stodles used to be a prostitute. i am not making this up. stodles used to suck strange men's dicks and let them fuck him in the ass in exchange for money.
of course he also does it for free but that's another story altogether.
" stodles used to be a prostitute. i am not making this up. stodles used to suck strange men's dicks and let them fuck him in the ass in exchange for money." got any proof that he was a prostitute? Or are you basing these assertions off this one video clip where he appears to be jacking off for an online porno ? ;) watch?v=6QeKx0kRysc
Stodles is just an idiotic cultist who has been memorizing stuff he's read online and listened to for so long he has his lines down at this point.
And what you pointed out is the glaring obvious to the critical mind, when confronted with something that doesn't fit into his neat little parameters he fucks up. He always gets concepts wrong, hell he can't pronounce shit half the time. But don't dare post a comment on his channel not in conformity or he'll give you a goddamn lecture. Fuck him.
if white racist want to live together by themselves what business is that of yours? CS doesn't dodge this issue, its not an issue at all. If your an anarchist you have a right to live anyway you want.
I can't help you much there. Once you're poisoned with the morality religion, your brain is basically good as dead. I know BP2 tries to pass off his morality, as a matter of practicality (i.e. "society will fall apart if you don't follow my moral code"), but I'll never fall for it.
You can take you religion and shove it up your ass.
Anyways...
What do you mean by "self-destruct"? Will everybody commit mass-suicide if they don't listen to BP2?
In some cases, yeah... it will. However, that depends on the preferences of the people inhabiting a given area, community, society, etc..
Obviously, if we're talking about anarchy, then you're not going to be able to impose your specific wishes, upon everybody else (especially over time and large geographic areas). What is or isn't law will thus vary from place to place, and so will the method by which law is established and enforced.
I don't use it. CS uses it. All I'm trying to do is clear up the many misconceptions people seem to have about it's meaning.
I mean... if you're not actually interested in understanding what CS means when he uses the term, then of course you don't need to talk to either of us (me or him) about it.
How is it that we got into this conversation, if you're not actually interested in what we've been talking about this whole time?
"I guess ethnic cleansing, racial conflict, and slavery are only problems if they are not in demand?"
Right now, drugs are illegal. Personally, I think that's a problem. However, for most people, that's NOT a problem (which is why drugs are illegal). So... even though I think drug prohibition is a problem, or it's a problem for me personally, the fact remains, that it's not a problem for most people.
No, dumbass. The term "inter-subjective consensus" is HIS term (not mine). He came up with it; not me. The only reason I'm using the term is because we are discussing HIS theories.
I can't speak for CS (which is why I think you should ask him). Obviously, he's going to understand his own terms and theories better than I do.
"I guess ethnic cleansing, racial conflict, and slavery are only problems if they are not in demand?"
Obviously, slavery is a problem for the people being enslaved, just as a lack of purple snake-skin bell-bottoms is a problem for the 2 people who really want a pair.
However, if nobody else has a problem with slavery, then slavery isn't a problem for THEM, and the slaves are shit out of luck (assuming they are a minority).
This is true under any democratic political system.
Examining alternate views of history is valuable. Do you find questioning (with no conclusion) official tallies to be the same as denying the extermination policy?
Race is something i don't see eye to eye with CS on, but you'll have to explain what you mean by "racism." And I don't feel like typing on this exchange. I'm on both oovoo and stickam right now. same handle - how bout you talk to me there?
Blue, chances are that you know no more about him than I do.
If you want to discuss the intricacies of the racist / revisionist issues, by all means get hold of me on oovoo or stickam sometime.
"Uncritically?" No, sorry, you guessed wrong. Not that i want you to know every video I've uploaded and text exchange I've had, but you guessed wrong on that one.
"I have seen too many comments state it isn't a problem because the market will solve it."
That's true. The market (by definition) is a reflection/manifestation of what people want/value.
If the market doesn't solve something, then that thing isn't a problem.
For example, if the market doesn't mass-produce purple snake-skin bell-bottoms, then that means there is no demand for such things, which means that the lack of such things is NOT a problem.
We do not presently live in an anarchistic society. The current inter-subjective consensus (what most people believe) is that the state is both necessary and beneficial.
I don't think Lysander Spooner would be rolling in his grave however. I doubt he would be surprised at all by the kind of world we live in.
Good lord how fucking insane most people go when it comes to race! It's fucking hilarious to watch them froth at the mouth over an already vilified, persecuted, and impotent minority who dares to challenge the view that white gentiles and only white gentiles should be denied a homeland.
He has addressed the issue, I did not perceive CS's transhumanist musings as any sort of sidestep, just some further examination of of related topics.
CS refers to the difference between living in a community of one's choosing and using force to protect "your property" as compared to using force upon people to get them to use "their property" in a way they do not wish to.
He finds the former preferable to the latter.
I think it's that simple, maybe I've missed something.
The problem is that there is no such difference when we get into the nitty gritty details of how territorialist "communities" and "restrict covenants" actually work. The "love it or leave it" problem with the state *still exists* in this framework, it's just more localized.
If you support anti-racist laws, you DO support backing up your punishment with murder. (and if you support this, then the entire debate is pointless and arbitrary, you're just stating an opinion for the sake of doing that) CS has already made the point that what backs up law is MURDER, and he has said it NUMEROUS FUCKING TIMES. He is NOT strawmanning you, he's just tired of restating an old argument, which he assumed that he had pushed through your thick skull.
Yes, then what? If you're trying to make a point, then please do elaborate.
The only reason one would make an alternative punishment to death available would be that it's more convenient, and in this case I presume it's more convenient for your moral standards. HOWEVER, you are still willing to kill someone for being a racist regardless of the alternative, which would be rendered obsolete without the threat of death. Death is STILL an acceptable punishment to you, and you support it.
It was fair to assume since you counterargued me, and all along you're just using this to avoid answering my question: was I wrong? If I was right, then obviously it's not "the problem," so please answer.
If you decide to charge a tax for being racist, I can choose not to pay it. You can come get me & take me to jail for not paying the tax. If you come to get me, I will grab my gun and kill you if you try to cuff me; you will have to kill me, because if I live, everyone will see that they don't have to give up their money to you if they have a gun and defend themselves. The state is enforced on penalty of death. That is the argument and I agree with it, though I'm anti racist.
I'm not someone who would use force to stop ideas, I am against their manifestations. I'm not anti gun (pro gun), but guns are an idea, Christianity is an idea, but if it looks like an institution, one that seeks to eliminate the say of others to the degree they are affected by those decisions, it is a state as far as I can see. No one should have to go to the edges of the earth just to be allowed true freedom in an anarchistic society.
"You could avoid all that by not being racist. It's only a problem unless you make it a problem." I don't believe in thought police. If people want to be racist, that is their business. If you set the precedent that it is a federal crime to think a certain way, you have opened pandoras box. The punishment for thinking different from society is death, because anyone with a backbone won't let you imprison them for their beliefs.
Lots for times he reminds me of Inmendham, who is smart too. His whole no race thing sounds a lot like Inmendham and his whole we can solve human dilemmas by going into VR that will be created in some Moonlanding type effort.
i dont want to kill all white nationalist and i am an anti racist it seems that confederal socialist has no real clue about the personality of anti racists
Maybe a week ago, CS clarified that when he speaks poorly of "anti-racists" he is not referring to people who are against racism, but those who build political (ie forceful) conclusions from the base of anti-racism.
