Gender and Violence and Blame by Magonsdaughter

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HKC- people are dying in droves from all sorts of inequities and you think this is about envy???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:41 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HKC- people are dying in droves from all sorts of inequities, and you think this is about envy???.

Hello,

It seems much more about control.

You're tired of the control these entities exercise on our lives.

It's time you had the control, instead.

You already want to end broadcast television and cable services. How much control over my life will you need in order to free me from my prison?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY, you seem to be defending your right to be in prison. Well, if you want to be in prison there's nothing I can do about it.

*gestures you inside*

Look, not trying to make you mad or anything but just think about where your train of thought ends, OK?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm aware of that, M. And one or two or five examples doesn't change a dang thing, does it? What do you think is going on here?

A lot of software gets it start in some branch of military R&D, a lot of tech does, period. The internet itself started out as a military application. Does that mean we should get rid of our computers?

It's still a leap of some magnitude, I think, from there to a coordinated propaganda campaign that's destroying our culture and turning our youth into addicts. Are you onboard with Signy's analysis?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

No, I don't believe that there was a co-ordinated campaign. I'm generally not a big conspiracy theorist. But I do believe that the impact of military style computer games and other violent games has an overall impact on the vast numbers of people who play them.

Signy is right about the way the brain gets conditioned, or perhaps I might use the term shaped, and this is particuarly true of the adolescent brain which changes dramatically in response to stimuli. So if you spend all day playing violent video games, the younger brain will be shaping how that person responds emotionally, behaviourally and cognitively to that stimuli.

While its clear that not everybody who play games becomes violent, its not clear about the full impact on people who play regularly.

I do think there is an increasing level of aggression in society and how we interact with one another. I know that teens, particularly teen and young males have always been the most likely to display this behaviour, but its becoming increasingly prevalent amongst many sectors of society.

What I can observe -

*aggressive behaviour on the roads - up to increased incidents of road rage, but may also include excessive speeding, shouting, guesturing, tail gating as punishment and risky behaviour generally
*use of aggressive heaviour to solve problems. My neighbours hate my dog. Have they ever come over and had a discussion? No, they shout and scream abuse and make threats through the fence. Incredibly, both are in their 60's.
*acceptance of violent and aggressive behaviour in relationships. Don't like what your partner has done, it seems that its perfectly acceptable to slap them or call them a cunt. What ever happened to rules of behaviour even when you argue or disagree? There doesn't seem to be any.
I could go on and on...

Okay. So what are the causes?

I've got some ideas, but I'll leave them for now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:50 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hi Signe, I think your idea to get rid of TV and put it all online sucks, because my TV is easier for me to work than my computer. For the computer if you want to watch shows on it you always have to update the players and stuff, whereas with my TV I just turn it on, que presto. Your idea sounds totally lame to me and wayyyyyy inconvenient for me. And what about PBS? Surely you're not opposed to history documentaries and the BBC. Come on Signe, work with me here, though I don't really want to work with you on this because its a lame idea.

Who is more violent, men or women? I think that statistically men are more violent, in regards to how many violent incidents occur with them in them. But women can certainly be violent too, everyone is an individual and so everyone can be violent or not, but I think if we were to add up the violent incidents committed by men in a year and the violent incidents committed by women in a year we'd see that men win out. So I disagree with Byte here. But I do agree that women are fully capable of violence and I also agree that they are less often prosecuted for it.

I too hate that if we see a woman slap her boyfriend we assume that he deserved it, whereas when we see a man slap his girlfriend we assume he is a crummy person. We should have the same assumptions when we see domestic violence whether its a man or a woman. Neither is okay and neither should get excuses made.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:54 PM

Sig: Caste system in India is alive and well and so long as people look at lower castes of people as inhuman they're going to dish out inhumane treatment to them.

Russia's problem is there's always someone looking for opportunities. Twelve year old unattended in the mall? Grab her, someone will pay good money to pass her around with their buddies while she cries and screams and bleeds. Decade and a half later she'll still be caught in that system, won't remember her name, but she'll have a daughter from it all that they're grooming to succeed her. And that's when they don't go right into it from the orphanages.

You're not the only one who's angry Sig. It's all right to be angry. The trick is finding the right target to focus that anger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yep, it was Morgan.

Quote:
Lewis Henry Morgan (November 21, 1818 – December 17, 1881) was a pioneering American anthropologist and social theorist who worked as a railroad lawyer. He is best known for his work on kinship and social structure, his theories of social evolution, and his ethnography of the Iroquois. Interested in what holds societies together, he proposed the concept that the earliest human domestic institution was the matrilineal clan, not the patriarchal family; the idea was accepted by most pre-historians and anthropologists throughout the late nineteenth century.
Also interested in what leads to social change, he was a contemporary of the European social theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were influenced by reading his work on social structure and material culture, the influence of technology on progress. Morgan is the only American social theorist to be cited by such diverse scholars as Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud. Elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Morgan served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1879.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H._Morgan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:21 PM

Matrilineal: well it does make sense. The mother is the only side of the equation that usually isn't in question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY, you seem to be defending your right to be in prison. Well, if you want to be in prison there's nothing I can do about it. *gestures you inside*

Look, not trying to make you mad or anything but just think about where your train of thought ends, OK?

Hello,

The amount of control you wish to exercise in order to create a better world would just end up trading one prison for another.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:42 PM

Yep, and from what I've read and understood, it was patrilineal societies that developed controls over women's sexuality and behaviour. The only way to be sure that a child was yours, as a man, was to ensure you were the only one who slept with a woman.

From this concept springs marriage, adultery, restriction on women's clothing, behaviour, ostricising women for rape or being a single mother and a whole host of controlling, blaming societal behaviours that would not exist in a matrilineal society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:48 PM

Quote:
From this concept springs marriage, adultery

Maaaaybe. The others definitely.

Marriage and adultery are concepts that theoretically might arise on their own, depending on how viable the takes a village option is or if even then two primary caretakers works best. But in fairness we're hardly a monogamous species even when we do try to practice marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:45 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magons, in regard to your points above about violent media. I think the answer is the age old principle of moderation in all things, and parents manning up and being parents. Parents have the right to decide what is apropriate for their child's consumption, they also have a right to set time limits and make sure that the child is living moderately, it goes beyond rights even, its their _job to raise their children to the best of their ability, so that when the children are of age and grown they'll know how to make good choices for themselves.

