BlueMountains28

[fringeelements]

"He has to make up positions I do not hold and attack those."

Yes, he is a big fan of brainpolice2.

[roentgen571]

where you been, man?

[GnosticAtheist]

Just checking if your alive. Seems you are.

Happy Socialistic Christmas from Norway! 8D

[IndividualAutonomy]

LOL! Omg we had the same experience with this fool. Strawmen, whining, wanting to block, incoherent insane ramblings, and hypocrisy.

[abortabraham]

You're just a white nationalist.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Yes brother.

[nonantianarchist]

Dude, he keeps pimping all his videos on other people's channels. He got very huffy (figuratively speaking) when I hinted that it really wasn't cool.

[Mjhavok]

Just block him. Seems like a complete waste of time mate. You only get one life.

[comedytracker]

BlueMountains28's channel implies that he is an Anarchist, A.K.A. a troll.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I'm an anarchist.

[GnosticAtheist]

I'm also an anarchist. Old school. Probably far from your position as I do not believe in economic structures, "free" or not. I call myself a spiritual anarchist, just to piss people off. ;)

[Austrolibertarian]

He sent me a PM saying he'd written me a open letter. I really never understood where this letter was even when he pointed it out.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

He's a grade-A weirdo. The letter was probably written in the description of a playlist containing your video. That seems to be how he operates. This method conveniently prevents anyone from directly attaching a response to what he says, and it allows him to censor at will if the target dares post a comment on his channel.

I still don't understand what his purpose even is. Nothing he's said to/about me even addresses what I said to him. Likewise for you, I'd wager.

[abortabraham]

A crazy person on youtube is about as common as someone getting blocked from stodles' channel.

[modelmark]

the principle of your videos is often:

"I found an absolute idiot on youtube and now  I am going to refute him"

My question is; why would you do that?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"'I found an absolute idiot on youtube and now I am going to refute him'"

That probably describes 3/4 of the videos on YouTube. Incidentally, there's another "principle of [my] videos" that applies equally to others, as far as I know. That principle is, you're free to watch or not watch.

"why would you do that?"

The real question is, why would you ask this question? It's not like it hasn't been asked at least once on almost every other video I've posted.

[modelmark]

There is something that fascinates me about it, but I might have missed earlier discussions about this topic. There is some sort of contradiction at the root of it. If the person was really speaking incoherently, you'd feel slightly embarrassed and would not make a video refuting him. At least, that seems rational. Idiots are not open to refutations. But I must admit I am also guilty tracking down idiots and debating them, I wonder what drives that.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Contradiction? No. Creationism is irrational and incoherent, yet huge swaths of humanity are willing to suppress real knowledge for this fantasy. I don't usually address creationists for their benefit, but rather because I was once a "fence-sitter" who finally saw reason, and I infer that there are others. Ditto for the vids I made toward VonHelton. I also like to argue.

In this case, I have no interest whatsoever in whether BlueMountains28 is "open to refutations." I'm fairly sure he isn't.

[modelmark]

that you like to argue is obvious, the question is why do you track down these people (and why do I). What is your target audience? A fence sitter, who is in doubt between accepting a viewpoint of an idiot and your viewpoint? Were you yourself ever sitting on such a fence?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I don't "track down these people." You can't spend five minutes here without encountering them.

I don't have a target audience.

A fence sitter, who might believe a lie but might also believe something else, if someone refutes the lie.

Not only did I once sit on such a fence, but I was firmly on the other side of it. I was a young-earth creationist and a staunchly conservative Republican.

[MaikUniversum]

wow, you really were YEC ? That's new :) awesome.

[Kbiomech]

modelmark: Obviously I can's speak for Eugene, but I think that a lot of the motivation, at least on my part, is the same thing as beating the hell out of a punching bag. Makes the anger simmer down. Stupid people who are proud of it deserve to be cluebatted, and I enjoy swingin' the bat.

Another side of that is FOR the general audience. Find an example of a particularly egregious misconception and personalize it.

And of course, I like to argue :)

[modelmark]

How can it be you have not a target audience in mind, since you do not address bluemountain. I thought to conclude from your reaction your target audience is fence sitters.

I can agree that I had very different opinions as well and I agree I was on the fence between believing lies and truths. But believe an incoherent idiot or a logical consistent person? I have never been on that fence.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Fence-sitters are one motivation I have for making vids. I do not "target" videos at them or anyone else. I make videos, say what I want to say, and people watch or don't. There's no secret formula, no hidden agenda. That's it. Really. If you must pursue this line of questioning, feel free to identify a "target audience" relative to whatever I'm talking about at a given time.

"I have never been on that fence."

A brief assessment of reality suggests the lines aren't so clear for everyone.

[modelmark]

' I do not "target" videos at them or anyone else.'

I'd say if you make a public video, put it on youtube, put forward an argument, you have a target audience, whether you realize it or not.

'If you must pursue this line of questioning'

Is it correct to say, you are not a big fan of analysis of the sub conscience?

