shills

[Karl]

On 10/15/20, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:33:53PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:25:31 +1000
>> jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
>>
>> > On 2020-10-16 05:40, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000
>> > > jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> Here is a simple shill test.  If you are not a shill, should be easy
>> > >> to
>> > >> pass it.
>> > >
>> > > 	You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the
>> > > archives...
>> >
>> > You did not pass the shill test,
>>
>> 	LMAO!
>
> FWIW, I agree with you (Juan) that you are not a shill.
>
> Your style of response sometimes gets in the way of others hearing your
> actual arguments sometimes though... and sometimes it therefore
> unfortunately becomes too easy for others to really get you wrong.  That
> said, especially in the last year or so, your communication clarity appears
> to have really picked up, so "doing well" on that front.
>
>
>> > but when I fisk your answer, the list server rejects the reply as spam.
>>
>> 	I don't know. There are 3 replies from you in the archive
>>
>> 	https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082973.html
>> 	https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082972.html
>> 	https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-October/082974.html
>>
>>
>> > And the libertarian position on freedom of association?	
>>
>>
>> 	'freedom of association' is a code word used by white-supremacist-trash.
>
> Juan, this position you take needs to be unpacked - I (and presumably
> others) are having a hard time understanding what you could be saying that
> we could agree with.  You see, "white supremacist" has been created by
> APAC/SPLC etc as an ad hominem, and so unfortunately has therefore lost most
> of its utility --except-- as an ad hominem attack, so when you use that
> term, folks don't hear what your real position is, they just hear your use
> of an ad hom.

This is incredibly hard to fight on the other side.  People associate
the phrase "white supremacist" with their personal pain, and learn to
dislike it when young.

This helps keep us safe by disinspiring trust of people who might
severely harm us.  I break the norm by struggling to reject critical
labels, and have suffered significantly for it by trusting those who
simply didn't value my wellbeing, long ago.

>
> "Freedom of association" as a principle is absolutely fundamental - a basic
> human right.  In South Australia (next to Victoria), they tried to use
> "bikie crime" to legislate against the freedom of association, which became
> so farcical that a bikie defendant was in court, to give his defence,
> because he was ordered by the court with a Summons to appear, and he was
> marched out of the court by the police before he could give his defence due
> to violation of the recently passed "anti bikie, actually anti freedom of
> association" statute law!
>
> This was funny, but an incredibly bad attack on one of our fundamental
> freedoms.
>
> Fortunately we had a contact with that bikie gang, spoke with a higher up,
> got them to write down the basic Australian Constitution-al defence, and in
> their appeal to the High Court of Australia they won.

I looked up this phrase.  James' interpretation appears to be the
libertarian one: that business owners can freely exclude employees.
Zenaan is ignoring this unpopular portion of the interpretation.  The
civil war and civil rights movements in the USA are responsible for
this polarization over here.  I don't know if anybody knows why the
north attacked the south when they seceded.

I agree with the anarchist meaning of "freedom of association", which
is totally different and likely hated by libertarians.

>
> Just imagine what it would be like being classified a dissident ("domestic
> terrorist" in today's Orwellian language) and not being able to associate
> with anyone you know, only being allowed to go to the shops for food?

Thanks, Zenaan.  I wonder who in this conversation needs any
imagination for that.

>
>
>>   But since you're not replying to anything I said because of 'spam'
>> (LMAO!!!) I won't bother elaborating further.
>> 	
>> 	Thing is, according to the 'shill test', I'm anything but a shill. You,
>> an official trumpobot on the other hand...
>
> Come on Juan, Marxos takes a lot of positions and brings a lot of nuance.
> Surely you can find something he says that you can agree with?
>
> At least a little bit of agreement on any topic, may be a possible ground
> for useful discussion rather than ad homs and blanket negates...
>