[From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

xorcist at sigaint.org xorcist at sigaint.org
Sat Sep 24 20:24:06 PDT 2016


> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:39 -0000
> 	Well, I don't. And what hat are you wearing now? The
> 	manipulative emotionalist, or the cold 'scientific' thinker?

I don't really care if you do, or don't. I have no vested interest in
changing your mind. I'm simply stating my views, and responding to your
questions, and assertions, about them.

I don't wear hats.

> 	OK. You want to believe that your niece has 'autism'. I think
> 	she should be left the fuck alone. Notice also how a couple of
> 	days ago you apparently thought that conformity to 'social
> 	norms' was a problem, but you've been taking the exact opposite
> 	side here. You made excuses for the psychiatric mafia, and
> 	ultimately you just believe in their nonsense.

I don't give a shit if she wears shoes or not, or wants to bolt when the
lawnmower comes around. I don't care if she throws 'tantrums' or gets
loud, or whatever. I took her to a museum once, and on the train ride home
she was talking a bit loud (normal for her). It wasn't particularly that
late at night, around maybe 8pm, on an otherwise noisy, rumbling train --
so speaking a bit loud was to be expected of anyone, anyhow. Some cunt
tried to "shush" her while she was talking. She got embarrassed, and
immediately started talking in a lower tone. My response was to motion to
her to hold on, and then loudly said "We're on a rumbling loud train,
lady, and the quiet car is two up. If you interrupt again, you'll have me
in your face."

I'm not taking any "exact opposite side" .. you seem to really be unable
to separate, as I'm mentioned before, idealistic principles from pragmatic
practice.

IDEALLY, I would like it if people treated her differently. I would like
very much if her parents and others saw her the way I do. An individual,
with tastes, needs, and challenges that are unique to her. Like everyone.

But that isn't REALITY. It doesn't fucking matter what people in the IDEAL
world would do, we don't live there.

So, PRAGMATICALLY speaking, I offer her advice on how to cope with, deal
with, and adapt to society around her, always emphasizing that to do so
should always be in her best interests, for things she wants or feels is
important, and not because of the expectations or desires of others.

Ideally, you don't want to pay taxes, but you do. It's no different.
You'll give me some line of bullshit about coercion, but in point of fact
you COULD simply steal goods, and not pay sales tax, and not pay other
taxes. You don't want the ramifications. So you deal, and cope.

No different.

>> I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that
>> because its biologically based,
>
> 	I'm done with (your) pseudo science, sorry.

Go look it up, dude.


>> > 	In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of
>> > 	model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny
>> > 	states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from
>> > 	pater)...that kind of thing...
>>
>> Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian
>> state.
>
> 	Huh? All states are totalitarian, by definition.

Read. "IN THIS CASE ITS THE FAMILY WHICH IS ___SOME_SORT_OF_MODEL__ .."

You started out by saying that kids are forced into comformity by THE
TOTALITARIAN STATE. I said no, kids are forced into conformity by peer
pressure from other kids. To which you are said that ok, its the parents
that fail to suppress peer pressure and bullying, and that is somehow a
model for the state.

I'm not gonna bother with it.. because the point is simply, first.. you're
back-peddling here, and that's fine. And second, my point has been
affirmed.

The STATE. The functioning body of government does not, through law and
state officials, have much to do with the behavior patterns encouraged
upon children. As you said, that is ultimately the family, who fail to
raise proper kids, and those kids might be bullies or engage in peer
pressure.

Fine, good.


>> Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed
>> cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied
>> products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are
>> just looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.
>
> 	What point are you trying to make?

Nope. The point was that using your reasoning you can apply it to things
that government has no direct bearing on. That regardless of whether or
not it is legalized, and state-regulated, or unregulated and black market,
in either case -- greed comes to bear.

The state doesn't make people greedy. Greedy people don't necessarily,
even, make up the state.

The state IS. Greed IS. There is overlap.

Hey, state officials breathe too, I hear.

> 	Unpatentable yes, freely reproduced, obviously not at all. The
> 	products still need to be manufactured in a highly regulated
> 	enviroment. That's why there's a black market...