Again I also think that focusing on cause and affect and clarity between what is real and what isn't, what is okay in real life vs. what is okay in pretend and even that some things really aren't okay even in pretend play.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
From this concept springs marriage, adultery

Maaaaybe. The others definitely.

Marriage and adultery are concepts that theoretically might arise on their own, depending on how viable the takes a village option is or if even then two primary caretakers works best. But in fairness we're hardly a monogamous species even when we do try to practice marriage.

Marriage has traditionally been more binding on women than on men. Adultery by men has been far more tolerated than for women.

Matrinlineal = it doens't matter who fathers a child. Therefore whether a man or a woman takes a life partner or has many is immaterial.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Magons, in regard to your points above about violent media. I think the answer is the age old principle of moderation in all things, and parents manning up and being parents. Parents have the right to decide what is apropriate for their child's consumption, they also have a right to set time limits and make sure that the child is living moderately, it goes beyond rights even, its their _job to raise their children to the best of their ability, so that when the children are of age and grown they'll know how to make good choices for themselves.

Again I also think that focusing on cause and affect and clarity between what is real and what isn't, what is okay in real life vs. what is okay in pretend and even that some things really aren't okay even in pretend play.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I agree Rione. I am not actually advocating any controls/prohibitions on any media.

I think the issues is what happens when people are unable to put limits on themselves or on their children. Pretty common.

I happen to agree that violence in movies and games can create excitment, an adrenalin rush. Porn results in sexual excitment. All of these things stimulate our emotions and feelings and I guess are in of themselves basically harmless.

But what happens when you have a society that is awash with violent and sexual imagery and where people spend a great deal of time viewing such images. I think there will be and is an impact on people's behaviour and expectations. What we do about it is something I am not all together sure about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY

Quote:
The amount of control you wish to exercise in order to create a better world would just end up trading one prison for another.

I feel like I've just (metaphorically-speaking) tossed you the keys to the car and you're backing up with horror on your face, saying... Oh, no, man! You're like putting me in prison! I'm having a serious WTF??? moment. How, exactly, do you see this as lessening your freedom? What are you giving up? Please be clear.

BYTE

Quote:
You're not the only one who's angry Sig. It's all right to be angry. The trick is finding the right target to focus that anger.

The funny thing is, I'm not angry. At least, I haven't really felt that in this thread. But I feel like I can see this something about how our society... MOST societies... work.

So we look at India and we're horrified.... horrified, I tell you... about their misogynistic ways and their caste system which condemns people to a lifetime of automatic poverty, killing exploitation, and scorn. But did you know that India's rape rates are less than 1/10 of ours? And we have our own Dalit, altho we call them the black poor and the crazy homeless. It seems impossible for us to look at our own society with any sort of clarity. We flutter and hop around in our cages proclaiming how "free" we are!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
From this concept springs marriage, adultery

Maaaaybe. The others definitely.

Marriage and adultery are concepts that theoretically might arise on their own, depending on how viable the takes a village option is or if even then two primary caretakers works best. But in fairness we're hardly a monogamous species even when we do try to practice marriage.

Marriage has traditionally been more binding on women than on men. Adultery by men has been far more tolerated than for women.

Matrinlineal = it doens't matter who fathers a child. Therefore whether a man or a woman takes a life partner or has many is immaterial.

Kinda does. Resource considerations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:53 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magons it sounds like we are mostly in allignment.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

This... took a while, and a LOT of editing.
Okay, here goes, will try to keep this coherent if I can.

The vilification of self-defense is quite possibly the most dire setback of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, in that as a natural consequence it creates uncountable other ills.
It has enabled and emboldened criminal elements, had a tremendous negative social impact and has abetted some of the worst human and civil rights violations in decades.

Now, before responding with the well trained and conditioned jerking of knees and reflexively screaming at me and throwing poop like a buncha goddamn howler monkeys, do me the favor of hearing me out for once before you utterly ignore it all once again like it never existed.

This starts in the family, parents, especially authoritarian and/or abusive ones, do NOT want their child defending themselves, cause if they stand up to others, that runs the risk of sooner or later them standing up to YOU.
Think about it for a minute, a physically or emotionally abusive parents reaction to a child striking back, what is it, what it it's PURPOSE ?
That one strikes home especially deep with me given how early I learned that Force Majeure, a weapon, and the will to take it all the way matters - it put PAID to my fathers abuse, then, there, and forever, with a side note of property rights since the sumbitch thought kids shouldn't "own" anything and regularly pitched out everything I had.

Then you got schools, which also vilify self defense, maybe slightly better reasons to it but not many - the excuses and hypocrisy are abundantly clear to children because the school itself often maintains control via force and fear, so bullies are simply doing what the school does, what they are "taught", on a smaller scale.
And those who stand up to them are more often than not vilified for it, certainly punished cause they stepped outside the established order - not even necessarily with violence, cause everyone with half a brain knows that going to the authorities just gets one brushed off, labelled a tattletale, probably disciplined on top of it, and for what, cause they'll just consider it he-said-she-said and not do a goddamn thing... except to YOU.
Step up physically, especially with Force Majeure and a weapon, and you WILL pay dire consequences for it often worse than simply suffering the abuse.
What message does this send, WHY do they send it ?
WHAT ARE THEIR INTENTIONS ?

Then on to employers, who do have a little more reason in our revoltingly litigous society, cause resistance will almost certainly get you fired, even if the bad guy was GOING TO KILL YOU otherwise - you're expected to lay down and freakin die, rather than defend yourself, for your employers damn convenience...
How many gas station attendents and convenience store clerks die every year because of this ?
No one knows, no one dares ask, because they don't WANT to hear or know the answers.
Sure - there's times resistance isn't the best option, but only the person on the scene, eye-to-eye with the bad guy has any right to make that decision in my opinion.
I got more on this, but that'll come back in a different section.

