Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:26 pm UTC

i mean yes, i could imagine a completely and utterly different scenario than the one described, but i don't find it particularly useful to do so.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:40 pm UTC

Gentrification is ironic considering that the "original" locals had already replaced the prior "original" locals, who had displaced the "original" locals and so forth all the way back to the native American genocides.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:42 pm UTC

The community is tight-knit because that's what it took to survive here. If you choose to move in, then refuse to be a part of that community, and though your own actions harm that community, don't expect a very positive reaction.

Think about this another way: If you don't care and look out for your community, don't expect them to care and look out for you.

Again, it's not that the community itself goes out of their way to tag/steal stuff from that property, but they also don't go out of their way to prevent it.

The community doesn't rob or tag itself. Rule one of the hood: you don't rob your own hood.

Ninja: Corruptuser

Gentrification isn't just moving into a place. It's moving into a place then refusing to be a part of the existing community in that place, hoping to replace it with your own idea of what that place should be.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:46 pm UTC

(ninja'd; @natraj) how is the scenario you described different, other than the (presumed) race swap?

it sounds like you're talking about a person who moves into a place, minds their own business, has crimes wrongful acts committed against them by "members of the community", receives no support from other "members of the community" against those attacks, and then turns to someone outside that "community", the police, for help, for which you villify them.

it sounds like you're saying the rightful courses of action that person should take are, first, don't fucking move in where you don't belong motherfucker; second, suck it up and deal with it; third, ingratiate yourself with the very community you need protection from, for their protection, from themselves. but under no circumstances turn to anyone for help except your attackers, if you turn to anyone for help at all and don't just let yourself be attacked or else gtfo.

if that's not what you're describing, please explain how it's different.
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:47 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:the people who live around me -- not my community, because i don't involve myself with them -- are a bunch of fucking redneck assholes, most of them probably racists. now imagine a black person moves into this community and is ostracized and has their home vandalized because they don't "be part of the community", don't want to go down and drink at the bar with the rednecks, but just keeps to themselves, does their job, and minds their own fucking business. and then, if this black person has the fucking GALL to call the cops when the white fucking hicks around him commit crimes against him, the whites get all pissy about it.

parochialism like this is just a smaller scale form of nationalism, and every bit as disgusting. mind your own fucking business, leave your neighbors alone, and don't be surprised if they go looking for outside help if you and your fucking posse get up in their shit.
There's a lot to unpack, here, but I just want to point out that I think it's worth contemplating your decision to project "probably racist" onto a bunch of people you dislike because they're "redneck assholes".

I'm not saying you're wrong; it's quite possible that every single one of them is racist as fuck! But I think it might be telling that you're dismissing the validity of a group based on what they might be rather than what they are.

Also, calling the cops on a group of people who are actively terrifying you is regrettable but understandable; I'm not going to judge anyone who calls the police to protect themselves from direct and immediate violence. I've had to do this myself! It feels awful, it's dangerous, it sucks, but your only alternative is to literally let someone kill you.

But calling the police because their music is too loud? Or because they're obnoxious? Or because they're littering? Unless you really know the police well enough in the area to know how they'll respond, you're putting people directly in harm's way because you're irritated with them. You're putting their life in danger because you don't like their behavior.

This is absolutely terrible, and not something you should ever do.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:50 pm UTC

the "probably racist" about the fucking rednecks who live around me is because I don't know 100% of the individuals in question but I do know with 100% certainty that a significant number of them are explicitly racist. I'm even white myself, and I've have racist insults hurled at me by the white power assholes in response to completely un-race related conflicts. (e.g. I once complained to someone about smoking in a place they're not allowed, and was called a "white n****r" [which I've since learned is code for "jew"] and "race traitor" for my efforts). so I don't know that absolutely all of the hicks chugging beers and watching football at the bar down the street are racists, but I'd put high odds on any random one of them being, because a bunch of them definitely are, and the rest are apparently okay enough with that to hang out with them.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:56 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:the "probably racist" about the fucking rednecks who live around me is because I don't know 100% of the individuals in question but I do know with 100% certainty that a significant number of them are explicitly racist. I'm even white myself, and I've have racists insults hurled at my by the white power assholes in response to completely un-race related conflicts. (e.g. I once complained to someone about smoking in a place they're not allowed, and was called a "white n****r" [which I've since learned is code for "jew"] and "race traitor" for my efforts).
If you've actually seen expressions of racism, that's fair, then; the choice of "probably racist" over "many of whom are racist" is what made me think we were talking about hypothetical racists who existed purely to justify calling the police on them and possibly getting them murdered. But, I mean, yeah, if they're throwing stuff like that around, it seems very clear!

I don't feel a particularly strong desire to protect communities steeped in racism from harm (I don't feel a particularly strong desire to inflict harm on them, either!); that being said, my point in regards to when you should call the police still stands. Unless you know how the police are going to respond, you are putting people in harm's way. You should make that decision with that knowledge in mind.

ETA: To be clear, not just physical harm, but harm by being thrown into prison, etc. I'm not saying it's never right to call the police, but calling the police means putting people in danger, and you need to consider that. If you're in danger, maybe you have to take that risk; I definitely understand doing so! But if you're not in any danger? You're prioritizing your comfort over the life of someone else.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:04 am UTC

I'll repeat: If you don't care for your community*, don't be surprised when they don't care for you. I will note again that it's not that neighbors are going out of their way sabotaging this couple's house (that I know of), it's more that they won't stick out their neck to make sure some delinquent teen doesn't spray initials on their house.