Freely reproducible in the sense that customers are free to reproduce. I
buy my ounce of weed, smoke the bud, toss the stems, and plant the seeds.
My dealer isn't going to come after me. Or I can buy coke, cut it, and
redistribute. It's fine. Or I can cook it, and sell rock. All good. No one
cares.

There is no licensing involved, dealers (at least at smaller levels) don't
really care who is getting into the market as well, and so on.

Obviously there is a material cost. But even that cost is, essentially
free in its own right in that the profit margins will pay for it and,
aside from any associated risk, its free money.

> 	The state obviously is the sole creator of black markets for
> 	some drugs. AND they are the ones who license your beloved
> 	official 'legal' drug dealers, aka 'medical doctors'.

You really should stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I loved
medical doctors, nor psychiatrists.

>> Greed will always be around, man. Greed will infect any system you
>> have, or don't have. Greed infected monarchies, modern nation-states,
>> churches,
>
>
> 	Momarchies, 'modern' states and churches are criminal
> 	organizations - You seem confused.

If you're going to quote me, don't cut me off in mid-sentence like a cunt
to pretend you have a point or a real objection.

That sentence was finished with examples that are NOT criminal
organizations. And greed can still infect them.

That was the point. You're linking the state to greed, but greed can be
linked to anything.

It's fucking stupid. Like I said, government officials breathe too.

>> > 	Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able
>> > to impose their views on the rest.
>>
>> But it isn't rational to allow a minority to impress its will on the
>> majority.
>>
>> So we're back to square one.
>
>
> 	No. It's true that if people were completely rational they
> 	would be fighting back in a rational way, but their enemy is
> 	more specialized and motivated.

Whatever the fuck that means. You still haven't given any real answer to
why, if people are rational, so much irrationality exists. Your first
answer was that a minority imposes their views on the majority. But THAT
IS an example of an irrational situation. So that can't be the CAUSE of
irrationality.

Now you're saying that this minority, is specialized and motivated.. and
the majority doesn't fight them rationally because.. ???

> 	OK. They'll seek to do the most good by means of 'laissez
> 	faire', so if the rational people you want to put in charge are
> 	really rational they would resign in the blink of an eye.
> 	Nobody will solve your problems	- vote for nobody.

I don't want to put the rational in charge. It is, however, a rational
view when "rational" is the metric for "good."

>
> 	If you think my position entails support for 'rational'
> 	'leaders' you don't understand my position.

You haven't actually advanced a position. You're just thrown stones at mine.

So no, I don't understand your position.

>> OK, fair enough, so perhaps phrase it a different way.. the most
>> rational should, in some way, have their views take precedent over
>> the irrational views.
>
> 	Ah yes, of course. At least as far as arguments go...

And how, or whom, decides who 'wins' these arguments?

> 	What needs to be suppresed are attacks against person and
> 	property. And it just so happens that those attacks can't be
> 	rationally justified.

Sure they can. As we covered before, if someone is attacking you, you have
the right to attack back. You have seemed to support the idea of
insurrection, so it seems that you'd be OK with attacks on government
facilities. They were be some secretaries that get fucked up in that, for
sure. I don't agree, but I'd imagine an insurrectionist would chock that
up to defending themselves against complicit, if not directly violent,
people.

As far as property is concerned, property is less important than people.
So, there may be a situation where, I need to damage your property or use
your property in order to help someone. Maybe your property is adjacent to
some forest land, a friend gets hurt in the forest, and so I hike to your
property, break open a fence, and get to your little supply shack to get
first aid, or to get close enough to the road to get cell signal and make
a phone call.

So.. 'can't be justified'? No. Usually not justified? Sure.

I could point out that you're over-generalizing. But since you're so asute
and keen on that, considering how you've accused me of it, I imagine you
already know that.

Or maybe your pedantic nature is rubbing off on me, because it does seem
like I could follow your line of thought, if I chose, and not bring up a
pointless objection for the sake of objecting.

