philschneider

Please explain how? I do not understand. I do see how my post could have been offensive, but that seems to be where my understanding drops off.

I am glad you brought this up. I hear you, and I see how it can be an insulting thing to say. I will try to avoid doing this in the future. To explain myself I have only been here a little over a week and my experience so far makes me feel that 1/3-1/2 of the people at FDR are like this at least some of the time. My opinion is likely skewed because I am new here, and because of the emotional nature of my first major post. Either way this is almost exactly how I feel about FDR at the moment. You can damn me for it if you want, but I am hoping my experience so far is not the true face of FDR and my opinion will change quickly. Instead of being insulted you could have also looked at it this way. I am new and don't know what to think about the new community I joined. I am use to people online being unempathetic, reactionary, and emotional just like we all are out side of FDR. Because of this I am just trying to prepare viewers to a potentially inflammatory idea. The intro was meant to diminish emotional reactions not insult peoples intelligence. Obviously it was not needed, but I thought I would be better safe then sorry. Everyone no matter how smart can be hurt and get emotionally defensive if their beliefs are being attacked. I was trying to take this into account and prepare people for what could have ended up being very reactionary responses towards me. While I may have been unintentionally insulting, you also chose to take what I said as insulting instead of being empathetic towards me. I could say that I am insulted that you assumed that my intentions were insulting. Why would you automatically think that I meant to post to a forum like this to insult people? Of course I don't think this about you, but I am just exaggerating to show that any comment can be taken negatively or positively depending on the viewer. Four people commented before you and they at least did not think I was being insulting. As a matter of fact JSDEV noticed that I just thought I was saying something controversial. It is better to question people on their intentions then to make wrong assumptions. I did not mean by this reply to minimize your feeling or further upset you, but to let you in on my own point of view and feelings. I think this topic may make an interesting thread. Please let me know if you would like to talk about this more I will start one up. So I am going to try to summarize this argument to break it down and see if I am fully understanding you. Please correct me if I get something wrong. You are arguing that people in society are flawed, damaged, and illogical. To argue without anarchy would be like emulating what other groups do to convert people now. Pop phrases, and emotional biting quotes are the most effective way to convince people and get their attention, but it is not the right thing to do. We should not be like everyone else. We should take the high ground even if it slows the rate of growth. We should be a good example for the world and for future generations. If I have interpreted your comment right this is quite an interesting idea. I guess it would come down to if logic, facts, and the moral high ground more important when peoples lives are literally on the line? You could also argue if you don't fix the basic problem of people being illogical then you will just have brainless followers being anarchists, and will that really change the world in a permanent way? If we start now by being good examples of what anarchy will be, and try to break the negative stereotypes we could get some where. I think this is a good idea and argument.

To tell the truth I made the title overly attention grabbing. I was hoping for disagreement, but there does not seem to be any.

OK before everyone rages here I am being serious and I am an anarchist like the rest of you. I am going to simply be talking about strategy for the future. I am not trying to argue that we should not be anarchists, and I am not trying to attack anarchy at its core. Please keep try to keep your emotions in check I would like to just talk about strategy, and how effective the current anarchy campaign is presently. I have noticed that because of brainwashing, lack of self knowledge, negatives representations of anarchy in media, normalization of violence, etc, anarchy is an incredibly tough sell to anyone. Converting a meaningful portion of the population to anarchy is a daunting and impossible task. Because of this should we spend our time working on the near impossible? Supporting and teaching statists to instead support voluntary relationships, oppose violence, and leave politics as much out of it as you can. Don't tell them you are a anarchist. Don't even hint at it. And don't even try to suggest they change their political beliefs. Just attack them at the most basic level and help get them to support the fundamentals and the rest will follow in time. I would argue that if you can help push the population towards the basics fundamentals of anarchy without telling them so they will be primed for future conversion. Another problem with being an anarchist is that once you claim to be one you put a target on your back. Your opinions and arguments are automatically less effective. People do not like anarchy and their defenses go up instantly. If you never trigger that first set of defenses then you have a higher chance to get them to stop hitting their kids, change their relationships, etc. I would suggest simply stating you are pro nonviolence, and have no political ties. In conclusion I propose that it would be more effective in the short and long run to abandon anarchy and just promote nonviolence. If you start with nonviolence and people start applying it to all aspects of their lives the ending effect will be at very least a bunch of statist libertarians which would be a great start. I would even suggest not saying you are an anarchist, libertarian, or any political view at all. I think if you stay as neutral as possible and attack the fundamental flaws in society you will see a faster more effective change. What do you think of my theory? Is it spot on? Do you completely disagree? Do you have an alternative plan? Do you think anarchy is spreading quickly enough? Do you think anarchy will ever leave the fringe with our current strategy?