Neither of you addressed the core issue. What is a "right" to property? What are unlimited "rights" to property? I am anti racist by choice, and I don't plan on forcing it. Its easy to say that everyone will have their restrictive covenants and everyone will be happy, but if you believe in that standard of property rights, you should not cry about statism, manifest destiny, or white nationalist's favorite, lebensraum. Absolutism is destructive and seeks to end of anarchy.
confederalsocialist (to my knowledge) doesn't believe that "rights" are anything more than a social construct (what he would call the "inter-subjective consensus"). He may not have addressed that "core issue" in his last video, but he has addressed it in many others. He is by no means an "absolutist" when it comes to property rights. Even if he personally prefers something akin to "absolute property rights", he would acknowledge that as being a personal preference, and nothing more.
I just don't like when he calls restrictive covenants "intersubjective consensus", as this leaves out everyone who would be affected by those decisions i.e. the actual consensus. And then in the same breath he will condemn all forms of democracy as illegitimate bs. Intersubjective consensus as it is today would destroy most RC's on the free market of ideas, but of course when it starts sounding like democracy, its no longer "intersubjective consensus", its called thievery & attacked as statist.
No. I think he would say that statism is BOTH thievery (which can be defined objectively) *and* the current inter-subjective consensus.
On top of that, he wouldn't argue that the state is "illegitimate", because that is an "ethical" evaluation. What he does do, is point out in what ways the state is inefficient or ineffective (often from an economic point of view).
Maybe you should listen to him a little more closely.
I'm assuming people will have abandoned statism, and at this projection would also generally reject racism. When he uses "intersubjective consensus", he is assuming a subjectively legitimate agreement between 2 or more people, about how others will be dealt with usually concerning property. I fail to see how this is not the creation of a state. If their intersubjective consensus is not upheld by force, -their- intersubjective consensus does not exist, yet this is not how RC's are presented.
You might need to get clarification from him on this...
But... I think that whether or not he would consider an RC to be a state or not, would depend on whether or not it had the power/ability to tax. I think there's some additional criteria as well.
CS defines a "state" fairly objectively, so I'm not real sure what your issue here is.
Personally, I think that what is or isn't a state, comes down to a matter of opinion, and it's really not that important of an issue.
I think what he has said overall is that a state isn't voluntary but is maintained by the fact that its legitimacy is generally agreed upon, which indeed would make taxation a general criteria. What one defines as a state doesn't matter because what CS criticizes is what he calls a state. Disagreeing with his "definition" would be sidestepping his entire argument.
I view the RC as a quasi-state. White nationalists find it appealing that they can have their whitelandia in anarchy simply by finding like-minded people. The "intersubjective consensus" remains static in regards to property, even when the consensus may change over time due to immigration. The only way to maintain the previous consensus is by force, and by rejecting the new consensus in all the range of racist excuses. I have a different view of property than him, so we may never agree 100%.
You have to use the traditional method of taxation, the unseen tax is the one that requires you choose a state or RC to find an occupation, just as the world is covered in states as it is. Instead of taking money from you, we'll just take the land into our covenant and you can come work for our resources, "tax free". This would put racism at a slight disadvantage among the RCs, but only legitimize the more desirable RC if one even exists; which still doesn't address that oligarchy status quo.
It is an important issue because it demonstrates a sense in which the position of some "anarchists" devolves into everything that they claim to be against by consequence/implication of certain implied norms.
Precisely! There is no such "consensus" among everyone effected. Treating it as a purely mutually beneficial agreement is misleading - these things do not occur in a social vacuum. The "intersubjective consensus" position, ironically, devolves into localized communitarianism.
I understand the concept of "inter-subjective consensus" just fine. My point is that "a shared-preferance that seems to prevail/predominate over others" is not purely "intersubjective" in a broader social context in which there are people that do not share the consensus that are effected by it and have it enforced onto them. I realize that it's descriptive - but as a description, it's an innocuous fact that nobody disputes. The issue is that normatively relativizing all IC's is communitarianism.
I can't believe that you're still trying to argue that any community that violates your personal moral code will inevitably devolve back into a state.
You have no imagination, or respect for the preferences/ways of life of others. You're just a bigot. Don't worry though, I have no desire to make that illegal.
I'm simply pointing out that community-wide establishment of majoritarian rules, even under the rubric of "intersubjective consensus", doesn't escape us from localist democracy. That particular point has nothing to do with my specific moral code, it's the simple fact that localized "IC's" are democratic in the majoritarian sense by default.
But how do we know this? I may know what my neighbor is thinking but what about the guy down the block? And what if we have the IC? Do we enforce it or would the very act of enforcement change the IC? You say vast majority. How vast and what amount of power would they wield?
"You say vast majority. How vast and what amount of power would they wield?"
That would change from time to time and place to place.
In some circumstances, there might not be a distinguishable IC. People, for example, could be split right down the middle on a given issue, or there might be 5 (or more) different and opposing position on how something should be done.
When people who share the same preference pool their resources in defense of those preferences, they have a chance of succeeding.
How do we determine the decision making system based on a particular time and place? Seems you'd need meta and meta-meta-decision making eventually. Unless there's one absolute we all start from.
I don't think decision making systems are determined (generally). In real life, humans don't have that kind of luxury (unless maybe the human in question is a king or something). Decision making systems are more emergent, I would think. They come about in different ways, for different reasons... sometimes through a process of trial and error. Also, we mustn't forget that necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure most systems evolve over time as well.
Okay decision making systems emerge and evolve over time spontaneously. That makes sense. Is the IC meant to be a description like this or is it prescriptive. Is it an argument for general efficiency or are we chasing the ideal of liberty?
If no one knows that someone is acting in opposition to the IC, then in the context of societal relations they are still abiding by it until they get caught. Assuming you are not some manner of social democrat, your inner desires are not reflected in the current IC, but assuming you are taking every measure to avoid danger, you are largely abiding by the IC and in that manner supporting it. Enforcement is an element of IC, as is the typical style of enforcement used.
So if I'm actively trying to subvert the IC and nobody catches me, then I've not really subverted the IC? confused
"Assuming you are not some manner of social democrat, your inner desires are not reflected in the current IC," So if I am some manner of social democrat... my desires will be reflected? Social democracy?
And if I avoid danger I'm abiding by it? Are we talking about a natural law or something? Are you talking about what we have now or something imagined? Sorry, you lost me.
Yeah, some of this is a question of how far one wishes to draw this down. I was thinking about someone who engages in a prohibited activity, but hides it well. During his life in the open, he is conforming with the IC, which in some sense keeps the conflict against it hidden.
As far as social democracy, I brought that us as it is the sea we swim in (or perhaps more accurately, it is oligarchy dressed up like social democracy)
To my understanding, IC = general MO of society, nothing more.
My understanding of what an IC is, is simply "what most people prefer". For example, the IC among anarchists is that the state is bogus.
I don't think there's really a scientific approach to determining ICs. Even taking polls is flawed in many ways. Fortunately however, as BAL pointed out, we can pretty much just look at the world around us, and figure it out. It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
But that's really vague. I'm interested in the specifics. Is there a protocol for determining boundaries and property "rights" or titles? Or does everything just sort of fall into place?
How do you think we should determine how much authority and dominion an individual should have over a given amount of territory? Where are his boundaries and what can he do when someone steps over that line that he cannot when they do not? How is this correctly done within the IC framework?
There is no "correct" way to distribute and govern property. There are DIFFERENT ways that different people prefer.
In any given region, at any given time, the IC will dictate how property is distributed and governed (controlled) UNLESS violence/force is used by a minority to counteract the IC (which is essentially the "will of the majority" (more or less).