>> At the same time that
>> children start selecting their peer leaders, they rebel against their
>> parental leaders.
>
> 	Nope. They rebel against their piece of shit parents from day
> 	one.

Some children, yes. Some, no.

You're over-generalizing again.

> 	I can't hear any music coming from my books.

So you're deaf and dumb? I'd be bitter too if I were you.

>> If you've ever met an alpha type who is actually a genuinely nice
>> person, its obvious to see the positive effect they can have on
>> people, in terms of getting them to be more confident themselves.
>
>
> 	I don't believe in fairy tales, good cops(except dead cops of
> 	course) and your 'good' 'leaders'.

I wouldn't if I were you either. You're negative, argumentative, and
purposefully obtuse. You object, for the purpose of objecting, and you
misrepresent.

So obviously there are few humans who would BE nice to YOU to begin with!

>
>
>>
>> Do that long enough, on a large enough scale.. I don't know how many
>> generations it would take..
>
>
> 	Cool. So a bunch of members of the master race will save the
> 	poor human primates. Some anarchist you are.

I feel sorry for you.

>> No, its the dick way of talking to people that will guarantee that
>> they will get angry, and won't remember what you said, just that what
>> you said made them angry. And so, since they don't remember, they'll
>> never change their mind.
>
>
> 	Fuck fake politness.

No wonder why people don't like you.

>> Of course. Conceivably you'd feel compassion for a person hit by a
>> bus and through no fault of their own had their body broken.
>
>> Why
>> would you not feel compassion for a person whose mind, and very
>> spirit was broken by the weight of the state?
>
>
> 	It's not the same thing.

Yes, it is. It's feeling compassion for a person who is the victim of
circumstances beyond their control.


>> I don't know. It depends on the individual, of course. I'm a terrible
>> cook, and in matters of cooking, I defer to those that are my betters.
>> I've never made shoes, and so I defer to the authority of the boot
>> maker.
>
> 	Ah, as in 'division of labor'? What's new about that, exactly?

I'm not talking about division of labor.

>> The point is, be aware of the subtle ways in which people express
>> their feelings of their inferiority to you, or others, and subtly
>> uplift them.
>
> 	I'm not a babby sitter.

Oh, I disagree. You're at a computer, so you're sitting. And you most
certainly are a baby.

>> Really? Because she went from not being able to support herself, nor
>> her child, and being on state assistance, to getting a decent job. I
>> haven't seen her in some years now, but last I heard she is a quite
>> prosperous small business owner now.
>
> 	And you need a university degree to do that?

It can help. Also helps you network with others, find like-minded people
and so on.

> 	So making common sense remarks aligned with common sense
> 	not-pro-establishment views means I'm a loner.

Nope. Being a condescending jerk, who is perfectly willing to be impolite
for no particular reason, who fails to consider even basic social norms
and courtesies and in fact rallies against them, makes you PRECISELY the
sort of person that people won't want to deal with, and the kind of person
they'll treat like shit to convince you to go away.

Then you learn "well, fuck people. I'll  be a loner!!"

>> It doesn't matter what we know is bullshit. The point is helping OTHER
>> people know its bullshit. If a deductive argument gets them there?
>> Good. If example, and suggestion get them there? Good. If it takes a
>> hit of LSD? Fine.
>
> 	Well yes. If LSD actually worked, fine. But does it work?

I imagine so. Leary was pretty anti-state. The whole tune-in, and drop-out
thing.

> 	That seems to be exactly your problem. You seem concerned about
> 	form and politeness more than substance.

Not more than substance, no. But I understand that without proper form,
and politeness, people just won't listen, no matter how rational your
ideas. And so, they are equally important. Substance, for the raw ideas,
and presentation in order get the listener  to properly receive those
ideas.

In fact, piss-poor tone of voice, and body language and make the same guy,
saying the same thing, to the same woman either strike out with impressing
her, or get her interested.

No different that cars. What's under the hood is important, but so is the
look of the car. At the bare minimum, the presentation has to be enough to
not scare them away.