[320iguy]

just because some body makes a video does not actually have to have a target. there are ways of making a video about your thoughts that do not directly target a source or group. please analyze the video before you state such an assumption.

[modelmark]

So let me see if I get this: you set up a camera, put down a mike, think about what you are going to say, have some sort of script. Then you record it. Now the file is on your hard drive and you could have stopped right there. But you upload it to youtube, add some tags so people can find it. Now this last step, explain me why someone does that without having subconsciously some audience in mind.

[320iguy]

well when i stared making my videos i didn't have an audience. i just made responses to people in my subs, and now there are a few in my subs, so to answer your question there ARE people here that just exchange ideas that think equally and can just appreciate a good chat. it's the jack offs that step in that cause some one to start explaining their point of view that can make them seem like they are trying to 'indoctrinate others.

[modelmark]

I would say that someone like that has a target audience in mind, namely someone you want to exchange ideas with (generally not an idiot).

Do I understand from your reaction that you do not appreciate it if people ask other people to explain their point of view?

[320iguy]

Lib not given is right.

@ MM you don't get it there does not HAVE to be a "target" audience. just cause you make a video does not have to include a massage to "non believers" if you will. there is such a thing as just making a video!

Are you some kind of conspiracy nut or something? LOL

[modelmark]

are you?

if you make a public video, you have a target audience in mind. Just as someone who writes a book. You can be either concious of it or not. There is no shame in addressing certain people.

It has nothing to do with believers/non believers.

[320iguy]

OK, i see what you are getting at, and that's not how people of our caliber wish to come off. you make it sound like we are trying to sway an opinion for our beliefs and ideas when all we are doing is putting them into the intellectual arena for evaluation from the viewers that's all. i for one am not 'trying' to sway any ones ideals or compromise there integrity, i am just putting them out there for evaluation. so am i targeting some one for that reason?

[modelmark]

I am not wed to the word 'target', does 'have an audience in mind' sound more agreeable to you?

[320iguy]

in the sweet words of the virgin Mary, "come again"?

[320iguy]

or are you just trying to "pepper the area" with your idea, and hope that you can snag someone into your rhetoric?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"I'd say if you make a public video...you have a target audience"

Well, I *don't* say that. In fact, I've said the opposite. Since I'm making the videos, I'll take my word over yours.

"you are not a big fan"

I'm not a big fan of bullshit or repeated assertions, especially when I've already contradicted your claim. You're like a Christian responding the fact that I'm atheist by saying, "Well, you really DO believe in God, whether you realize it or not." Save it for someone who cares.

[modelmark]

well if you do not make your videos for an audience, don't respond to their reactions. That is a contradiction. That is why I know that you have an audience in mind and that it must be subconscious if you do not realize it. But no one says you have to be interested in what drives you. By all means, go on refuting idiots in videos for no one, on a public medium of youtube.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"That is a contradiction."

People reacting in no way implies I targeted them, nor does my responding later imply that I targeted them, especially not on your say-so.

"That's why I know"

No, you don't know. If you knew, you would be correct, but *I* know you aren't.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"no one says you have to be interested in what drives you"

Moving the goalpost now, eh? Pretty damn dishonest of you. I've already identified some of those reasons, if you'll recall.

"refuting...for no one"

I exist, as far as I can determine, so "no one" is N/A.

On your channel, you posted an FDR animation. Are you a Free Domainer? That might explain why you're obsessed with armchair-psychologizing random strangers on the Internet, but I'm not yet sure what the causal chain there is.

[modelmark]

Newspapers over here asked for subsidies from the gvt. They claimed it would not influence their bias. So if I claim they will be, I would be wrong, since they already said it would not?

A scientists advised gvt to buy vaccines for an upcoming pandemic. Later he proved to have a block of share in the selling company. He claimed it did not influence him. Correct because he claims so?

some gvt thug claimed not to be influenced by having the right to initiate violence. Take his word as fact?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"I would be wrong, since they already said it would not."

No, you would be making an assertion.

"Correct because he claims so?"

Highly suspect, but not false.

"Take his word as fact?"

Certainly not, which is ironically why nothing you've offered in this armchair-psychologizing crusade means anything.

[nonantianarchist]

Heh heh. "BM". Heh heh.

[nonantianarchist]

BM28 has even crazier drones. One of them called me a Holocaust denier.

[elsquibbs]

BM28 is the King of the straw man argument.

[Kbiomech]

Nah. A well constructed strawman can draw you in and have you defending somebody else's argument. Maybe the Court Jester...

[DaveDoggOwns]

I went ahead and 1 stared his boring ass videos for yah.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Heh. Thanks, DaveDogg.

[fps0chris]

he uses basic arguments that most statists use, people are bad, therefore they should have a hierarchy of people who become good because they are voted, or something idk.

[junior00bacon00chee]

haha yep. he kept contacting me....so i tried to debate with him. it went nowhere. it was one of those where i just had to tell myself, "just take a deep breath a back away slowly..."

