How the hell do people miss the principle of non contradiction

<:577504126301241356:614732663122690059>

Because it's harder to appeal to Millennials and gen X when your corporation doesn't have the facade of Anarchy

They see you for what you are and respond accordingly within their means

Then people should take their shaded lenses off

<:Kermit:612151522033401856>

<:577504126301241356:614732663122690059>

<a:530021641678225438:614733253470978051> <a:530021641678225438:614733253470978051> <a:530021641678225438:614733253470978051> <a:530021641678225438:614733253470978051> <a:530021641678225438:614733253470978051>

@Jonathan The Shaman why would you take the glasses off?

<:Bakard:612150766609629194>

To see without delusions or obstacles

Do you realize what I was making a reference to😆

Nope, I wasn’t paying much attention, driving and only looking in between driving, what were you referencing 🤔

I’ve seen that scene before, dunno the movie.

They Live

Tl:dr dude finds a box full of sunglasses that allow him to see through the bullshit and propaganda of the world

That would be handy

Well its handy till you learn the truths and realize how things really work

If you get passed the mind fuck of everything you ever knew being a lie

Then the powers that be will hunt you and everyone else in the world will be fully against you because they have not had their eyes opened the same way that you have and simply see you as being nothing more than a maniac with a flag and a shotgun

Its kinda like leaving the matrix

Sure you know how the world works now but now you're stuck in some pretty shity conditions

indeed; molyneux once pointed out that becoming evil is not caused by trauma alone. You become evil when you realize that evil is the winning team, and always has been.

Weird flex, but ok.

GG @Crow Magnus, you just advanced to level 1!

(and choose to join that team)

Would explain the sudden upswing in an-caps over the last couple of decades

how so?

Bait

☝💯

Everything I don't like is evil

Big brain hours

Say the facist

@NO isn't that what you already believe though? Or are commies able to not be evil in your little world

GG @SHEPARD D☭G, you just advanced to level 9!

@SHEPARD D☭G
"I would like to work for for this guy for less then the total economic output of my labour "
Shepard: "ree that's not voluntarily I'm going to kill your boss because this is the only business in existence and having to meet your own biological needs is slavery "

If that's your version of doing the right thing then no get out

You blatantly put words into peoples mouths without regard for what they have to say on the matter

And somehow its not a straw man

Explain

When have I ever called for someone's death? @ʀeaper

Well why wouldn't people do that then

I call for the death of all beers, their bodily fluids to be consumed on a regular basis!

@Elmo this guys going places

@ʀeaper you haven't cited examples of me Calling for death or assault or anything

Yet maintain the straw man of me doing so

Why would people be discouraged from those types of business relationships otherwise

Every time someone explains to you how to nonviolently participate in better forms of operation
it seems to go over your head

Why can't you grasp the concept that people want to get better pay better benefits and an actual relevant say in their workplace?
There's this thing called your rational self-interest try looking into it

@ʀeaper

They would still occur it would vary greatly even if that's the trend

People would still take crappy deals when they are presented with better options?

If we assume that people are rational actors this makes no sense

.
Making people take crappy deals when they have the ability to go after better deals requires Force the same Force currently used to protect capitalism and keep its life support online

<:Bakard:612150766609629194> <:Kermit:612151522033401856> <:550907996163670017:612171562069655552> <:601236595521093672:614732818597150720> <:591129245288497183:614732768148062229>

People could find themselves in positions where they need to accept crappy deals to support themselves

Which is why it's important to offer better deals so they can escape

But then you look at that and somehow interpret it as executing people for no apparent reason

@ʀeaper

Why do you think that process is automatic

Or that you have any control over the type of deals that are generated

@ʀeaper why do you think the process of people leaving crappy deals for better ones isn't automatic?

If we assume that people are rational actors and act in their self interest they would take the better deals when offered

It's not like the economy rewards company loyalty

I don't have to have any control over if he types of deals granted just look at the waiting lists to get into, where your standard business models have problems with being understaffed

The only force or control the economy would be offering more opportunities for people to escape

Via starting another Co-op or commune

This is of course assumes that local landlords and capitalists do not Call In state Force shut it down

It will eventually shift to a market similar to that but I don't have much confidence with desperate workers making calm rational decisions

Maybe in the past when the demand for unskilled labour was higher

So in conclusion the reason communism can't win is because people have been whipped and punished by the status quo (also known as capitalism) in order to keep them in a desperate scatterbrain state

Which prevents them from jumping ship to their local communes and coops

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0

Apparently, neither pure Communism nor pure Capitalist democracies can win.

China is rising in prosperity. It is currently an authoritarian government.

