Jump to content

Handyman

Member
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Handyman

  1. Handyman

    2 Questions

    i'm going to make a movie. it will be called [deleted].
  2. the tea party is not the kkk because we would [censored] kill them if they were
  3. Handyman

    2 Questions

    also hitler was a vegetarian for largely gastronomic reasons: i do not believe he held animals in tremendous esteem. for example, jews.
  4. Originally Posted By: Harehunter The broad accusations being made are based upon less than 1% of the movement. You sound pretty confident. Originally Posted By: Harehunter And though minorities are under represented, there are a few adherents who are actually shunned by the black caucus Allen West, for one. There are hispanic and Indian representatives of the Tea Party movement, and almost all of the newly naturalized citizens I know, and in Houston there are a lot, agree with the aims of the movement. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/
  5. What the heck is this? I must obviously be missing something. [rating]Poor[/rating]
  6. The plot elements all made some sort of sense, and things stuck together alright; but it's especially hard for me to judge a humor scenario. Great work went into the dialog box pictures, but my sense of humor is probably not compatible with this scenario. (All I really got was that common adventuring themes are overwrought and come out of nowhere, for tasks that are essentially menial labor.) I won't be too harsh, since it's a good piece of work, as others' reviews indicate. [rating]Good[/rating]
  7. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whitesplaining http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mansplaining
  8. A wound that is never treated gets infected. If only I was in the experimental group getting penicillin. Of course, it's actually true that "both sides" are guilty. Coloreds and proles have been completely abusive in their rhetoric: How can they expect to get anything done when they aren't polite? How else did we dismantle Hitler's death camps?
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights#Civil_War
  10. Self-satisfaction with respect to ignorance is probably a U-shaped curve. http://www.wiwi.uni-hannover.de/Forschung/Diskussionspapiere/dp-467.pdf
  11. Originally Posted By: Nicothodes I don't think I could be satisfied with myself if I tried to ignore them. You are absolutely right--blissful ignorance comes naturally. But feel free to be terrorized by your lack of terror. The Kingdom of Ends is now taking applications for citizenship.
  12. Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S Einstein was wrong when he talked about being a citizen of the world. We should only support our own, and when others have endured grave injury, we should leave them to their wounds. Einstein was definitely wrong: He used the word "should." Of course, if we befriended the fair and gentle negro, he would undoubtedly join our political party of peace and liberty.
  13. Haha. You, sir, are right. I suppose I should be more thoughtful before saying such things in the future. EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered: Mr. House, are you seriously suggesting that the economic system is maintained by anything other than violence? Because if so, then I am no longer sure why I pay for things.
  14. Surely not. I would have no real choice.
  15. Mr. House, you are absolutely right about my status, distance, and condescension--even my complicity. I apologize. Sadly, those who speak for victims tend to be the abusers. As for more particular details: When I say "the only valid response is immediate resistance," I was implying that if that response is unfeasible, then there is no response. If this does not seem obvious, I've said exactly as much previously. Similarly, I do not believe that the powerless (and those who care for them) deserve to be harmed--only that power is their only recourse. You are an ally to victims, and in that case, you simply are using your power to aid them. (Similarly, the ability for people to have places and jobs of any sort helping the downtrodden is because the allies of the downtrodden have fought for these things.) As for the state: I suppose a better discussion might be what we call "the state," and what sorts of attributes we wish our community and environment to have. With such a weasel explanation, one might say that all I desire is reform of "the state"; but, that presumes that our ultimate idea of what "the state" should be would resemble "the state" in any meaningful or essential way. I doubt that, of course; but then, the (sole) usefulness of the word "anarchy" is similar to that of the word "atheism": Everything is of relative certainty and shaded with subtlety, but some things are relatively more certain than others, like the self-serving violence of hierarchy.
  16. (It actually can't, but it'll be your excuse.)