Looks like direct democracy with pressure at the margins. What happens if two IC's meet. Are they allowed to overlap or merge? Can a single one split? Can the majority counteract the IC or in that instance would it simply be changing it?
Not yet but I'll certainly get around to it. I'm not trying to bash you guys' system. I agree with the general idea of migration and diversity and to some extent the freedom of culture but it's hard to imagine something like that existing in the real world and not collapsing into an -ism.
The worst thing that CS did in that video was meander around the issue. He says Anti-racism is as bad as racism, although never WHY, and that all white nationalism is that white men want white people to fuck each other. WELL SO WHAT?
Well, that's simply misleading, as many of CS's claims are. White nationalists may try to portray themselves as being fairly passive or innocuous, but that's largely a marketing ploy.
Anti-racists tend to think, that when there is a gap in the market, somebody needs to be FORCED to fill this gap (which is slavery).
For instance, if nobody is making shoes for black people, some shoe maker must be forced to.
This belief is due to an all-too-common ignorance of economics.
When there is a gap in the market, that gap will be filled due to the profit motive. When there is a demand for something, people stand to profit by providing that thing.
I don't consider it a "crime", I consider it unvirtuous to racially disciminate and exclude people from communities based on race. Stop conflating legal issues with social viewpoints. They don't always overlap.
When did he say he did not agree with MLK? I did see him mentioned MLK in his last video; Dude, not all anti-racists are like MLK! Jesse jackson claims to be an anti-racist, and he refer to new york as hymietown; Tim wise says that its a fact that most white people see black people as people with ape-like qualities ;Not all anti-racists care about advancing the status of "minorities" , some just want to sell a book and a secure career
One of the reason anti-racists tend to be just as destructive as racist, is because anti-racists tend not to believe in property rights (or they don't believe that private property should be used for commercial purposes).
A lot of us who study economics, know just how boneheaded and economically retarded that is.
Plus, anti-racists tend to want the state (which is the biggest intistutional racist around) to make sure people don't restrict access to their own property. It's idiocy.
There is a huge difference between a private business and these white nationalist states that would result from the restrictive covenant and you know it.
I agree. However, the reason many of us have a problem with anti-racists, IS NOT because they oppose RCs. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. It's certainly not contained within the comment you are referring to.
Thanks for trying to make it sound like I said something I totally didn't say.
It wouldn't hurt to actually read the comments you're responding to.
I think I've made it very clear (over the course of several comments) what my problem with anti-racists is.
You're conflating the social position of opposition to racism itself with a normative position on property rights, as well as a political policy position. That's a non-sequitor, particular with respect to libertarian anti-racists. Furthermore, you're clinging to a particular normative position on property rights that you cannot give any sound reasons for using your own amoralist framework. Hence, noone has any reason to accept your implied normative "property rights" concept.
I know - which is why it is nonsensical for you to invoke a certain normative position on property rights as part of an argument against anti-racists, because you yourself have no rational reason for the preferability of such a property rights norm. Hence, it makes no sense to say "anti-racist te suxxorz because they don't accept a particular norm of property rights". Yea, and so what?
Well... for one thing, I'm allowed my own preferences.
For another thing, in practical terms, the solutions anti-racists often offer, do not solve what they see as the problem. In fact, they make the problem worse.
Eroding property rights is another attempt to solve a problem by not addressing the actual causes.
So yeah... I have some basis for my arguments (not that I expect you to be able to comprehend them).
I do think that most "racism" in and of itself is more related to classism and not so much due because of the 'reality' of race. If CS is saying that classism is a statist problem then I can see why he would say that , in a world where every color of people have already blended with one another to produce a society with a black/white gradient, that racism would not be an issue. But as it is we already have people of every color, so that would be missing your point entirely.
Murdering people (for any reason) is a problem. If I murder somebody because they are wearing a blue hat, the problem isn't that I hate blue hats; the problem is that I murdered someone (I felt that homicide was a valid way for me to express my hatred of blue hats). Hating blue hats, in and of itself, isn't a problem, nor is racism, even though murdering people certainly is.
People are ignorant of all sorts of things. In fact, the complaint that many of us have against anti-racists, is that they are ignorant about economics, and as a result, often advocate stupid and destructive "solutions" to the "problem" of racism.
This also makes them hypocritical (since there are plenty of things they themselves are ignorant about).
what the fuck does economis have to do with racism and anti racism i dont advoicate any destructiveness that other may their ignorant fuck ups too oh well they have a slight clue granted i dont agree with their means i for one deplore violence anti racism doesnt imply that i have similar methods as groups like ANTIFA it just implies i consider racism harmful
Most anti-racists believe that private property should not be used for commercial purposes. They argue that once property is used commercially, it becomes public. This is why they think it's fine to restrict access to one's home or automobile, but it's not fine to restrict access to a place of business. Thus, people should not be free to choose how to use their own property, plus they should be forced to produce goods and services for others, against their will.
Look... if people want to live in a community/society where they have a "right not to be offended", they can be my guest. Personally, I think that would be an incredibly stifling, and likely disastrous sort of situation.
Racism is an ideology, whereas separatism is a practice. Clearly, those two things are related, but there's also a huge difference. You shouldn't use one to refer to the other. Obviously, that's going to confuse people.
I don't think he was denying racism isn't an issue today. I think he was saying that he doesn't like how anti-racist go about and attacking what they perceived as racism; He even says he does not have a problem with people who are disgusted with racist individuals, I think he was saying that the anti-racists are racists themselves when they try to generalize how a group acts towards another group, i.e. whites are the only racist, whites are the oppressors;
I don't think CS has any problem with race-based restrictive covenants? Why would he?
For one thing, he's an anarchist, and any anarchist who wants to abolish race-based restrictive covenants, is going to need some sort of centralized state to do that.
For another thing, who gives a crap if a bunch of racists want to start their own little enclave? Anarchy is about variety, and about people being able to actualize their personal preferences.
Well... for one thing, there's a HUGE difference in scale. The damage that a large centralized state can inflict, far surpasses (by about a zillion times) the damage an RC can inflict.
Now... in order to prevent RCs from existing, you're going to need a large centralized state (most likely). That's not an even trade off (when we consider scale, when putting things into perspective).
So then, is any community that has any sort of rules/rights regulating/regarding the distribution and ownership of property (be it collective or private).
My point is that those "anti-statists" that put foreward absolutist territorial property conventions as a norm are supporting everything they claim to oppose, only under a different set of defacto owners. The issue is not with *any* sort of rules/rights about the distribution and ownership of property, the issue is with absolute authority claims derives from *territorialism*, as a specific property convention. States are "emergent" from absolute land property conventions.
Also... any occupation of any geographic area is going to involve enforcing preferences that other people don't like/believe in. There is NO way around this, because different human beings prefer different things.
For example, some people prefer private property, while others prefer communal property.
There is no way around the fact that different human beings prefer different things. The best people can do, is group together based on shared preferences, and try to protect their way of life.
The difference is the fact that the area of the restrictive covenant is the private property of the 'racists' and that it is voluntary (at least to submit to). Anyway, #2 and #3 doesn't check since there are no "minorities" on private property (unless there's immigrant mexicans living under the floor). If I tell you that you have to keep off my land, do I do that at the "expense" of a "minority" (you)? No, of course not, you had no claim on my land in the first place.
Assuming that you're right, is that not a good thing? The closer we get to individual free will, the better. Conceptually our brain governs the rest of our body, but that's natural. People get together in groups by free will, that's natural. The STATE,people getting in a group and paying "taxes" all against their will, is not natural, and it's been proven ineffective so many times.