Law enforcement, obviously doesn't want you defending yourself, not only does it concern them that you might stand up to THEM, it also steps on their social "turf", and negatively impacts their little game of pretending they're all that stands between us and darkness, as well as calling into question exactly why we need them, or why we should hand over our human and civil rights in exchange for a protection that is damn near never actually present at a moment of crisis.

And finally, Governments.
Obviously they have the same issues as noted above, but to a Government you see, the difference between criminal and citizen is effectively immaterial, we're all just taxslaves, resources, beasts of burden to them, and what care they if one victimizes another ?

Quote:
Listen to them closely and you'll hear that we might as well be different species. They are an elite -- near demigods who are above everything, including the law. We are less than nothing, of no concern to them except for the tasks we perform and the wealth we create for them to steal. If some of us can play the violin, create beautiful paintings or sculptures, or bring audiences to tears with our singing or acting, those are just "stupid pet tricks" without real value or significance.

If some of us are attacked by others, what difference does guilt or innocence make when you're talking about livestock? Animals that defend themselves are no different from the animals being defended against -- unruly cattle are unruly cattle. Any ability we may develop to protect ourselves from predators simply isn't worth the risk it poses to our "owners"
- L Neil Smith

This deliberate conditioning goes deeper than most people ever realize, so much so that not only do most folk experience a reluctance to defend themselves, but in some cases even reflexively decry others doing so whether or not that is justified, or even decry the very concept of it.

And it goes both ways, too - the bully who wants you to hand over you lunch money or he's gonna pound you, the crook who wants your wallet or he's gonna stab you, they LEARNED this, in principle it's the same thing our social structures do, Obey Or Else - which is of course where they learned the notion FROM, just on a smaller more personal scale.
Like the old unfunny joke goes, the only reason Governments hate crime is cause they can't stand competition.

Now, emboldening the criminal element...

For me the first thought that comes to mind is domestic abuse, just how often an abuser gets free pass after free pass, but should the victim stand to the consequences will be dire, if the abuser doesn't manage to penalize them for it severely, society surely will, although obviously it's more complex than that - but you know what isn't ?
Date rape - most of it happens at all because the victim is MORE afraid of the potential consequences for self defense than being raped, and what does that tell you about how vilified it has become ?

That also brings up the two-stage element of resistance in general, having to fight off the predator, and THEN defend oneself from our society and legal system as they try to "make an example" of you to further drive home the message of that conditioning to others.

Now, criminals commit crimes for a myriad of different reasons, but the career criminal, especially on the low end of the scumbag pond is in it for POWER, your average rough off artist or gangbanger got into it from a combination of poverty and a desire for power over others.
This specific grade of criminal isn't a once-in-a-lifetime kind of encounter, especially if you live in or near a rough neighborhood, it may not even be rare - and a lack of resistance, falling to that submissive-compliant conditioning not only emboldens them, it *will* incite them to escalate the crime, robbery becomes assault, or rape, or even murder, to feed the lust for power, you see ?

What *IS* rare, but still amazingly dangerous, is Lifestyle-Violent types, who commit an outrageously disproportionate percentage of crime overall, and here's one reason why.

Quote:
The second characteristic is lack of perception of the future. He has none. If you ask a kid like this, "What are you going to be doing next year?" you will get an absolutely blank stare. Not because he's stupid, but because he simply cannot conceptualize such a distance from right now. If you want to speak with this kid, you have to speak within his time frame, and that time frame isn't ever more than a few hours from the present.

This kid does not relate behavior to consequences. He does not see a causal connection between his acts and a response. What do I mean? To this kid, life is a lottery. Everyone rolls the dice, but not everyone pays the price. He has no perception as to how the dice will come up. In his world, everyone commits crimes. Everybody. Some smaller percentage of that number are arrested. A still smaller percentage go to court; an even smaller percentage go to trial. A smaller percentage still are actually found guilty (or "adjudicated delinquent" if you prefer), and a smaller percentage of that group are committed to a youth authority. Lastly, an even smaller percentage are actually incarcerated.
- A Speech by: Andrew H. Vachss 1983

Right Now is all you got with them - the ONLY thing likely to modify their behavior is an imminent, credible threat to their well being, period.
Also noteworthy is a nod here to how I feel about worldview - the second paragraph *is* in fact a very correct assessment of our so-called-justice system, the reality of this is inescapable.
Therefore instead of calling it a distorted worldview and PRETENDING that is not the case while blaming those who hold it, perhaps we should do something about it instead of wallowing in denial and casting blame on those who refuse to do so ?

Which brings me to the point of the insane magical thinking "logic" behind the vilification of self defense, on both sides of the matter.
Sorry, but expecting someone who has already stepped so far outside the unspoken rules of society as well as the law, that they're willing to point a weapon at you and threaten you to take what you have... to then suddenly conform to those civilized behaviors once you have complied is idiotic.
That goes for both criminals and Governments in fact - you know what paying Danegeld results in ?
Why, paying Danegeld, of course.

On the other end, bad guys engage in the same exact kind of insane magical thinking, in fact it's one of their greatest weaknesses - see, in THEIR mind, they have this little script, they threaten you, and you COMPLY, end of story.
Ever notice just how often those who resist, and do so immediately, often win out even when a criminal is armed and they are not - why you think that is ?
Because yon criminal is so flummoxed at this, so damn far behind the mental curve, they just lock up for seconds, in rare cases even minutes, during which you can act freely against them.
BECAUSE THEY DEPEND SO UTTERLY ON THE LACK OF RESISTANCE.

Bear in mind here than when I use the words self-defense and resistance I am not limiting that to any particular option (unlike some pinheads which oughta know better) but rather encompassing an entire RANGE of them, from a simple words like "No!" to negotiation, psychological manipulation, exploitation of perceived authority, running like hell (always a good option), anything and everything which could possibly throw a monkeywrench in the plans of an aggressor - and yes sadly that does in extremis include the option of blowing a hole in them, but it's a damned poor solution to most problems due to a combination of both the vilification and the outright stupidity of some who resort to it.

Case in point(one): Zimmerman could have "defended" himself and his neighborhood from any perceived threat Martin offered simply by keeping him under discrete observation from range, what he did was not in any way self-defense, IMHO.

