NP, I have some rage to vent

[Nightshine]

So I'm generally a high academic student, with general liberal views towards society. I believe that society has progressed up to a point of where we should be above older ways of which have been abolished years ago. Unfortunately, I'm a high school student. Because I'm a high school student, I'm surrounded by ignorant pricks.


Even these ignorant pricks wouldn't be this ignorant.


So, I'm a strong advocate for equal rights. Black, Jews, Homosexuals...you name it, I really can't complain if they exist or not (unless they're a conservative). Nobody's opposed to this at all, and nobody has said to my face if they have been opposed to it or not. Due to this, I'm a strong advocate for my school's GSA (Gay Straight Alliance).

Now, personally, I'm not gay (NonCon believes otherwise). However, when someone goes ahead and writes on a poster supporting our cause "IMMORAL, GODLESS BASTARDS!", that's when I can't take it anymore.

I don't mind if people have ignorant opinions. However, they can keep it to themselves. This vandalism was put right on a poster which everyone could clearly see as they walked down the halls.

My rage, as I saw this vandalized on the poster, spiked to a point where I felt very violent. Not only did this motherfucker write this down, but he didn't do it in front of anyone, and nobody caught him/her (this is a hall where security cameras aren't prominent due to so many classrooms being there). The little douchebag is a coward at that.

I've been asking around all day at school if anybody had information regarding the situation. Sadly not.

To this very moment, I feel such a passionate rage not only towards this person, but to the very words themselves. "Godless". That implies that the person who wrote this is religious. I've never liked religion...but now, at this point, I want it abolished. Religion is not only fiction, but the cause of all this hate to begin with. What's so wrong with being a homosexual? Nothing. It's not a choice. It's not a dysfunction. It's a natural occurrence. And some overzealous idiot thinks he/she has the right to express his/her ignorant views upon everyone else.


I honestly think the world would be a better place if this person had no rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if religion was abolished forever.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I like how you are supremely tolerant except for wanting to abolish religion.
Like you are tolerating jews but only once you ban their religion.

Also can't really debate validity of religion here, rules about that, so I'll just be like Be more tolerant and don't be ignorant of others.

Also violent rages don't sound like a tolerant person to me.

[Mr.Bookworm]

If you can't take people being ignorant jackasses, then what the hell are you doing on the Internet?

EDIT: Okay that may have come out a bit more hostile then I meant it too, but getting really angry at ignorant jackasses is sort of stupid and pointless, given that by definition they're going to shout their ignorant, stupid jackass opinions from the rooftops.

[Nightshine]

I like how you are supremely tolerant except for wanting to abolish religion.
Like you are tolerating jews but only once you ban their religion.

Also can't really debate validity of religion here, rules about that, so I'll just be like Be more tolerant and don't be ignorant of others.

Also violent rages don't sound like a tolerant person to me.

The matter is not criticizing me but looking at what this person has done due to the ignorance of their cult.

[Azisien]

He's raging, of course he's saying intolerant things. That's what pure rage is, intolerance of the UNIVERSE and the supreme need to DESTROY IT and its RIGHTS.

Once the rage-induced haze subsides, I'm sure you won't think that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The matter is not criticizing me but looking at what this person has done due to the ignorance of their cult.

But your criticise of him is that he is intolerant. You are being intolerant by calling his religion a cult so your criticism is invalid.

[Fifthfiend]

literally lollin at this thread.

EDIT: like my avatar, but with laughter

[Nightshine]

But your criticise of him is that he is intolerant. You are being intolerant by calling his religion a cult so your criticism is invalid.

Alright, let me fix that.

I really don't mind if religious organizations exist. I really don't. It's generally a part of my rage of which makes me say that. However, their religious views are promoting hatred towards people of who do not deserve hatred. They've done nothing to harm society in any way whatsoever.

Religion is probably the leading cause of war.

So why not abolish organized religion? People can believe whatever they want, but I don't think that it should have a mass following of which continues to negatively influence society.

Sure, believe that there's some God to save you. Just don't make your God an ignorant prick.

[Bells]

So you are tolerant, except to people you don't like. ok...

See, your liberty ends where that of the next person begins... that's been equal. It's not "keep it to yourself". He didn't vandalize your poster because he felt strongly about his opinion, most likely he did it because he knew that he wouldn't get caught.

Now, you can express yourself, and the douche can express himself. You didn't kept your opinion to yourself when you putted that poster up, did you? You made it public... so did the douche. Just in a douche way.

And about Religion? Not that we talk a lot about that around here... but your problem is not with Religion. Your problem is with a religious person. The religion itself is fine if left alone, our interpretation and our actions based on those interpretations are what can cause effect on others. So blame the person, if you feel like you must, not the ideology they twist to fit their world view.

And really, if you keep this Holier than thou attitude, how much better than this douche are you? Some people act on anger simply because they haven't been given enough or proper information... would you be angry at a illeterate kid because he is 9 and never learned how to read? Would you call it a snob? No...

People who carry prejudice aren't that different from that. They lack a perspective to see that we're all the same and the labels used to classify us are mostly bullshit.

So, a prick vandalize your poster? Report it, and put another one. They vandalized again? Ask permission to put your posters near the cameras. Got denied? Or that didn't work? Step up and be louder about your message.

now, what's wrong is you thinking about shutting down religious freedom and going for violence just because a Moron scribbled some nonsense in your poster.

[Tev]

I think I can cover this one...

Oh the many horrible things of which I want to say to the KyanbuNightshine. I can sum it up into two simple letters:


QQ

There was more but I just couldn't edit the rest of the quote to sound right. I hang my head in shame.

EDIT:
Religion is probably the leading cause of war.
No, greed is the leading cause of war, followed by fear. Religion is just a convenient cover.

[Meister]

I have some rage to vent
No shit.

I dunno I'd probably leave the graffiti up, but write another one underneath it to try and point out that viewpoints like this are precisely why your school needs a Gay Straight Alliance. This guy went ahead and exposed his point of view, might as well give it all the negative attention it deserves.

e: probably a great deal more constructive a response than going on the internet and being all like HOSHIT RELIGION, too

[Kim]

He's just upset that Fantastico Girl doesn't think he's "intellectually sexy".

[Azisien]

How could she? He lacks relevant degrees.

[Mr.Bookworm]

How could she? He lacks relevant degrees.

But he's only a poor, woebegotten high school lad.

[Teal Mage]

Religion is probably the leading cause of war.

Quick reminder Nightie, some religious organizations are humanitarian, and others help maintain social orders in some cultures. Whatever that order may be, its generally better then outright anarchy. Well, I imagine that's debatable. But!

Religion does serve a purpose in society I'm afraid. Perhaps you should look into that before jumping to the conclusion that abolishing it would be good?

Anyway, you're kinda right in principle. The guy (or girl) who wrote over your poster was being a jerk, but...

I've been asking around all day at school if anybody had information regarding the situation.

...see, that makes you look pretty bad too.

So, just, you know, get a new poster and move on. Or do what Meister said, life gives you lemons and all that stuff. Might end up working in your favor.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No, greed is the leading cause of war, followed by fear. Religion is just a convenient cover.

Even the Crusades were about wealth as much as about piety.

But yeah others have summed it up, your problem is with a person not with religion as a whole. You are stereotyping. I can find atheists who are racist backed up by a misunderstanding of "science" just like you can find religious people who are intolerent based on misunderstanding of their religious tenants. The argument works both ways.

If you really want to achieve something, you should take the matter up with whatever sort of student representatio you have and get some kind of education going. Intolerance usually stems from ignorance and things like talks about "gay awareness" can actually help.

[Azisien]

Whatever that order may be, its generally better then outright anarchy.

Hey! Hey! Anarchy just means no leader or no leadership. I hate the connotation those evil non-anarchists have created with anarchy necessarily being total chaos.

Maybe democracy is total chaos huh, how about that? Huh? Punk?

[Fifthfiend]

Alright, let me fix that.

I really don't mind if religious organizations exist. I really don't. It's generally a part of my rage of which makes me say that. However, their religious views are promoting hatred towards people of who do not deserve hatred. They've done nothing to harm society in any way whatsoever.

Religion is probably the leading cause of war.

So why not abolish organized religion? People can believe whatever they want, but I don't think that it should have a mass following of which continues to negatively influence society.

Sure, believe that there's some God to save you. Just don't make your God an ignorant prick.

Stop taking religion so seriously.

[bluestarultor]

Even the Crusades were about wealth as much as about piety entirely with piety as a cover.