Expanding the amount of states and restricting them to smaller territories doesn't necessarily increase "individual free will". The fundamental problem remains - "love it or leave it" still doesn't suffice.
Doesn't necessarily? People would choose to live there. If a person chooses not to submit to a restrictive covenant, it is that much smaller - unlike a state. It wouldn't be seen as legitimate by the general population and ESPECIALLY not the minority (which is the case today). It wouldn't be coercive to anybody who did not agree to some kind of punishment in case they broke contract. It's not "love it or leave it," it's "love it or don't submit to it." So don't.
CS doesn't sound like an imbecile, he IS an imbecile.
And no, he doesn't understand shit about economics. He buys into the Fed conspiracy theories, which means he hasn't got a clue on how does it work... he thinks they can just print money out of thin air, and that's simply FALSE.
All of the fancy rhetoric he spouts on his videos are straight out of market fundamentalist evangelism... these are not well thought-out arguments he came up on his own, but standard market-fundie gospel.
Honestly from what iv seen around here(South, Texas). Racism really isn't a big issue. Sure there's some old people set in their ways and are slightly racist, but thats all iv really seen. The biggest issue in that realm is people playing the race card(AKA Reverse racism). Which pissed me off because there's really no such thing.
You live in the state then jails more black men then any other. A state that has been known to sweep through black neighborhoods and arrest most of the males over "drugs"
I have to disagree, theres more blacks and mexicans then there is white, you come down here and you'll understand why that is. We are a minoity. I went up north to South Dakota and didnt see a single mexican or black while I was there. Now living in where u do im sure theres a nice mix. Iv never heard of cops just randomly searching neighborhoods, im sure it has happened, but its not just a state thing. Sure theres a bunch of morons here, but bad shit happens all over.
I think it is good that he doesn't stick to economics (he doesn't know anything that is actually useful on that topic, anyways). At least this way he has a chance to refine his character and explore new ideas, although he seems like a Christian who has beliefs and opinions and will constantly make shit up to justify his viewpoint.
stodles used to be a prostitute. i am not making this up. stodles used to suck strange men's dicks and let them fuck him in the ass in exchange for money.
of course he also does it for free but that's another story altogether.
TheBigBadWoIf 4 months ago
" stodles used to be a prostitute. i am not making this up. stodles used to suck strange men's dicks and let them fuck him in the ass in exchange for money." got any proof that he was a prostitute? Or are you basing these assertions off this one video clip where he appears to be jacking off for an online porno ? ;) watch?v=6QeKx0kRysc
Pentazoid111 4 months ago
...never heard of the guy.
emperorkang 7 months ago
"Anti-Racism is just as bad as Racism"
If he said that then the best response is "Anti-statism is just as bad as Statism"
Coughlan000 7 months ago
@BlueMountains28 no he isnt a holucaust denier. ive spoken to him on skype. he isnt.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
Put the cola down, stop smoking, go to the gym.
boooyah9 1 year ago
Stodles is just an idiotic cultist who has been memorizing stuff he's read online and listened to for so long he has his lines down at this point.
And what you pointed out is the glaring obvious to the critical mind, when confronted with something that doesn't fit into his neat little parameters he fucks up. He always gets concepts wrong, hell he can't pronounce shit half the time. But don't dare post a comment on his channel not in conformity or he'll give you a goddamn lecture. Fuck him.
4328634da 2 years ago 3
In the end it doesn't matter, because Confederalsocialists ideas will never see the light of day because of how blatantly lame and stupid they are.
Rahab111222 2 years ago 6
if white racist want to live together by themselves what business is that of yours? CS doesn't dodge this issue, its not an issue at all. If your an anarchist you have a right to live anyway you want.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
You've been listening to too much brainpolice2.
I can't help you much there. Once you're poisoned with the morality religion, your brain is basically good as dead. I know BP2 tries to pass off his morality, as a matter of practicality (i.e. "society will fall apart if you don't follow my moral code"), but I'll never fall for it.
You can take you religion and shove it up your ass.
Anyways...
What do you mean by "self-destruct"? Will everybody commit mass-suicide if they don't listen to BP2?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
In some cases, yeah... it will. However, that depends on the preferences of the people inhabiting a given area, community, society, etc..
Obviously, if we're talking about anarchy, then you're not going to be able to impose your specific wishes, upon everybody else (especially over time and large geographic areas). What is or isn't law will thus vary from place to place, and so will the method by which law is established and enforced.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I'm not defending slavery and ethnic cleansing. I'm simply pointing out a fact:
Something is only a problem, if people consider it a problem.
If only 5 people are against slavery, then it's not a very big problem.
I assume that by "problem", you mean "problem for people". What else would you mean?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
OK... so where's the "holocaust denying" part???
You think I haven't seen that video before?
Like I said, I don't agree with him on race.
But if that constitutes the whole of what you mean when you say "racist"... heh, just not something I find to be worth violence.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
What do you mean when you say the term is "trash"?
Do you not like the sound of the words?
What is your criticism?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I don't use it. CS uses it. All I'm trying to do is clear up the many misconceptions people seem to have about it's meaning.
I mean... if you're not actually interested in understanding what CS means when he uses the term, then of course you don't need to talk to either of us (me or him) about it.
How is it that we got into this conversation, if you're not actually interested in what we've been talking about this whole time?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"I guess ethnic cleansing, racial conflict, and slavery are only problems if they are not in demand?"
Right now, drugs are illegal. Personally, I think that's a problem. However, for most people, that's NOT a problem (which is why drugs are illegal). So... even though I think drug prohibition is a problem, or it's a problem for me personally, the fact remains, that it's not a problem for most people.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"Why? Is CS your mother?"
No, dumbass. The term "inter-subjective consensus" is HIS term (not mine). He came up with it; not me. The only reason I'm using the term is because we are discussing HIS theories.
I can't speak for CS (which is why I think you should ask him). Obviously, he's going to understand his own terms and theories better than I do.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"I guess ethnic cleansing, racial conflict, and slavery are only problems if they are not in demand?"
Obviously, slavery is a problem for the people being enslaved, just as a lack of purple snake-skin bell-bottoms is a problem for the 2 people who really want a pair.
However, if nobody else has a problem with slavery, then slavery isn't a problem for THEM, and the slaves are shit out of luck (assuming they are a minority).
This is true under any democratic political system.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Examining alternate views of history is valuable. Do you find questioning (with no conclusion) official tallies to be the same as denying the extermination policy?
Race is something i don't see eye to eye with CS on, but you'll have to explain what you mean by "racism." And I don't feel like typing on this exchange. I'm on both oovoo and stickam right now. same handle - how bout you talk to me there?
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
"I think we should throw out the word *inter-subjective consensus.* Just say majority rule."
Hmmm...
Maybe you should ask CS whether or not he would equate those two things.
I think the IC is more of an abstract/ideological thing, while "majority rule" is an actual political process. One is mental; the other is physical.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Blue, chances are that you know no more about him than I do.
If you want to discuss the intricacies of the racist / revisionist issues, by all means get hold of me on oovoo or stickam sometime.
"Uncritically?" No, sorry, you guessed wrong. Not that i want you to know every video I've uploaded and text exchange I've had, but you guessed wrong on that one.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
"I have seen too many comments state it isn't a problem because the market will solve it."
That's true. The market (by definition) is a reflection/manifestation of what people want/value.
If the market doesn't solve something, then that thing isn't a problem.