*When you move into a place, you are moving into a community, weather you like it or not.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:13 am UTC

freezeblade wrote:I'll repeat: If you don't care for your community*, don't be surprised when they don't care for you. I will note again that it's not that neighbors are going out of their way sabotaging this couple's house (that I know of), it's more that they won't stick out their neck to make sure some delinquent teen doesn't spray initials on their house.

*When you move into a place, you are moving into a community, weather you like it or not.
To be fair, I've been part of communities that don't want me there regardless of how much I care. I've certainly been part of communities hostile to my very existence!

I think that, for the most part, you owe it to your community to be a positive contributing member -- up until it becomes painfully clear that your community doesn't really give a fuck about you. Then, it's fine to just focus on things like survival.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:20 am UTC

I don't expect the people of a place I just happen to live at to particularly care for me, if I'm not particularly caring for them, which I probably won't be because I'll be keeping to myself like I always do no matter where I am.

I do expect them to keep to themselves with regards to me in the same respect, however. If someone's teen is vandalizing my house or breaking into my car or something, I expect everyone to care enough about to exercise whatever authority they might have over the kid to stop it. (e.g. parents to punish them). That's basic human decency you need to extend even to total strangers, that's not some kind of respect that has to be earned by joining your social club.

If that's not happening, or it's adults not even extending that basic strangers level of respect to not actively attack me, and the other adults don't care enough about even preventing that conflict to do anything about it, without me having to buy my way into the simple decency everyone is entitled to with some kind of stupid tribal social games, and there's someone else who will do something about it, then I'll calling that someone else, and at that point I don't give a fuck if they're you're enemy and you're going to get deep shit for running into them, because by that point you've declared yourself my enemy so I don't give a shit about you anymore.

I'm not saying that police brutality and misconduct and the shit that is our legal system is justified in response to low-level shit like vandalism, but that if my only options are to lie down and take the attacks, or let someone else defend me, at that point I don't particularly care about the injustices against my attackers. I care about the injustices on an institutional level, and want them to not happen to anyone at all, but if in a personal conflict I have to choose between being someone's victim or them being someone else's victim, of fucking course I pick the latter.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:27 am UTC

I'm sorry that you have had bad experiences with communities you reside in, Pfhorrest. That hypothetical has not been my experience in this neighborhood, nor any I have lived in. Each has it's own pace, involvement level, and sense of justice/expectations. Either way, calling the cops because "noise" (when you live spitting distance to the main train yard, commuter rail track, and freeway) or "loitering" on the poor homeless guy who lives in his tent by the tracks*, is not going to engender you to the community at large.

This is not what you've done, and if your as-described presence was in my neighborhood, you'd likely get the standard level of care that is given to people in the community (in the case of a tagger, if they were heard, someone would likely chase them off or yell at them to scare them away).

*Especially when it's generally accepted that his presence generally keeps down crime, and he upkeeps the little grassy park which the city has abandoned due to lack of funds.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:28 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not saying that police brutality and misconduct and the shit that is our legal system is justified in response to low-level shit like vandalism, but that if my only options are to lie down and take the attacks, or let someone else defend me, at that point I don't particularly care about the injustices against my attackers. I care about the injustices on an institutional level, and want them to not happen to anyone at all, but if in a personal conflict I have to choose between being someone's victim or them being someone else's victim, of fucking course I pick the latter.
I guess I'm confused because you seem to have moved seamlessly from 'kid vandalizing my house' to the language of 'being someone's victim'. Like -- yes, if someone in your community is victimizing you, the police might be your only call, especially if the community has failed to address this in any way (I've been in this situation! I know how much that sucks, and I'm deeply sympathetic to people facing similar circumstances!).

But if a kid is vandalizing your house with spraypaint? Like, uh. Unless we're talking about some broader campaign of terror here (like, is this happening regularly? Is it part of an effort to terrify or eject you from the community? Or is it literally just a kid who painted a picture of penises on the side of your house?), you aren't a victim, and calling the police on the kid is an inherently dangerous act that may in fact ruin the kid's entire life.

And if that happens? Yes, that makes you responsible. Yes, that is a terrible thing you've done. Yes, that is morally reprehensible. Yes, that makes you a terrible person.

ETA: Edited, because I probably should refrain from judging the moral value of a person who might just be oblivious to the consequences of their actions. Let me amend this to say that if you do this knowing fully well what the consequences might be, that would make you terrible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:37 am UTC

One piece of advice that I've heard is that you shouldn't use police in any situation in which you wouldn't use a gun.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:38 am UTC

Some kid spraypainting a penis on my house is not a big crime, true; but also, having some kind of recourse against it shouldn't be something that I have to buy my way into by "becoming part of the community" (by shopping at the right stores? nobody has explained what that phrase means yet, besides that). That's my main point. There's a decent level of respect that is owed to everyone, even total strangers, and I'm upset at the implications that introverts who keep to themselves and so are largely strangers to the people who live around them don't deserve any kind of recourse against attacks against them. And yes, spraypainting someone's house is a kind of attack, if a very small one. If there less-escalated forms of recourse available, like talking to the kid's parents, then of course those are preferable. But if all of those have been withheld for petty tribal reasons, and the only recourse is the police -- that's the community's fault for creating that situation. Any misconduct on the part of the police isn't their fault, but they're responsible for putting someone in the position where the only thing they can do is either just be victimized or else deploy the nuclear option.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:45 am UTC

Thesh wrote:One piece of advice that I've heard is that you shouldn't use police in any situation in which you wouldn't use a gun.
That's probably a good way to think of it, yeah.