Likewise for communication. Basic social graces, and politeness. If you're
at a graduation you don't flame people with anti-school rhetoric to hear
yourself talk. Or if you do, you have to expect them to not take you, or
your ideas, seriously.


> 	No? So you are only going to provide alternatives to some of
> 	the 'services' the state provides? So, you will never fully
> 	replace the state with something else?

Sounds to me like you've never undertaken a significant challenge in your
life. I can tell by this very question. How?

Because with significant challenges, one doesn't always know how X, Y or Z
down the road is going to get accomplished. But there is an understanding
that by starting with A, and working through W .. you'll learn, gain
strategies, develop tools and techniques.. win allies, and so on to get it
done.

>> Its a good debate tactic,
>> if you like to just carry on. It won't dissuade me.
>
> 	Because you just chose to do something that doesn't work and
> 	are too arrogant to admit you are wrong.

I'll admit I'm wrong when you prove it.

And you still aren't giving a solution.

> 	You say : 2+2=5

Well, no not all. But you insist that 7+10=17 when it fucking obviously,
in the real world, is 5. It's not my problem that you're incapable of
understanding the type of truth that can only be expressed in circular
thought. I am trying to explain, the best I can through text, but it seems
it would take all the time in the world.


>
> 	Priceless. I can't answer objections to what I'm saying but the
> 	objections never prove anything.

Not the way you're approaching it. All you're doing is misrepresenting
what I say, magnifying the import of minutia, and so on.

> 	Again that is beyond ridiculous. As a matter of fact I've been
> 	proving you wrong all along. If you are doing something that
> 	doesn't work, then doing NOTHING is a better alternative. At
> 	least if you do nothing you are not wasting your time. And
> 	that's just one possibility.

If your thinking was true on this, then Edison would have never invented
the light bulb.

Fortunately, your simplistic, supposedly logical thinking is fairly rare
amongst gifted, intelligent people, and certainly not to be found among
the motivated.

You're just an armchair theorist, who doesn't even have theories to share.
Vacuous would be a good word.

>> > 	It's good that you disagree because I can't think of
>> > anything more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone
>> > state schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway
>>
>> Shows how little you know about this area of life. These are private
>> institutions. They cater to people with cognitive disabilities.
>
> 	So you were saying they were not good and now you flip-flopped?

Nope.

"The wise man is the sort of man that can live on two levels at once." -
Alan Watts.

> 	And I don't know the dirty secrets of those particular
> 	theocrats anyway, but I surely know who the 'judeo-kristians'
> 	are, and I assume those are the ones offering money to you.
> 	Plus, *you* said you didn't think it was a good idea.

Yeah, I was just taking a moment to play your game of picking a theme,
like "theocratic despotism being the worst sort" and pointing out the
obvious counter examples that have nothing to do with what you're actually
saying.

I thought you'd be content with me playing along.


> 	*You* have the problem and it was apparent from your first
> 	message. I'll restate it once more, and then I'm not bothering
> 	anymore.

I doubt that.

>
> 	But of course, you are a 'realist' only when it suits you.

No, I'm able to separate what IS, from what I believe OUGHT to be. I
understand that they are very different, and, realistically speaking --
historically speaking -- expecting change is frankly, well.. unrealistic.


"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
- G.B. Shaw

I keep this separation strictly in place in my mind, because everyone's
ideas, and opinions ABOUT reality, are just that: ideas and opinions. They
have nothing to do with reality itself.  The mathematical notation,
conceptions, and so on that describe gravity are in no way involved with
the event of a rock falling to the ground. Reality just is.

So, I keep this in mind. There is the world, as it is in this moment, and
it could not be any other way. To the extent that I seem to be able to
make choices, I try to choose things that make the little area of NOW as
best as I can for those that I can.


>> > 	They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much,
>> > 	if at all...
>>
>> Neither does your trolling?
>
>
> 	Well, thanks for finally shoting yourself on the foot.

I haven't shot myself in the foot. You've been littering stupid ass
questions like that, that have nothing to do with the point made, through
the whole thread. What else should I call it?

