You know, I couldn't find anything specifically wrong with Black Flag's post. It's just when all put together into a 'Message' that it becomes laughable and silly.

Of course the 'I'm smarter than you' commentary that accompanied each point was rather amusing.

Then again, I am the ulitmate contradiction. I'm a patriotic anarchist who earns my daily bread supporting 'the man'.  Only, when I say I'm an Anarchist, I really mean that I think I should be able to shoot my neighbor if I get my gun first. Not that I want to tear it all down and instill my particular crowd at the top of the new heap like so many other anarchists seem to want to.

And I know it's unworkable...

Spike - gotta disagree wtih you on this one.  Some of his points don't make sense in and of themselves - and they only make the whole that much more silly.

Now this one makes sense, but I can't figure out if he's commenting on something I said.

Quote from: Black FlagNo flag, piece of land, government, or populace can be said to hold any recognizable set of values, beliefs, etc. To attribute such to the first two is simply absurd, to do so with the third is dangerously naïve, and to do so with the last is to reduce the people involved to an abstraction and deny their humanity.

A document can. And the last sentence is absurd.  You don't deny someones humanity by attributing a set of values or beliefs to them.

And if you can't attribute a set of values/beliefs to a government, how can you claim it's bad?

Quote from: Black FlagThe chief function of flags and nations is to separate people living "under" one flag/nation from others who live "under" a different flag/nation. That way, when you tell them they must kill one another, they're more likely to obey. Bonus points if you can get them to believe that their flag/nation makes them better than others or that it actually says something meaningful about them.

Really? That's the chief function of flags? Nations, I could see that.  Flags?

Quote from: Black FlagWhen you're told that you're at war with Nation X, what you're really being told is that your government is at war with the government of Nation X and that you and the citizen of Nation X are the weapons that they will use to fight one another. You will be told that this is in defense of your "freedom." Rest assured, the people of Nation X will be told the same.

So we should never have resisted the Nazi's! Damn! We fucked that one up, royally!

Quote from: Black FlagA good indicator of how free people are is whether they have to be constantly reminded that they're free.

That's quite possibly the most ignorant indicator of freedom I've ever heard. By the way - look how free you are to say it. There.  Did that make you any less free?

Quote from: Black FlagA common distractionary technique used by repressive governments is to remind the citizen how much more repressive they could be, and that the citizen should be grateful for what freedoms they are allowed.

The more repressive a government, the less likely this is to be used.  I mean, I doubt the House of Saud is running around saying "look how more oppressed you'd be if you lived in North Korea!"

Quote from: Black FlagDemocracy, to trace it back to the Greek δημοκρατία, refers to a system in which the populace at large holds supreme executive power.

I don't speak Greek - current or ancient (if there is a difference).  I'm curious, is it supreme power, or supreme exective power?

Quote from: Black FlagRepresentative forms of government are not even an approximation of the above, but are actually anti-democratic in the fundamental reasoning behind them. They are based on the assumption that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and so therefore a small number of other people must be appointed to make those decisions on their behalf.

Or they could be based on the idea that it's virtually impossible to rule by a committee of 300,000,000. Nobody is "appointed" last I checked - except for those guys in the black robes who should have the least power in the US federal government.

See, Spike? They're just as silly separately as they are when combined.

I think Soth had it right - playground politics, and rhetoric. Or just an attempt at trollage.

I have half a mind to debate you point by point, James; if for no other reason than the amusement value of poking fun at Black Flag by proxy arguments.

I may just get back to you on that if I get a bit more time. Lunch went on longer than I expected, so I'm curretly behind at work...

Quote from: SpikeI have half a mind to debate you point by point, James; if for no other reason than the amusement value of poking fun at Black Flag by proxy arguments.

I may just get back to you on that if I get a bit more time. Lunch went on longer than I expected, so I'm curretly behind at work...

Don't sell yourself short, Spike - you've got at least three-quarters of a mind

I was actually thinking about removing my reponse - not because I think I was wrong,  but becasue I've been much happier here not getting deep into these debates...Nobody is going to change their mind - me, him, anybody, so what's the point?

So if you want to do so, feel free - it will be the sound of one hand clapping...

Quote from: James J SkachDon't sell yourself short, Spike - you've got at least three-quarters of a mind

I was actually thinking about removing my reponse - not because I think I was wrong,  but becasue I've been much happier here not getting deep into these debates...Nobody is going to change their mind - me, him, anybody, so what's the point?

