@Leroy @timmy

And definitions are neither right nor wrong. A word can mean different things.

The word "gay", for example, means both "happy", and "homosexual". There is nothing wrong with that. You can infer the meaning from context, or ask, if you are unsure of what sense a speaker intends.

@Nobody @timmy words can have multiple definitions, but extending those definitions to mean things they absolutely do not mean is exactly why the entirety of the US gets scared of the word "woke"

@Leroy @timmy

There are different kinds of woke. Some woke is toxic. Some woke is just paying attention.

There is also "left woke" and "right woke".

"Left woke" is hating all white people because "all white people are racist".

"Right woke" is hating all trans people because some trans people are opposed to free speech.

@Nobody @timmy ... I genuinely don't even know where to begin responding to this comment because everything about it is so utterly backwards

@Leroy @timmy When I see a system with many bugs, I find the most serious one and address that one first.

So what is the most glaring flaw in my thinking?

@Nobody @timmy all of it???

@Leroy @timmy

Nice try, but that does not narrow it down. Sounds like something one says when they don't want to admit they are wrong, but don't have an argument.

@Nobody @timmy well no, not really. Remember how we said applying definitions to words that don't mean those things is bad? You did that with your entire comment. "Woke" as it's used today has a real origin in social justice movements. It literally means seeing through the bullshit that you've been sold your entire life that "this is just how the world is" even though the world as it is right now is extremely harmful to anyone who isn't a straight white dude. That's not an indictment of straight white dudes, that's just who most of the systems of the world are designed to benefit, and they don't have to be. The right didn't like that they would have to have equal footing with people of other races, genders, religions, etc. so they took the word and artificially ascribed it to anything they don't like. Literally anything. They're using it wrong and so are you. And trans people don't wanna limit free speech, they wanna not be violently harassed. There's a huge difference

@Leroy @timmy

As for straight white dudes, the system is designed to fuck us as well.

It is designed to benefit the tiny population of psychopaths, who do the violence, and the sociopaths who are the politicians.

Cops, soldiers, bankers, politicians.

Masters.

And yes, many trans people want to make it actually illegal to, for example, call them something they don't like. Kinda like if other people wanted to outlaw the word "cis" because it is insulting.

You can not like things that people say or believe. Doesn't give you the right to enslave or to murder them.

@Nobody @timmy trans people not wanting to be misgendered is not a bad thing and lumping that in with the rest of this conversation is really showing your whole ass.

As for the rest, you clearly have class consciousness but you don't have any other kind of consciousness, like race or gender consciousness. Those things are all linked. You cannot win the class war without understanding how the class system affects people of different races/genders/religions/etc. differently and more harshly than it currently does for straight white dudes.

@Leroy @timmy

Not wanting to be misgendered is not abnormal. Or bad.

Wanting to respond to misgendering or other trivial insults with violence is abnormal, and bad.

Well, wanting to is probably not abnormal. I'd certainly like to punch the people who call me a Nazi because I don't want a government at all. I just don't do it. Because I have a conscience. And I dont' advocate for the bullyboys of government to do it for me, either.

@Nobody @timmy the insults you consider trivial are part of the systemic violence continually performed against marginalized groups. The two are inseparable.

@Leroy @timmy

Mean words are not violence.

They are words.

No matter who you are, somebody does not like you. That's part of the human condition.

Lots of people hate me for wanting to be free. I respond to the hatred by not caring very much.

@Nobody @timmy mean words perpetuate violence

@Leroy @timmy

Words can certainly precede violence. But there is a clear line between violating the rights of others and not violating the rights of others.

You can hate me. it does not violate my rights, and I will not respond with violence.

If, however, you bring violence against me, I will do everything in my power to bring some back, faster and better than you brought yours.

That is the line.

Words are words, and the appropriate response is words.

Violence is violence, and the appropriate response is violence.

Except when the government brings violence, because they can murder you for anything or for nothing and none of the sheep will give a single fuck.