I have not really gotten into bad religion yet surprisingly. I have always meant to I guess I need to get to it.

I originally posted this in General discussion and there were no one commented. It thought maybe I would get a better conversation going Under anarchy. If not then I will drop it. Sorry for the double post, but I does not seem possible for me to delete my original post to move it to here. So when I as a teenager I was really into heavy metal and loved Mudvayne. I still enjoy this music now, but I recently started actually listening to the lyrics of the songs and was completely surprised. I am not sure if there are more hidden gems, but thissong in my mind puts all of my thoughts of anti-state into one bad ass song. I personally consider this my anarchist theme songand it usually helps me remember that I am not alone and one day we will end the tyranny. Because if even a bunch of young kids playing heavy metal music out of Peoria, IL can notice and speak out against the state then we all can.(they are not that young now but they were when they wrote this) http://www.azlyrics....ne/choices.html Does anyone else like this song and agree? Do you have your own anarchist theme song? Or do you know of any anarchist music in general that you would like to share with me and FDR? Lets all rock out and fight the man together!

From my experience college did the complete opposite for me. I know that everyone does not have the same experience, but I learned quite a lot about how high school was propaganda. For one I was very lucky and had a philosophy teacher who did not just tell me about the history of philosophy. It was a pretty rigorous course that consisted of mostly Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and Nietzsche. I took Socrates question everything mentality, and how do you know blank is true mentality very seriously. I took it so seriously in fact that my friends started getting annoyed and started calling me Socrates for about 3 months. Secondly I received a degree in history which opened my eyes to real history. One of the best classes I ever took was a junior research paper on Genocide. Every student had to pick a different genocide to write about and we all read our papers to each other at the end of class. It was eye opening to say the least. To sum it up college made me question everything I had previously learned to be true. I would no longer believe statements without evidence. And I strove, and still do, to not take historians interpretations as fact and to find the true history behind the popular interpretation. College turned me into an atheist and a Libertarian by my 2nd year. Sadly I do not think this is a typical outcome, but I could be wrong.

This is by far the most disgusting and revolting thing I have read today. This lady is a sociopathic monster.

These books are an excellent start to understanding what a sociopath is. The sociopath next door is especially useful because it gives real life stories from the victims point of view. It really helps you learn first hand what it is like to be in a relationship with a sociopath I am not sure if I anyone else said this or not, but the official way to test is by using the PCL-R test. If you can get a hold of the test and instructions on how to use the test you can figure out within decent precision how likely it is they are a sociopath or a psychopath. The easiest way would be to buy the inventor of the test's book or take his class, but that can be expensive. There may be a cheaper/free way online if you look around a bit. I would start with getting the book through your local library or inter library loaning it. Below is a link the the PCL-R book I have talked about above. http://www.hare.org/scales/pclr.html There is one copy on amazon, but it must be rare because it is insanely pricey http://www.amazon.com/The-Hare-psychopathy-checklist-revised-manual/dp/B0006OVU86s

I am already in a happy relationship at the moment, but this seems like a great idea. In the past I spent some time looking for anarchist dating websites or forums, and I found nothing. I think FDR would be a good place to try this out.

So when I as a teenager I was really into heavy metal and loved Mudvayne. I still enjoy this music now, but I recently started actually listening to the lyrics of the songs and was completely surprised. I am not sure if there are more hidden gems, but this song in my mind puts all of my thoughts of anti-state into one bad ass song. I personally consider this my anarchist theme song and it usually helps me remember that I am not alone and one day we will end the tyranny. Because if even a bunch of young kids playing heavy metal music out of Peoria, IL can notice and speak out against the state then we all can.(they are not that young now but they were when they wrote this) http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/mudvayne/choices.html Does anyone else like this song and agree? Do you have your own anarchist theme song? Or do you know of any anarchist music in general that you would like to share with me and FDR? Lets all rock out and fight the man together!