And it's probably telling that there are plenty of people in America who would pull a gun on a kid spray-painting penises on the side of their house.
Phforrest wrote:Some kid spraypainting a penis on my house is not a big crime, true; but also, having some kind of recourse against it shouldn't be something that I have to buy my way into by "becoming part of the community" (by shopping at the right stores? nobody has explained what that phrase means yet, besides that). That's my main point.
I mean, sure; I agree, we should all live in a society where we can expect not to have penises spray-painted on the sides of our houses.
Phforrest wrote:And yes, spraypainting someone's house is a kind of attack, if a very small one.
Vandalizing property is not an attack. Houses aren't people.
Phforrest wrote:But if all of those have been withheld for petty tribal reasons, and the only recourse is the police -- that's the community's fault for creating that situation. Any misconduct on the part of the police isn't their fault, but they're responsible for putting someone in the position where the only thing they can do is either just be victimized or else deploy the nuclear option.
I'm struggling not to be too mean-spirited here, but I don't think I can sufficiently emphasize just how cowardly I find this position to be.

Also, can you please cut it out with the whole 'vandalizing my property means I've been victimized' rhetoric? It's kind of insensitive to people who have, y'know. Actually been victimized.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:02 am UTC

What exactly is the recourse for someone tagging their initials on your house? You move on and cover it up with paint. If you live in a type of neighborhood that is rife with tagging (as in this example), having to toss some paint over an area of wall every once in a while is expected. By not covering it up, you're letting the tagger's work be seen, which is exactly what they want, and if you don't cover it up pretty quick, taggers-at-large will take that as a the owner not caring and you'll likely get tagged more often.

Edit: I should note that if you're renting, the landlord likely knows that it must be covered up quickly, and will likely cover it for you if you toss him an e-mail or text (Unless they are super-shitty, in which case you should probably move, as they are unlikely to fix any problem that arises).
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:23 am UTC

Attacks on a person’s property are not as bad as attacks on their body but they are still attacks on that person. People work hard to get and maintain the things they use in their lives and taking or destroying those things forces the victim (and yes they fucking are a victim, we’re talking a difference of scale not of kind) to either just suffer the loss inflicted upon them or else instead suffer a further loss of their time and effort working to replace it. If you slash the tires of my car then of course that’s not as bad as cutting off my legs but it still makes it a lot harder for me to get places causing me to suffer and then I have to spend days of work to get the money to stop suffering that loss continually (if I can even get to work anymore at all). It is still an attack, it still causes suffering, and the victim is still a victim.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:46 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:If you slash the tires of my car then of course that’s not as bad as cutting off my legs but it still makes it a lot harder for me to get places causing me to suffer and then I have to spend days of work to get the money to stop suffering that loss continually (if I can even get to work anymore at all). It is still an attack, it still causes suffering, and the victim is still a victim.
Damaging your means to get to work and support yourself -- to survive -- is different than vandalizing the exterior of your home. Slashing tires is also an intrinsically violent act; it signals a willingness to do violence to achieve your ends. It's a threat. It's scary in ways spray-painting penises on the side of someone's house just isn't.

The notion that vandalizing property is equivalent to an assault or an attack on the owner is a notion steeped in capitalism. It's the idea that property is an extension of you; that any piece of property is of comparable value to human life. I can think of nothing more capitalistic, and certainly nothing more anti-anarchistic.

If you genuinely believe spray-painting penises on a house is an attack on the owner -- and that the failure of a community to prevent vandalism means that it's okay to call the police on a teenager and potentially get them killed ("Look, I know your son is dead, but you gave me zero choice here! Maybe next time you have a kid you'll think about teaching them some boundaries so I don't have to have the police murder him."), then I'm going to go out on a limb and say you ain't actually an anarchist.

Unless you're an anarcho-capitalist. But we don't talk about them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:42 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The notion that vandalizing property is equivalent to an assault or an attack on the owner is a notion steeped in capitalism.


"Keep the fuck off of my property or I will murder you" is pretty much universal in nature, and with a few notable exceptions animals aren't Capitalistic by any means.

However, I'm quite sure that Necessity is a valid defense for property crimes amongst humans, and I'm quite sure that property rights are usually subordinate to life and freedom.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:45 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:44 am UTC

So someone sprays ink on you, and the only harm it does is now you don’t look like you want to look. Harmless? Not assault?

Property very much is an extension of you. I am a mind, and my body is my most important possession, crucial to my survival and ability to do anything in the world. My clothes, my home, my vehicle, all of my things are extensions of that utility in surviving and doing things.

Believing in property isn’t anti-anarchic or anarcho-capitalist or capitalist at all. Capitalism comes in when one person claims the right to control someone else’s property, like their home, etc, which is bad for the same reason that claiming a right to control someone else’s body is, i.e slavery. Just having security in your stuff is the opposite of that, if anything; like having security in your own body.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:51 am UTC

The idea of Socialism is that your property rights don't extend to much more than your own personal living space, not that there are no property rights at all (though some seem to be of this mindset). The big issue is where there is a means of production that requires multiple people to operate; should it be owned by one person or should everyone involved in the production in some manner collectively own it?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:57 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:"Keep the fuck off of my property or I will murder you" is pretty much universal in nature, and with a few notable exceptions animals aren't Capitalistic by any means.
This is, of course, irrelevant.
Phforrest wrote:So someone sprays ink on you, and the only harm it does is now you don’t look like you want to look. Harmless? Not assault?
Do you need me to explain to you the literal difference between spray-painting a wall and spray-painting a human being?
Phforrest wrote:Property very much is an extension of you. I am a mind, and my body is my most important possession, crucial to my survival and ability to do anything in the world. My clothes, my home, my vehicle, all of my things are extensions of that utility in surviving and doing things.