@Nobody @timmy the appropriate response to anything is based on much more than just "words are words". Some words are mean but not harmful to a specific group of people. Some words only harm specific people. The appropriate response is whatever the minimum required escalation to stop the harmful behavior is. If words can do that, then by all means. But nobody with a brain would call someone a bad person for punching a Nazi, even though without giving a shit about religious consciousness that "Heil Hitler" is just words and the Nazi salute is just an arm motion. The attempt to perpetuate hateful violence should be met with whatever force is necessary to quell it.

@Leroy @timmy

There is a line.

I am not going to kill Communists for attempting to impose a "dictatorship of the proletariat", even thought they are literally arguing to enslave me.

But as soon as they cross the line into mayhem, I will kill as many as I can.

@Nobody @timmy do you know what dictatorship of the proletariat actually means? Nobody wants to enslave you. If you're afraid of the proletariat, maybe it's because you're not a part of it?

@Leroy @timmy

It means taking a group of people who were formerly undistinguished, and giving them total control of every human life.

As soon is the dictators becomes a dictators, they is not longer part of the proletariat. by definition.

They are just the new privileged class.

@Nobody @timmy you frame it as if one person would be the leader. While historically that would make sense when attached to the word dictatorship, the actual phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means literally everyone is in charge and everyone has a say. It's the ultimate form of democracy. The people at the bottom are the ones who make all the decisions until everyone is on equitable terms with everyone else and therefore there no longer is a bottom. The eventual goal of Communism is a stateless classless moneyless society AKA anarchism

@Leroy @timmy

And why are 3,000 tyrants one mile away better than 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away?

It is a group of people that wants to control my life. As I am not a conformist, I do not want what most people want. So a system where the majority has the power to abuse the minority any way they want ( e.g. Nazi Germany or the USSR ) is not a good system for me.

But you do you ... I think that Pinochet should have refrained from throwing people out of helicotors, and should have, instead, flown them to Cuba and returned with a planeload of refugees.

Let the communists live the the communist places, the fascists live in the fascist places, and the liberty lovers live in the free places.

There is enough earth for everybody.

Except that every inch of the earth is claimed by some government that will murder you if you try to ignore them.

So we gotta get rid of that, someplace.

@Nobody @timmy anarchism is the ultimate form of freedom, fascism has no place anywhere. These are absolute truths

@Leroy @timmy

I agree about anarchism ... much better than Democracy, because the minority can defend itself from the majority ...

But if there is fascism somewhere on earth, that is fine with me. I want to have someplace to put fascists who tried to impose fascism on my community, and prison is worse than murder.

So let some country be a theocracy, and deport the theocrats there.

Let some other country be fascist, and deport the fascists there.

Let another be communist, and deport the fascists there.

And let still another be anarchy, and deport the anarchists there.

@Nobody @timmy no, fascists don't have a place on earth. Giving them that space just allows them to organize and spread their hate and violence. Fascists need to be shot dead where they stand. No exceptions

And again, the ultimate goal of Communism is anarchism

@Leroy @timmy

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice there generally is.

Fascism and Communism are pretty much indistinguishable in practice.

@Nobody @timmy for the 50th time in this thread you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about. I bet you think the Nazis were socialists just because they put the word socialism in the name of their party

@Leroy @timmy

I think they are socialists because there are two options: free markets, and socialism ... socialism being defined as a system where command and control is the organizing principle of socieety.

In a free market, the government would not have the power to tell companies that they could not hire Jews. In a socialist "market" they would.

Ownership is defined as "the right to exclude others".

if the government can exclude you from your property, but you cannot exclude them from it, they own "your property", and you do not.

@Nobody @timmy you've absolutely proven that you don't understand the meanings of a single word you just said. The Nazis are not socialists. The Nazis are fascists. Learn what fascism actually means, and then look at their policy decisions. They called themselves socialists before they made it into power because a war-torn post WWI Germany was extremely sympathetic towards socialist policy

@Leroy @timmy

All totalitarians are socialists.