I would agree with most of the answers here, but I would like to add a culture based answer. I have a friend who's parents immigrated from Mexico and he told in their culture it is rude and a sign of aggression to make eye contact with an elder or someone who is dominant to you. Other cultures may also be like this, but I am not sure which ones. If you are talking to someone who has a different cultural back ground then your own they may be avoiding eye contact because of old traditions on manners.

Yes I just recently discovered him. He is still young, but his ideas are pretty rock solid. He is also very entertaining. The only issue I have so far is he operates under the non-aggression principle, but thinks its justified to punish children by hitting them. I disagree with him on this point, but otherwise I think he is a great youtuber to check out if you have the time.

You can write something along the lines of "if you provided us a volunteer service we wanted I would give you money instead of my vote" or something like "voting. The next best thing to breaking into my house and stealing my money." or "voting: giving violent people power since 1776" I personally like the last one the best. Short, funny, and effective. Hope you like one of these. Good luck with the poster.

I want to preface this with I have never experienced this, so my opinion may be lacking. I am sorry you are going through this, but yes this is sill manipulation. Just because she is not aware of her manipulation does not change her actions effects. You can be empathetic towards her lack of understanding. You can try to explain and help her, but if she can not understand and change her actions then you can only continue to be separated from her.

Awesome thanks for the invite. I am usually quite busy with friend and family events during the summer, but I would love to attend a meeting eventually. I will keep your events on my calender and hopefully I can attend soon.

I would advise against the scouts. There is enough god and country loyalty involved that I would steer clear. Avocadogreta is right though. There are many other groups out there that are similar that you could look into. You can also just talk to other parents in your area to create your own group/club and take your children out camping and build wilderness skills. Joining a pre made group is easier, but is unnecessary.

Yes I know guys that religious people can be manipulative assholes as well. I was simply talking about my personal debating experience. Whether you want to agree or not saving someone from eternal damnation is a pretty nice thing to do if you believe that hell is a reality. You guys can say what you want, but I think people caring enough about other humans to spend their lives trying to stop me and others from ending up in an eternity of hell is a pretty noble endeavor. It is completely wrong, but in their mind they are saving lives/souls. There has never been a statist that I have argued with that has ever wanted to change a law for the betterment of other people. They always want a law changed and a bill passed for themselves and fuck everyone else. If you can look at it based off my experiences I think you would come to a similar conclusion. I also do not live in the bible belt. There are not many radical Christians where I live. Most religious people in the Chicago land area would rather you not be an atheist, but few will damn you for your stance. Again this is my personal experience.

In my opinion then main argument and frustration between these two men is the fact that Stephan refused to look at the zeitgeist movement in theoretical sense as Peter does. Just like if you look at communism in a theoretical sense it seems crazy to not agree with it. It sound like a utopia. the zeitgeist movement is the same. In theory the zeitgeist movement could actually happen and end up perfectly like Peter wishes, but it could also end up being a world wide genocide far worse then communism. Anarchy is partially theoretical as well, but it has piles of real life examples and is practical. Stephan refused to engage in a practical organization of the world by using theoretical ideas and would not back down to Peter's wishful thinking. This caused Peter to become enraged and feel like Stephan was cornering him. Peter seems to think his idea is better because it is a perfect world where everyone is happy where anarchy can theoretically be perfect, but will practically never be a utopia. Peter is stuck in this mind set where he thinks that the world can be a Utopia and anything less is a failure in comparison. If Stephan would have considered Peter's theory at all practical and Peter considered that Utopia is practically impossible then they could have met in the middle, or at least been less angry. I think as long as Peter thinks that everyone can be equal and live in a Utopia there is no arguing with him. It is sad though because they both are interested in the same thing. They have the same enemy, yet they are enemies with each other. And in an anarchist world it is perfectly feasible for Peter to try his zeitgeist movement small scale and voluntarily before trying to make it a world phenomenon. I would think Peter would support anarchy as a way to move towards his end goals. On a side note from the video above Peter Called Stephen a lier. I found this ironic seeing that most of Zeitgeist 1 was completely fabricated or based off terrible sources.