For example, if the market doesn't mass-produce purple snake-skin bell-bottoms, then that means there is no demand for such things, which means that the lack of such things is NOT a problem.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"That isn't anarchism."
No shit.
We do not presently live in an anarchistic society. The current inter-subjective consensus (what most people believe) is that the state is both necessary and beneficial.
I don't think Lysander Spooner would be rolling in his grave however. I doubt he would be surprised at all by the kind of world we live in.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Blue, I think you might be strawmanning, or rather, referring to some small sector as if it comprises the whole.
The "free market" is not a solution for all ills, it is just that there is nothing which will create overall improvements by subverting it.
Then again, I don't know what a "capito-anarchist" is, and the label which currently suts me best may be "non-absolutist."
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Good lord how fucking insane most people go when it comes to race! It's fucking hilarious to watch them froth at the mouth over an already vilified, persecuted, and impotent minority who dares to challenge the view that white gentiles and only white gentiles should be denied a homeland.
SquadalaWereDinner 2 years ago
He has addressed the issue, I did not perceive CS's transhumanist musings as any sort of sidestep, just some further examination of of related topics.
CS refers to the difference between living in a community of one's choosing and using force to protect "your property" as compared to using force upon people to get them to use "their property" in a way they do not wish to.
He finds the former preferable to the latter.
I think it's that simple, maybe I've missed something.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
The problem is that there is no such difference when we get into the nitty gritty details of how territorialist "communities" and "restrict covenants" actually work. The "love it or leave it" problem with the state *still exists* in this framework, it's just more localized.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
It's basically dropping social context completely.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
CS is a god! That's why 99% of his subscribers are his minions and truly believe his every word. Fax of life.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
I thought you two were TIGHT.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
haha leet shirt :-3
Sp0ngeb0bM0n 2 years ago
I destroyed him. whats that tell you?
voteonthis 2 years ago
its because of his racist background that he's not a partner
oldhacks 2 years ago
4.5 stars because 1 out of ten people vote/troll for anarchism regardless of whats being discussed.
oldhacks 2 years ago 2
If you support anti-racist laws, you DO support backing up your punishment with murder. (and if you support this, then the entire debate is pointless and arbitrary, you're just stating an opinion for the sake of doing that) CS has already made the point that what backs up law is MURDER, and he has said it NUMEROUS FUCKING TIMES. He is NOT strawmanning you, he's just tired of restating an old argument, which he assumed that he had pushed through your thick skull.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
""If you support anti-racist laws, you DO support backing up your punishment with murder.""
What if you back up a punishment that's not murder.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
Yes, then what? If you're trying to make a point, then please do elaborate.
The only reason one would make an alternative punishment to death available would be that it's more convenient, and in this case I presume it's more convenient for your moral standards. HOWEVER, you are still willing to kill someone for being a racist regardless of the alternative, which would be rendered obsolete without the threat of death. Death is STILL an acceptable punishment to you, and you support it.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
""Death is STILL an acceptable punishment to you, and you support it.""
I do? I never knew that, you seem to know alot about me.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
Guess I went from using "you" as something general to using it to adress you. I assumed that you want to punish racists, was I wrong?
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
""I assumed""
That's the problem, stop doing that.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
It was fair to assume since you counterargued me, and all along you're just using this to avoid answering my question: was I wrong? If I was right, then obviously it's not "the problem," so please answer.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
If you decide to charge a tax for being racist, I can choose not to pay it. You can come get me & take me to jail for not paying the tax. If you come to get me, I will grab my gun and kill you if you try to cuff me; you will have to kill me, because if I live, everyone will see that they don't have to give up their money to you if they have a gun and defend themselves. The state is enforced on penalty of death. That is the argument and I agree with it, though I'm anti racist.
abortabraham 2 years ago
And what exactly does "anti-racism" include? It seems to me that you're slightly hypocritical, but I don't want to make any unfounded accusations.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
I'm not someone who would use force to stop ideas, I am against their manifestations. I'm not anti gun (pro gun), but guns are an idea, Christianity is an idea, but if it looks like an institution, one that seeks to eliminate the say of others to the degree they are affected by those decisions, it is a state as far as I can see. No one should have to go to the edges of the earth just to be allowed true freedom in an anarchistic society.
abortabraham 2 years ago
You could avoid all that by not being racist. It's only a problem unless you make it a problem.
Just a thought.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
That's like saying you can dodge the draft by joining the army.
abortabraham 2 years ago
I don't know what you're talking, should've added in a quote from me.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
"You could avoid all that by not being racist. It's only a problem unless you make it a problem." I don't believe in thought police. If people want to be racist, that is their business. If you set the precedent that it is a federal crime to think a certain way, you have opened pandoras box. The punishment for thinking different from society is death, because anyone with a backbone won't let you imprison them for their beliefs.
abortabraham 2 years ago
*shrug* Racism laws have worked so far, I think. I guess I'm a thought police man bear pig.
Rahab111222 2 years ago
Lots for times he reminds me of Inmendham, who is smart too. His whole no race thing sounds a lot like Inmendham and his whole we can solve human dilemmas by going into VR that will be created in some Moonlanding type effort.
BeechBumagan 2 years ago
I was going to say the same shit but couldnt bring myself to. I guess CS's idea is a little more realistic then inmendham's
chris3325 2 years ago
hmmm no Yo response back? ok i see it was getting old , how about WHATS UP MOTHER FUCKER!!! lol
TOMMYfromtheBRONX 2 years ago
Fuck i missed it.
YO!!
chris3325 2 years ago
i dont want to kill all white nationalist and i am an anti racist it seems that confederal socialist has no real clue about the personality of anti racists
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
Maybe a week ago, CS clarified that when he speaks poorly of "anti-racists" he is not referring to people who are against racism, but those who build political (ie forceful) conclusions from the base of anti-racism.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
that would make sense then
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
Neither of you addressed the core issue. What is a "right" to property? What are unlimited "rights" to property? I am anti racist by choice, and I don't plan on forcing it. Its easy to say that everyone will have their restrictive covenants and everyone will be happy, but if you believe in that standard of property rights, you should not cry about statism, manifest destiny, or white nationalist's favorite, lebensraum. Absolutism is destructive and seeks to end of anarchy.
abortabraham 2 years ago 2
confederalsocialist (to my knowledge) doesn't believe that "rights" are anything more than a social construct (what he would call the "inter-subjective consensus"). He may not have addressed that "core issue" in his last video, but he has addressed it in many others. He is by no means an "absolutist" when it comes to property rights. Even if he personally prefers something akin to "absolute property rights", he would acknowledge that as being a personal preference, and nothing more.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I just don't like when he calls restrictive covenants "intersubjective consensus", as this leaves out everyone who would be affected by those decisions i.e. the actual consensus. And then in the same breath he will condemn all forms of democracy as illegitimate bs. Intersubjective consensus as it is today would destroy most RC's on the free market of ideas, but of course when it starts sounding like democracy, its no longer "intersubjective consensus", its called thievery & attacked as statist.
abortabraham 2 years ago
No. I think he would say that statism is BOTH thievery (which can be defined objectively) *and* the current inter-subjective consensus.
On top of that, he wouldn't argue that the state is "illegitimate", because that is an "ethical" evaluation. What he does do, is point out in what ways the state is inefficient or ineffective (often from an economic point of view).
Maybe you should listen to him a little more closely.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I'm assuming people will have abandoned statism, and at this projection would also generally reject racism. When he uses "intersubjective consensus", he is assuming a subjectively legitimate agreement between 2 or more people, about how others will be dealt with usually concerning property. I fail to see how this is not the creation of a state. If their intersubjective consensus is not upheld by force, -their- intersubjective consensus does not exist, yet this is not how RC's are presented.
abortabraham 2 years ago
You might need to get clarification from him on this...