Believing in property isn’t anti-anarchic or anarcho-capitalist or capitalist at all. Capitalism comes in when one person claims the right to control someone else’s property, like their home, etc, which is bad for the same reason that claiming a right to control someone else’s body is, i.e slavery. Just having security in your stuff is the opposite of that, if anything; like having security in your own body.
No, what you're arguing right now is capitalism. For example, pro-capitalists will often argue that to deprive someone of property is tantamount to a physical violation; taxes are theft, taxes are slavery, etc.

I'm not really sure how to engage with you in a way that's polite and productive. You don't appear to understand what capitalism and anarchism are; you also seem to think that spray-painting a penis on a house is in some sense equivalent to physical assault (this is a typical pro-capitalistic position; that property is an extension of personhood, and that an assault on my property should be treated as a direct assault on my person). Furthermore, you think that it's reasonable to call police on kids who spray-paint dicks on walls if the parents fail to take responsible actions to stop them (even if the end result is that the police will murder all the kids).

In short, you seem to think that murdering teenagers is okay when the only alternative is that you'll have to deal with a painted dick on your wall.

You don't sound like an anarchist? You don't even sound leftist or liberal; you just sound like a radical libertarian conservative. That isn't meant as an insult; I'm just trying to get across to you that you shouldn't describe yourself as an anarchist unless you actually have anarchist values (like an opposition to capitalism -- which you clearly don't have).

ETA: Maybe you're an anarcho-capitalist? From what I understand, they're a blend between extreme libertarianism and anarchism. When people say 'anarchist', though, they pretty much never mean 'anarcho-capitalist'; anarcho-capitalists use the term 'anarchist' very differently from your typical anarchist.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:14 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:12 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:"Keep the fuck off of my property or I will murder you" is pretty much universal in nature, and with a few notable exceptions animals aren't Capitalistic by any means.
This is, of course, irrelevant.


Not really. You are claiming that property rights are Capitalistic. I'm pointing out that property rights are not only virtually universal, but exist in places that couldn't even remotely be considered Capitalistic by any stretch of the imagination.


The Great Hippo wrote:For example, pro-capitalists will often argue that to deprive someone of their property is tantamount to a physical violation; taxes are theft, taxes are slavery, etc.


True it's usually a stupid argument, but isn't always. It depends upon what you are getting for your taxes. A Roman legion having sacked your city and then demanding tribute in the form of 20% of your GDP every year or else is very much tantamount to slavery. Being asked by a system that you are enfranchised in to give up 40% of your income in exchange for better roads and schools and infrastructure that'll make you even filthier stinkier rich is absolutely not slavery.


The Great Hippo wrote:Furthermore, you think it's not at all irresponsible to call police on kids who spray-paint dicks on walls even if those police will brutally murder those kids, because "their parents should have known better".


It depends on your neighborhood. If you know the cops are murder-beasts in your area, it's absolutely irresponsible to use them in any situation where you wouldn't normally use deadly force. But there are questionable cases, especially when you have cops that are a few grades above a death squad but still no exactly wearing kid gloves. What do you do when you have a guy screaming sexual profanities at a group of eight year old girls*, should you call the cops then? What if you have a business that depends upon your customers not being constantly harassed/hassled or your property defaced; your inability to generate revenue means less money for schools and so forth, does it not, and while not a direct injury it still can cause you and the rest of society actual, measurable harm? If I recall correctly, Pforrest was recently scammed out of $2000 or so, and while the police were utterly worthless in that case, was it wrong of him to go to the cops in the first place?


*an actual story I was discussing a short while ago, long story short the police said "what the fuck do you want us to do about it", because they were utterly worthless

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:20 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Not really. You are claiming that property rights are Capitalistic. I'm pointing out that property rights are not only virtually universal, but exist in places that couldn't even remotely be considered Capitalistic by any stretch of the imagination.
Animals do not have property rights. Animals do not believe in property rights. Animals do not enforce property rights. Animals protect their territory, which is defined as 'everything I want to define as my territory'. This includes things that are in your territory (because animals are dicks who do not acknowledge property rights).

The fact that I even have to point this out is a little frustrating? Given your past history, I'm presuming you're not genuinely trying to troll me, here -- but this still feels like you're trolling. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding or something, and that you do genuinely understand that property rights are actually just a thing that human beings made up.

If you don't understand that property rights are just a thing that human beings made up, then we can stop here; I'm not prepared to have a discussion about property rights with someone who doesn't understand property rights.
CorruptUser wrote:It depends on your neighborhood. If you know the cops are murder-beasts in your area, it's absolutely irresponsible to use them in any situation where you wouldn't normally use deadly force. But there are questionable cases, especially when you have cops that are a few grades above a death squad but still no exactly wearing kid gloves. What do you do when you have a guy screaming sexual profanities at a group of eight year old girls*, should you call the cops then? What if you have a business that depends upon your customers not being constantly harassed/hassled or your property defaced; your inability to generate revenue means less money for schools and so forth, does it not, and while not a direct injury it still can cause you and the rest of society actual, measurable harm? If I recall correctly, Pforrest was recently scammed out of $2000 or so, and while the police were utterly worthless in that case, was it wrong of him to go to the cops in the first place?
This is why I qualified my statement with "even though you know the police might brutally murder those kids".