Yeah this happens all the time. I have a buddy I like to argue anarchy with and he always brings this up. Last time we talked I told him to list specific examples of how monopolies are bad and how capitalism fails. Every single example he used involved government giving corporations money, power, and ways to ignore laws. He eventually gave up realizing ever single reason he did not like capitalism was because a government existed. Yet of course that was not a reason to think about anarchy or capitalism positively. Most people just never learn. I expect to have this same conversation with him again in the future. Maybe even indefinitely or until he stops bringing it up. I find the best way to talk to these people is to explain that America does not have a free market. It always puts a damper in the anti capitalists day when I tell them that China is more capitalistic and has a better free market then the US does. I just tend to simply explain that their endless examples are not the free markets fault, but that of the government. Try by asking them how their complaint would still be true without a government to bribe. They will eventually give up, or maybe it will sink in one day.

I chose statists because as of right now in America they are causing the most damage and refuse to admit it. Most religious people I have dealt with can understand Atheism and just disagree because of lack of knowledge argument or proof from a book. While I obviously disagree I can accept their ideas as having logic and thought behind it. Statists on the other hand have little to no logic, or evidence to back up their thoughts. They also lie and cover up their intentions by naming their goals at the opposite of what they are. I can not respect people who act in this way. Finally statist goals are to gain power/money for themselves. While religious people are trying to bring you to heaven/salvation. While religious people are fools at least they have pure intentions, and respectable goals.

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think your resume is not very good and lacking. Let me give you some suggestions and I will attach my resume to try to give you an idea of what a better resume is. I am not an expert, but I have been told during many interviews that I have an impressive resume. -First of all I like how simple your resume is, but it is short. Many people advise you to keep it to one page. This is an old wise tale if you have enough important skills or experiences definitely go over the 1 page limit. My friend has a 4 page resume because of all he volunteering and programming and he gets interviews like crazy. Second of all change experience to work experience. Future employers care more about employment then what you have personally researched. If you have learned skills outside of school try to label it under skills or self employment Make everything sound as professional as you can. I sold things is not profession language. Instead say something like I used my customer service skills to help customers find the correct electronics for their needs. Bullet pointing your different jobs. Put education at the bottom of your resume. Employers will look to see that you have a degree, but they really don't care about it. They care mostly about skills, and experience. Move skills to under experience. Take out eager learner that is information you should include in your cover letter. Skills should be tangible value you can bring to a company. For skills add in any other computer skills no matter how basic to make yourself look better. You can't assume that a future employer will think you can use microsoft office just because you can program. Add microsoft office to your skills, computer repair/building skills if you know that, etc. Take out retail experience from skills it is redundant and pointless if you are trying to get a computer job. If you are applying for retail again stocking and cashiering is important other wise get rid of it. Add any skill in the what I can do for you into skills and delete what I can do for you. Your cover letter is where you are suppose to sell yourself and tell and employer what you can do for them. Ever company is different anyway and your skills may help each one in a different way. Make sure to research where you apply to and make a specific example about where your skills can specifically help their company in your cover letter. You don't have to but I like to add my references at the end of my resume it makes it easier for the employer instead of looking through multiple files for all your information. Add your personal webpages link by your personally information up top to show your web design skills if you have any Finally add as many skills as you can it looks a bit bare. Remember you learned a lot of skills in class make sure to talk about them. Also if you have ever had any other job add it. Add a volunteering section to show you have more practical experience, or important organizations you are apart of. I will also attach one of my better cover letters with my resume, so you can try to get a good idea of what will increase your chances of getting an interview. Some final advise get a linkedin account. I have had a couple phone interviews from companies looking for tech skills. This may help you find a job faster. I tried to add my resume as an attachment but I can not find the button to add a file. I think I may not be able to add anything if I am a commenter. So formatting will be kind of odd, but I think you can get the idea. If you want I will e-mail it to you. Edit: I just realized I had a lot of very personal information about myself and people I have worked with that I posted. I am no longer comfortable having this information here because of recent events. If you would still like a copy of my resume/cover letter to help you out you can email me at [email protected] and I will be happy to give you a copy.