But... I think that whether or not he would consider an RC to be a state or not, would depend on whether or not it had the power/ability to tax. I think there's some additional criteria as well.
CS defines a "state" fairly objectively, so I'm not real sure what your issue here is.
Personally, I think that what is or isn't a state, comes down to a matter of opinion, and it's really not that important of an issue.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I think what he has said overall is that a state isn't voluntary but is maintained by the fact that its legitimacy is generally agreed upon, which indeed would make taxation a general criteria. What one defines as a state doesn't matter because what CS criticizes is what he calls a state. Disagreeing with his "definition" would be sidestepping his entire argument.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
I view the RC as a quasi-state. White nationalists find it appealing that they can have their whitelandia in anarchy simply by finding like-minded people. The "intersubjective consensus" remains static in regards to property, even when the consensus may change over time due to immigration. The only way to maintain the previous consensus is by force, and by rejecting the new consensus in all the range of racist excuses. I have a different view of property than him, so we may never agree 100%.
abortabraham 2 years ago
You're correct - it is an intergenerational/static "social contract" based on a "sticky" land claim.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
You have to use the traditional method of taxation, the unseen tax is the one that requires you choose a state or RC to find an occupation, just as the world is covered in states as it is. Instead of taking money from you, we'll just take the land into our covenant and you can come work for our resources, "tax free". This would put racism at a slight disadvantage among the RCs, but only legitimize the more desirable RC if one even exists; which still doesn't address that oligarchy status quo.
abortabraham 2 years ago
It is an important issue because it demonstrates a sense in which the position of some "anarchists" devolves into everything that they claim to be against by consequence/implication of certain implied norms.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Precisely! There is no such "consensus" among everyone effected. Treating it as a purely mutually beneficial agreement is misleading - these things do not occur in a social vacuum. The "intersubjective consensus" position, ironically, devolves into localized communitarianism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I'm not sure you understand what the term "inter-subjective consensus" refers to.
From what I can tell, if refers to a shared-preference that seems to prevail/predominate over others.
For example, most people support the government right now, so support of government is the current "inter-subjective consensus".
The idea is descriptive. It seems that you think it's meant to be prescriptive.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I understand the concept of "inter-subjective consensus" just fine. My point is that "a shared-preferance that seems to prevail/predominate over others" is not purely "intersubjective" in a broader social context in which there are people that do not share the consensus that are effected by it and have it enforced onto them. I realize that it's descriptive - but as a description, it's an innocuous fact that nobody disputes. The issue is that normatively relativizing all IC's is communitarianism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I can't believe that you're still trying to argue that any community that violates your personal moral code will inevitably devolve back into a state.
You have no imagination, or respect for the preferences/ways of life of others. You're just a bigot. Don't worry though, I have no desire to make that illegal.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I'm simply pointing out that community-wide establishment of majoritarian rules, even under the rubric of "intersubjective consensus", doesn't escape us from localist democracy. That particular point has nothing to do with my specific moral code, it's the simple fact that localized "IC's" are democratic in the majoritarian sense by default.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Is there a scientific approach to finding an IC or does it have to emerge out of trade?
atypicalguy 2 years ago
By CSs definition, all you have to do to know the current IC is look around you.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Forgive me but that sounds like something a mystic would say
"What is the meaning of life, Sensei? Look around you, grasshopper. Ahhh..."
atypicalguy 2 years ago
And if we were discussing "the meaning of life" or the core truths of reality, it would be bullshit.
But all that's being discussed is what the vast majority of people agree to abide by, whether under duress or not.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
But how do we know this? I may know what my neighbor is thinking but what about the guy down the block? And what if we have the IC? Do we enforce it or would the very act of enforcement change the IC? You say vast majority. How vast and what amount of power would they wield?
atypicalguy 2 years ago
"You say vast majority. How vast and what amount of power would they wield?"
That would change from time to time and place to place.
In some circumstances, there might not be a distinguishable IC. People, for example, could be split right down the middle on a given issue, or there might be 5 (or more) different and opposing position on how something should be done.
When people who share the same preference pool their resources in defense of those preferences, they have a chance of succeeding.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
How do we determine the decision making system based on a particular time and place? Seems you'd need meta and meta-meta-decision making eventually. Unless there's one absolute we all start from.
atypicalguy 2 years ago
I don't think decision making systems are determined (generally). In real life, humans don't have that kind of luxury (unless maybe the human in question is a king or something). Decision making systems are more emergent, I would think. They come about in different ways, for different reasons... sometimes through a process of trial and error. Also, we mustn't forget that necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure most systems evolve over time as well.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Okay decision making systems emerge and evolve over time spontaneously. That makes sense. Is the IC meant to be a description like this or is it prescriptive. Is it an argument for general efficiency or are we chasing the ideal of liberty?
atypicalguy 2 years ago
It's meant to be descriptive.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Unless I am completely misunderstanding how CS is using the term, it does not matter what anyone is thinking, only the manner in which they act.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Okay then replace thinking with doing and I restate my argument.
atypicalguy 2 years ago
If no one knows that someone is acting in opposition to the IC, then in the context of societal relations they are still abiding by it until they get caught. Assuming you are not some manner of social democrat, your inner desires are not reflected in the current IC, but assuming you are taking every measure to avoid danger, you are largely abiding by the IC and in that manner supporting it. Enforcement is an element of IC, as is the typical style of enforcement used.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
So if I'm actively trying to subvert the IC and nobody catches me, then I've not really subverted the IC? confused
"Assuming you are not some manner of social democrat, your inner desires are not reflected in the current IC," So if I am some manner of social democrat... my desires will be reflected? Social democracy?
And if I avoid danger I'm abiding by it? Are we talking about a natural law or something? Are you talking about what we have now or something imagined? Sorry, you lost me.
atypicalguy 2 years ago
Yeah, some of this is a question of how far one wishes to draw this down. I was thinking about someone who engages in a prohibited activity, but hides it well. During his life in the open, he is conforming with the IC, which in some sense keeps the conflict against it hidden.
As far as social democracy, I brought that us as it is the sea we swim in (or perhaps more accurately, it is oligarchy dressed up like social democracy)
To my understanding, IC = general MO of society, nothing more.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
My understanding of what an IC is, is simply "what most people prefer". For example, the IC among anarchists is that the state is bogus.
I don't think there's really a scientific approach to determining ICs. Even taking polls is flawed in many ways. Fortunately however, as BAL pointed out, we can pretty much just look at the world around us, and figure it out. It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
But that's really vague. I'm interested in the specifics. Is there a protocol for determining boundaries and property "rights" or titles? Or does everything just sort of fall into place?
atypicalguy 2 years ago
I don't understand the question.
Are you asking me:
a) Does our current society have a protocol for delineating property rights, or
b) Is it possible for any society/community to establish a protocol for delineating property rights?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
How do you think we should determine how much authority and dominion an individual should have over a given amount of territory? Where are his boundaries and what can he do when someone steps over that line that he cannot when they do not? How is this correctly done within the IC framework?
atypicalguy 2 years ago
There is no "correct" way to distribute and govern property. There are DIFFERENT ways that different people prefer.