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:25 am UTC

Yeah apparently hippo doesn't understand shit outside of his narrow view of what anarchosocialism means so i'm done here, go ahead and call me a baby murderer if you want but 'doing nothing' is not an acceptable response to someone defacing decades worth of hard work even if it only takes a few days work to undo, and if all lesser responses are going to be denied then i'm going with whatever the least nonzero response is available and if you force that to be the police then that's on you, you should have been more responsive to lesser responses.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 am UTC

Also apparently hippo hasn't seen my lonwinded furious rants against capitalism all over the rest of these forums.

Ancaps hate me so im definitely not one of them.

Property alone does not constitute capitalism.

You get that i was saying things like CHARGING RENT are like slavery, right? Capitalism is like slavery in that one person owns something the other person is using to live, like their body, or their home, or their means of production.

Jesus why the fuck do i even bother
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:33 am UTC

Im sorry your son is dead maam but you left me no choice

I tried talking to him politely but he just called me a beta cucktard n****rf****t

I tried yelling at him but he just laughed at me

i asked you to do something about it but you declined

i tried deterring him from it myself with intimations of violence but then your husband threatened to shoot me if i did that again

at that point i had no choice but to call the cops

And im truly sorry for what they did then but MAYBE YOU SHOULD FUCKING CONTROL YOUR BRAT WHEN ANOTHER ADULT ASKS POLITELY INSTEAD OF LETTING IT GET TO THIS POINT
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:38 am UTC

Thesh wrote:A structured justice system does not require codification - look at how civil law works and look into restorative justice.
Civil law is very much codified. It's just not codified the same way. But in any case, if people disagree on what is right (I can take your stuff, right, because, well, I want it), the priciples by which the dispute is to be settled are written down. It still has to be enforced, unless people will just magically agree.

freezeblade wrote:If you choose to move in, then refuse to be a part of that community, and though your own actions harm that community, don't expect a very positive reaction.
Who gets to decide what "harms" the community? And what if that community is harming the neighboring community? Sure, shoot dope all you want, but when your needles are showing up on my beach downstream, there's an issue.

freezeblade wrote:Rule one of the hood: you don't rob your own hood.
Sounds very mafioso to me.

responding to Pfhorrest, The Great Hippo wrote:There's a lot to unpack, here, but I just want to point out that I think it's worth contemplating your decision to project "probably racist" onto a bunch of people you dislike because they're "redneck assholes".
Well gee, this whole subthread started because Thesh claimed that 100% (literally) of cops are Bad, I disagreed, and the race card got played pretty much right away: "Cops exist solely to subjugate black people." Yes, the country has been racist, it got better, and then Trump came along and made America hate again. But still, that's not the purpose of cops. But in any case, the race card comes in all suits; why not "redneck assholes"?

ibid, The Great Hippo wrote:But calling the police because their music is too loud? [...] Unless you really know the police well enough in the area to know how they'll respond...
That's the key. If you're in a nice neighborhood, calling the police for noise is probably quite safe. If you're in a nasty neighborhood, it's probably not. It shouldn't be that way however. But it's also understandable. Also, one needs to consider what the likely response would be of knocking on the person's door and personally telling them to tone it down. If that's a dangerous act, then it's a job for police (if it needs to be done at all).

And just for the record, "nice" and "nasty" don't mean "white" and "black", they mean "peaceful" and "violent".
Spoiler:
You can argue about why a neighborhood is violent, but that's a different question.
freezeblade wrote:What exactly is the recourse for someone tagging their initials on your house? You move on and cover it up with paint.
Uh... no. People shouldn't have to accept having their homes vandalized. It shouldn't merit the death penalty, but it does need to be stopped. At least IMHO.

The Great Hippo wrote:The notion that vandalizing property is equivalent to an assault or an attack on the owner is a notion steeped in capitalism.
So? You've given it a label. Good on you. It's still a crime, and people shouldn't have to put up with it. And in addition to the actual damage done to the property, there is also the dominance that is being enforced by the tagger. That's pretty big too.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:40 am UTC

Yeah Pfhorrest, blame the parents when police (who you called) kill their kids. That definitely makes us sympathetic to your perspective here.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:41 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Yeah apparently hippo doesn't understand shit outside of his narrow view of what anarchosocialism means so i'm done here, go ahead and call me a baby murderer if you want but 'doing nothing' is not an acceptable response to someone defacing decades worth of hard work even if it only takes a few days work to undo, and if all lesser responses are going to be denied then i'm going with whatever the least nonzero response is available and if you force that to be the police then that's on you, you should have been more responsive to lesser responses.
I didn't call you a baby-murderer, and I don't think you're pro-murdering babies!

I've been trying to be polite about this and challenge your perspective as honestly as I can; I'm trying to reserve judgement, but I also can't work around the fact that you are objectively wrong in regards to what you think constitutes anarchism and capitalism (like, I'm not making this up; this isn't a narrow perspective of mine -- I have actually studied this stuff! Capitalism has a definition, as does anarchism, and you're not apparently abiding by those definitions -- at all?).

I also can't work around the fact that I find your position in regards to putting people at risk for the sake of property -- then claiming you are not responsible for that risk because you saw no alternative -- to be cowardly. I mean -- it is pretty cowardly! At the very least, you need to accept that the actions you take have consequences. Even if you think it's worth the risk, you can't act like it's completely out of your hands -- it was your decision to call the police. Own it.