Hi everybody my name is Phillip Schneider and I joined the forum about a month ago, but this is the first time I have spent any time on it. I am from Illinois and I just finished up my Masters degree in Library Science.(my bachelors degree is in history) I am currently employed at Elgin Library and I work at the reference desk. If anyone lives in the Chicago land area and wants to come in and say hi I would be happy to talk to you, or help you with any research needs you have. Right now I am living with my parents because of my debt, but my future plans are to save up money to move out on my own once more. I want to eventually become a library director and stop at least one library from wasting my friends, family, and neighbors money on frills and unnecessary employees. I also have plans of writing a book, or possibly a series of articles on sociopath and prominent figures from history. I have done much of the research on sociopath and must not begin on choosing historical figures and researching them in depth. I personally think most US presidents, especially the "great ones", such as Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Roosevelt, Jackson, etc. were sociopaths. I want to write this book to help encourage people to stop believing in hero's, and to stop leaving out important concepts about these figures. I believe these peoples short coming and bad decisions can teach just as much as their good decisions. I also want to try to shock people in to realizing how little they think they know about history. Perhaps this will help stop history from repeating one day.

Well welcome. I just got an account about a month ago and I have not yet used it until today. And I laughed when I read you comment on being more enlightened philosophically. At the age of 20 nobody that I have ever met in my life knows anything about philosophy. At age 27 I feel like I am already more intelligent when it comes to philosophy(and most topics) then 99% of the world. Keep up your reading and studying it is well worth it. While most people will not understand or care about philosophy it will help you in your every day life by increasing your understanding of everything. I specifically use Socrates/Plato's mantra of questions everything daily as well as “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” by Confucius. Life is way to short to let people lie to you and try to cover up lies with miss vocabulary. Philosophy has released me from lies and twisted logic given to me from school and society. I never want to go back to the way I was. On a side note I am working with a younger guy (21) who just graduated college. I tried to talk about philosophy with him and he told me he hated it and thought is was boring. I further questioned him and he basically said that philosophy was boring, pointless, and meaningless and he could not understand why anyone would like it. Depressingly I could not convincing him otherwise he may be lost forever. I am glad to see your not like most people your age.

Just a heads up I did not read through this entire thread, so if I am saying what someone else has already said just ignore me. The easiest way to loose weight and start a healthy life style is to just pick an exercise you like such as running, biking, weightlifting, etc. and do that 3-4 times a week for 30-60 min. each time. The key to keeping up an exercise regimen is to do what you like. Getting in the habit and getting yourself to want to exercise is the hardest part. So try a bunch of types of exercise and stick with what ever you enjoy the most. You can always change your exercises later to meet your goals when you have built up your self discipline and motivation. For nutrition there are plenty of guides out there. If you want the simplest possible diet just become a vegetarian. Meat is very high in calories, usually has low nutritional value, and it is easier to over eat. Becoming a vegetarian usually forces you to consume less fat, calories, and increase your nutritional intake.(By nutritional I mean vitamins, fiber, minerals, etc.) If you have are really good at self control then you should follow the food pyramid. Eat roughly 10-15% meat per day, 25-35% fruit, and the rest should be grains and vegetables. If you are weight lifting you should supplement your meat with extra protein from nuts. This is what I try to stick too. Except I simplify it down to 10-20% animal product (eggs, dairy, meat, fish, etc.) and 90-80% fruits, grains, and veggies. This has worked well to help me maintain a good weight and physic even when I am lazy. I am 200lbs, 6'1'' and quite muscular and this keeps my calorie intake to about 2500-3000 per day. I lean more towards 3000-3500 on the days I exercise. Being healthy is relatively easy conceptually. The hard part is motivation, and to stopping yourself from cheating. Also remember on the days you are not active you need to eat less. If you sit on your butt all day you don't need as many calories as when you run 10 miles. Just use common sense, and do what is easiest for you to handle until you feel you are ready for a more extreme regiment. If you want more specific information just let me know. My best friend is a nutritionist and a personal trainer, so by proxy I know almost as much as he does or can ask him. This is my first day on the forum so you can email me @ [email protected] if you want more advise and I forget to check on the forum again. Changing your health around is hard. Work hard and don't let yourself slip.