The British empire rose in prosperity. It was an autocracy.

The Japanese empire rose in prosperity. It was an autocracy.

.... Russia also Rose in prosperity quite quickly and I can assume what your opinion on that is

.

The seems to come to an uncomfortable logical conclusion

Yes. That uncomfortable logical conclusion is that one person's ideology, or even a community's ideology, has no correlation with success.

This can be unsettling, because it may imply that there is no free will.

Then again, I have once read a comic in which the guy is told to lift one leg, and he does, and he is told that "That is free will", and then he is told to lift up the other leg but he can't, so he is told "That is predestination."

The conclusion is that people believe that they have free will and believe they can choose to satisfy inner desires, but it is also possible that people really don't have any free will, and other forces are controlling the human (the molecules inside the body, nociceptors, emotions, etc.).

@Member Name

Not exactly the conclusion I was seeing

Big powerful governments were at least objectively in some sense improving their people's lives so the conclusion look like trying to improve people's lives under a Anarchy system is going to be a massive bitch and a half


So I do have to question you on what's the big deal with free will like you don't actually have it you can't express every little thought or whim that you wants to without restrictions

Be them physical social biological scientific other

You're a bag of chemicals tumbling down the stream of time acting on whatever stimulus happens to bump you along the way

@SHEPARD D☭G @Deleted User we need to continue the speech topic here, ill post my responses here

if there is no difference between me speaking and you reading something i wrote, there is something wrong with you, but yes banning any speech isnt right, and both of you i hope at least are smart enough to know the difference between audio and written, but then again, maybe not

<:Kermit:612151522033401856>

OK let's make them completely different

Since there sooooo different let's ban books about mushrooms but not the audio book

Or TV shows about them<:577504126301241356:614732663122690059>


Now let's consider them equally

Banning the same book show etc all count as censorship

I'm sure this is a mere misunderstanding. Its only a distinction due to government, the same arguments apply to both.

Mostly semantics.

Yeah

thinking about it in the right hands such distinction is basically useless because the Venn diagram is basically a circle between the two

in the wrong hands such distinction can be used in a manner similar to the Liberals new cry about how the Second Amendment doesn't cover AR-15s because they only had muskets

Liberals: The constitution should be a living breathing document, that adapts to the times.
Also Liberals: 2a DoEsN't ApPlY tO aR-15's, It'S oNlY fOr MuSkEtS!!

<:Bakard:612150766609629194>

Recorded and written is press, spoken word is speech, this is grade school level, you could look at the legal differences if you want, with as much research as you do

If it only applies to printed works then things such as radio and television or podcasts would not be covered under the First Amendment

Perhaps we should get to the more critical question of what value is there in making this distinction between vocal exclusively and printed exclusively

Unless one is trying to censor one type of speech and get it wrapped up in some sort of mental gymnastics of justification there is little value in making such distinctions

1st amendment is free speech, freedom of press is another amendment

@Jonathan The Shaman no dude they're both covered under the same Amendment along with religion and protest

@Jonathan The Shaman imagine being corrected by someone like shepard

ouch

Hey @Deleted User how are ya?

I'm doing quite well

thanks for asking

<a:pepedance:539480664316051457>

What's on the agenda for today? :)

Well my bad, can’t be perfect, but since when was a commie caring about the difference between speech and press when they have gulags, it’s like us caring about the difference between personal or private property, or caring about these multiple “objective” values they believe in

1 just because the ideas are spoken out loud verses written on paper and presented to everyone visually doesn't make the concept of censorship somehow different to each of them

2 name one Co-op or commune that has prison camps

3 I'm fairly certain we had a discussion about personal and private property before and you just kind of continuously demanded that they were one in the same... I could be mistaken you guys are a dime a dozen

4 i get the feeling that you're using objective in a different manner to what it's normally used in order to push some kind of idea

@Jonathan The Shaman

<:Bakard:612150766609629194>

That’s not what I said, but if the constitution list them separately, then what does that tell you

<:Kermit:612151522033401856>

If they were listed separately don't you think they would ohhhh idk be listed separately?

@Jonathan The Shaman

What do you hope to achieve by trying to draw a distinction that is both unnecessary and at best self-destructive?

I merely added to the conversation, press defends YouTube videos more legally then speech, the state takes advantage of this to do what you are against as well as us

Because not a single YouTube video has ever held people speaking vocally but only printing out pieces of paper and handing them out🙄

Making such distinctions only helps the wrong hands via allowing them to press one side without it "contradicting" the defenses put in place to defend the whole

By holding a verbal speech and printed text as one in the same legally

any defenses for One are automatically applied to the other