Case in point(two): Locally, some yahoo recently tried to rob a nearby bank, but the clever teller noted that said yahoo was dumber than a bag of bricks, and gave him the "Sorry, can't help you." customer-service stonewall till he got frustrated and stormed out, at which point the local cops arrested him as he tried to catch a bus.

This conditioning has only gotten worse and worse, as far I am concerned, which is one reason I find the TSA so flat out despicable, cause what do you think the purpose of all that ineffective security theatre really is ?
It's not to catch terrorists, they've proven utterly ineffective, useless and in fact counterproductive in that respect, and the mission-creep and shifting explainations are all just fluff to cover that the true purpose is furthering that anti-resistance conditioning.
Nowhere is this more blatant than the fact that even mouthing off to them will probably get one arrested, and indulging in the same conduct yourself (like the lady who decided to grope them right back) WILL get you arrested - to make an example of you, see ?

End result of this mess being the disaster we have for a society now, one which treasures sociopathy while scorning empathy - by revoking the empathic response to self-defense it removes a primary stumbling block to revoking empathy entire, which is one of the root causes of folks picking "side" as more important than right or wrong, and seeking benefit to themselves at the expense of others.

The first person you are ever taught to lie to, is yourself.

I hope that was coherent, and explanatory.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I feel like I've just (metaphorically-speaking) tossed you the keys to the car and you're backing up with horror on your face, saying... Oh, no, man! You're like putting me in prison! I'm having a serious WTF??? moment. How, exactly, do you see this as lessening your freedom? What are you giving up? Please be clear.

Hello,

A freer world does not restrict my freedoms in order to protect me from myself. It does not tell me I can't broadcast or consume broadcasted television. It does not tell me I can't buy cable services to consume cable television. It does not block the things I can do for fear that I will succumb to propaganda.

A free world not only trusts me, but wants to restrict me as little as possible.

You are not describing a free world. You are describing a new cage of a different color, where the bars are in place to protect me from my worst tendencies.

No, thank you. I choose not to consume only the approved entertainment conveyed by the approved format. The FCC is bad enough already.

Never mind that everything you worry about in broadcast television and cable can come to pass on a free internet. And what will you do next, once you see the propaganda flowing into everyone's minds via the internet, something that you don't control? What will you do once you identify the next great threat to the freedoms of the people?

How much will you take away for my own good and the good of the society I live in?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:36 AM

Sometimes with the police it's more they just want you to stop complaining and go away, so they charge you with something out of spite, sometimes they're looking for a scapegoat for a crime, sometimes it's just malice.

Oh, and also:

Quote:
Because yon criminal is so flummoxed at this, so damn far behind the mental curve, they just lock up for seconds, in rare cases even minutes, during which you can act freely against them.
BECAUSE THEY DEPEND SO UTTERLY ON THE LACK OF RESISTANCE.

Yep, you especially see this with bullies. Although most everyone in Salt Lake City also does this because they are just so unchallenging. They're seriously laughable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY- Funny thing is, I never said that the same programming couldn't be produced and consumed via internet, so basically you're upset because you want your product delivered via cable? Is that the "freedom" that you're insisting on? Cable (and broadcast) media?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM: I got as far as

Quote:
The vilification of self-defense is quite possibly the most dire setback of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, in that as a natural consequence it creates uncountable other ills.

and my reading came to a screeching halt. The vilification of self defense has been going on since governments were founded. There was a reason why weaponless fighting was developed in China. In Mayan cultures, one was expected to meekly give up one's child for sacrifice. During feudal Europe, weapons were restricted to knights; there was the droit de seigneur and other abuses which the peasants were to meekly comply with. There were exclusive warrior classes in many societies, restricted to the well-trained and fully propagandized.

I think you're harkening back to a time and place that either never existed, or only existed very briefly in rare moments in history, so your post (this far) is based on a false premise.

Back to reading.

---------------

Quote:
This starts in the family, parents, especially authoritarian and/or abusive ones, do NOT want their child defending themselves, cause if they stand up to others, that runs the risk of sooner or later them standing up to YOU.

Going back through history (until you get to matriarchy, of which there are no records) the higher the pyramid of power the more authoritarian the family, especially the male. Even paleoanthropology of Egyptian bones (showing systematic abuse of women) bears this out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:33 AM

Well, um, perhaps not so much "false" as more far reaching than this conversation would indicate. One of Frem's favourite quotes is that one from the His Dark Materials series about how there's always been people out to oppress humanity.

Just because there's been worse acceptance of self-defense in other cultures doesn't mean there hasn't been a serious set back in ours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, made it through the entire post. There are parts I agree with strongly

Quote:
The first person you are ever taught to lie to, is yourself.

Let's start with that as a point of agreement. When you're lying in bed or taking the bus or stalled in traffic or just sitting and thinking, nobody can tell what's going on in your head, which is why thought-shackles are so important to TPTB. Endlessly watching TV, being on FB with friends, playing videogames... well, it's kinda hard to think when it's so noisy in there!

A while back, I said that violent media isn't about catharsis, it's about addiction. But I guess I could say the same for ALL media... nothing removes you from your real life, your real feelings, your real options, your real activities like your virtual life. Or booze, or other drugs.... But that's another story.

In any case, many people unconsciously limit their thoughts; certain thoughts would NEVER pop into their heads because it goes against the stories that they have been told their entire lives, whether those stories are about religion or economics or justice or human nature or "freedom" or self-defense.

OTOH, your post is focused on only one aspect of societal control, and that is violence: either imposing injustice or resisting it. However, there are many other forms of societal control... the stories we tell ourselves, the conveniences that are granted to us which make us dependent, the little bits of power we are handed. I think that your focus on individual self defense is biased by your personal history, and while it is important it not the full story, and in some instances may get in the way of recognizing a potentially better solution. There are societies today in which violence just doesn't occur: the matriarchies of today. What are they doing differently? Whatever it is, it's not self-defense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:31 AM

Video games are often addictive... but I'm kind of uncomfortable putting simple escapism on the same level as propaganda sources and control measures such as facebook or television. Escapism is what people also get out of books. I guess you can argue that all art can be used as opiates of the masses, bread and circuses like tactics, but I don't really want a world devoid of art.