>> > 	Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows
>> > pretty well that if their power gets really challenged, they can
>> > 'fix' the problem.
>>
>> It's all about PR.
>
> 	I'm not a marketing bot.

As far as you've expressed, and therefore as far as I can tell, you're
nothing. So I agree.

>> You can feed a man while he learns how to fish. I'm not sure it
>> scales to feeding trolls though.
>
> 	Now you shot your remaining foot.

No, I'm just allowing myself to have fun with the discussion. You've made
snide little remarks here and there, or misrepresented me, and so on to
express bits of humor. I don't get bent out of shape about it, but I will
allow myself to engage in some of it myself to make things fun.

> 	At any rate, realize you are not teaching people how to fish.
> 	And learning requires rationality.

I may not be teaching you how to fish, but I can assure you that the
cognitively disabled I help with, learn a great deal.

And learning doesn't require rationality. It's absurd. Learning requires
persistence, practice.. talent perhaps.

There is no amount of "rationality" needed in learning how to sing well,
fuck well, or any number of things that are worth while doing.

This is more you just making shit up as you go, point by point, through
emails that you respond to as you read them.

> 	Why would you vote against that? It's just reality!

So?

> 	So you vote against it, but you think it's logical anyway?

Yup. Why wouldn't I?

Just because I can understand the logic of something, doesn't mean I agree.
Logic is simply proper reasoning from accepted axioms.

I may believe that a set of axioms are not applicable to a situation, or
that some other set are more applicable, or practical, or tasteful, or
fun, or any number of criteria, and so I choose another set, and reason
from them.

I can understand another's axioms, and know that they have reasoned
correctly from them, and still come to an entirely different conclusion
based on my set of axioms.

As we've seen in this very thread, you and I disagree fundamentally, point
by point on some things, and nevertheless come to the same conclusion that
it would be better to have no state, and no ruling class.

In this very way, logic constrained, and often times irrelevant.

QED.

>
>> and if we can bleed off the state
>
> 	And I'm out of touch with reality? You think you are going to
> 	bleed off the state by taking tax money? Seriously?

'We' as in me and the people I personally know? No.

But it's going bankrupt already, and WE as in a metric shit-ton of people?
Yeah.


>> get programs rolling and people set up, all the better. We could take
>> a lot more state money, but we don't.
>
> 	Why not? Weren't you going to bleed off the state?

Differing opinions, and interests. I vote against taking state money on
the basis that its blood money, and we need to be self-sufficient in the
long term anyhow.

Others vote on the lines of -- we prevent that money being spent on
military, police, or lining corrupt pockets, and we tangibly help people,
and yes.. help to bleed the state.

It seems as if you insist to agree 100% with people before you'll work
with them. I can understand that, but I operate differently, according to
different criteria.

>> You can LOL at bootstrapping from the state if you like. But its how
>> things work in the real world. You know, that pesky thing called
>> physics and biology.
>
>> Like you for example. You were bootstrapped out of your mama's vag,
>> sucked on your nanny's tit, ate their food, and burdened them. Papa
>> could have gotten more ass if not for all your crying. And they
>> didn't even have the responsibility to do this for you,
>> seeing how
>> you aren't them and you should have been taking care of yourself,
>> after all you were just the result of an ejaculation.
>
>
> 	What point are you trying to make?

Like I said. Physics and biology. New things get bootstrapped out of the
old all the time. You can LOL at bootstrapping new ways of organizing by
using state resources, if you like.. but there is nothing logically that
prevents it.

Or, if there is, its just flawed logic that I can't reason through ..
because, as my illustration shows.. you were bootstrapped from your
parents.. that little "model of the state" you were going on about.

> 	"Boy asks Who Made God? "
> 	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg
>
> 	See? That's reality. Piece of shit parent, rational child
> 	setting her straight.

It's actually not rational at all.

> 	You said that helping people is good PR. You mention the state
> 	does it for the same reasons. And you are not trying to beat
> 	them at their own game?

That's not exactly how the conversation went.