Sorry, that was bothering me. Not a FTFY moment, but looking at what was going on, i.e. nothing at the time, the Crusades were really just an excuse to send bored military/second sons off to wreak some havoc as someone else's problem and let them have a bit of their own wealth while they were at it. The conversation between whatever royalty at the time and the Pope pretty much amounted to:

R: "Yo, we got some bored fuckin' mothas. Thinkin' 'bout raidin' some shit."
P: "Holy Land's got shit, dawg. Say you takin' it back fo' da Big G."
R: "Shit, P, we gonna rock they world. Peace!"

[Kim]

But he's only a poor, woebegotten high school lad.

~Only a lad! You really can't blame him!
Only a lad! Society made him!~

[Azisien]

R: "Yo, we got some bored fuckin' mothas. Thinkin' 'bout raidin' some shit."
P: "Holy Land's got shit, dawg. Say you takin' it back fo' da Big G."
R: "Shit, P, we gonna rock they world. Peace!"

Presumably he then got onto a horse that blares rap music whenever it gallops?

[Teal Mage]

Hey! Hey! Anarchy just means no leader or no leadership. I hate the connotation those evil non-anarchists have created with anarchy necessarily being total chaos.

If Anarchy just means no dominant system of government, and everyone stays occupied with their own lives, then I'm sure the system might work out fairly well. Especially on a small scale, like a village or something. This is, of course, ignoring that people tend to build hierarchies around themselves, even when they don't need one.

But, Anarchy's probably not quite as effective at doing something on a large scale.

'Course, democracy's really slow about doing just that too. Might be worse at it.

Maybe democracy is total chaos huh, how about that? Huh? Punk?

Well, since I don't see looting in the streets, blood on the sidewalk, or fire!

I'm gonna say no.

[bluestarultor]

@ Azisien: I take it that's a gentle way of saying I'm very bad at gangsta-speak? :sweatdrop

[Azisien]

Well, since I don't see looting in the streets, blood on the sidewalk, or fire.

I'm gonna say no.

Rioting is soooooooooooooooo 20th century, we do all the looting, lynching, and firing politically, electronically, and wirelessly now!

@ Azisien: I take it that's a gentle way of saying I'm very bad at gangsta-speak? :sweatdrop

I absolutely could not do any better, but that wasn't enough to convince the cringes of pain!

[Bells]

Well, since I don't see looting in the streets, blood on the sidewalk, or fire.

I'm gonna say no.

Well... now we're talking about degrees aren't we?

I'm pretty fucking sure you can get some Looting, Blooded Sidewalks and fire going around if you look at the right places, around proper dates and times, during power shortages or depending of who wins any sort of sports competition that day... or if people drink too much beer or if there isn't enough for everybody.

I mean, even the world of Mad Max had hierarchies

[Fifthfiend]

If you can't take criticism stop putting up posters.

[Nightshine]

If you can't take criticism stay away from the poster printer's.

Stop trolling in my thread, you sad excuse of a human being.


EDIT: I love the amount of wonderful support I'm garnering.

[Kim]

Actually, Fifth is right. If you support or defend something, you are going to get criticized for it, even if you shouldn't. If you can't handle that criticism, you have no place trying to defend it.

[Magic_Marker]

Stop trolling in my thread, you sad excuse of a human being.


EDIT: I love the amount of wonderful support I'm garnering.

I believe a wise man once said:

Oh the many horrible things of which I want to say to the Kyanbu. I can sum it up into two simple letters:


QQ




(Also, it's been said before: get off the internet if you can't take criticism)

[Teal Mage]

I mean, even the world of Mad Max had hierarchies

Then it wasn't a true Anarchy?

I've never seen the movie, but the word Dystopian's in the Wikipedia write-up, so I'm thinking it makes the case that whatever system was in place wasn't good!

Anyway, apparently an Anarchy can be a term applied to a Utopia and a Dystopia. Kinda surprising, since the only examples of Anarchy I can think of have ended badly, but I'm hardly a history buff. So, for some reason, I want to call the whole thing impractical, and leave it at that.

@Azisien: Sorry I didn't look the word up before using it?

[Tev]

I believe a wise man once said:Hey, check the bottom of page one!

[The Argent Lord]

EDIT: I love the amount of wonderful support I'm garnering.

I think you'd be getting a lot more support if you didn't claim to be an extremely tolerant person, then in the next breath condemn your peers and religion as a whole as horrible, horrible people. And then you started playing the "my thread" game.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Stop trolling in my thread, you sad excuse of a human being.

If I could find a way to bottle up the hypocrisy inherent in that statement, I would be set for a life of gimmick beer-making.

[Bells]

Also, it's not really trolling with fifth unless there is a Gif illustrating a passive agressive insult against your nature and intellect as a being.

Then it wasn't a true Anarchy?

I actually see it more if an Agressive Dictatorship preseted and Anarchy. There is some for of Governing power, but it can be taken by force if you simply have the power to do it.

Max himself was more Anarchist than the freaky dudes in the desert

[Kurosen]

if religion was abolished forever.
Welcome to being a teenager. The good news: you'll grow out of it.

[Magic_Marker]

Hey, check te bottom of page one!

I had a good idea, but you had it first.

[synkr0nized]

Stop trolling in my thread, you sad excuse of a human being.

Yeah so no. Keep your insults out of discussions, please.

[Archbio]

Welcome to being a teenager. The good news: you'll grow out of it.

And hopefully grow into the non-evil adult equivalent of it: "things would have a chance of being better if religion was abandoned forever." Hey, it's nicer, if a more insignificant position to hold.

[krogothwolf]

The minute the world heads over to anarchy, I'm starting my own dawn Viking Fleet. It's time to Pillage and Burn things!

[Loyal]

I was under the impression that Anarchy was strictly a temporary "thing" (inasmuch as a lack of something, i.e government, can be called a 'thing') until a more stable government could be (re)established.

[Magic_Marker]

I was under the impression that Anarchy was strictly a temporary "thing" (inasmuch as a lack of something, i.e government, can be called a 'thing') until a more stable government could be (re)established.

Someone didn't read V for Vendetta.

[krogothwolf]

Someone didn't read V for Vendetta.

Well, eventually someone will be able to generate enough followers to start taking control of various regions. So if anarchy ever did happen, it would only last long enough till someone charismatic or powerful enough came along to take control of the situation.

That's why I say a viking fleet to pillage and burn. That way we would have fun before they got organized and then we just fade away with all or ill gotten gains.

[Loyal]

Precisely. See: Command and Conquer's Kane.

[Osterbaum]

I feel all warm, fuzzy and tolerant inside.

So if anarchy ever did happen, it would only last long enough till someone charismatic or powerful enough came along to take control of the situation.
That's a mighty big assumption there. Granted, I can see the logical train of thought behind it. But it is based on todays logic, or more accurately on present society's logic. There's no real way of knowing without trying. And even then there's nothing to say everything happens the same way twice.

[krogothwolf]

Actually, its more based on the long line of history humanity has had. It's filled with people striving for power and doing what it takes to get that power. Anarchy wouldn't change that, it might put it on hold for a little while but it wouldn't change it at all. Eventually someone will come along who will take what he wants a build an empire out of it.

[Ryanderman]

This is awesome.

Every time I read something and think it couldn't get any better it does!

[Fifthfiend]

This is awesome.

Every time I read something and think it couldn't get any better it does!

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/reactions/fnzmn5.gif

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/awesome.gif

[Bells]

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/reactions/fnzmn5.gif

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/awesome.gif


Also, it's not really trolling with fifth unless there is a Gif illustrating a passive agressive insult against your nature and intellect as a being.
See?! See?!

It's belligerent, yet classy!

[Fifthfiend]

belligerent, yet classy!

What? That gif was me 100% agreeing with Ryander.

I was totally like "oh man he just said that about how the thread can't get any better but keeps getting better and now the post after that is gonna be this awesome gif that makes the thread even better, ol' Ryan's going to love it."

It was the least belligerent thing I've posted all day!

[Bells]

This is going to sound cliché as all hell, but that made more sense in my head before i posted...

...seriously.

[Osterbaum]

This is going to sound cliché as well, but holy beesus do I hate all of you. But mostly only because you're so intolerant.

EDIT:
Actually, its more based on the long line of history humanity has had.
History, yes but not the future. That was mostly the point I was trying to make. As fruitless (in lack of a better word) of an argument as it is, you can't know about the future.

Hell, there's a ton about history we don't know either.

[Fifthfiend]

This is going to sound cliché as well, but holy beesus do I hate all of you. But mostly only because you're so intolerant.

This forum is You guys are all right.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/shy.gif

[Geminex]

It's ironic, really. The only way anarchy can be maintained is artificially, through the actions of a higher authority, which prevents the accumulation of power and support...

Though it'd be an interesting experiment. Can society be influenced to resent authority independently?