I think it's important to separate from art what is actually dangerous. And what is actually dangerous is not necessarily the art. Good art makes people think instead of misleading or repressing thought. What's really dangerous is the consumerism. It's the gotta buy, gotta keep myself in debt, gotta work a job and be a wage slave to support that habit, gotta pay attention to the frivolous celebrity bullshit or competitive day to day drama with antagonistic friends instead of being involved with the community and cooperating. And it's in that buzz of gotta have that propaganda is introduced in the advertisements, that there's vested interest in introducing propaganda into the stories.

The art is innocent. The art is that little twelve year old on the street, trying to get her message across even with the restrictions imposed on her. It's her pimps that are the problem, they make her say stuff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I've got some ideas, but I'll leave them for now.

Well, when you get to posting them, put them in big bold letters. I would hate to miss them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE- You're right. Art is important, but it's been perverted by the need to sell products. (BTW- the whole corporate drive to reducing your online privacy is to SELL YOU STUFF. That's why google/FB etc track your every goddamn online move. The government doesn't mind, of course, because it has it's own agenda for tracking you.) Consumerism is a huge problem. I heard a speech by a long-ago black comedian and activist... someone you'd never think of whose name escapes me right now, and he said something funny (of course). He said he was as careful of the media he watched as the food that he put into his body (He was a vegetarian IIRC). He never watched TV or listened to the radio when he was tired or distracted because he felt it deserved his full alertness, and he avoided commercials whenever possible. And despite all that, on his way back to LA from a stint Vegas, driving alone on I15 in the dead of night with nothing to distract him, the first thing that popped into his head was You deserve a break today, so get up and get away to MacDonalds!

ETA: Dick Gregory. I had to look it up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:48 AM

Quote:
Consumerism is a big problem.

Yeah. There wouldn't be effort to subvert art for ulterior motives if there weren't consumerism, which props up the power structures.

And that's the other thing, the subversion of art. I think that might be what offends you, as we get down to the meats here. Art is great, tells stories, passes down information and ideas, causes humanity to lift it's eyes to the skies and wonder. The problem is when they take those stories and twist them to fit an agenda, especially one that supports the establishment and supports consumerism.

Same thing with sex and violence in a story, sex and violence can actually be an important part of a story, necessary for the plot, but there's ways to have sex and violence in a story that doesn't glorify them, doesn't titilate and turn off the mind and stunt the person. You don't have to "sex up" a story to sell it if it's good in the first place. I think maybe that's what offends you, and I'd be the first to say, I think that offends everybody. We know what a story needs and what it doesn't, and unnecessary sex and violence in a story for most people is as unwelcome as an unnecessary lesson on horticulture.

Like I said before, I think it's about finding what is actually the problem before you can tailor a solution - and the answer, for me at least, is usually society. People consume tasteless explosions of unnecessary depictions of sex and violence, then maybe it's up to us to counter that with good taste depictions of both, or at least choose to support that. Give the people a better alternative and a stage for that alternative to speak from, and I think gradually people will start to chose that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OTOH, your post is focused on only one aspect of societal control, and that is violence: either imposing injustice or resisting it. However, there are many other forms of societal control... the stories we tell ourselves, the conveniences that are granted to us which make us dependent, the little bits of power we are handed. I think that your focus on individual self defense is biased by your personal history, and while it is important it not the full story, and in some instances may get in the way of recognizing a potentially better solution. There are societies today in which violence just doesn't occur: the matriarchies of today. What are they doing differently? Whatever it is, it's not self-defense.

In a way, it is - by putting themselves at the top of the power structure and then NOT abusing it.
If you took the message that self-defense = violence from that post, you seriously misread it, cause I rather explicitly pointed out this isn't the case, that it encompasses a vast range of things.
Nor am I offering it as sole cause or solution, it's a facet, but one of many - as you say economics are another form of control, as is popular consciousness (which does tie in), and control of media/message.

I just wanted to show that facet, in detail, from a perspective folks hadn't really thought about due to the psychological blind spots you describe, which I admittedly have a habit of exploiting myself, sure.

Media and message is another facet, and one part of that which sets my teeth on edge is how popular consciousness stories always seem to point out ruthless sociopathy as strength, while holding up altruism as naive or weak, I could prolly sit here and throw twenty examples right off the top of my head - but those messages only work of folks pre-conditioned to accept them, which is why I consider a strong sense of self, personhood, and critical thinking dire important to bring to our children as soon as they can possibly adapt them - which is, itself, a form of self-defense.

-Frem

PS - While I have no explicit beef with the notion of a matriarchal society, it does concern me that once again that seems a method of changing which hand holds the leash, rather than cutting it entire, and thus as an Anarchist I must reject it as a solution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:29 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY- Funny thing is, I never said that the same programming couldn't be produced and consumed via internet, so basically you're upset because you want your product delivered via cable? Is that the "freedom" that you're insisting on? Cable (and broadcast) media?

Hello,

And if so, so what? Why on Earth should anyone let you decide how they wish to receive their programming?

I can ban television and cable from my life any time I want by pressing a switch. Why should I surrender my ability to choose because you want it that way?

And of course every single thing you decide to subtract, you will tell me it shouldn't be important to me anyway. Well, I'm sorry. I decide what I want and what's important. If I don't want television, I'll decide when to flip the switch.

I'm not interested in you banning anything on my behalf. I'm not interested in giving you my remote control and letting you choose how I'm allowed to consume my entertainment.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:38 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
There are societies today in which violence just doesn't occur

Hello,

Call me cynical, but there is bound to be some level of aberration in any sampling of sufficient size. A society where nobody is ever violent seems rather unlikely.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
While I have no explicit beef with the notion of a matriarchal society, it does concern me that once again that seems a method of changing which hand holds the leash, rather than cutting it entire, and thus as an Anarchist I must reject it as a solution.

Hey Frem,

I think the term "matriarchal" is itself corrupted by a patriarchal bias. More responsible sources I've read use words like "matrilinial" or "pre/post-patriarchal" or "partnership culture."

Patriarchy, as has been alluded to in the discussion of marriage above, comes bundled with a whole raft of concepts that are simply foreign to a pre-patriarchal consciousness. The concept of "ownership" is a patriarchal invention, wholly unnecessary outside its sphere of influence. The Native American matrilinial bias against ownership and against heirarchy, against the concept of linear time itself, persist even today in Native communities. Even after the Catholic Church's cultural genocide, these pre-patriarchal biases persist in their humor and their family structure.