Like, you're just flat-out saying that you're okay with potentially killing a teenager if the only alternative is to have a dong painted on the side of your house. That isn't even contentious; I'm not straw-manning you or misrepresenting you -- that's literally your position! You also think that this isn't... an extremely pro-capitalist position? Like, if I were looking for a textbook example of capitalism, this would be it! Capitalism thinks that the loss of value from defacing property can be concretely compared to the loss of a human life!

I don't wish you any ill-will, and I hope you change your mind on this. I think your position here is pretty horrible, gross, pro-capitalist garbage -- but I don't think that makes you garbage. Heck, I can remember plenty of times when I held some pretty horrible, gross positions myself; eventually, I realized they were garbage and changed them. I'm hoping the same happens for you.
Phforrest wrote:Also apparently hippo hasn't seen my lonwinded furious rants against capitalism all over the rest of these forums.
Ranting about capitalism being bad doesn't mean you can't hold terrible pro-capitalist positions. :/

Anyway, good luck; I hope this conversation doesn't stress you out (but I also hope you change your mind and abandon this really awful position).
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:44 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:44 am UTC

I dont give a fuck for anyone elses sympayhy at this point

Also hippo you get that the ink thing was in dirct response to you sugesting that the slashed tires are bad because of the level of violence, so i brought up a less-violent analogue between bodily and property assault

Heres another, even less violent:

Someone is aleays sneaking into you bedroom at night, violating the privacy of your home

Someone is always grabbing at your butt and crotch, violating the privacy of your body

No harm done in either case, as in no lasting damage, but its someone doing something you dont want in your private space and so still wrong. The bodily one is still worse, ofmcourse, but the creeper inyour bedroom is still wrong
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:46 am UTC

Also i have also studied anarchism and capitalism. I have a defree in philosphy ffs. You are wrong about the narrowness of their definitions and im too sick of this to elaborate further on why. Yes ancaps are not generally considered anarchists, but i am not one. I am weird for a socialist, but 100% not a capitalist and you are just factually wrong if you think property alone constitutes it, or is enough to be nonanarchist.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:49 am UTC

I am not an ancap i mean
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:52 am UTC

Okay, let's slow down here for a moment, because I'm definitely getting the feeling that you feel like you're under attack. Maybe that's my fault? I mean, okay; it almost certainly is my fault. I shouldn't have used a word like 'cowardly' (in my defense, it is something I perceive as cowardly, but I could definitely have found a better way to phrase it; I should also qualify that what I find cowardly about it isn't the act itself, but the refusal to accept that you're responsible for the consequences that might emerge from calling the police). I also said that I think this makes you a terrible person in a previous post -- I went back and immediately crossed that out, but it was still there.

Phforrest, I don't think you're an awful person, and I don't mean this as an attack on you or anything like that. I just think you are extremely wrong on this. I don't think being extremely wrong on this means you are terrible; I also think people are extremely wrong on a lot of things. The examples you just gave (someone sneaking into your room, someone grabbing your crotch, etc) -- these are all examples of terrifying behavior that are many, many times removed from the act of painting a dong on the side of someone's house.

What makes them awful isn't that property is being defaced, but that people are being treated as property (well, among other things). But those examples are definitely not at all equivalent to a dong painted on the side of a house (as I'm sure people who have experienced them will happily tell you).

(Also, I don't think property alone constitutes a definition of anarchism, or capitalism? You're saying a lot of things that I think are irrelevant or confusing. If you want, I can just leave this be for now.)
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:53 am UTC

We all know you don't identify as a capitalist, Pfhorrest. That's why this bizarre "things I paid for are part of my person" capitalist position you hold is strange for some of us. Your "I will enlist state violence to maybe kill your kids if they draw a dick on my house" is similarly confusing for everyone who saw you claim to be an anarchist.

And having a philosophy degree doesn't make you an expert in any particular area of philosophy. In any case, I also have a philosophy degree and I think your definitions are bullshit.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:53 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The fact that I even have to point this out is a little frustrating? Given your past history, I'm presuming you're not genuinely trying to troll me, here -- but this still feels like you're trolling. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding or something, and that you do genuinely understand that property rights are actually just a thing that human beings made up.


Not trolling at all, I just don't believe humans are nearly as unique as we believe. If you wish to view this as one of my kookier quirks, go ahead.

While animals may not be as smart as us, probably, many do have "human" qualities such as music, culture, tool use, language, playing, personality, and the more inhuman qualities such as war, rape, and murder. Morality itself is not intrinsically a human quality, as moral systems can indeed arise naturally; a huge point of contention between atheists and the religious folks who insist that moral must have come from a divine source. While the morals and rights of animals may be far more primitive and alien than our own, that is not to say they don't exist for any animals at all. A dog, for instance, may only have the simple morals along the lines of "don't pee inside the house because I don't want to be squirted with water", but this is still a moral system and while it ranks as stage one in the Lawrence Kohlberg theory it still ranks on there.

As for property rights, if we use the generally accepted definition of "property" as "that which you exercise exclusion over", the territorial 'rights' that animals fight over most definitely fits as property rights, even if that right is less "all bears have the inalienable right to private territory" and more "oh shit that bear is meaner than me, I better stay away". Anyone who works with dogs, for instance, knows they "own" squeaky toys, which are property other than territory itself. Property they sometimes share with other dogs, other times exercise exclusion over. So yes, property rights exist in extremely non-capitalistic settings, and yes, I actually believe that property rights are not something that only human beings made up.