A totalitarian government controls everything.

A socialist government controls the economy.

You cannot control everything without controlling the economy.

Q.E.D.

@Nobody @timmy you're just saying words again still without any regard or knowledge of what they actually mean.

@Leroy @timmy

I am giving you definitions.

You speak leftist, I speak Libertarian. Others speak rightest.

I am relatively fluent in leftist, having grown up a hippy and followed the Dead for many years.

But the modern authoritarian leftists are not the same. They are in love with war and killing.

@Nobody @timmy hippies are liberals, not leftists.

@Leroy @timmy

There are many flavors of hippies. There are those who want the government to do everything, and there are those who just want the government to get out of the way so they can live their way.

I am the latter sort, if you did not guess.

@Nobody @timmy so what you're saying is you're a liberal, which is a right wing ideology mind you. Literally a half step away from being the Nazi you claim not to be

@Leroy @timmy

I am not a liberal, I am an anarchist.

Not the same thing.

I am close to what a was once called a liberal, but more consistent.

@Nobody @timmy you're not an anarchist. I'm an anarchist. You are definitely not one of us

@Leroy @timmy

You are probably an Anarcho-Communist, or a Anarcho-Syndacalist.

I could do Anarcho-Syndacalism ( under certain conditions, e.g., anybody can start their own syndicates and compete with the existing ones ) but not communist.

The thing about anarchy is, not everybody is going to anarchy the same way. That's the breuty of it.

I am a Motley Anarchist, or an Anarchist without Adjectives.

Which more or less means I am content to do me, and let you do you.

@Nobody @timmy you're not any type of anarchist, but if you somehow were you'd be an ancap, and we don't claim those. They don't make anarchy any better, they just make capitalism worse

@Leroy @timmy

I used to be an ancap. Then I realized that it was an incomplete solution. Because it implies that everybody everywhere would do things our way.

But that cannot happen without massive violence.

So I am now a Motley Anarchist.

You can do it your way where you are, and I'll do it my way where I am, and I'll be way too busy to try to control you.

So I'll leave you and yours alone, so long as you leave me and mine alone.

@Nobody @timmy if you were even an ancap there's no way you could ever be a real anarchist. You also self identified as a libertarian, which is not the same thing

@Leroy @timmy

My goals in life do not include being a "real anarchist" by your definition, any more than your goals are likely dominated by a desire to be a "real anarchist" by my definition.

@Nobody @timmy your goals in life are, self reportedly, to create ethnostates. Idk how you possibly think you count as an anarchist. You're a liberal at best, pal

@Leroy @timmy

When did I ever say "ethnostate", or imply that I thought that ethnicity was a good way to organize things?

I would like to see philosophically diverse states so that each human could have a chance to try to live by their own values.

@Leroy @timmy

That is wrong in at least two ways.

First, I don't want states at all.

Second, unless you call "anarchist" an ethnicity, the jurisdiction which I would choose would not be any sort of an ethnostate. I don't give a fuck about your skin color. I want to live around people who are willing to let me live my life in my own way.

I'm delighted to have those who want such things fuck off and find one, though. That way I don't have to deal with them, or even trouble myself to fight with them.

@Nobody @timmy allowing people who want to create ethnostates the freedom to do so is effectively the same thing as creating one yourself. The only place where fascists and Nazis belong is hell, and they deserve to be sent there painfully

@Leroy @timmy

I know, you want to kill everybody who disagrees with you, probably including me.

But I'm not that bloodthirsty.

Even fools have a right to exist.

@Nobody @timmy no, I don't wanna kill anyone except for Nazis and their enablers. If you don't wanna fall into the enabler category, you must be unwaveringly opposed to their existence. Neutrality is complicity

@Leroy @timmy

So submit to your judgement or be murdered.

If you want my life, come and take it, if you can.

But don't expect me to go softly into that black night.

And don't expect to find me unarmed or helpless.