In any given region, at any given time, the IC will dictate how property is distributed and governed (controlled) UNLESS violence/force is used by a minority to counteract the IC (which is essentially the "will of the majority" (more or less).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Looks like direct democracy with pressure at the margins. What happens if two IC's meet. Are they allowed to overlap or merge? Can a single one split? Can the majority counteract the IC or in that instance would it simply be changing it?
atypicalguy 2 years ago
It's too hard to respond to this comment with out being able to quote each question (which YT doesn't really allow any more).
Have you watched CS's new video on the subject of ICs?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Not yet but I'll certainly get around to it. I'm not trying to bash you guys' system. I agree with the general idea of migration and diversity and to some extent the freedom of culture but it's hard to imagine something like that existing in the real world and not collapsing into an -ism.
atypicalguy 2 years ago
lol. this was pretty funny.
Syntheticbrawler 2 years ago
He does it because he is a racist, a cowardly racists but a racists nonetheless.
lordmetroid 2 years ago
Moar liek confederate socialite, amite?
lollygager3664 2 years ago
The worst thing that CS did in that video was meander around the issue. He says Anti-racism is as bad as racism, although never WHY, and that all white nationalism is that white men want white people to fuck each other. WELL SO WHAT?
TheScrewOnHead 2 years ago
Well, that's simply misleading, as many of CS's claims are. White nationalists may try to portray themselves as being fairly passive or innocuous, but that's largely a marketing ploy.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I don't remember saying anything about White nationalists, so I'm not sure what this comment is referring to.
Plus, it's retarded that we can't quote people on YouTube anymore. What idiot came up with that rule?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Owned.
dude11293 2 years ago
Another problem with anti-racists:
Anti-racists tend to think, that when there is a gap in the market, somebody needs to be FORCED to fill this gap (which is slavery).
For instance, if nobody is making shoes for black people, some shoe maker must be forced to.
This belief is due to an all-too-common ignorance of economics.
When there is a gap in the market, that gap will be filled due to the profit motive. When there is a demand for something, people stand to profit by providing that thing.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
No slavery is necessary.
Certainly, if anti-racists can be offended by racism, anti-anti-racists can be offended by the slavery that anti-racists advocate.
It's not unreasonable to oppose slavery. We do not need to force people to produce goods and services. Not ever.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
just so you know, those two may be true where you're from, but they aren't true anywhere of the 10 places I've lived.
5U64RC4K35 2 years ago
Well... I live on YouTube, so that's one of my main frames of reference.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Again, you're conflating anti-racism as a social viewpoint with a political-economic policy position. Stop it.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
No I'm not. There's an obvious difference between those two things. I'm simply pointing out that those things often correlate.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Plus, anti-racists consider it a crime to only serve SOME people, rather than ALL people.
However, they don't consider it a crime to serve NO people at all.
Obviously, that's fucking retarded and doesn't make any damn sense.
In real terms, that disincetivises production of goods and services, and makes everybody worse off.
You can't make it a fucking crime to produce goods and services. This is the problem with anti-racists. They are just as retarded as racists.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I don't consider it a "crime", I consider it unvirtuous to racially disciminate and exclude people from communities based on race. Stop conflating legal issues with social viewpoints. They don't always overlap.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
When did he say he did not agree with MLK? I did see him mentioned MLK in his last video; Dude, not all anti-racists are like MLK! Jesse jackson claims to be an anti-racist, and he refer to new york as hymietown; Tim wise says that its a fact that most white people see black people as people with ape-like qualities ;Not all anti-racists care about advancing the status of "minorities" , some just want to sell a book and a secure career
suboreo 2 years ago
It was an exaggeration. You may even call it a joke. Im just trying to point out the ridiculousness of his position.
chris3325 2 years ago
One of the reason anti-racists tend to be just as destructive as racist, is because anti-racists tend not to believe in property rights (or they don't believe that private property should be used for commercial purposes).
A lot of us who study economics, know just how boneheaded and economically retarded that is.
Plus, anti-racists tend to want the state (which is the biggest intistutional racist around) to make sure people don't restrict access to their own property. It's idiocy.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
There is a huge difference between a private business and these white nationalist states that would result from the restrictive covenant and you know it.
chris3325 2 years ago
I agree. However, the reason many of us have a problem with anti-racists, IS NOT because they oppose RCs. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. It's certainly not contained within the comment you are referring to.
Thanks for trying to make it sound like I said something I totally didn't say.
It wouldn't hurt to actually read the comments you're responding to.
I think I've made it very clear (over the course of several comments) what my problem with anti-racists is.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
You're conflating the social position of opposition to racism itself with a normative position on property rights, as well as a political policy position. That's a non-sequitor, particular with respect to libertarian anti-racists. Furthermore, you're clinging to a particular normative position on property rights that you cannot give any sound reasons for using your own amoralist framework. Hence, noone has any reason to accept your implied normative "property rights" concept.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Obviously, if I'm an amoralist, than I have no concept of "normative property rights", or normative anything else.
Maybe you should try to comprehend what amoralism is.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I know - which is why it is nonsensical for you to invoke a certain normative position on property rights as part of an argument against anti-racists, because you yourself have no rational reason for the preferability of such a property rights norm. Hence, it makes no sense to say "anti-racist te suxxorz because they don't accept a particular norm of property rights". Yea, and so what?
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Well... for one thing, I'm allowed my own preferences.
For another thing, in practical terms, the solutions anti-racists often offer, do not solve what they see as the problem. In fact, they make the problem worse.
Eroding property rights is another attempt to solve a problem by not addressing the actual causes.
So yeah... I have some basis for my arguments (not that I expect you to be able to comprehend them).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I do think that most "racism" in and of itself is more related to classism and not so much due because of the 'reality' of race. If CS is saying that classism is a statist problem then I can see why he would say that , in a world where every color of people have already blended with one another to produce a society with a black/white gradient, that racism would not be an issue. But as it is we already have people of every color, so that would be missing your point entirely.
urbster1 2 years ago
Argh! You're really straw manning him here.
It's not that the state causes racism; it's that racism is only a problem when it is coercively institutionalized.
There's a significant difference between not liking black people, and passing a law that says black people can't vote.
You're ignoring that distinction, which is why you are missing CS's point.
You're not a very subtle thinker Chris. You're missing some pretty key distinctions here.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"It's not that the state causes racism; it's that racism is only a problem when it is coercively institutionalized."
I agree, D4.
Sorry Chris, but you're straw-manning.
Anon1696 2 years ago
"it's that racism is only a problem when it is coercively institutionalized."
So the KKK murdering black people isn't a problem? A government official discriminating (not the government, just the individual) isn't a problem?
Racist juriors and judges and cops isn't a problem?
Please just stfu.
Xelbiuj 2 years ago
Murdering people (for any reason) is a problem. If I murder somebody because they are wearing a blue hat, the problem isn't that I hate blue hats; the problem is that I murdered someone (I felt that homicide was a valid way for me to express my hatred of blue hats). Hating blue hats, in and of itself, isn't a problem, nor is racism, even though murdering people certainly is.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
sir racism is a problem as is murder
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago 3
How so? Do you mean... racism has the potential to offend somebody or hurt someone's feelings?
Do you feel you have a "right" not to be offended, or to not have your feelings hurt?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
the things done because of racism ... accceptance of racism and complacancy is just as bad as racism itself as it shows a similar degree of ignorance
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago 2
People are ignorant of all sorts of things. In fact, the complaint that many of us have against anti-racists, is that they are ignorant about economics, and as a result, often advocate stupid and destructive "solutions" to the "problem" of racism.