[bluestarultor]

This is going to sound cliché as well, but holy beesus do I hate all of you. But mostly only because you're so intolerant.

EDIT:

History, yes but not the future. That was mostly the point I was trying to make. As fruitless (in lack of a better word) of an argument as it is, you can't know about the future.

Hell, there's a ton about history we don't know either.

Hate to break it to you, Oster, but looking at history provides a means for guessing what we can expect in the future. Humanity builds on its own history. Nothing can become without first considering what came before. Light bulbs were the result of hundreds of failed experiments to produce an electric lamp to replace oil lamps and candles. Oil lamps and candles stemmed from torches. Torches stemmed from the first cave man to ever build a fire.

To extend that to humanity, we have an unchanging history of greed, power lust, and feelings of superiority to everything that's not part of our in-group, which leads to war, grasping for power, and oppression. Unless we do a 180 on a global level, by which I mean no human alive can have an ounce of ambition, desire, or group identity, a Utopian anarchy will never happen.

[krogothwolf]

This is going to sound cliché as well, but holy beesus do I hate all of you. But mostly only because you're so intolerant.


I'm not intolerent, I just hate all you gits equally!

On the future part you are partially right but that's also assuming humanity learns from it mistakes, which doesn't seem to be true most of the time :/

[Nightshine]

I have to apologize for being an asshole in my earlier posts today in this thread. My blood sugar was low due to the fact that I had not eaten all day, I had 5 hours of sleep last night, I had a presentation and a test today, and that one incident just really set me off.

I'm not going to say "abolish religion" per se, but I just get really annoyed when people who are overzealous Christians go around yelling "OMG I HAET TEH GAYZ GUYZ FUK GRR".


I feel like an asshole.

[Ryanderman]

I must know, where is that gif from? I saw it earlier and was like, I don't know if he's mocking me or not, but it really doesn't matter because that gif is awesome.

[Bob The Mercenary]

No need to apologize. No food or sleep on an exam day would make most anyone go a little batty.

I remember when I was at 154 posts. Oh what it was to be young...

[Darth SS]

I have to apologize for being an asshole in my earlier posts today in this thread. My blood sugar was low due to the fact that I had not eaten all day, I had 5 hours of sleep last night, I had a presentation and a test today, and that one incident just really set me off.

Just sayin'...do we really care? If you're an asshole to someone, then you're an asshole. It doesn't really lend itself to caveats. It's like playing a hockey game, having a bad game and then saying "Well I was playing on a sprained ankle." You still had a bad game, albeit for a good reason, but it still happened. The best solution would be to go on to do better later in some twisted internet forum redemption quest. But in the counter-argument, I'm kind of going up to the short guy and saying "Why can't you reach the top shelf?"

I'm off track. Back to anarchy:

Really at this point we're just rehashing the Liberal vs Realist idea. The realist view being that the world is anarchy and the state is only permitted to exist because of fear, and the Liberal view from Locke and stating that the state nature occurs in nature. We're all logical and self-interested and because of it will realize that through cooperation everyone can have a jet-car, a hot trophy wife, and an exotic rich-mahogany liquor cabinet. Kind of like a socio-political free market. And we saw how THAT one turned out...

[Bells]

Well, full blown, original minded, large scale Anarchy is not really self sustainable. Because we're not equal. Some of us are indeed better than others. Both Physically and mentally, so, as the mass becomes larger, it's only natural for the "weaker" ( i use the term loosely, just to illustrate) to gravitate towards those they found to be "stronger" .

There you stabilish a moral chain of command, which then should generate positive and negative feedback and relationships, which would then define a chain of trust. Thus, creating a "Line" of command that can define itself in the present and for the future.

At that point, you don't have Anarchy at all, you have a fragmented society made of "Hubs" of power that will, naturally, at some point collide and clash or ally or disband to another territory.

And at THAT point you already have another form of Goverment stabilished. Raging from pure Tyrany right up to full blown democracy. It just depends of the social enviroment and they people present at the time of conception.

[phil_]

I feel like an asshole.I want to pet you on your head and tell you "It's all right." Maybe it's 'cause I'm drunk, maybe it's the Ouran Host Club I just watched. I dunno.

[Eltargrim]

I'm drunk

LIES! You're too coherent to be drunk.

[Mike McC]

It always amusing when these vehemently anti-religion people roll around.

Why, you ask?

Because they are so positively religious about thier anti-religion/atheism, it's just deliciously ironic.

[phil_]

LIES! You're too coherent to be drunk.You know that every post I've made after about six PM EST for a while has been a drunk post, right? I get drunk every night; I just proofread my posts. It's a drunkard's experience.

[Mirai Gen]

I don't mind if people have ignorant opinions. However, they can keep it to themselves.
http://pics.livejournal.com/miraigen/pic/000ece72

[Krylo]

Huh.

I... don't know what to make of this thread.

Nightshine: FUCK HOMOPHOBES, and also religions.

Everyone else: NO FUCK YOU!


I mean, what?

Is this really the level of maturity we have going here?

There were some lulz to be had, but it was hard to make them out through the pain of watching every single person in this thread smash their heads against the proverbial brick wall.

I mean, shit, Nightshine may be an ass, and as an (assumedly) atheist highschool kid he's got a good god rage boner going on, but really NPF?

Your response is the blanket statement we've been hearing from people trying to defend institutionalized homophobia, racism, and other not-good racisms since the beginning of time? "Why can't you be tolerant of our intolerance!?"

Really?

Really really?

Jesus.

[Kim]

Actually, what I read, most of it was: Blaming everything on religion is pretty dumb, and hating religion the way you are makes you just as intolerant as the other intolerant people you're hating on. Also, that religion wasn't so much to blame as people just being ignorant jackasses in general. I don't think I saw anyone defending intolerance so much as making clear the distinction between intolerance and religion, and pointing out that area of hypocrisy in his post. Oh, and there was some stuff about anarchy.

[Krylo]

I don't know if blaming homophobia, specifically, on religion could really be considered dumb, all things considered. Maybe a little short sighted, maybe a little ignorant of the human condition, but not flat out dumb. And even then, only when you add the modifier "all" to it.

However, I don't think we're allowed to discuss that here. Point is he didn't even mention religion until the last two sentences. The entire rest of his post was all about how he hates homophobes/racists/other intolerant people fucking his shit up.

The first response he got (and most of the rest of them, echoed it) was "And violent rages don't sound like a tolerant person to me," which just smacks of "You're not allowed to be tolerant unless you're also tolerant of intolerance," complaining about his religious intolerance aside.

Further, did we need 40+ posts of the same thing in 2 hours?


I mean the guy finally shows a modicum of respect for humanity, after you all dogpiled on him for defending misogynistic internet musicians, and he gets dogpiled again because he's, holy shit, a highschool atheist that doesn't like religion.

How many of us can, honestly, really, truly say that they haven't said the same thing in the past?

Don't make me go dig up threads from when religion discussion was allowed for awhile there.

[Kim]

"Why can't you be tolerant of our intolerance!?"

I've had someone use this argument against me seriously before. It's incredibly depressing.

How many of us can, honestly, really, truly say that they haven't said the same thing in the past?

See Kuro's "Welcome to being a teenager. Don't worry, you grow out of it." post.

I think the main thing was, and I told this to him myself earlier today, that the persona he's created on the forum isn't exactly impressing a lot of people, so, while he may have good points or whatever, people are far more likely to be dickish to him as a result, and his best bet is just to slowly work his way out of that first impression.

[Archbio]

Everyone else: NO FUCK YOU!

I didn't think my single post in this thread was very lumpable.

[Krylo]

See Kuro's "Welcome to being a teenager. Don't worry, you grow out of it." post.
Yeah, but Brian's the only one who said something like that.

Also, I don't think I ever grew out of it. I just learned to deal, but hey.

I think the main thing was, and I told this to him myself earlier today, that the persona he's created on the forum isn't exactly impressing a lot of people, so, while he may have good points or whatever, people are far more likely to be dickish to him as a result, and his best bet is just to slowly work his way out of that first impression.

I totally agree that this is what is happening here, and that's most of my problem.

He's a teenager. He's expected to do stupid shit.

The average age of the forums, however, is a bit older than that. We should be expected to NOT do stupid immature shit, like dog piling someone just because we don't like him every time he says anything half way offensive.

I mean, you don't see me lambasting Nikose every post he makes, do you? It's called maturity.

Edit For Arch: I was using Hyperbole.

Apologies to you, Brian, and uh... Azisien? Oster I think was just arguing anarchy so him, too.