You started with your ideas about the state coming down on you, if you
really try to provide alternatives, and you asked about drugs and what the
alternative there would be.

I pointed out that there is a PR shield in doing social work.

The reasons that we engage in our work is not for PR. That is simply a
tangible benefit, as is the fun we have.

>> Fine. Who cares? Not all strategies are fit for all terrains or all
>> conditions. That's obvious. Each strategy needs soldier/workers.
>> That's obvious.
>>
>> You propose no real strategy as an alternative, other than - what are
>> you advocating? Nothing. Except talk.
>
>
> 	You are also doing a lot of talking too. And from my point of
> 	view reinforcing stuff that should actually be challanged.

I'm not against talk, I'm against doing nothing but talk. Your whole
perspective is to do nothing to change things, and yet you take me to task
for saying that realists should expect nothing to change.

>>
>> Fucking dumb.
>
> 	...

So, yeah. Fucking dumb. Squared.

>> So I'm trying to re-take lost terrain? OK. Sure.
>
> 	But never bother about thinking how you lost that terrain in
> 	the first place? Ah no. Thinking is too much trouble.

Yeah, I do think about how the terrain was lost in the first place.
Laziness. People stopped doing the social work that they used to.

I think about how other terrain was lost as well.. like by anarchists
being all insurrectionist and getting the very word 'anarchy' to have a
completely different meaning from its constituent parts.

>> Better than waiting for a solution from you that will never come,
>
> 	I'm 'teaching' you how to think for yourself...ha ha ha.

I already do that. My opinions are not very popular, and are largely just
.. mine, and entirely unique.

That's a good thing. Even, and especially, when I'm wrong.

> 	My solution would be civil disobedience basically. But you
> 	don't get people to think about civil disobedience by giving
> 	them 'free' 'vegan' food, I believe.

Civil disobedience problematic. It would require a general strike. No one
has the money to do that for any time scale that would be effective.

> 	I'm not advocating violence per se. I think I said violence is
> 	less than ideal, but if I didn't, I'm saying it now.

Fair enough.

>
> 	"I don't know..." meant I'm not buying state propaganda.
> 	Anarchy was associated with chaos long before the beginning of
> 	the 20th century.

Citation? I'd sincerely be interested in reading up on that. That
(obviously) isn't my understanding of the situation.

>> No. It's fucking busting your ass to do the shit people don't want to
>> do. All the shit that people don't want to do, gets shuffled to the
>> state.
>
> 	That's only partially true.

Fine, the rest gets shuffled off to state-sponsored contractor (garbage
collection) = the state.

>
>> They don't want to police their own neighborhoods and confront
>> violent criminals they want to call the cops. They don't want to
>> fight fires. They don't want to hang out with 30 unruly kids and try
>> and teach.
>
> 	All those things can be done without the state, and have been
> 	doing without the state, and the state provides mediocre and/or
> 	expensive services.

I agree they CAN be done without the state. Totally agree it would be
better to do them ourselves.

>> They don't want to provide services. They don't want to do
>> SHIT. They want to be coddled, and taken care of by Mama state.
>
> 	Ah but a few altruistic leaders will do all the work that
> 	thousands of millions of people don't do. I don't think that
> 	makes sense.

As is, you're right in a way. Obviously a few people can't ultimately get
it done. The core problem is that people are burnt out from their jobs. I
get it. I'm often run ragged from doing all the shit I do. I've met many
people over the years who "would love to" do volunteer work, who don't
have the time. Some do have the time, but don't want the extra work. Some
have kids, or have jobs that require long hours (lots of nurses), and so
on.

There may be some light at the end of the tunnel, if the technologist
types are right. Robots = displaced workers. There is already a social
movement, and talk in European governments about creating a "living wage"
.. you get a stipend from the government for being a human (and therefore
unable to work). You'd have to pay for that by taxes on corporations.
Fine.

Now you have a shit load of people who can .. do something else, instead
of going to work and in some nominal way supporting the state.

I'm kind of skeptical. I've heard it suggested by a few people. I don't
know. We'll see.






More information about the cypherpunks mailing list