Mainstream Media Idiocy

[IsaacGage860]

Mainstream Media Idiocy

 

You know the one thing I love about the mainstream media the most? It has to be the relentless mischaracterizations, straw man arguments, and AD homenim pouring out of poorly crafted essays of Sophistry such as this. Please people for the love of God I beg of you, when you want to critique a political philosophy or theory please do the following:

 

1. Define your terms. If nobody knows the definitions for the terms you are using the debate quickly begins to look esoteric and puts people to sleep.

 

2. Provide relevant examples and analogies that expose flaws in the argument or show that your opponent fits the characteristics of the terms you decide to use. Nothing is worse than someone who is only looking to slander their opponent and levy libelous claims against their character. I can't think of one person who would want to debate that.

 

3. Provide sources with evidence and data to corroborate your claims and clarify if necessary. If you do not have at least a minimum preponderance of data from different sources, you are putting forth an opinion that anyone could easily counter by saying that their opinion runs contrary to yours so therefore you are wrong. Nothing of value has actually been said and precious time is wasted arguing over normative opinions.

 

Finally, and most importantly, 

 

4.Know what the hell you are talking about to begin with. You save a whole lot of time and energy if you have at least somewhat of a working knowledge regarding the topic of the debate. If you don’t do any of this you are not making any kind of rational argument and are therefore not interested in engaging in serious discourse on complex social and economic issues. Nobody with more than one synapse firing in their brain is going to take you or your so called "credentials" seriously. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Concerned Philosopher 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists

[rosencrantz]

Have you read the Communist Manifesto? If so, how is the society depicted there different from an Anarchist utopia?

[Anuojat]

Have you read the Communist Manifesto? If so, how is the society depicted there different from an Anarchist utopia?

 

What do you mean by "Anarchist utopia"? If it has anythign to do with Communist manifesto then a Free voluntarist society certainly doesnt fit the bill... Especially how you get there

[rosencrantz]

Free voluntarist society certainly doesnt fit the bill

 

This is what Communism looks like in the Communist Manifesto. Look it up.

[dsayers]

You know the one thing I love about the mainstream media the most?

That you can turn it off/not watch it and save a lot of resources in the process.

 

Have you read the Communist Manifesto? If so, how is the society depicted there different from an Anarchist utopia?

"Anarchist utopia" is an oxymoron. I'll define terms since appeals to emotion rely on obfuscation.

 

anarchy - No rulers. Everybody exists in the same moral category. This is an observation of reality.

 

utopia - An IDEAL place or state. Any VISIONARY system of political or social PERFECTION. This is by definition a fantasy.

 

Reality and fantasy are antonyms. Therefore Anarchist utopia is an oxymoron. Thinking you can arrange society is utopian.

[rosencrantz]

anarchy - No rulers. Everybody exists in the same moral category. This is an observation of reality.

 

 

I dunno, but there are some rulers over me. If I don't obey them, I get thrown in jail.

 

 

utopia - An IDEAL place or state. Any VISIONARY system of political or social PERFECTION. This is by definition a fantasy.

 

 

 

Then you can point me to specific dates and places where there was anarchy in the sense you defined?

[Anuojat]

This is what Communism looks like in the Communist Manifesto. Look it up.

 You made the assertion that it sounded the same. I am not going to assume you know what youre talking about until you explain it your own words and i refuse to go "looking things up", ive heard this request/demand way too many times to know it usually means the person either has no clue about what they are talking about or they want YOU to be the one disproving somethign they asserted.

 

You make the assertion you have to be the one to make your case. THEN i will look it up if you cite passages from both voluntarist anarchy and from communist manifesto.

[dsayers]

Then you can point me to specific dates and places where there was anarchy in the sense you defined?

According to this quote, on 19 Dec 2016, at 12:49 PM EST, an FDR user named rosencrantz, without seeking anybody's permission (apart from use of FDR's private property), addressed somebody who occupied the exact same moral category as he does, while expressing an idea. That was anarchy in practice. I would wager that in the moments since then, you've achieved your goals by not initiating the use of force. Probably for that last week/month/year too. 99.9% of your life has been much of the same. Claiming you've never seen it is just willful ignorance.

[rosencrantz]

According to this quote, on 19 Dec 2016, at 12:49 PM EST, an FDR user named rosencrantz, without seeking anybody's permission (apart from use of FDR's private property), addressed somebody who occupied the exact same moral category as he does, while expressing an idea. That was anarchy in practice. I would wager that in the moments since then, you've achieved your goals by not initiating the use of force. Probably for that last week/month/year too. 99.9% of your life has been much of the same. Claiming you've never seen it is just willful ignorance.

 

Sure, but i still live under duress, according to libertarians with rulers, police, unchosen positive obligations and what not. 

 

THEN i will look it up if you cite passages from both voluntarist anarchy and from communist manifesto.

 

Here we go.

Marx depicted anarchism as an utopian ideal with no rulers. Automisation made wagecucking go away, you can live in peace and do what you want.

 

 

[dsayers]

Sure, but i still live under duress, according to libertarians with rulers, police, unchosen positive obligations and what not. 

And? We know that there is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. Therefore, all of those examples that qualify would look exactly the same without the mafia claiming to own you. Except they'd be safer, you could make more of them, etc.

[rosencrantz]

So what is the problem with the state then?

[Anuojat]

 

Here we go.

Marx depicted anarchism as an utopian ideal with no rulers. Automisation made wagecucking go away, you can live in peace and do what you want.

 

 

 

"utopian ideal" removed and youd have the defination i use for anarchy. BIG differance since when one uses the word "utopian" its way to discredits the possibility of somethign in the defination. Anarchism as understand it, simple mean NO RULERS, RULES and LAWS = Can be morally ok/neutral.

 

Automation you mean perhaps? And whats wagecucking mean? Is it like wage fixing or collusion? If thats what it is then we have to keep in mind the automationwas only possible because companies and induviduals and organizations (NOT the current legal fictions we call corporations) made progress towards in the free market (capitalism) and free market of ideas (scientific method). Which both are part of anarchy, free market has no rulers (authority like dentists may exist but no political rulers) and neither does science as you know from seeing soem of your others posts, science is not and SHOULD not be democratic but based on evidence, valid repeatable/testable theories.

[dsayers]

So what is the problem with the state then?

Moving the goalposts. My input was to challenge your language, as "Anarchist utopia" is an oxymoron. You did not accept this, nor have you circled back to address this.

[rosencrantz]

My input was to challenge your language, as "Anarchist utopia" is an oxymoron. You did not accept this, nor have you circled back to address this.

 

Challenge accepted. You have indeed many voluntary relationships. Those happen within a statist framework though. I called it utopia, because the times when there was no central authority within a larger region were usually pretty dire, like the interregnum between the middle ages and the conception of the modern state.