@Nobody @timmy look up the tolerance paradox, learn it, and commit to operating by it. I refuse to allow Nazis the right to the air the good people of the world breathe. If that makes me a bad person, so be it, I do not care. I didn't lose family in the Holocaust for you to make up your own meanings for political terms and pretend I'm the bad guy for trying to explain the gaping holes in your ideology to you. And if you fall into the category of people who enable Nazis, you'll be dealt with eventually. Someone somewhere will hear you say some hateful bullshit and deliver the punch that finally puts you out, and the rest of us will be laughing

@Leroy @timmy

The paradox of tolerance is predicated on the idea that when good ideas go up against bad ideas, bad ideas will always win.

This is bullshit.

So the paradox is bullshit.

@Nobody @timmy bad ideas are clearly winning because being a Nazi is bad and yet here you are

@Leroy @timmy

As you pointed out, shit for brains, Nazis are not big on free speech.

I am.

Thereofre, not a Nazi.

But lie, that's what commies do best.

@Nobody @timmy Again, Nazis love free speech, but only for Nazis. You like your right to free speech, but you don't seem to like anyone else's, and you don't seem to like the idea that shit you say can still have consequences even if you're free to say it

@Leroy @timmy

I love freee speech for eveybody.

Even those I disagree with.

Even monsters like you who are willing to murder the whole world to get their way.

@Nobody @timmy you don't like free speech because you don't even know what it is. Freedom of speech is the right to not be censored by the government for the things you say. What freedom of speech is NOT is the freedom to be a racist shit bag and then pretend nobody is allowed to kick your ass for being a racist shitbag

@Leroy @timmy

The only use of violence that does not violate the rights of others is in answer to violence.

@Nobody @timmy and racism isn't somehow isn't violence to you? Condemning poor people to starve on the streets while others enjoy excess they couldn't spend in 1000 lifetimes isn't violence to you? Destroying our planet's climate and spreading imperialist harm to other countries isn't violence to you? No of course not, it's only violence when someone tells you that you're dumb and wrong

@Leroy @timmy

Having an opinion is not violence.

Stating your opinion is not violence.

Violence, on the other hand, is violence.

Poor people starve because the government starves them.

@Nobody @timmy poor people starve because the rich pay the government to enact their will. If there are no rich people, then all the poor people will rise out of poverty to enjoy comfortable lives. Rich people keep pushing us closer and closer to fascism, and you're mad at the people that want everyone to live good lives. You're an idiot
@Nobody @timmy being a racist is violence. Being a Nazi is violence. Systemic harm is violence, and wishing systemic harm on specific groups of people is violence. You are a much more violent person than I could ever hope to be

@Leroy @timmy

Opinions are not violence.

If advocating bad systems was violence, I would be throwing commie fucks out of helicopters.

But it's not, so I don't.

@Nobody @timmy advocating for a system that requires racist violence to function is violence. You're advocating for capitalism, which in terms of racist violence is literally only second to fascism, which just so happens to be the logical conclusion of capitalist thought

@Leroy @timmy

Much more violence has been done in the name of communism than ever was done in the name of freedom.

I realize that your bullshit charracterature of capitalism is a bad system, but that does not make freedom bad, it just makes you a shittty economist.

@Nobody @timmy the American Revolutionary and Civil wars would like to have a word with your absolutely non-existent knowledge of history

@Leroy @timmy

You cannot non-violently starve whole nations to death.

@Nobody @timmy exactly, so let's get rid of capitalism since it's so violent

@Leroy @timmy "

Freedom is not violent.

Communism is based on mass murder though.

@Nobody @timmy how do you think people earn their freedom without violence exactly?

@Leroy @timmy

And governments are not the only violators of free speech.

Churches have murdered many for having the "wrong" opinions.

And mobs.

@Nobody @timmy I'm so glad you brought up churches considering that the US is quickly devolving into a christo-fascist's wet dream.

@Leroy @timmy

The left and the right are the two best reasons for New Hampshire to secede from the union.

@Nobody @timmy you don't even know what the left is

@Leroy @timmy

Blah, blah, blah.

The left and the right are the two major groups that want to force their will on me at gunpoint.

@Nobody @timmy hell, you got half of that correct
@Nobody @Leroy this is like the 3rd time in this thread that you’ve offered that others ought to come try to kill you. Do you fantasize about shooting people who come to your house a lot? Or is your rugged individualism somehow bulletproof
@timmy @Nobody the libertarian dream is to die in combat defending their shitty ideals

@Leroy @timmy

Whereas the commie dream is to murder every dissenter until mankind is one undifferentiated mass of sheep incapible of thinking for themselves in "defense" of their shitty and tyrannical views.

@Nobody @timmy no the communist dream is anarchism. Real anarchism. Stateless classless moneyless society. As I explained to you before. But you should know that considering you called yourself an anarchist even though you're clearly not one

@Leroy @timmy

Some of us think money is a good idea. Especially real money, like gold or crypto.

We would just be murdered, since you have to control every single human, right?

@Nobody @Leroy “real money like crypto”.

This thread fuckjng rules so much

@timmy @Nobody god I fucking hate tech bros LMAO this thread is insanity

@Leroy @timmy

Hate is not a personality, you might want to develop some other skills.

@Nobody @timmy I've got more personality than your entire bloodline brother, keep it moving with your tech bro bullshit

@Leroy @timmy

If you don't like what I say, block me.

Otherwise, fuck you, I wont' do what you tell me.

@Nobody @timmy Don't quote RATM they're commies you wouldn't like them

@Leroy @timmy

it is sad that they rage on behalf of the machine.

But their music is good, even if they are submissive.

@Nobody @timmy you don't even know what the machine actually is

@Leroy @timmy

One of us does not.

Maybe it's the one who goes along with the government, the public schools, and all the politicians and corporations.

Or maybe it is me.

@Nobody @Leroy everyone with a different political ideology than you is submissive and breedable? 😳

@timmy @Leroy

Everyone who wants a totalitarian government that controls everything is.

Like fascists and communists.

@Nobody @timmy communists want anarchism, which is literally the opposite of what you just described. You got the fascists part right though

@timmy @Leroy

When violence is the organizing principle of your society, you're gonna have a shitty society.

@Nobody @timmy violence is the organizing principle of fascism and capitalism. Socialism, communism, and anarchism would fucking love it if they didn't have to murder Nazis to get to the kind of society they want to live in, but they have to, and they have no qualms about it

@Leroy @timmy

It is certainly the organizing principle of totalitarian systems like fascism and socialism.

Your definition of capitalism seems to be "what we have now", so that would qualify, though it's not what I mean when I say "capitalism".

As for "having to murder all dissenters", you only have to do that if you demand the entire world for your tribe. That, by definition, means wiping out all other tribes.

I just want a place to live my life my way.

If you want me to fight you, you're gonna have to come and find me.

@Nobody @timmy crypto is the exact opposite of real money. Gold is the only thing we have that counts as "real currency" and we don't want that either. Currency isn't necessary in a society that takes care of all of its people

@Leroy @timmy

Currency is necessary in any technological society, unless or until we reach a "post scarcity" society, which will never happen under any authoritarian system.

@Leroy @timmy

As for crypto, it is a wonderful thing, especially because it may save the world from the endless warfare imposed by the bankers.

But eventually, crypto will probably exist as claim checks against resources.

Crypto in it's current state is great only because the alternative is the government printing out as much money as they want, impoverishing most of society.

But it will improve over time.

@Nobody @timmy useless data whose only purpose is to create more useless data isn't a good thing. Crypto won't stop shit, and all it does is ruin the environment with the amount of physical resources required to host it.

@Leroy @timmy

If you find the data useless, ignore it.

I find it useful, so I will not.

@Nobody @timmy I will not ignore it, it's destroying our environment. It has to go

@Leroy @timmy

How many people are you willing to murder to get your way?