So, pre/post-patriarchal, partnership culture is a cultural context without a "leash." Now watch the patriarchal bias rush in and call what I'm saying impossible.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY

Quote:
And if so, so what? Why on Earth should anyone let you decide how they wish to receive their programming?
I can ban television and cable from my life any time I want by pressing a switch. Why should I surrender my ability to choose because you want it that way?
And of course every single thing you decide to subtract, you will tell me it shouldn't be important to me anyway. Well, I'm sorry. I decide what I want and what's important. If I don't want television, I'll decide when to flip the switch.
I'm not interested in you banning anything on my behalf. I'm not interested in giving you my remote control and letting you choose how I'm allowed to consume my entertainment.

You asked me what I thought should be done and then when I told you you suddenly became wildly defensive. I offered you my opinion; I can't imagine why a simple opinion should be so threatening.

It seems like "cable TV" is essential to your definition of freedom, like "guns". What's next on your essential list? Beer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:53 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with Frem's basic premise, self defense is penalized by our legal system. Sure you have the right ... on paper, but when it actually happens its almost not worth trying, after years of legal red tape and confusion, you start wishing that bad guy had just ended it for you, because you're worn out. Not to mention that they interrogate you and try to get you to change your story, which is actually quite easy, it doesn't even necessarily take waterboarding etc.

Signe, I saw some amazing shows last night on PBS, learnt about Icelandic volcanoes and ancient India, and I only pressed one little button. I think if you're taking away regular TV you have to come over every time I want to find something good to watch and help me get it all set up. That will change your mind I reckon.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:41 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY
Quote:
And if so, so what? Why on Earth should anyone let you decide how they wish to receive their programming?
I can ban television and cable from my life any time I want by pressing a switch. Why should I surrender my ability to choose because you want it that way?
And of course every single thing you decide to subtract, you will tell me it shouldn't be important to me anyway. Well, I'm sorry. I decide what I want and what's important. If I don't want television, I'll decide when to flip the switch.
I'm not interested in you banning anything on my behalf. I'm not interested in giving you my remote control and letting you choose how I'm allowed to consume my entertainment.
You asked me what I thought should be done and then when I told you you suddenly became wildly defensive. I offered you my opinion; I can't imagine why a simple opinion should be so threatening.

It seems like "cable TV" is essential to your definition of freedom, like "guns". What's next on your essential list? Beer?

Hello Signy,

Forgive me for saying so, but sometimes I feel that you are utterly incapable of envisioning freedom from any vantage but your own.

Yes, beer. I don't drink beer. Vile stuff. And it is essential to my view of freedom. Because I think people should have the right to drink beer. And smoke, too. I am not into telling people what they should be allowed to do with themselves. That's for them to decide. Taking away those choices is the opposite of freedom.

So yeah, your opinion is Terrible, and it makes me alarmed to think that there are people in the world who might have such an opinion, and might try to shape the world based on it. I will generally recoil and speak my disgust whenever people express such an opinion, and in so doing, I shall be expressing my opinion that their opinion stinks.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2013 6:57 AM

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1178-my-dinner-with-andre-long-
strange-trips

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So yeah, your opinion is Terrible, and it makes me alarmed to think that there are people in the world who might have such an opinion, and might try to shape the world based on it. I will generally recoil and speak my disgust whenever people express such an opinion, and in so doing, I shall be expressing my opinion that their opinion stinks.

TONY I said nothing about banning your favorite cable TV shows, did I? (Or banning beer, for that matter.) In fact, I said just the opposite, more than once. So why are you so afraid of losing centralized media?

The ability to speak your mind freely to all of your fellow netizens and to hear them do the same, to put whatever product you want "out there" whether it be classes, music, or even paid programing like your favorite cable shows somehow just doesn't match up to your "right" to get cable programming?

The only "right" that you seem to recognize is your "right" to buy corporate product, which seems to be more in the front of your brain than your right to work, your right to think freely, your ability to communicate widely and without fetters, your right to privacy, and your right to decide (along with your fellow citizens) the future of your society in broad scope.

And, if I may be so bold, I think a lot of people feel this way. That's because we live in an economy where we are presented with a million irrelevant choices, but the inability to affect anything real. As I have said before in other threads.... toilet paper: single ply, or two? Quilted or plain? With "wet strength" or regular? 12-pack, or 4-pack? Recycled or virgin?

Dolphins or Steelers? Lakers or Spurs?

Light, dark, or regular?

ESPN, SYFY, or HBOZ?

WoW or Grand Theft Auto?

Detective show, or reality show, or classic movie?

Guns or mixed martial arts?

A million totally effectless choices and no way at all to reduce unemployment except by "hoping" that TPTB will be "generous", no way to deflate the monster that has become Homeland Security/ NSA/ Google/ Microsoft/ Apple/ AT&T/ Verizon. (Yes, they do work together.), no way to require actual cybersecurity but having to put up with constant government intrusion, no way to reverse environmental damage, no way to improve our schools, or reduce violence.

So here we are: Constantly courted by advertisers... thousands of wares laid out for our consideration from around the world ... this necklace or that toothbrush or the Presidential candidate over there? ... and (if you have money) the ability to shape "the market" in a million irrelevant ways AS CONSUMERS ... but by god, nothing else. No right to privacy from either corporations or the government, no right to demonstrate on the street and - more importantly- no ability to get the message out to the media anywhere near as frequently as Budweiser gets out its beer commercials. Football teams and toilet paper and cable TV shows and factory-farmed food seems to be our realm.

It's the narrative that we are told over and over again.... look here, these are your choices.... and it's so damn rewarding... until it becomes our tiny world view and we literally cannot see anything else. It's a comfy little prison, isn't it? So, yeah.... here's your remote. Enjoy.

That reminds me of Wallace Shawn in My Dinner With Andre... But I LIKE my cold cup of coffee in the morning!

Quote:
Call me cynical, but there is bound to be some level of aberration in any sampling of sufficient size. A society where nobody is ever violent seems rather unlikely.