So if you want to do so, feel free - it will be the sound of one hand clapping...

You're no fun.

With you, Spike, I'd debate.  I've built up an understanding of you and know that even if we disagree we will be relatively cordial.

Black Flag I don't know from a hole in the ground. But given his response and his "personna" here, he and I will just arguing ad infinitum and I'll just get aggravated.

I'd rather discuss binary skills and such with you...

Honestly, Black Flag's post makes more sense to me then a lot of things. But then, I tend to agree.
EDIT: But then, I'm a jerkoff nutball leftwinger.

Until this starts showing up on my Marvel Superheroes Calendar, I am sure I'll not be remembering to wear my pin.

Democracy < Grk. δημοκρατία (δῆμος "people" in the sense of "populace" + κρατέω "to rule" in the sense of a governing power). The designation "to hold executive power" reflects my understanding of the sense of the verb κρατέω as it appears in ancient Greek literature. I also believe it to be the sense intended when the Athenians referred to their governmental system as δημοκρατία. Although certainly their execution was flawed in many ways, nevertheless the assembly of citizens (ἐκκλεσία) voted directly on just about everything, and even magistrates, who acted as specialized proxies for the assembly, were immediately accountable to them and subject to impeachment at a moment's notice. Interestingly, while the Latin term for the Roman model of oligarchical representative government is res publica (i.e. "public business"), there is no Latin word for democracy.

Anarchy < Grk. ἀναρχἰα (ἀν [negative prefix] + αρχία "rulership" in the sense of holding power over others). Anarchy is contrasted with monarchy (the rule of one person), oligarchy (the rule of a few), and what some have termed "polyarchy" (in which power is held by many people but still a minority of the populace). Anarchy does not denote chaos, disorder, or violence; that connotation is based on the notion that without certain people actively controlling others through the threat of violence, society would necessarily devolve into one massive crime spree--a notion which is itself based on the assumption that people are fundamentally antisocial unless threatened into submission by a more powerful entity. One is free to make that argument, but it then begs the question, "If we're all naturally antisocial, how can we trust the people in power?" Or as a certain anarchist comics writer put it, "Who's watching the watchmen?"

To the anarchist, neither anarchy nor democracy can exist without the other. Ironically, the "Founding Fathers" of the USA seem to have agreed. As originally formulated, the protocols of the federal government are designed to minimize democracy for fear that anarchy might result if too much power were to be given to the populace at large. Democracy/anarchy was feared primarily due to its threat to private property, which was admittedly the chief concern of the framers. Even today, the federal government is set up to function as usual even at 0% voter turnout. Of course, you already knew that from your civics class.

Quote from: Thanatos02But then, I'm a jerkoff nutball leftwinger.

Wouldn't have you any other way.

...Wait, but what does that make me? :eek:

Hey, at least we can laugh at ourselves. When's the last time you heard someone describe themselves as a "jerkoff nutball right-winger"? And why not? Because right-wingers are numb to the liberating caress of irony. :pundit:

Just look at this thread.

Quote from: Black FlagDemocracy < Grk. δημοκρατία (δῆμος "people" in the sense of "populace" + κρατέω "to rule" in the sense of a governing power). The designation "to hold executive power" reflects my understanding of the sense of the verb κρατέω as it appears in ancient Greek literature. I also believe it to be the sense intended when the Athenians referred to their governmental system as δημοκρατία. Although certainly their execution was flawed in many ways, nevertheless the assembly of citizens (ἐκκλεσία) voted directly on just about everything, and even magistrates, who acted as specialized proxies for the assembly, were immediately accountable to them and subject to impeachment at a moment's notice. Interestingly, while the Latin term for the Roman model of oligarchical representative government is res publica (i.e. "public business"), there is no Latin word for democracy.

Thanks for your insight into the Greeks and their understanding/perspective.  I was asking because I don't know Greek - they didn't cover that in civics.

Quote from: Black FlagAnarchy does not denote chaos, disorder, or violence; that connotation is based on the notion that without certain people actively controlling others through the threat of violence, society would necessarily devolve into one massive crime spree--a notion which is itself based on the assumption that people are fundamentally antisocial unless threatened into submission by a more powerful entity. One is free to make that argument, but it then begs the question, "If we're all naturally antisocial, how can we trust the people in power?" Or as a certain anarchist comics writer put it, "Who's watching the watchmen?"