This is not an endorsement of property rights. While I believe property rights should exist, I am very much against the naturalistic fallacy and don't believe they should exist merely because they exist in nature.

Pfhorrest wrote:Heres another, even less violent:

Someone is aleays sneaking into you bedroom at night, violating the privacy of your home

Someone is always grabbing at your butt and crotch, violating the privacy of your body

No harm done in either case, as in no lasting damage, but its someone doing something you dont want in your private space and so still wrong. The bodily one is still worse, ofmcourse, but the creeper inyour bedroom is still wrong


Actually, no. In both cases, those do create psychological harm. Extreme, in some cases. And I can tell you, psychological damage is far, far worse than physical damage.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:19 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Not trolling at all, I just don't believe humans are nearly as unique as we believe. If you wish to view this as one of my kookier quirks, go ahead.

While animals may not be as smart as us, probably, many do have "human" qualities such as music, culture, tool use, language, playing, personality, and the more inhuman qualities such as war, rape, and murder. Morality itself is not intrinsically a human quality, as moral systems can indeed arise naturally; a huge point of contention between atheists and the religious folks who insist that moral must have come from a divine source. While the morals and rights of animals may be far more primitive and alien than our own, that is not to say they don't exist for any animals at all. A dog, for instance, may only have the simple morals along the lines of "don't pee inside the house because I don't want to be squirted with water", but this is still a moral system and while it ranks as stage one in the Lawrence Kohlberg theory it still ranks on there.

As for property rights, if we use the generally accepted definition of "property" as "that which you exercise exclusion over", the territorial 'rights' that animals fight over most definitely fits as property rights, even if that right is less "all bears have the inalienable right to private territory" and more "oh shit that bear is meaner than me, I better stay away". Anyone who works with dogs, for instance, knows they "own" squeaky toys, which are property other than territory itself. Property they sometimes share with other dogs, other times exercise exclusion over. So yes, property rights exist in extremely non-capitalistic settings, and yes, I actually believe that property rights are not something that only human beings made up.

This is not an endorsement of property rights. While I believe property rights should exist, I am very much against the naturalistic fallacy and don't believe they should exist merely because they exist in nature.
A 'right' is a moral and/or legal entitlement. Fighting over territory isn't fighting for your rights; animals aren't "owed" their territory by morality or some legal entity. If what you're saying is that a vague model for property rights exists in nature, or that we can trace the evolution of property rights from animals fighting over territory to governments providing a right to property, then sure; I can see that.

But otherwise, no: animals don't have, acknowledge, enforce, or otherwise interact with property rights.

It feels really weird to have to type that sentence out.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:17 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Okay, let's slow down here for a moment, because I'm definitely getting the feeling that you feel like you're under attack. Maybe that's my fault? I mean, okay; it almost certainly is my fault. I shouldn't have used a word like 'cowardly' (in my defense, it is something I perceive as cowardly, but I could definitely have found a better way to phrase it; I should also qualify that what I find cowardly about it isn't the act itself, but the refusal to accept that you're responsible for the consequences that might emerge from calling the police). I also said that I think this makes you a terrible person in a previous post -- I went back and immediately crossed that out, but it was still there.

Phforrest, I don't think you're an awful person, and I don't mean this as an attack on you or anything like that.

I have been feeling under attack, but not just because of you. i've been running around between the shitty laundromat full of smokers and the shitty trailer park where i live because other people own the things that i need to live off of, and trying to continue this conversation on a shitty phone keyboard while doing so, which is making it feel a lot worse.

i do appreciate how polite you are trying to be with all of this and i'm sorry i'm being so angry in response. i'm angry outside of this conversation already and its just spilling over mostly.

i really don't want to continue this conversation but i feel compelled to.

The examples you just gave (someone sneaking into your room, someone grabbing your crotch, etc) -- these are all examples of terrifying behavior that are many, many times removed from the act of painting a dong on the side of someone's house.

Which bring us back to the analogy of someone throwing ink on you. Though I guess that's more analogous to someone throwing paint on your house. A better analogy is someone draws a dong on your face while you're asleep, in some ink that's as difficult to remove or cover up as paint is on a house. It's just a drawing of a dong in either case, what's the harm in that? (that's rhetorical) I agree 100% that there is more harm in it being on your face than on your house, but not that there is zero harm in it being on your house, or that doing absolutely nothing in response to that is an acceptable thing to ask of someone.

External property is not as sacred as your body, but it's also not nothing, and attacking something that belongs to someone is still attacking them. If that weren't the case, then the slashed tires or the creeper in your bedroom would be harmless; they're not doing anything to your body, only your property, right? But they're not harmless, and neither is defacing your house, though defacing your house is less harmful than either of those. I'm not trying to die on this dong-on-your-house hill, but that was the example that was given, and it's still a part of the general principle of doing something to someone's stuff -- the stuff that they use, their possessions or personal property even if not their private property as some anarchosocialists like to make a distinction, one that doesn't matter to me here but the point is it's not about capitalist ownership -- is still an attack on them.

You should do as little as possible to undo the harm and prevent further harm, but you should do something or else you are just saying that what was done was fine and deserves no redress. There absolutely should be low-violence means available, but if all of those means get taken off the table by the other side of the conflict, then they are escalating the conflict. If it gets escalated to police involvement, they did that by taking all the more reasonable means of resolution off the table. If the ultimatum you give someone is "shut up and take it, unless you wanna call the pigs", don't be surprised if they call the pigs!