[synkr0nized]

I think the main thing was, and I told this to him myself earlier today, that the persona he's created on the forum isn't exactly impressing a lot of people, so, while he may have good points or whatever, people are far more likely to be dickish to him as a result, and his best bet is just to slowly work his way out of that first impression.

Really? His "best bet" is to accept that people are going to be assholes to him?

[BitVyper]

I don't know if blaming homophobia, specifically, on religion could really be considered dumb

It is dumb. Religion didn't spontaneously invent fear, it's just one of many things we use to give it shape and teach it to others - often for good reason, but then not always. If you want to blame religion for all that stuff, you're going to have to stretch that out to culture in general. Or you could just, y'know, blame people for being homophobic. OR, even better, you could do something more constructive than than trying to blame something, and maybe actually help people overcome their fears.

You could go after certain religious institutions for being big proponents of homophobia, but say you abolish X religion and religious institution; do you think all of the people involved in it will just up and change their core character, or will they just find another way to express it? The institutions and religions aren't the problem. They can't do anything. They're as alive as corporations.

Edit: Okay, I guess if your point isn't that it's debatable or that it could be right, then yeah, I can see considering it more of an immature worldview. But I don't think the "all" has anything to do with it.

However, I don't think we're allowed to discuss that here.

Eh, I don't think we're really debating points of theology (I say we even though this is the first post I've made in this thread) or anything. I wouldn't really call this arguing religion since the point isn't whether or not X religion got it right.

[Kim]

Really? His "best bet" is to accept that people are going to be assholes to him?

Unfortunately, I left my fairy dust and perfect world in my other pants pocket, so, realistically speaking, he's going to have to cope with the fact that people are going to treat him differently based on the majority of his posting career here than they would someone else with a different one.

[Krylo]

You could go after certain religious institutions for being big proponents of homophobia, but say you abolish X religion and religious institution; do you think all of the people involved in it will just up and change their core character, or will they just find another way to express it? The institutions and religions aren't the problem. They can't do anything. They're as alive as corporations.

Because they can convince people a magical man lives in the sky and loves them and (blah blah blah religious discussion about how religion is silly), but it's totally inconceivable that when applied to children it could teach them how to hate people, right?

[BitVyper]

Because they can convince people a magical man lives in the sky and loves them and (blah blah blah religious discussion about how religion is silly), but it's totally inconceivable that when applied to children it couldn't teach them how to hate people, right?

magical man

If you use disrespectful terms, then this will become one of those internet religious debates.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how this applies to what I said. And I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm just really not getting where your "because" is supposed to fit in, so I can't really respond to it.

[synkr0nized]

Unfortunately, I left my fairy dust and perfect world in my other pants pocket, so, realistically speaking, he's going to have to cope with the fact that people are going to treat him differently based on the majority of his posting career here than they would someone else with a different one.

You folks are at least moderately intelligent and sociable and perhaps even mature in some cases. I suppose I was assuming not to see advice that basically was, "Yo check it we're going to troll you for a little while. Ride it out."

I may be reading too much into your post, though. I mean I get the idea behind it, yeah, it happens.

[Krylo]

'kay see, if you use disrespectful terms, then this will become one of those internet religious debates.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how this applies to what I said. And I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm just really not getting where your "because" is supposed to fit in, so I can't really respond to it.

Basically

Me: I wouldn't call it stupid, necessarily, to blame religion for some of the homophobia, specifically.
You: It's stupid to say religion causes homophobia, 'cause people will be homophobic anyway, even when religions do promote it.
Me: Religion can convince people of lots of stupid things, what's stupid about thinking it might, especially in children, convince them to hate gay people?

So yeah, the disrespectful term was kinda necessary to make my point.

This is also why I'd rather not have this discussion here, because while it might be possible to make blanket statements like "Well there's gonna be homophobes anyway" it's very hard to argue back pointing out where religions do support homophobia and how such support can be absorbed into the psyches of people that go to religion for whatever reason--especially at young ages--without treading into dangerous waters.

It's not to say homophobia would vanish if we didn't have religion. THAT would be a stupid stance to take, however it isn't stupid to suggest that the teachings of some religions help to spread homophobia into future generations, and even into adults who are willing to believe anything if it gives them comfort--see cult victims.

[Archbio]

Or you could just, y'know, blame people for being homophobic. OR, even better, you could do something more constructive than than trying to blame something, and maybe actually help people overcome their fears.

The suggestion that one can't do all three is mind-boggling.

[Kim]

You folks are at least moderately intelligent and sociable and perhaps even mature in some cases. I suppose I was assuming not to see advice that basically was, "Yo check it we're going to troll you for a little while. Ride it out."

Basically, regardless of whether you think this is fair or not, before the forum starts taking him more seriously and treating him more respectfully, he's going to have to earn it. Given many of his previous posts, he's going to have to earn it really hard.

I'm not going to lie to him and say it's any other way, even if it should be.

[BitVyper]

Me: I wouldn't call it stupid, necessarily, to blame religion for some of the homophobia, specifically.
You: It's stupid to say religion causes homophobia, 'cause people will be homophobic anyway, even when religions do promote it.
Me: Religion can convince people of lots of stupid things, what's stupid about thinking it might, especially in children, convince them to hate gay people?

Massive straw man. That is a very small part of what I said, and I said it only as an example.

[Krylo]

Massive straw man.

I don't think you understand what a straw man is. Alternatively, that avatar is affecting your mind.

If you're thinking it is what I think you're thinking it is, I straw manned myself just as hard. I didn't simplify your argument in order to attack a simplified and weakend version. I did so to simplify our discussion to this point so you could see where I was coming from.

[Marc v4.0]

Because they can convince people a magical man lives in the sky and loves them and (blah blah blah religious discussion about how religion is silly), but it's totally inconceivable that when applied to children it could teach them how to hate people, right?

The majority don't need convincing of a magical man in the sky, they believe it already and seek religion for reinforcement.

People who hate seek out reinforcement for their hate. They'll go to a hate-spewing religious establishment before they wouldgo to a tolorant religious establishment of the same demonination because of that. It matters little if the religion in question actually denounces, supports, or is indifferent to the subject.

Really. Haters gonna Hate.

[Krylo]

The majority don't need convincing of a magical man in the sky, they believe it already and seek religion for reinforcement.

People who hate seek out reinforcement for their hate. They'll go to a hate-spewing religious establishment before they wouldgo to a tolorant religious establishment of the same demonination because of that. It matters little if the religion in question actually denounces, supports, or is indifferent to the subject.

Really. Haters gonna Hate.

How often do children get to choose which religion they're going to be part of?

And can you prove that children would believe in god if they weren't convinced of it as children by their parents and the priests/pastors/whatever your religion calls them their parents choose to put them in contact with? How many people, honestly, stop and deeply think about their religion and denomination later in life and change it? All of them?

If not, it's not stupid to suggest that indoctrination can exacerbate or create homophobic feelings in people who may have otherwise come to adulthood without them/with weaker versions of them.

S'all I'm saying.

[BitVyper]

I don't think you understand what a straw man is.

To be fair, in a technical sense, you're not totally fabricating an argument for me, so I guess you're kind of right there. Fine, is there a logical fallacy for when you pretend part of an argument doesn't exist?

To quote what I actually said again:

It is dumb. Religion didn't spontaneously invent fear, it's just one of many things we use to give it shape and teach it to others - often for good reason, but then not always. If you want to blame religion for all that stuff, you're going to have to stretch that out to culture in general. Or you could just, y'know, blame people for being homophobic. OR, even better, you could do something more constructive than than trying to blame something, and maybe actually help people overcome their fears.

You could go after certain religious institutions for being big proponents of homophobia, but say you abolish X religion and religious institution; do you think all of the people involved in it will just up and change their core character, or will they just find another way to express it? The institutions and religions aren't the problem. They can't do anything. They're as alive as corporations.

Edit: Okay, I guess if your point isn't that it's debatable or that it could be right, then yeah, I can see considering it more of an immature worldview. But I don't think the "all" has anything to do with it.

Now here's what you said I said:

You: It's stupid to say religion causes homophobia, 'cause people will be homophobic anyway, even when religions do promote it.

I mean, that's not even the reason I gave after calling it dumb. You're turning an example I used into my entire argument.

You come in here and call everyone immature, then pull this juvenile bullshit? Yeah, forget it.

[Marc v4.0]

How often do children get to choose which religion they're going to be part of?

And can you prove that children would believe in god if they weren't convinced of it as children by their parents and the priests/pastors/whatever your religion calls them their parents choose to put them in contact with? How many people, honestly, stop and deeply think about their religion and denomination later in life and change it? All of them?

If not, it's not stupid to suggest that indoctrination can exacerbate or create homophobic feelings in people who may have otherwise come to adulthood without them/with weaker versions of them.