This also makes them hypocritical (since there are plenty of things they themselves are ignorant about).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
what the fuck does economis have to do with racism and anti racism i dont advoicate any destructiveness that other may their ignorant fuck ups too oh well they have a slight clue granted i dont agree with their means i for one deplore violence anti racism doesnt imply that i have similar methods as groups like ANTIFA it just implies i consider racism harmful
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago 3
Most anti-racists believe that private property should not be used for commercial purposes. They argue that once property is used commercially, it becomes public. This is why they think it's fine to restrict access to one's home or automobile, but it's not fine to restrict access to a place of business. Thus, people should not be free to choose how to use their own property, plus they should be forced to produce goods and services for others, against their will.
That is an economic issue.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
so because im anti racist i agree with most anti racist who are generally antifa members?
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago 2
Huh?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
your sayin that because im anti racist i agree with the majority of anti racists which i do not
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
Are you talking to me, AnarchisticAttitude?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
yes but looking back on it thats probably not the case so disregard the last comment
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
No, racism is a social problem regaurdless of whether or not it has to do with the state. You're ideology is fucktarded.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
It's far less of a problem than any of the "solutions" people offer to treat the problem. Thus, it's a non-issue.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
No, it isn't a "non-issue" simply because group X's "solutions" suck. That would be a non-sequitor.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Look... if people want to live in a community/society where they have a "right not to be offended", they can be my guest. Personally, I think that would be an incredibly stifling, and likely disastrous sort of situation.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I'm not talking about people's feelings being hurt, I'm talking about outright racial separatism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Racism is an ideology, whereas separatism is a practice. Clearly, those two things are related, but there's also a huge difference. You shouldn't use one to refer to the other. Obviously, that's going to confuse people.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I don't think he was denying racism isn't an issue today. I think he was saying that he doesn't like how anti-racist go about and attacking what they perceived as racism; He even says he does not have a problem with people who are disgusted with racist individuals, I think he was saying that the anti-racists are racists themselves when they try to generalize how a group acts towards another group, i.e. whites are the only racist, whites are the oppressors;
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
I don't think CS has any problem with race-based restrictive covenants? Why would he?
For one thing, he's an anarchist, and any anarchist who wants to abolish race-based restrictive covenants, is going to need some sort of centralized state to do that.
For another thing, who gives a crap if a bunch of racists want to start their own little enclave? Anarchy is about variety, and about people being able to actualize their personal preferences.
I think you're straw manning him here.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I give a crap about a bunch of racists having free reign over a geographic area. Sounds a bit like a state run by racists.
lets see 1. a geographic area ruled over by a select group. Check
2. Laws instituted by a select group at the expense of a minority. Check
3. The use of force to exclude said minority from the geographic area. Check
How is this any different then all the worst things anarchists have to say about the state?
chris3325 2 years ago
Well... for one thing, there's a HUGE difference in scale. The damage that a large centralized state can inflict, far surpasses (by about a zillion times) the damage an RC can inflict.
Now... in order to prevent RCs from existing, you're going to need a large centralized state (most likely). That's not an even trade off (when we consider scale, when putting things into perspective).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
RC's are defacto territorial governments or perpetual/intergenerational "social contracts".
brainpolice2 2 years ago
So then, is any community that has any sort of rules/rights regulating/regarding the distribution and ownership of property (be it collective or private).
So is any sort of private property whatsoever.
What's your point?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
My point is that those "anti-statists" that put foreward absolutist territorial property conventions as a norm are supporting everything they claim to oppose, only under a different set of defacto owners. The issue is not with *any* sort of rules/rights about the distribution and ownership of property, the issue is with absolute authority claims derives from *territorialism*, as a specific property convention. States are "emergent" from absolute land property conventions.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Also... any occupation of any geographic area is going to involve enforcing preferences that other people don't like/believe in. There is NO way around this, because different human beings prefer different things.
For example, some people prefer private property, while others prefer communal property.
There is no way around the fact that different human beings prefer different things. The best people can do, is group together based on shared preferences, and try to protect their way of life.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
The difference is the fact that the area of the restrictive covenant is the private property of the 'racists' and that it is voluntary (at least to submit to). Anyway, #2 and #3 doesn't check since there are no "minorities" on private property (unless there's immigrant mexicans living under the floor). If I tell you that you have to keep off my land, do I do that at the "expense" of a "minority" (you)? No, of course not, you had no claim on my land in the first place.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
There is no difference between such territorialist authorities and states, other than as a matter of scale.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Assuming that you're right, is that not a good thing? The closer we get to individual free will, the better. Conceptually our brain governs the rest of our body, but that's natural. People get together in groups by free will, that's natural. The STATE,people getting in a group and paying "taxes" all against their will, is not natural, and it's been proven ineffective so many times.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
Expanding the amount of states and restricting them to smaller territories doesn't necessarily increase "individual free will". The fundamental problem remains - "love it or leave it" still doesn't suffice.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Then you should get yourself one big centralized state so that you can outlaw all the little mini-states you don't approve of.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
False dichotomy between centralized statism and decentralized statism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
If you got rid of a centralized state, I have no idea why you would expect there not to form smaller states within that geographic area.
I don't believe you have any basis whatsoever to think that such mini or quasi-states wouldn't form.
You're simply not facing reality/being honest with yourself.
Has it ever occurred to you, that some people might actually like some sort of state?
Do you think every single human being is a closet anarchist?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Doesn't necessarily? People would choose to live there. If a person chooses not to submit to a restrictive covenant, it is that much smaller - unlike a state. It wouldn't be seen as legitimate by the general population and ESPECIALLY not the minority (which is the case today). It wouldn't be coercive to anybody who did not agree to some kind of punishment in case they broke contract. It's not "love it or leave it," it's "love it or don't submit to it." So don't.
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago
CS doesn't sound like an imbecile, he IS an imbecile.
And no, he doesn't understand shit about economics. He buys into the Fed conspiracy theories, which means he hasn't got a clue on how does it work... he thinks they can just print money out of thin air, and that's simply FALSE.
All of the fancy rhetoric he spouts on his videos are straight out of market fundamentalist evangelism... these are not well thought-out arguments he came up on his own, but standard market-fundie gospel.
TheSockWithNoName 2 years ago
It's because all anarchist as anti-statistics have is trumped up rhetoric. If you define stupidity as willful ignorance I think CS would qualify.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Honestly from what iv seen around here(South, Texas). Racism really isn't a big issue. Sure there's some old people set in their ways and are slightly racist, but thats all iv really seen. The biggest issue in that realm is people playing the race card(AKA Reverse racism). Which pissed me off because there's really no such thing.
teamhex 2 years ago
You live in the state then jails more black men then any other. A state that has been known to sweep through black neighborhoods and arrest most of the males over "drugs"
chris3325 2 years ago
I have to disagree, theres more blacks and mexicans then there is white, you come down here and you'll understand why that is. We are a minoity. I went up north to South Dakota and didnt see a single mexican or black while I was there. Now living in where u do im sure theres a nice mix. Iv never heard of cops just randomly searching neighborhoods, im sure it has happened, but its not just a state thing. Sure theres a bunch of morons here, but bad shit happens all over.
teamhex 2 years ago
I think it is good that he doesn't stick to economics (he doesn't know anything that is actually useful on that topic, anyways). At least this way he has a chance to refine his character and explore new ideas, although he seems like a Christian who has beliefs and opinions and will constantly make shit up to justify his viewpoint.
cyfuse 2 years ago
Comment removed
Fendermrr 2 years ago
serious subjects humerously expressed. Love the chris3325 channel :)
BespokeGroupUK 2 years ago
I find this humerus.
Maladath 2 years ago 2