammerskins.

    Fuck it im gonna try anyway coz this is just too stupid.

    A. Free speech doesn't mean silence in the face of stupidity. The nazis have a right to spurt their idiotic crap, but i also have a right to point out all the flaws to anybody listening, and to defend myself against any subsequent violence. This is a far cry from censorship, and i have a suspicion if you banned all literature/ideas/speech pertaining to things not in accordance with anarchy (besides the obvious smell of Fascism wafting off such an action) you would effectively silence all intelligent arguments to it because nobody would have to debate it anymore. This strengthens the ideas and banning them also makes them more appealling to people who don't like authority (and lets face it, this type of "Anarchy" sounds pretty authoritarian) It's kinda like Lenin claiming communism when all he really did was set up a dictatorship which he then had to expand in a very roman manner to finance a war with the Cappos. I know a lot of Central Bloc/Eastern euro refugees who hate anything related to communism as a result of that crap, I don't see how book burning (OH NO I FORGOT NOBODY SAID THOSE EXACT WORDS THEREFORE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN READ BETWEEN LINES EFFECTIVELY HERE I AM MAKING UP SLANDER) could be percieved as anything other than fascism masquerading as anarchy, thus having a similar effect on the name of the movement, and setting everything back by another 200 years.

    B. Chomsky wasn't defending any essay in particular, nor the content of any manifesto,writing or anything else. All he was doing was defending the right of the writer to publish those opinions, no matter how stupid they may be.

    Ungovernable, this isn't meant to be inflamatory, though i suspect you may percieve it as such, I sense your misinterpretation of most of the posts on this website gives some insight into your similar misinterpretation/misunderstanding of a lot of anarchist texts/events/writings. I feel theres a lot of anger and violence in you, and that influences the way you percieve peoples ideas. I don't mean to sound like an attack, I'm just saying take a few deep breaths, read things slowly and carefully and think about the context of what is being said. A lot of your quotes, though accurate, seem to be being twisted completely out of their original meaning to support violent ideas they had absolutely no reference or relevance to. We are all comerades fighting for a better future for the people, (*edit unnecessary) violence, censorship and petty elitism aren't conducive to this end goal.
     
  17. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    ngnm, i'm trying again here to, what do you call it, have an adult discussion with you. You said: "You didn't make any distinction between yourself and Ungovernable". Ok, true. Nor did i make any distinction between myself and anyone else but sure, here goes: i am not the same person an Ungovernable. I have my own thoughts, my own ideas and my own fucking brain. I had no idea i had to make that distinction because i thought it was pretty obvious that i am me and no one elses. Is this lack of distinction from my side between myself and Ungovernable perhaps the reason why you keep placing words in my mouth, or on my keeboard rather, about censorship and bookburnings? You see i do agree with Ungovernable on some things but i am not here to kiss his ass and agree on everything he says and i don't agree on everything he says, so if that's what you thought you were way off track.
    It's quite obvious to me that when you disagree with me it is just that; disagreeing, but when i disagree with you it's namecalling and vicious lies. I do think that standing up for nazis rights to speek you do indirectly stand up for nazism. That's just how i see it and is not said to put you down, it would be the very same thing with anyone else who would do the same.
    Yes i have the right to say i don't agree with you and you have the right to say you don't agree with me but i should also get to speak up to nazis without getting blamed to be a fake anarchist and a fascist for it. It's definately enough of them to stand up for them selves without us helping them!
    Human rights are awesome and all but can't you see that it's not me who are breaking the human rights but it is, in this case, the nazis that does so? I have homosexual friends and friends with more color then myself and if i am walking down town with them and nazis come up to us being the way they can be, should i then tell my friends that it's just freedom of speech? Would you?
    Think whatever you want of me, that i'm fake and without integrity or whatever you want. Frankly my dear, i don't care.
     
  18. Spider

    SpiderExperienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    it's freedom of speech, not freedom of violence. If nazis come up and are mouthing off to you, mouth off back at them, would you really suggest that they be arrested or killed just for saying something upsetting?? who decides what is upsetting/inappropriate??? If they cause you physical harm (and lets face it, nazis aren't exactly known for being intellectuals, they're more likely to fight first and taunt later) then that has nothing to do with freedom of speech, thats outright assault and is irrelevant to NGNM's main point. Nor is he preaching tolerance for their ignorant ideals, just that we should fight words with words, not by killing or imprisoning those whose beliefs oppose ours. that would be pure, literal authoritarianism, a value this site is allegedly opposed to.

    Everybody is getting really confused. You're accusing NGNM of things which he hasn't said at all, or else completely mis-interpreting his posts to be that he says we should keep quiet and let the nazis talk. That's ridiculous, he's opposed to censorship, not to fighting back. Freedom of speech works both ways, you guys seem to think it's one side or the other, ie that if we can speak, then the nazis aren't allowed to, or if we let the nazis speak, that means we have to shut our mouths. I feel like an idiot always referring to "the nazis" like it's this abstract concept and there's going to be a series of debates on the street where the nazis will say one thing and then we will have a rebuttal or something. I dunno I give up it doesn't seem like you guys really get any of this.
     
  19. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Exactly.
     
  20. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,123

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    ungovernable, there are so many fuckwits on this site thats its not even funny. :'( :o :@

    Fascism is inherently a violent politics, anyone defending their right to 'speak freely' does not understand what fascism is in the slightest.

    Fuck fascism, battle it physically no matter how it manifests itself. And fuck the hippy wankers here defending fascists' right to ' free sppech'.

    Fascism is inherently a violent ideology, it must be stomped out, by any means necessary, wherever it rears it fucking ugly head
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - favorite anarchistic philosopherForumDate
Favorite splits?Music, punk scene & subculturesApr 11, 2014
What are your bands Brazilian anarcho punk favorites?General DiscussionMay 11, 2013
Favorite Motorcharged bands?Music, punk scene & subculturesMay 10, 2012
Favorite anarchist icon?Anarchism and radical activismApr 15, 2012
Favorite anarchist quoteAnarchism and radical activismDec 8, 2010