S'all I'm saying.

Hmmm...

their parents choose to put them in contact with

Ya know...

their parents choose to put them in contact with

I don't think Religions are the majority blame holders...

If the religious establishment the parents took them to said "Don't hate Homosexuals" and the parents hated homosexuals, well, they're going to either take them somewhere else, or teach them to hate homosexuals -Regardless of what the Religion says-.

[Krylo]

Maybe because I don't care about arguing with you?

I'm just putting out that it's not fair to call the idea dumb.

Maybe you should read the rest of that post past the 'straw man'?

Edit: I don't think Religions are the majority blame holders...

Are they completely blameless, then?

[BitVyper]

Maybe you should read the rest of that post past the 'straw man'?

Maybe after you extend the same courtesy?

[Krylo]

I did.

But if you're going to be a dick over some perceived slight that was only there to simplify MY argument so that YOU could understand it.

Well, shit, I'm done here.

Edit: This is why religious discussion isn't allowed guys. Take notes. We aren't even discussing theology, and... yeaaaaaaah.

[Marc v4.0]

Are they completely blameless, then?

Well, if I wanted to be a bit of a dick, I'd point out that Religions aren't entities or creatures, but collections of intertwined beliefs and ideas and ultimatly the responsibility lies on the shoulders of those that take those ideas and "interpret" them.

If the Church of Bob of the Fifth Seal's holy writ said "Don't hate on the Gays, guys" and someone said "Oh, but that's not what it really means, cause you see if I just explain it this way so that it sounds like it's really saying "Stone them to death and Burn their corpses" it's not the fault of the Church of Bob of the Fifth Seal. It;s that stupid asshole there.

[Krylo]

Well, if I wanted to be a bit of a dick, I'd point out that Religions aren't entities or creatures, but collections of intertwined beliefs and ideas and ultimatly the responsibility lies on the shoulders of those that take those ideas and "interpret" them.

You could, yeah, but it would be silly semantics slicing which is generally just a dickish way of admitting you lost the argument. Also one I can't really argue against without bringing in theology, but anyone with even a passing understanding of Christian or Islamic texts would know what I'm getting at there.

Point is: No, religions with doctrines that demonize homophobia are not 100% blameless, therefore it is not stupid to assign blame to them. It's ignorant etc. to assign 100% of the blame to them, sure. Probably even to assign MOST of the blame, but it's not at all stupid to assign some blame to religion.

Edit:
If the Church of Bob of the Fifth Seal's holy writ said "Don't hate on the Gays, guys" and someone said "Oh, but that's not what it really means, cause you see if I just explain it this way so that it sounds like it's really saying "Stone them to death and Burn their corpses" it's not the fault of the Church of Bob of the Fifth Seal. It;s that stupid asshole there.Except the religions that are generally blamed for this ACTUALLY say things like "Stone them to death and burn the corpses" (seriously, I don't think for gays, but this punishment is actually in there for shit like telling off your parents) and it takes some creative reading to get to the viewpoints that AREN'T like that.

Sooooooooo, yeah.

And now I've officially gone too far, sooo I'm out.

[Marc v4.0]

I expanded a bit on what I meant. Why's everything have to be an arguement instead of a spirited discussion? :(

[Krylo]

I read, edited, bowed out of discussion because there's no way I can continue this without it being TERRIBAD.

Also, I'm bored enough that I'm just reloading.

Not really pissed/arguing. Except maybe a little at Bit, but he totally started that.

[MasterOfMagic]

If the Church of Bob of the Fifth Seal's holy writ said "Don't hate on the Gays, guys" and someone said "Oh, but that's not what it really means, cause you see if I just explain it this way so that it sounds like it's really saying "Stone them to death and Burn their corpses" it's not the fault of the Church of Bob of the Fifth Seal. It;s that stupid asshole there.
This is true, but is not an accurate description of what's going on in real life.

Its totally the fault of the people who don't examine their thought processes and figure out that "hey, this is bullshit!" Completely agree there. Its when we move into "belief systems taught to people while they are young and impressionable" have absolutely no blame in the propagation of these bad strings of thought that you lose me. Sure, there are other factors. Yes, the parents are to blame as well. Yes, it wouldn't matter in an ideal world because everyone would take 5 minutes to think. But to say that its not a factor at all is beyond my capabilities.

There's enough blame for everyone on the merry go-round, its not a simple subject with one cause. But the very fact that some beliefs teach that being gay is wrong propagates the fear, regardless of how many other factors there are in the process.

[Osterbaum]

We go from venting rage (by the OP) to telling him off. Just to clarify, I don't think all points about him being infact intolerant himself in his post were wrong or motivated by assholines, however I was slightly uncomfortable with the general direction of the thread ie. afraid that dissing him might go a bit overboard. Though I'd also like to point out that this is a written form of communication we're using here, so it is easy to misunderstand people and their posts since we can't actually hear their tone.

Anyway, then we somehow get to anarchy and then scratch the surface of religion discussion? We here at NPF sure know how to do it.

[MasterOfMagic]

Anyway, then we somehow get to anarchy and then scratch the surface of religion discussion? We here at NPF sure know how to do it.
Damn straight. We don't make a thread. We make a thread.

[Krylo]

Speaking of, can we get back to Anarchy? I'd like to hear Oster's thoughts on how to get it to work, and I don't think he ever really expanded much on it (I'll bet Smarty has some good ones, too, as communism should basically lead to anarchy). I've heard lots of anarcho-capitalistic ideas (which I pretty much hate with a fervent passion), and a few anarcho-communistic ideas (which I like but don't see them working on large scales for long, at least not coming at it from current human society), and I'm kind of wondering where his ideas lie.

Anarchy, when thought out past teenage rebellion-esque, "NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO, MAAAAAN," is actually a pretty interesting concept and probably the best thing this thread can turn into.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We go from venting rage (by the OP) to telling him off. Just to clarify, I don't think all points about him being infact intolerant himself in his post were wrong or motivated by assholines, however I was slightly uncomfortable with the general direction of the thread ie. afraid that dissing him might go a bit overboard. Though I'd also like to point out that this is a written form of communication we're using here, so it is easy to misunderstand people and their posts since we can't actually hear their tone.


I wasn't intending to attack Nightshine personally or dogpile on him I just wanted to point out he was doing what he was accusing others of. While I might agree with his general position that doesn't justify huge generalisations and demonisations of other groups of people who I didn't think would get much defence on this board.

[Meister]

Basically, regardless of whether you think this is fair or not, before the forum starts taking him more seriously and treating him more respectfully, he's going to have to earn it. Given many of his previous posts, he's going to have to earn it really hard.

I'm not going to lie to him and say it's any other way, even if it should be.
Being a dick about something and later coming back and saying "wow I've been a dick about this, sorry guys, my bad" already strikes me as a great deal more mature than going "hey this guy's been a dick a few times let's remind everyone of it again and again and again." You can't very well "earn your respect"(a pretty bullshit concept in itself) if there's always someone guaranteed to quote your old stupid posts at you no matter what you say.

[Mirai Gen]

You can't very well "earn your respect"(a pretty bullshit concept in itself) if there's always someone guaranteed to quote your old stupid posts at you no matter what you say.
I'd be 100% okay with treating this entire thread with respect and dignity and gently letting Nightshine know my thoughts without turning myself into an asshole, if he wasn't very clear not even two days ago that he clearly doesn't give a fuck about anyone's (Specifically Kyanbu's) feelings.

I'm not going to keep on digging up that stupid Duane and Brando thread if he was honestly looking to move past it, but when he says --
Oh the many horrible things of which I want to say to the Kyanbu. I can sum it up into two simple letters:


QQ




(Also, it's been said before: get off the internet if you can't take criticism)
-- it is quite clear he doesn't give a fuck about changing from his old ways.

[Krylo]

Soooo... that's a no on the anarchy thing, then?

Alright, I'll just go find something less intellectually stimulating to do for the rest of the night.

You guys have fun arguing over who's the bigger asshole. It's me.

[Archbio]

Re: Anarchy

anarcho-capitalistic ideas (which I pretty much hate with a fervent passion), and a few anarcho-communistic ideas (which I like but don't see them working on large scales for long, at least not coming at it from current human society)

Wouldn't anarcho-capitalist notions, put into practice on a large scale, be equally (if not more so) short lived? I mean, I can't imagine the "anarchy" part helping in any way to resist the slide closer and closer to monopolies.

[Meister]

I'd be 100% okay with treating this entire thread with respect and dignity and gently letting Nightshine know my thoughts without turning myself into an asshole, if he wasn't very clear not even two days ago that he clearly doesn't give a fuck about anyone's (Specifically Kyanbu's) feelings.
No one's forcing you to be an asshole back at him, you're choosing to.