BTW- as far as those matriarchal societies and violence. I did see a show on one of them (the one in western China). Their punishment for transgression is banishment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2013 2:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I hope this means that y'all are thinking, and not just royally pissed.

This thread created an epiphany for me, and they don't come along every day. Not even every year. Thank you all for that.

So, back to the topic at hand...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:41 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Worth re-quoting here in case you missed it, Siggy.

Quote:
...those messages only work of folks pre-conditioned to accept them, which is why I consider a strong sense of self, personhood, and critical thinking dire important to bring to our children as soon as they can possibly adapt them - which is, itself, a form of self-defense.

A large part of that myriad of irrelevant choices is because people become trapped by the little boxes in which our society operates, incapable of seeing outside the boundries of the game because they're never even aware those boundries are there.

Which results in them playing the card sharpers game, with his deck, at his table, by his rules - and adding more shells to the shell game doesn't change the fact that the pebble isn't under any of em.

This is one reason I've been skeptical of conventional protesting due to it having become nothing more than a systematic self-destruction, we need to engage other methods if we are to strike at the kneecaps of the powers that be - the web blackout over SOPA/PIPA was a good example of alternative method, and quite effective, although that just means the bastards will try to sneak it onto other bills one provision at a time, you just watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

But if there's one thing I learned in my campaign against the Hellcamps, and abuse of youth in general, it's that from a wider aspect nobody much CARES about morals or human rights violations, so when you have a shot...
AIM FOR THE MONEY.
Note once again how those two bastard Judges in PA were tried ONLY on financial charges, no one cared about the lives they destroyed, the damage they caused, the issue that got them crushed was someone not getting their cut!
That's also how we trashed WWASPS, in the end, waging economic warfare on their intake centers (Pathway), cutting them off from Government subsidies (still workin on this with Teen Challenge), and bleeding them white in the courts via the lawsuits of former victims.

This has borne some fruit on another level too, given my passionate hatred for the alphabet-soup crowd and their protection-racket nature, especially since they're a greater threat to us than anything they supposedly protect us against, long and long have I wanted to take a financial chainsaw to them, and we've delivered the first hit already - eight BILLION in budget cuts, yeah, Billion, with a B!
And boy howdy are they pissed about it, right now some of em are climbing the walls in a rabid-foaming how-dare-they frenzy, and if they get stupid about it we'll play the same game we did on a local level here with the Police, and turn that right around as an excuse for MORE cuts.
Not that this is likely to impact them financially in any realistic way since they bulk up their budgets trafficking in drugs and weapons all around the world, but the concept here is very important.

1. Strike at the money.
2. Subvert from within.

On the second, I was re-watching the original 1980's miniseries V, and V: The Final Battle, and one thing I noted was how effective the conscience of those within the system can be - without folks willing to carry out their orders, would-be tyrants are ineffective.

Well, there's this one cop, Randy Talbot, who looks the other way and keeps his mouth shut *several* times, thus aiding the Resistance by inaction, allowing them to smuggle the Maxwells out of town safely, and letting Ruby escape (he actually stifles a laugh, blink and you'll miss it) after she firebombs a Visitor shuttle - and that is of course only the stuff we see cause he's a minor character, but that kind of inaction is well worth appealing to... you won't influence the leaders and would-be tyrants, they're sociopaths, but the poor bastards working for them are a definately exploitable group.

And that's all I'll say to it at the moment.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:49 AM

Hey Signy,

I'm all kinds of confused by your argument with Anthony in this thread. I just can't believe that you really don't understand his objection to your idea of censoring all television media.

To me, it's like this: let's say Anthony's got a daughter and she's dating a drug addict. It's bad for everybody. And you come along and murder the drug addict boyfriend and wonder why Anthony isn't greatful. Because murder is wrong, Signy. Even if it eliminates a bad influence in our lives, murder is not an acceptable solution.

Same with censorship. Even if everything you're censoring is "bad," the concept alone is offensive. Fighting oppression with counter-oppression. But I already talked to you about this fighting fire with fire concept and you had nothing to say about that but to question one word in my post. Envy. You implied that it wasn't about envy but about all the people dying because of oppression. Well, I see envy here as well--once again, you envy TPTB their power and you want it for yourself. Specifically, you envy their power to oppress and you want to oppress them right back. Where I see the whole notion of winning through oppression as fucked. Yes, people are dying from oppression, but I fail to see how shutting down all the tvs is gonna solve that.

And the grand irony in this is that broadcast televion as we know it IS DYING. In another generation--hell, another 10 years--no one will be watching that shit. But then what? We already have corportate commercials attatched to every movie we see in the theaters. So, you gonna shut down the theaters as well? I think they tried that in 16th Century England and it didn't work out so well.

In your desire to purge society (Purge? Where have we heard that word before?) of bad tv you WILL end up oppressing folks that didn't do anything to anyone. There will be collateral damage. That's how oppression works. And that's why folks of good conscience avoid it.

I'm sorry if I've totally misunderstood what you're advocating but in that case I totally musunderstand what you're advocating!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 1:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HKC- I'm all kinds of confused about your confusion. I am not at all talking about censoring television media, I'm talking about the medium itself, not the content. I simply want to move the content to a medium that is less easily controlled from a central point. Decentralized distribution. Also, I wrote about keeping the internet free so that it could not be controlled in the future.

Seems a simple concept. Get it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 1:21 PM

Wull, I guess the question is: how ya gonna do that without censorship and oppression? How ya gonna outlaw tv without outlawing tv? And, by the way, the content IS moving to a medium that is less easily controlled! What you desire to happen IS PRECISELY what's happening!

Anthony has, as far as I can tell, objected not to your goals but to your methods (trouble arises, because to an Anarchist/libertarian the methods of oppression are generally understood to BE the goals of oppression--the pretext for the oppression being secondary, changeable). This is always the problem, it seems. How are we gonna reach a better world? By the same means that landed us here in the first place? By blaming and violating an enemy? By treating the bad guys the way they've treated us? That's just a vicious cycle, Signy.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all... the internet.

It CAN be controlled. In fact, it IS controlled and governments and corporations are moving forward to control it even further. The internet needs to be placed squarely in the legal realm of a vital public service.