This is commonly referred to as a straw man. Anarchists have the same problem libertarians have - let's all get together collectively and push for individualism! It kinda displays this weird dichotomy/incoherence, to borrow a phrase from The Forge, and undercuts the idea that spontaneous order will form. Does that mean people who disagree with Anarchists are automatically of the opinion that everyone is antisocial unless threatened? Nah - hence the classification of straw man...

No, if most people have a problem with Anarchy, I'd guess it's the heavy anti-capitalism, anti-private property aspects of anarchist theory that come across in spontaneous vandalism that forms at trade summits...

Quote from: Black FlagTo the anarchist, neither anarchy nor democracy can exist without the other. Ironically, the "Founding Fathers" of the USA seem to have agreed. As originally formulated, the protocols of the federal government are designed to minimize democracy for fear that anarchy might result if too much power were to be given to the populace at large. Democracy/anarchy was feared primarily due to its threat to private property, which was admittedly the chief concern of the framers. Even today, the federal government is set up to function as usual even at 0% voter turnout. Of course, you already knew that from your civics class.

What I do know is that the "Founding Fathers" wanted to harness the powerful, moral aspects of democracy while diminishing the influences of Anarchy – not just because of the anti-private-property aspects, but because they feared the possibility that any rights (including property) could be threatened by the tyranny of the majority - rightfully so. The fact that today's federal government would make the "Founding Fathers" weep does not lessen their ideas.

As to 0% voter turnout, it is – depending on the specific electoral setups of each of the states. So if a state has 0% turnout, but has a method to send electors, then the government will continue. And if not, then I would assume the House would vote.

But your point is...what...that the "Founding Fathers" were hatching some insidious plot to run over democracy, hoping that some day apathy would lead to 0% turnout? Or could it be that they were just smart enough to build in redundant systems because they felt a functioning government was essential for a few vital tasks? Nah...that would be too...simple.

Quote from: Black FlagHey, at least we can laugh at ourselves. When's the last time you heard someone describe themselves as a "jerkoff nutball right-winger"? And why not? Because right-wingers are numb to the liberating caress of irony.

No, us "jerkoff nutball right wingers" aren't numb to irony.  It just has to be good irony. You don't get to claim a bunch of shit that makes little sense, and then claim you were just being ironic.

It didn't take civics class to learn that...

Quote from: James J SkachNo, us "jerkoff nutball right wingers" aren't numb to irony.  It just has to be good irony. You don't get to claim a bunch of shit that makes little sense, and then claim you were just being ironic.

It didn't take civics class to learn that...

Actually, irony is claiming that you're not going to debate with him because you're afraid he'll ignore your points in the interest of drawing the conversation in circles while saying that he's just making up shit, then either mis-reading or deliberetly misphrasing his (admittedly) jab.

Quote from: Thanatos02Actually, irony is claiming that you're not going to debate with him because you're afraid he'll ignore your points in the interest of drawing the conversation in circles while saying that he's just making up shit, then either mis-reading or deliberetly misphrasing his (admittedly) jab.

I know one thing irony isn't - and that is not reading my posts and so completely misrepresenting my comments.

Or did you just conveniently choose to ignore the fact that I included myself in my guess that it would not be a meaningful debate?  I mean, I did say

Quote from: James J. SkachNobody is going to change their mind - me, him, anybody, so what's the point?

And

Quote from: James J. Skachhe and I will just arguing ad infinitum and I'll just get aggravated

Was it because I didn't say he might get aggravated too?  I chose not to try to speak for him on that point.

And I didn't say he made up shit..I said he claimed it.  Those are two very different things. He seems like a bright guy and obviously konws quite a bit about Greek.  I assume he's smarter than to just make shit up.

Of course, none of that addresses any of the substance of the discussion, which is way off the rails from the original post anyway - thus proving my point that to debate this was fruitless anyway.

I have to admit it got to personal attacks much more quickly than I expected - even for TheRPGSite.

Annnnnnnd...Out!

Quote from: Black FlagHey, at least we can laugh at ourselves. When's the last time you heard someone describe themselves as a "jerkoff nutball right-winger"? And why not? Because right-wingers are numb to the liberating caress of irony. :pundit:

Just look at this thread.

You don't "right-wingers" say that - because they either feel guilty about jerking off or are married to someone and don't have to.

I still gotta buy some more flag pins for jackets that I wear.

- Ed C.