Like, right now if I was Nightshine I'd say "hmm, I should tone down the single-line dick posts and check with myself if I'm just about to post in a thread only to say whatever people are talking about sucks" and if I was nearly everyone else I'd say "so okay this dude's a real dick but whelp, I don't have to deal with him, here's my Ignore list" or "that seems worthy of a post report, let's go for it." You can't like everyone who visits the same public places you do.

[Kim]

You can't like everyone who visits the same public places you do.

No, but I don't see why I should necessarily be expected to treat them with any more respect than they show others. You may think earning respect is bullshit, but even if it were, I definitely think you can earn disrespect.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Speaking of, can we get back to Anarchy? I'd like to hear Oster's thoughts on how to get it to work, and I don't think he ever really expanded much on it (I'll bet Smarty has some good ones, too, as communism should basically lead to anarchy). I've heard lots of anarcho-capitalistic ideas (which I pretty much hate with a fervent passion), and a few anarcho-communistic ideas (which I like but don't see them working on large scales for long, at least not coming at it from current human society), and I'm kind of wondering where his ideas lie.

Anarchy, when thought out past teenage rebellion-esque, "NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO, MAAAAAN," is actually a pretty interesting concept and probably the best thing this thread can turn into.


The problem with anarchy is that there's a whole bunch of different types, all labelled "anarchy". The one way which has been most compelling to me and seems to be the norm among the more serious discussions of anarchy and the one that we use in communist circles as communism should in theory eventually lead to anarchism (according to some theorists anyway- I'm a little dicey on this point myself).
The interesting thing is that it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you think of when you think of anarchy- ie riots and looting and things.
The thing about anarchy is that it is best defined as "a lack of coercive force" but rule by violence, by strength is pretty much exactly "coercive force". The way anarchy should work is that everyone is their own individual unit. If you choose you can join together, work together, make systems of law because by combining your units you can achieve more than you could apart and the collective good will increase.
The key is that you have the same amount of power as everyone else in the system and there is nothing compelling you to work with the others- unlike currentely where you have to exist in a country and follow its rules and there are differing degrees of power in the populace.
That's the basic idea anyway. You can have structures and rules and laws in place but they are fluctional and optional. The society works in collective for its own good and every person has an exactly equal amount of power.
You are free to develop your own morality, your own rules, your own beliefs.

[Krylo]

Re: Anarchy



Wouldn't anarcho-capitalist notions, put into practice on a large scale, be equally (if not more so) short lived? I mean, I can't imagine the "anarchy" part helping in any way to resist the slide closer and closer to monopolies.

See that's my problem, is that the 'anarchy' would be short lived in all but name, as the corporations founded to handle things like security quickly take any and all power they want and take the place of government, as that any time you have capitalism you have competition and therefore have people/entities trying to do better than each other. This inevitably leads to seeking more power.

It's why anarcho-capitalism has always sat poorly with me.

[Archbio]

That's what i was getting at.

I think it sits poorly with me for additional reasons, though.

[Krylo]

The thing about anarchy is that it is best defined as "a lack of coercive force" but rule by violence, by strength is pretty much exactly "coercive force". The way anarchy should work is that everyone is their own individual unit. If you choose you can join together, work together, make systems of law because by combining your units you can achieve more than you could apart and the collective good will increase. Once you've created a system of law is it really anarchy and free of coercive force?

I mean if you make a law that people can't kill, for instance, and someone kills somebody, what do you do about it? If you use force to stop him or remove him from the community you are using coercive force. If you don't use coercive force what's to stop him?

The key is that you have the same amount of power as everyone else in the system and there is nothing compelling you to work with the others- unlike currentely where you have to exist in a country and follow its rules and there are differing degrees of power in the populace.
That's the basic idea anyway. You can have structures and rules and laws in place but they are fluctional and optional.Isn't this more mobocracy than true anarchy?

Edit for Arch who was nice enough to keep this from being a double post when I accidentally hit reply instead of cutting it to paste into my last post:

Yeah, I don't like the idea of corporations having that much power for a whole SLEW of reasons. Like I said, I hate the idea fervently, but discussing the more communist anarchistic ideals is pretty interesting to me.

[MasterOfMagic]

See that's my problem, is that the 'anarchy' would be short lived in all but name, as the corporations founded to handle things like security quickly take any and all power they want and take the place of government, as that any time you have capitalism you have competition and therefore have people/entities trying to do better than each other. This inevitably leads to seeking more power.

It's why anarcho-capitalism has always sat poorly with me.
I guess you could hope that people would start seeing the corporation as "the man" and actively resisting. I don't think that idea holds much water though.

Really, it seems like all forms of anarchy suffer from one flaw: Someone's going to be looking for power. You'd need something to prevent that, but that would require some organization, which is counter to the point of anarchy. I've never seen anyone argue for a version that didn't contain this. It's...hard to imagine one, honestly.

EDIT: Ninja'd twice. Ah well.

[Krylo]

See that's why I like discussing it, MoM.

I'm in your boat on that one, but I like to hear how they think to get around it and what not, and they HAVE created anarchistic communes (and communist ones, for that matter), so there are ways around it, at least on the small scale and in the short term. As such it's a fun thinking exercise.

Also, a lot of people will say that a slow change in society could, potentially, train people to STOP constantly going after power and allow an anarchistic utopia to exist. I'm not sure if I agree with them, but it's a pretty nice thought--that humans aren't so terrible that we can never do it, our society just isn't ready quite yet.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Once you've created a system of law is it really anarchy and free of coercive force?

I mean if you make a law that people can't kill, for instance, and someone kills somebody, what do you do about it? If you use force to stop him or remove him from the community you are using coercive force. If you don't use coercive force what's to stop him?
The point is that he voluntary associated with the law. He didn't have to join onto it. This is one of the problems though. Both options have been argued - either he accept the rules he helped shape or expel him from the collective good which is a large punishment in its own right. It is arguable how satisfactory this is.
The main idea is that once private property goes the need for most crimes will disappear though crimes of passion will remain.


Isn't this more mobocracy than true anarchy?
Mobocracy I always saw as more brute force rule but they similar. The key difference is that the collectives in anarchy have no negative power, only positive. By working with them you get a collective benefit but if you don't work with them you will not be punished whereas mobocracies tend to force you to join or to leave. I do have a bit of a conservative view on this issue.

The more anarchic communists argue that you don't need any form of organisation. There is no private property, no wage labour, people are free to do what they want and their natural tendencies will lead to the collective good. Some argue that there can be voluntary associations which may help to direct work if necessary- particularly workers collectives in factories and such like- but they are completely voluntary and are suggestive only.
It is important in such a system to have no private land/property- except as necessary for production. In such a system people are free to develop however they like and do what they want with maximum freedom which can never be obtained in a system where private property exists because that will always imply a coercive force is around. Without the restrictions imposed by a socialist/capitalist state people will be inherentely more productive and society will reach super-production where demand is satiated.

I don't know how well I'm explaining the theory, I'm not very good at explaining things. You can read the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
but it seems a bit dated.


Yeah, I don't like the idea of corporations having that much power for a whole SLEW of reasons. Like I said, I hate the idea fervently, but discussing the more communist anarchistic ideals is pretty interesting to me.

I really don't understand how anarcho-capitalism works, it seems a bit odd to me. Any form of private property means that a form of coercion exists- people won't be completely free.

[MasterOfMagic]

The point is that he voluntary associated with the law. He didn't have to join onto it. This is one of the problems though. Both options have been argued - either he accept the rules he helped shape or expel him from the collective good which is a large punishment in its own right. It is arguable how satisfactory this is.
The main idea is that once private property goes the need for most crimes will disappear though crimes of passion will remain.
So, if you commit murder the anarcho-communist way of dealing with it is cutting them off from the collective food/resource supply, and that's it? This sounds like a recipe for more murder, so I'm sure I misunderstood.

The more anarchic communists argue that you don't need any form of organisation. There is no private property, no wage labour, people are free to do what they want and their natural tendencies will lead to the collective good. Some argue that there can be voluntary associations which may help to direct work if necessary- particularly workers collectives in factories and such like- but they are completely voluntary and are suggestive only.
Its interesting that you talk about factories. How would things like this be handled, generally? Who decides who runs the factory? What makes people listen to this person? If the people who decide they want to work in the factory end up being the ones who make the rules, it won't run efficiently at all. In both plants I've worked in, the people doing the actual work mostly had no idea how the general process worked, and so would make decisions that made their life easier, but messed up the finished product. They also tend to not believe the manager's word about why they need to change what they're doing, they only do so because they don't want to lose the job. I don't see the same incentive coming from the anarchist system.

After these thoughts I read this:
It is important in such a system to have no private land/property- except as necessary for production.
So, would someone owning the factory be seen as necessary then? How would this person get people to want to work the jobs? Alot of factories make things that the people in them would have no use for. There's no money...would we have to give up technology for this sort of system? I don't like that idea, nor do I think people in general would.

[Osterbaum]

If the people who decide they want to work in the factory end up being the ones who make the rules, it won't run efficiently at all. In both plants I've worked in, the people doing the actual work mostly had no idea how the general process worked, and so would make decisions that made their life easier, but messed up the finished product.
But that is in present society. You see, anarchy in this form (the way I see it) basically requires a change in the way we think. Which requires a change in the form of society.

What I mean is, people in the plants you worked in might not know that much about what's going on (in terms of factory function etc.), but we don't live in any form of anarchy. They know what they "have to know", what they are required to know, in the terms of the current form of society.

Am I making any sense?

[Madcow9000]

It's been my experience in life that anarchy wouldn't work due to willful public ignorance and general laziness.

The problem with not having any laws or governance means that if someone suddenly discovers, oh say for instance, that the Earth is round and not flat, and then shares it with his brethren, they run the risk of their ignorant brethren lynching his sorry ass for making them uncomfortable.

It doesn't matter how far we've progressed as a people. The stupid ones will have their voices heard even if they have to rape pillage and kill their way into power.
There's always a pecking order, people naturally follow each other. Society or not, there's always an alpha dog. It's just the way humans are programed.

[Geminex]

All of this comes down to one simple statement: For an ideal society to function well, something has to alter human nature so drastically that everyone immediately ceases being an asshole. The problem with the current world lies less in the way society is constructed (though that's part of the problem) and more in the way people will think and interact.

[Osterbaum]

Social evolution.

[Krylo]

You should go into more detail on that, Oster.

I've heard of it before and have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about, but as I'm not a proponent of anarchy and rarely hear of it outside of the context of preparing a society for anarchy or communism, I'm not sure I'd do the idea justice.

[MasterOfMagic]

But that is in present society. You see, anarchy in this form (the way I see it) basically requires a change in the way we think. Which requires a change in the form of society.

What I mean is, people in the plants you worked in might not know that much about what's going on (in terms of factory function etc.), but we don't live in any form of anarchy. They know what they "have to know", what they are required to know, in the terms of the current form of society.

Am I making any sense?
Yes, but let me write it out to be sure: you're saying that in the new anarchical society, the people would be forced to learn more about their job in order to do the same thing. And so they would, in order to survive.

There's still no driving force though, what do they get out of doing their job well? Because without that they'll still just understand enough to bluff their way through most things, and not enough to actually make decisions (even though they still will anyway). Also, why do they have the job in the first place? What are they getting from it if there's no money and the factory makes nothing they need?

[Osterbaum]

Yes, but let me write it out to be sure: you're saying that in the new anarchical society, the people would be forced to learn more about their job in order to do the same thing. And so they would, in order to survive.
They would learn about it because it benefitted them. And then they could still decide to run the factory another way.

Also, why do they have the job in the first place?
It's for the benefit of their group, commune, society, whatever and so it is benefitial for them. As long as it remains that way, there is incentive to work at the factory. But nobody is actually in a position to run the factory, so to speak.

This is how I rationalize it. I'm guessing Smarty has another response for you.

You should go into more detail on that, Oster.
Social evolution is not evolution in the genetic or physiological sense. One of the oldest examples of social evolution is the evolution of a common language for a group. In todays society there are certain morals most of us consider to be the norm. They are the result of social evolution, for obviosly it wasn't always like that.

EDIT: So I see no reason why social evolution could not reach a point where a lot of things could be possible.

[Fifthfiend]

Being a dick about something and later coming back and saying "wow I've been a dick about this, sorry guys, my bad" already strikes me as a great deal more mature than going "hey this guy's been a dick a few times let's remind everyone of it again and again and again." You can't very well "earn your respect"(a pretty bullshit concept in itself) if there's always someone guaranteed to quote your old stupid posts at you no matter what you say.

No one's forcing you to be an asshole back at him, you're choosing to.

Like, right now if I was Nightshine I'd say "hmm, I should tone down the single-line dick posts and check with myself if I'm just about to post in a thread only to say whatever people are talking about sucks" and if I was nearly everyone else I'd say "so okay this dude's a real dick but whelp, I don't have to deal with him, here's my Ignore list" or "that seems worthy of a post report, let's go for it." You can't like everyone who visits the same public places you do.

Jesus Christ.

No Meister it's not unfair to quote his day-old posts back at him from when he was being an asshole to someone else about their personal problems, when he turns around the next day and demands that everyone else sympathize with his (and completely against the rules, the reason for which is utterly demonstrated by his first post) "FUCK RELIGION YALLZ" ridiculousness.

This is just another iteration of the same damn four-part Nightshade trollshtick, to wit:

- "Ha ha [huge group of people which includes a bunch on this forum] is stupid, fuck them!"

- "You guys are disagreeing with me, that is mean and not fair!"

- "You have feelings and things, you're a loser!"

- "You criticized me thereby hurting my FEELINGS, that is inappropriate and not-right behavior!"

Plus religious discussion and some backseat modding thrown in for good measure, and it's exactly what I banned him for the first time around, except swapping religious people for women and religion-posting for gravedigging and also when I banned him he'd been spamming a whole hell of a lot.

Yes Meister someone is forcing Noncon and whoever to "be an asshole" to him - you are, by not doing your job and banning him*. Why would anyone report his posts, when literally nothing he does will get him banned, to the point that you'll fire people for trying to ban him?

It's not the community's fault that you'd rather keep on getting angrier at people for being annoyed by trolling than at the troll causing the problem in the first place. I mean goddamn you even admit right in there that Nightshine's being an asshole, but still instead of taking him to task for being an asshole, you jump on Noncon for not being tolerant enough of assholes.



*I mean not 'your' job because you 'quit', or whatever version of that includes you 1. still being an admin 2. still lecturing people on when they are or aren't obligated to report posts.
--------------------------------------------

And since I'm on this subject now, I wanna make something clear from the "fired lol" thread

I honestly didn't think anything was wrong with Nightshine's posts and still don't really. But I can pretty much guarantee you if the infraction had been something like, hey Nightshine, two points for spam, instead of heaping six or seven different offenses on it, I'd have gone "huh kinda weird, but whatever, works for me" and moved on. I can safely say that much because that happened practically all the time and apparently for everyone of us at some point.

I banned him for those six or seven different offenses because those were the things I saw him doing. Well before I banned him, I told you, in the mod forum, "Hey from what I can see the dude is ___________, __________, ___________, ___________, and _______________," and you ignored that post in favor of closing that thread with another passive-agressive insult against the forum at large. After this I said "Oh well" and banned him for all the things I'd seen him doing, cause I thought the guy needed to go for all the reasons I clearly spelled out.

Going back to something Shiney said in that thread,

While I can confess to a lot of people that it seems very sudden, it also is a situation that has arisen too many times within the staff, and regardless of Meister's treatment of ole Bellsy that doesn't change what happened here. Some folks want to compare it (Meister banned Bells and it was so not cool so Nightshine had it comin') or whatever but realistically, they were two entirely separate administrative decisions linked only by a common thread. Bells was a repeat offender with infractions and trouble prior so was banned more harshly because of those offenses, Nightshine was a relative newcomer with posts that were certainly unpopular but not necessarily rule-breaking. He should have received an infraction, one or two points perhaps, and sent on his way. He should not have been banned for two weeks after Meister had already entered into the matter and finalized it. That, is the primary reason this happened. An admin had ruled on a decision, a different admin decided he didn't like the outcome and changed the decision without consulting the first.

I'm sure Brian or someone will say I'm getting "screedy" or whatever, but that's a bunch of total horseshit.

I didn't unban Bellsouth, I didn't reopen the thread, I banned a poster for reasons I had plainly spelled out to anyone who wanted to read them, and because you two disagreed with my decision, you decided to overturn it by way of throwing me off the fucking modstaff with zero warning.

I ended up not bothering to respond to this and a lot of other things from that because it just really obviously wasn't going to do any good regardless, but I want to make this one thing clear before I hear anymore lying shit about how I was the one who was getting angry or reversing people's decisions or whatever other excuse you guys want to invent for why you're defending trolls and attacking the rest of the forum in doing so.

I didn't quit the forums over all that three weeks ago because I thought to myself man why should I quit a community I like just because the most ridiculous .01% of it happens to be in charge of it, plus I figured dang, maybe it really was just my completely mean-ass unreasonable personality that made this situation somehow impossible for you to deal with and if I just let things go on whatever semi-not-totally-unpleasant note ya'll would start doing the job on your own, but nope, here you are three weeks later jumping on anyone else who tries to explain it to you by whatever other means. So at this point I honestly should just leave because why the hell do I want to be part of a community whose leadership is this intent on coddling its shitty elements to the detriment of absolutely everybody else? Or wait around until whenever I get banned by people who apparently have every intention of continuing to allow shitty behavior and attack people who have a problem with it?

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

Huh.

I... don't know what to make of this thread.

Nightshine: FUCK HOMOPHOBES, and also religions.

Everyone else: NO FUCK YOU!


I mean, what?

Is this really the level of maturity we have going here?

There were some lulz to be had, but it was hard to make them out through the pain of watching every single person in this thread smash their heads against the proverbial brick wall.

I mean, shit, Nightshine may be an ass, and as an (assumedly) atheist highschool kid he's got a good god rage boner going on, but really NPF?

Your response is the blanket statement we've been hearing from people trying to defend institutionalized homophobia, racism, and other not-good racisms since the beginning of time? "Why can't you be tolerant of our intolerance!?"

Really?

Really really?

Jesus.

Christ Krylo I can't speak for everyone oh what the hell I will go ahead and speak for absolutely anyone and everyone who jumped on him; who were doing so for 1. his two blanket "fuck all religion ever" paragraphs --

To this very moment, I feel such a passionate rage not only towards this person, but to the very words themselves. "Godless". That implies that the person who wrote this is religious. I've never liked religion...but now, at this point, I want it abolished. Religion is not only fiction, but the cause of all this hate to begin with. What's so wrong with being a homosexual? Nothing. It's not a choice. It's not a dysfunction. It's a natural occurrence. And some overzealous idiot thinks he/she has the right to express his/her ignorant views upon everyone else.

I honestly think the world would be a better place if this person had no rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if religion was abolished forever.

-- and the fact that his anger comes off as completely insincere given his well-established history (established in like a hundred and forty posts, natch) of telling anyone with an opinion on anything else to shut the fuck up because lol, internet. And because you know --

I mean the guy finally shows a modicum of respect for humanity, after you all dogpiled on him for defending misogynistic internet musicians, and he gets dogpiled again because he's, holy shit, a highschool atheist that doesn't like religion.

-- It's possibly just kind of hard to buy this sudden swerve toward defending the equal rights of homosexuals from the same guy who like three weeks ago was piping up proudly in defense of violence against women.

I mean like I said maybe he's a troll or maybe he just occupies one of the upper percentiles for teenage douchery but either way I really don't get why you think anyone would be inclined to respond to him by taking anything he says seriously.

[Krylo]

I would rather they just not respond to him, personally.

Maybe I'm getting old, but man, I'm just having trouble seeing the lulz and not just being painfully embarrassed for the whole thread.

[Osterbaum]

I would rather they just not respond to him, personally.
You mean people to Nightshine? Or do you mean Fifth?

[Krylo]

The former.

[Osterbaum]

I think everyone should be allowed more than one chance to learn to act proper on the forums etc. But there should be a limit to that ammount of chances.

That also translates to "I'm not sure who's right on this one".

[Krylo]

Well here's the thing.

You can either:

A) Be like this dude is an asshole and a troll, and then working on that assumption flame the shit out of him.

B) Be like this dude is an asshole and a troll, and then working on that assumption ignore the shit out of him.

Here's the problem--if you do A and are correct, you are doing exactly what he wants, and a troll getting what he wants never leaves. If you do A and are NOT correct you're just beating on some kid who doesn't know any better. And regardless of whether you're correct you end up looking like just as big a jack ass as him if not bigger in about 99% of cases.

Either way A is probably not a good choice.

If you do B and you are correct you are depriving the troll of his attention, and deprived of attention trolls quickly leave for greener pastures. If you do B and you are not correct the kid probably still wanders off, but you don't make yourselves look like jack asses in the process.

Like, a few people acting on A? Sure that's fine. No problem. It's gut instinct, not everyone can hold back.

But, again, 40 posts in two hours?

I just thought we were a little better than that.

[Kim]

Nightshine added me on instant messenger, and, you know what, he can be a pretty chill dude from time to time, and not a bad guy to just chat with or flit from topic to topic with. However, on this forum, he has created a very negative image of himself, and whether you agree with it or not, people are going to treat him differently based on the image he, himself, created. In this thread, he apologized for his behavior. That was very mature of him, and the moment he did people were pretty much instantly nicer to him. If he improves his behavior and shows that the apology was sincere, he will be treated much nicer in return, and I'm sure he knows this, and I'm sure I've said as much to him. If he does not, he will be continually treated the same as he was in this thread, and I honestly can not fault the forums for doing so.

[Ryanderman]

I mean the guy finally shows a modicum of respect for humanity, after you all dogpiled on him for defending misogynistic internet musicians, and he gets dogpiled again because he's, holy shit, a highschool atheist that doesn't like religion.
I'm not sure how I missed this earlier.

I really feel for the people of Darfur. They're in a really nasty situation, and they're just good people who don't deserve the genocide that's happening to them.

But man I hate the gays!Homosexuality should be abolished and gays should be locked up! It's disgusting and an abomination! But it's ok that I have this horribly bigoted view, because I've shown a modicum of respect to another segment of humanity!


Not sure that was the most clear analogy, but that's how I feel about the, "don't get mad at him for saying bad things about Christianity, because he's shown he can respect humanity when he wants to."

[Krylo]

Like I said, maybe I'm just getting old.

There was totally a time when I would have found this hilarious, but now it just embarrasses me.

Whatever.

I'm out (of this discussion).

Edit: P.S. Religions sucks.

[Mirai Gen]

If Nightshine's rule-breaking had been handled from the beginning like it should have I wouldn't have such a problem breaking rules to mock his ridiculousness, despite all efforts by the moderators (or just Meister) to keep him around for god-only-knows why.

Grapevine says he's LEAVING THE INTERNET FOREVER so maybe I don't have to care much anymore.

EDIT: Fifthfiend said, flat out, "I want to be conviced you're an okay poster so I'm going to give you two weeks to think about proving me wrong" or something. I mean come on.

[Nightshine]

This discussion has evolved quite nicely since the last 8 pages.

Yes, I'm a high school atheist. Yes, I say some pretty extreme things (religion should be abolished, insulting Kyanbu's rage, etc.). Yes, I created a pretty poor image for myself since day one. That's inexcusable.

However, since the time of which I joined this forum, I have essentially (as some people put it quite nicely) been "dogpiled" by many users of who have not agreed with my opinions or posting. This even went as far as to the music discussion, where I discussed maudlin of the Well (which turned into a huge debate by itself). This has been giving an unwelcome atmosphere.

However, like any high school kid, I do three things:

1. Learn
2. Mature
3. Try to fit in to the best of my ability.

And, I apologized. I'll also reiterate three things which are being misunderstood:


1. By "abolish religion", I meant to not recognize religion as a part of society or its needs, not "KILL ALL DA CHRISTIANZ GRR". Even then I was wrong.

2. I'm not for violence against women. Goddamn Fifth, I just found the whole D&B incident to be rather funny, ironic, internet humor, like everyone should.

3. I'm not a troll, I'm an idiot. An idiot who is trying not to be an idiot.


Do as you wish. You can think of me as you want to, for that is within your rights. However, I want basic respect, and I'm willing to give you exactly that back.


I also apologize to Kyanbu who I attacked without reason.

[Krylo]

I miss when it was about anarchy for like two pages.

That was pretty cool.

[Mirai Gen]

I also apologize to Kyanbu who I attacked without reason.

See this is a step in the right direction.

[Magic_Marker]

Okay, Imma be a hypocrite right now and say I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, Nightshine.

[Krylo]

Okay, Imma be a hypocrite right now and say I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, Nightshine.

Man, I thought you were cool, but now this?

Fuckin' hypocrites.

[shiney]

Alright so since we passed the part where everyone was all like having some kind of one-sided pow-wow I'm gonna go ahead and say the rage has essentially been vented and cut this one off at the knees.

If I'm wrong, well, I dunno. Suck it. But I think Nightshine is pretty severely aware that he's not acting in the kind of capacity we expect from our members (like, Night, to the point whereby I'm not kidding if you don't really start reading over your posts and analyzing your tone prior to hitting 'submit', you might be reading messages explaining why you've been banned), and I think others are becoming more aware that feeding into it is certainly not acceptable.

So.