Oh crap, I'm out of time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 1:52 PM

To my understanding--correct me if I'm wrong--internet control is always limited by political boundaries, by government's control of physical hardware, and political boundaries mean very little to wifi. If government takes control of your device, get a new device--you can prolly buy one over the internet!

As long as we avoid one world government, there will always be a free internet. And no government, even the one world variety, can control technology when technology is getting cheaper and more available my the minute.

Signy, your thinking on this really seems to be trapped in the 20th Century. The Age of Dictators is over. Big Brother may still have a whole lot of fight left in him, but he's lost the war.

Sorry you ran out of time. Thanks for continuing the conversation when you can.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:07 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The Age of Dictators is over. Big Brother may still have a whole lot of fight left in him, but he's lost the war.

Tell that to the victims of drone attacks.
Sorry HK, but I see things getting a bit worse before they get substantively better...
Oh crap. My computer tells me this thread's been red flagged.
SEE!!!?!?!??

Re-routing to tertiary diverting IP

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:30 PM

Chris. You and Signy with your "Stop thinking because people are dying!" argument changes nothing. I never said that because dictatorship is a moribund social institution all war and all oppression will end. I was saying that no one is gonna do away with the internet!

And, okay, so people are dying from drone attacks. What's your solution? That's what pisses me off about the "people are dying!" argument. People are always dying. What does that have to do with the ACTUAL DISCUSSION at hand?

Cynicism is the easiest, most disempowered worldview, man. It helps no one. Try a little optimism, try to find meaning and progress in the world and help it along and you might live a little longer.

I'm sorry, Chris, it's just this whole "PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!" thing is so facile and so condescending and so completely designed to shut down the conversation.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:11 PM

Frem long post, can't say I understood it all, but I am having a crack at replying anyway. Scusi if I misrepresent your argument.

I was in near violent disagreement with you, until this bit -

"Bear in mind here than when I use the words self-defense and resistance I am not limiting that to any particular option (unlike some pinheads which oughta know better) but rather encompassing an entire RANGE of them, from a simple words like "No!" to negotiation, psychological manipulation, exploitation of perceived authority, running like hell (always a good option), anything and everything which could possibly throw a monkeywrench in the plans of an aggressor - and yes sadly that does in extremis include the option of blowing a hole in them, but it's a damned poor solution to most problems due to a combination of both the vilification and the outright stupidity of some who resort to it. "

I guess then you and I agree on the kinds of actions that can be taken, but I don't know if I see your conspiracy to respress. More I see a mindset that includes a lot of people here on these boards - that you meet violence with more violence, that we should all be poised ready and alert for danger, hand on the trigger.

I'd hope that for most of us in our lives we don't have that many instances of being under threat. I can only assume that some of us live in places that are more dangerous than other.

I believe almost the exact opposite to you. Rather than being prevented from defending ourselves, we are programmed to live in fear. fear is a great distractor, especially if we point the finger at the *other* as being the cause of our fear.

It's the Muslims, Soviets, Socialists, Black People, Yellow People, illegal immigrants........

Our fear makes us stupid, do stupid things. Get involved in stupid wars and commit acts of atrocity in the name of freedom. It makes us cling to outdated ideas - ie that personally owning a gun will somehow make a government accountable????? It makes us jingoistic and narrow minded.

I have seen politicans and corpotations use fear. it's the main tool of admen, preying, playing up our fear of failure, of death, being unlovable.

I think we can defend ourselves okay. I just think we live like prey herds on a prairie, all primed up and ready for a bigcat strike, when really we are nobodies prey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:25 PM

Quote:

It's the Muslims, Soviets, Socialists, Black People, Yellow People, illegal immigrants........

Our fear makes us stupid, do stupid things. Get involved in stupid wars and commit acts of atrocity in the name of freedom. It makes us cling to outdated ideas - ie that personally owning a gun will somehow make a government accountable????? It makes us jingoistic and narrow minded.

You might notice that those here you are addressing, who are against gun control, are also very against fearmongering, nationalistic stupidity, and equally brainless wars.

Your jingoism applies to some of them. Not all of them.

Fingerpointing fearmongering is bad. Fear itself lets you know something is wrong, deep down in that place few of us venture in our waking hours. It's not paranoia - if you're right.

If you do not have reason to fear, then you may well feel fortune that you live in a comforting and free society. Some of us do not have that option.

You do not tell us what we should feel. Just as I do not tell you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

It's the Muslims, Soviets, Socialists, Black People, Yellow People, illegal immigrants........

Our fear makes us stupid, do stupid things. Get involved in stupid wars and commit acts of atrocity in the name of freedom. It makes us cling to outdated ideas - ie that personally owning a gun will somehow make a government accountable????? It makes us jingoistic and narrow minded.

You might notice that those here you are addressing, who are against gun control, are also very against fearmongering, nationalistic stupidity, and equally brainless wars.

Your jingoism applies to some of them. Not all of them.

Fingerpointing fearmongering is bad. Fear itself lets you know something is wrong, deep down in that place few of us venture in our waking hours. It's not paranoia - if you're right.

If you do not have reason to fear, then you may well feel fortune that you live in a comforting and free society. Some of us do not have that option.

You do not tell us what we should feel. Just as I do not tell you.

I used the term 'we', you'll find. Not fingerpointing, but discussing what I see as being a prevalent tactic of government and corporations (and organisations such as the NRA) to distract us from the real issues.

I can give you an example from where I live. Boat people. Much as you have issues with illegal immigrants, we have them with boat people arriving from various warpits of the world.

The amount of fear generated by politicans, one in particular that will mean nothing to anyone here, to distract from a whole range of more relevant issues. They've equated these boats as being an invasion force, of the people smugglers as being the worst human beings in the whole world. When frankly, its a non issue. The world is in part a crappy place, people will try to flee. Some people will pose as asylum seekers and not be genuine. But it makes little difference to me whether they arrive or not, and they will as long as the world is full of inequality. But I can;t tell you how much media space, how much parliament space is taken up with this subject.

So I think we have to question our fear to see whether it is based in any likely reality. Because while we live in fear our brains don't funtion to their full cognitive level and there are those who choose to take advantage of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:35 PM