[Stargazer5781]

lol LING, this guy was not worth your time. Block the trollz :-p

[ProfMTH]

A crazy person on the YouTubes, LING? You must be joking. ;-)

Seriously, block the freak.

[hurrrrrrrrrrr]

Prof watching anarchist videos? Wow.

Yes, block him.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"Seriously, block the freak."

That seems to be a popular sentiment at this point, Prof.

[ProfMTH]

The other alternative is that I could have one of partner's old friends from the Bronx go and, um ... take care of him. ;-)

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Prof, I'm shocked. You ruffian!

[Danmill23]

"A crazy person on the youtubes?" *gasp*

Hey Lib. Go get 'em tiger!

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Hey, Danmill, good to see ye. Been a while. I've wondered at times whether you decided to retire from this digital insane asylum.

[GuardofLiberty]

Yeah, I was reading the exchange between the two of you.

The Samurai as an example of a PRIVATE militia? As if those costs to the nobility were not externalized due to the feudal nature of Japanese life? I didn't know what to say to this, that's like saying medieval knights were also private militias.

Frankly, we've tried collectivizing security- it's known as statism, and it sucks.

(Though I will give that collectivization may not necessarily lead to statism)

[brainpolice2]

This whole "collective" vs. "private" dichotomy on both of your sides is stupid nonsense. The formula "private vs. state" is simplistic garbage, no less than the simplistic dichotomies of many chomsky-style social anarchists.

[GuardofLiberty]

I've stated that collective may not necessarily imply statism. I do not believe in that dichotomy either. My only problem is that assuming the collective will inherently solve the problem is false, there isn't one end all be all solution.

[brainpolice2]

Well, I'm suggesting that "private" can overlap with statism. Monarchy and feudalism are precisely examples of more "private" political systems.

[GuardofLiberty]

Yes, private in administration, but the kicker is that those systems allowed these de facto private interests to externalize costs and socialize any losses on the serfs/peasantry.

[brainpolice2]

Definitely. But they are undeniably "private" in their systems of ownership.

[LiberalofLiberty]

if you define private as literally meaning belonging to an exclusive group then i would agree with you. The problem with that is that i would venture to say that virtually all states are then by definition private, and if this is the case how do we distinguish the uncle sam corporation with, say, Spoooner's ALMC?

It may be better to replace the word private with 'non state' or 'non governmental'

[brainpolice2]

Well, indeed, one of my premises is that all states are fundamentally "private" oligarchies relative to the general populace, even what passes for "democracies".

[LiberalofLiberty]

private as defined by exclusive. Problem is, most people define private as being sort of... Both exclusive but more importantly, non governmental.

[fps0chris]

yes private/=/ free market

[brainpolice2]

Unfortunately, I disagree with you that absolutist propertarianism and national anarchism are nothing but "spooks" - they're very real, and very wrong. It's just that bluemountains28 hasn't approached critiqueing them in a very comprehensive way. But they aren't "spooks" - propertarianism *is* bullshit, and there is a national anarchist movement that practises "entryism".

[Kbiomech]

Yeah. I am aware of this man. He's PM'd me along with many others in a cc list (you often included) multiple times. Usually with some rant against confederalsocialist based on the idea that he's hiding that he was once a white nationalist, and since he's hiding it, must still adhere to that philosophy.

Bullshit.

Stodles is too proud to hide, and changing one's mind upon becoming more educated is a sign of mental maturity and wisdom, not hidden agendas.

So, I just ignored it. But...

[Kbiomech]

... lately his channel has reflected the same thing. Or maybe it always did.

Now, I've disagreed with Stodles on numerous occasions. Hell, you and I are probably closer than most in our philosophies, and I've openly disagreed with you as well.

Says nothing of your character. Our disagreements have been genteel and genuine, in regards to both of ya, and I think I need to point that out. I respect Stodles even when I disagree with him, and our philosophies have a lot in common.

[Reproductivist]

Why don't you just block him?

[Cailwyn]

The samurai were not emergent in any sense. They are near proof that the statistist mentality, in an absolute terms, is rooted infaith, violence, terror, and blind obedience.

[brainpolice2]

Statism is "emergent".

[TheBigHo111]

I have come across "bitch" like people lately too. The whole combo-ing your comments is a straight up dick move.

[AsleepWithDragons]

Seems like everything he says about you, being narrow and all that, actually applies to him. Every once in a while here the net you run into one of these people.. fuck if I know what's wrong with them.. I recently was trying to talk to a person on a forum who sounds like this guy.

[Scrapheap71]

I actually run into quite a few of these people who psychologicaly project themselves onto the people they attack.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Sometimes. Murray Rothbard and Samuel Konkin had a nasty exchange over "The New Libertarian Manifesto." However, I don't think arguments I've had with anarchists on average are any more "intense" than arguments I've had with individuals falling within any other groups.

[MentallyDeadKev]

haha "There's a crazy person on youtube", when I heard this my first thought was "huh just 1?"