And I'm not calling specifically for state intervention here, and I would greatly prefer if there was a non-state force to appeal to. But if the other side keeps escalating the conflict eventually one of two things is going to happen, either the stronger of the two sides will physically beat or kill the other (or else credibly threaten them with that until they cave), or some kind of social institution will eventually step in and resolve the conflict. And if no non-state social institution exists or will help, and there's a state police force there who will, that's where it's going to end up. And that's unfortunate, but the fault for that is on the party who keeps escalating the conflict, instead of just, say, fixing the harm their kid did and withholding privileges from the kid in punishment, when asked nicely, like reasonable adults.

(Also, I don't think property alone constitutes a definition of anarchism, or capitalism? You're saying a lot of things that I think are irrelevant or confusing. If you want, I can just leave this be for now.)

You seem to think that believing in any kind of property rights constitutes capitalism, and therefore not anarchism. I agree that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist, but not that property rights alone constitute capitalism. Capitalism is something above and beyond just some people owning some things; it's specific classes of people owning (or not owning) things in a specific way, where the things that most people use are owned by a tiny subset of people, who are not themselves using them; where most people don't own any of their stuff, and a tiny subset owns everyone else's stuff. People can still own things and have socialism, so long as somehow or another it's the people who use the things that own them. Someone else owning my home is capitalism, like someone else owning my body is slavery; me owning my own home is just the rightful way of things, just like me owning my own body.

Also for the record I am specifically a philosophical anarchist, in that I reject that anyone has any moral obligation to obey the arbitrary commands of any authority. But that doesn't mean that every command everyone ever makes is arbitrary, or that nobody has any obligations at all, or that no consequences are warranted for failing those obligations. People have some obligations, sometimes people rightly command other people to uphold them, and failing those obligations sometimes warrants some consequences. Nobody is uniquely entitled to unilaterally declare what those obligations are or to dole out those consequences, so no state is legitimate in its claims to such authority, but just not having authority doesn't mean everything they do is always wrong and they should always be shunned 100% of the time. If you can get a state actor to do something right, then good for you! If you can get all state actors to do everything right and nothing wrong, you'll end up abolishing the state in the process.

But if you just get rid of the state and do nothing more, all you're doing is creating a power vacuum into which the next most powerful person or group will immediately become the new state, so just "smash the state" doesn't get you anarchy, it gets you a worse, broken state. You have to build something new that's not a state but will stand in the way of anyone becoming another state, or just enacting wanton violence on others on some smaller scale than would normally be called a state.

When you say don't call the police on the spraypainting kid even if there's no other social structure for redressing the kid's violence (yes, it is violence, deal with it), you're basically doing that -- you're either letting the kid get away with it, or letting the homeowner get away with his own deterrence against the kid, or letting the kid's parents get away with their retaliation for that, or wherever the conflict stops, you're letting that be the de facto "justice", without actually attending to the question of whether or not it's really just. If you don't do that, if you do have some system of justice, that system will hold that what the kid did is wrong, and reasonable consequences will be prescribed, and enforced. And if the only justice system available is the broke-ass one the state provides, because nobody is willing to reason out the situation outside of that, then it's on the kid and whoever stood with him in the way of more reasonable remediation if that broke-ass system brings down unfortunate consequences.

Maybe, in real life, just the threat of bringing down the possibility of those unfortunate consequences would be enough to bring people back to the table to sort things out reasonable without police involvement. I think that's probably the case and that's a good thing. But then you can't turn around and say the person who threatened to call the cops was wrong, when that was the only thing that scared the initial wrongdoers (the kid and his supporters) around to working things out without the cops.

An anecdote: those racists who called me foul names for complaining about them smoking where they shouldn't have been, that I mentioned earlier? I stood my ground and argued with them, because I'm not going to let some fucking assholes chase me out of the park I wanted to eat lunch in. They eventually escalated to throwing rocks at me. I didn't retaliate. I didn't even run. After considering my options I eventually walked away, just walked, because I got sick of fucking dealing with it and all of the other options for ending it seemed probably worse, but they followed, and kept throwing rocks. Eventually I threatened to call the cops. They kept following and throwing rocks anyway. I pulled out my phone, and they turned and fucking booked it. I did actually make the call, and the cops came out, and found the guys sitting elsewhere nearby, and... talked sternly to them, and sent them on their way, and did nothing, which was really disappointing. I didn't have to call the cops. I'm a big fucking guy who knows how to fight and could have fucked up the racist assholes by myself; it was hard not to, especially when they started throwing big fucking rocks at me, but I decided to be the better person and just walk away. But they wouldn't let that be the end of it. I really wanted to just smash their fucking skulls open right there. I could have handled it without the police entirely. But more people would have been hurt that way. And just the threat of the cops was enough to chase them off and avoid that. So was I wrong to involve the police when I could have just killed a couple of people myself and been done with it without police involvement?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:20 am UTC

Your story about actual violence doesn't convince anyone a dick painted on your siding is also violence, or that appropriate responses to the one event have any bearing on what would be appropriate to the other.

Edit: no one is saying anything that implies all vandalism is nonviolent and negligible. What you seem to keep missing is the context that makes some things more harmful than others. It's important to the discussion that we're talking about a spraypainted dick, not a swastika or "[slur] go home" or something like that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:27 am UTC

The point is that the mere threat of police involvement can be enough to end a conflict, even if the police don't actually get involved; and that invoking that threat to bring about a more peaceful resolution isn't something that should then be called foul.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests