Judging Jacob Appelbaum

[Karl]

> > > > Seems like a great way to resist forceful blame to me.  Obviously
> > > > antiblame is bad when nobody is blaming anything, and you need to
> > > > figure out what causes stuff.  I don't see that situation here.
> > >
> > >
> > >         You are blind then. Or playing dumb.
> >
> > I don't understand.  You seem to blame everybody here?
>
>
>         I think I made it clear who I blame and for what. Check the archives.

Too big, sir.  Too big to check.  It wasn't clear enough, for me to remember.

> > > > >         'Antiblame' 'ideology' is a tool used by the ruling class(aka govcorp) to stop their victims from...blaming the ruling class. Another facet of it is the laughable idea that 'revenge', actually self-defense, is bad. The christian version goes as far as to tell people to 'turn the other cheek' so that christian govcorp can massacre its vitctims more easily.
> > Anyway, obviously self defense is good because it increases your
> > safety, and revenge is bad because it increases your danger.  Living
> > systems don't die because you punch them: they engage their own
> > defense processes, and now see you as a larger danger.
>
>
>         So how do you distinguish revenge and self defense?

In revenge, the other party is hurt comparable to how you were hurt.
In self defense, your hurt is prevented, and the other party is hurt
only if it is needed to hurt them, to not yourself be further hurt.

So, if 2 parties engage in revenge with each other, you get an
escalating war.  If 2 parties engage in self defence with each other,
you get a safe community.

> > >         But it should be obvious that what I'm 'disrupting' is anglo-US jew-kristian propaganda. If your list is choke full of it, too bad for your list.
> > It's hard to tell what you do or don't disrupt here ...
>         maybe. By the way, there's little to disrupt except various kinds of spam including technofascist spam, trumpofascist spam and flu farce spam. Ever heard of the flu farce? We're now living in an even more overt totalitarian dystopia because of the flu
farce, the future of humanity got a lot darker overnight and people on
this list are still discussing how amazing crony capitalist musk is.
Priceless.

It's the same as the electricity farce, the shoe farce, the fridge
farce, etc etc.  Can you believe everybody is paying to run a 24/7
fluid compressor in their home when you can preserve food effortlessly
for free by drying it?

People do read what you say, but yeah we're all tiny bits of a huge species.

> > > > Anyway, the way to sort out what good ideas are, is to ask your older
> > > > survivors.  They've figured out when to blame if you want to keep on.
> > >         I already sorted out the good ideas and when I did that I did it by myself, not asking the authorities, sorry, 'older survivors'. I did take a look at the literature, but in the end I had to decide for myself. Like anybody else.
> > You don't sound very anarchist here regarding older survivors.  I'm
> > assuming that people who became authority-like didn't really survive.
>         You are invoking the 'intellectual authority' of 'older survivors'(whoever/whatever they are).
Experience.  Not intellect.  Ask the anarchists who are not in jail,
how to stay out of it.  Are you one?

> > So what are you fighting for?  Random fighting looks dangerous to me;
> > I haven't experienced too much.  Obviously fighting together in some
> > way is needed to defend a threatened community.
>
>         There's no community apart from the individual members.

Now what you say makes more sense.  It will be hard to remember you
believe this.  I do not.

> > > > >         Tracing crimes back to their authors, that is assigning 'blame' is a very important defense mechanism.
> > > > It's pretty obvious that everything is caused by a myriad of people,
> > > > most of whom weren't trying to make it happen.
> > >         Ok so you clearly keep trying to protect criminals.
> > Yeah I'll definitely defend people wrongly suffering for crimes.
>         I'm talking about actual crimes.

What's your native language?  We often use 'label' words that don't
reflect reality, in the USA.  Where a "crime" is often something that
literally breaks a law, instead of something that is immorral or
whatnot.  Lots of things that help people are crimes, over here.

> > > > >         notice that professor turd is hysterically promoting 'antiblame' with his insane denial of the existence of govcorp.
>         No comment on that one eh. Because you don't want 'divisiveness'. You want the US military agent professor turd to not be 'disrupted', poor soul.

you mean PR?  I don't see the thing you said being true, nor do I see
it as making logical sense.  Could you say something clearer instead
of 'antiblame' at least?  I made that word up and now you are using
it.

> > > > > > because I was forced to disrupt communities
> > > > > > and turn people against each other,
> > > > >
> > > > >         are you saying you were(...) a US government agent?
> > > >
> > > > not really.  but i'm a double-brainwashed citizen of the usa, so i
> > > > basically am, no?
> > >
> > >
> > >         Don't ask me. Explain clearly what you mean/did or shut up.
> >
> > I grew up among USA media, so I have USA learning, and then I got
> > isolated and brainwashed by (guessing) USA interests, so I have forced
> > USA habits.  Am I a US government agent?
>
>         To the degree that you promoted or served their interestes you were their agent, yes.
>
>         I think the brainwashing you're referring to is technically fraud, not force. You did something you didn't want to do because you were lied to, but you were not literally forced using physical violence.
>
>         Also, it seems to me that lies lose their power the moment you realize you were lied to so I'm not sure how you think this 'brainwashing' is still affecting you.

Okay. Punk is possibly a jerk who hasn't been through anything rough.

> > > > it's what happens to activists once they're targeted in the usa.  they
> > > > get forced to disrupt activist communities.  usually unwittingly, but
> > > > often they are overtly coerced to do this.
> > >
> > >
> > >         so you were forced to work as a US govt agent?
> >
> > I dunno, nobody like overtly told me this.  I don't know whether it's
> > the government.
>
>
>         Ok but when you say forced you don't literally mean there was physical violence, or other threats involved.

You know what?  It's none of your business.  I'll give different
reasons for things.

> > Many people do have the experience you describe, though.  These people
> > probably can't really say that they do very easily.
>
>         well, I thought it was worth asking.

Yeah I guess.  Once I asked a cop who had taken his name tag off
before engaging me, what his name was, and he responded with it out of
habit.

> > > > > > and would be very happy if it turned
> > > > > > into a religion because fewer people would die.
> > > > >
> > > > >         it IS already a religion, and you know it, and you should further know that it's one of the reasons why people DIE, not something that contributes to peace.
> > > >
> > > > is it?  i've been isolated a lot.  i see a lot of religions have it some.
> > > >
> > > > anyway, to parrot marshall rosenberg, since doing that is easier for
> > > > me than crying about who i used to be, we need to blame the causes of
> > > > things so we can work with them, but blaming _people_ is
> > > > counterproductive and produces conflict.
> > >
> > >
> > >         that is garbage. People are moral agents and responsible for their crimes. You can only blame people, not the 'causes of things'. You keep stubbornly promoting a system that only benefits criminals.
> >
> > You sound like law enforcement here, Juan.
>
>
>         If you mean natural law enforcement, yes. The kind of law that would take cops and turn them into minced meat.

"People are moral agents responsible for their crimes!"  I have to
remember "crime" means "wrong thing" to you, not "violation of a
government law".  Explains a lot of our miscommunication.

> > > > it's like the silliness of imprisoning for stealing if the theft was
> > > > food for an urgently starving person in an emergency.  imprisoning
> > > > that thief makes the situation _worse_.
> > >
> > >
> > >         that's a different thing. Imprisoning people for theft is wrong, see the liberal analysis. Thieves have to return what they stole i.e. restitution. And your analogy is wrong too.
> >
> > You sound frustrated?  Restitution sounds a lot nicer than punishment
> > to me, not sure I've heard the word much before.
>
>         Well, it's related to the idea of paying damages, which is more common in government  legal systems. But yes, the way that government 'justice' deals with theft is both morally and practically wrong.

How would you have things work?

> > In USA law we have a
> > defense where crime is okay if there is an emergency reason.
>
>         That prolly exists in other legal systems too. But it applies to marginal cases. You wouldn't find starving people who would need to steal in a free society.

The starving theft happens in the USA but people don't find out about
it, really.  There's a lot of blame on thieves, and assumption that it
is easy to have your needs met, especially if you work hard.  Doesn't
it happen in every society except maybe for socialist ones?

The emergency excuse is called 'necessity defense' I think.