  17. Every socialist program attempted has just another form of capitalism: It is as "anti-capitalist" as the U.S.A. is "anti-terrorist." I could not care less about revolutionary programs: My only concern is with those who are resisting power in their own circumstances. Sir Dikiyoba, resistance is relative to oppression. Oppression is when an entity with more power (an individual, institution, culture, etc.) inflicts violence on an entity with less power. Violence is the movement or damaging of bodies without their consent. I admit this may not be the best definition, but I don't think this discussion demands a better one yet. Mr. Harehunter, you are assuming that "that which has existed" is "that which must exist" (and seemingly "that which should exist"). What of rape? It seems to exist in the animal kingdom as far as we can tell; but surely, you wouldn't propose that we simply make the best of it: The only valid response whatsoever is immediate resistance. Also, your recommendation for nonviolent confidence still sounds weak. If you are capable of mustering "real" confidence, it seems to speak more to your surroundings, and potential to be victimized in the first place. Either you exist in a setting where your confidence arises directly from potential (and real) aid from peers/adults; or, one's confidence implies that one exhibit dominant behaviors, which imply that one is not the desired target for a bully in the first place. Bullies will select the weakest and least confident people to begin with--they're insecure, right?--and, when those people try to rise above their social status as "inferior," their attempts will be mocked as perversions and responded to with intensified violence. There will always be exceptions, and when they work, they are good; however, there are many reasons why your solution appears far too easy. Also, you (and especially Misters Darth and Skwish) have a very uninformed opinion on anarchy: It may actually be a "devolution" into chaos as you suggest; but, that is the most immediate reaction people have to it, and it is one for which anarchists have had easy (yet unread) answers for centuries. The state is not a source of order and peace; it is a source of chaos and violence. Individuals will almost inevitably act violently, but the proper response to their violence belongs to the victims and their friends. Also, the vast majority of individual violence is a result of systemic violence; and as far as I can tell, the majority of violence in society seems to be geared towards putting poor and colored people in dead-end jobs, prisons, and graves. Coincidentally, those who commit the most crimes are those who are the worst victims of state violence: As it turns out, being a victim of abuse greatly increases the odds of becoming an abuser. And, I would feel immensely safer if I had to deal with people's "natural" violence, compared to such monstrous horrors as armies, recessions, sweatshops, etc. (Although, if I was to live a life as a white male in a position of relative privilege, I would likelier find poor and colored people to be more frightening for many reasons.) Misters Darth and Skwish have proposed that anarchy will result in a power vacuum that must be filled with squabbling and intensified authority. First and foremost, this line of reasoning will never fail to justify the status quo. And, I will remind them: My proposal for "anarchy" is nothing more than people resisting oppression and authority wherever and however they encounter it. If killing some set of institutions "causes" other institutions to emerge, then we should kill those institutions too. Although, it is not clear to me how a people capable of killing institutions would even allow new ones to emerge. Frankly, the task of truly killing institutions seems to be the sole challenge: Dynamics of power are fiendishly difficult to exterminate, and until victims can do that, another abuser of the same sort will always emerge. But, when (and, sadly, if) victims can do that, they will be free. Why do we trust the police for our safety, instead of ourselves and our communities? If a foreign army came in and said they would "protect" us, you would surely recognize the thin ruse of their "protection." So why should we tolerate institutions imposed on us by a distant, unresponsive government, led by the wealthy, white, male elites? Mr. Trinity, your suggestion that "allowing oneself to be ruled" implies "desiring to be ruled" or "benefiting from being ruled" is completely repugnant. Surely, if you knew someone in an abusive relationship, you would not suggest that they were benefiting from it because they "allowed" it. And, truly, abused partners "get something" from the relationship: They often rely on their abusers to buttress their shattered egos, or to provide them with economic resources. This obviously does not justify the arrangement. P.S.: Mr. Tyranicus, I was not particularly surprised to find that the colored man was not actually armed.
  18. Mr. Dikiyoba, Anarchy is the neutrality that exists among individuals who are not under duress from violent systems. This does not mean that it will be perfect, only that we see many examples of it in our everyday lives when we are not inspired to violate other people's lives. Most importantly, though: hierarchical systems simply do not reduce violence. The logic is always that the king will protect you, but that's just another lie for another abuser. And, when the system is hierarchical, it encourages people to compete for social dominance. The more people win competitions, the higher the stakes of the competition will grow; and the more the stakes of competition grow, the more staggering the hierarchy will be, demanding greater violence. It may be that there simply is no good solution: That's fine. If we hope to describe reality, we should be open to that possibility. But if there is any hope for the downtrodden, it is immediate resistance within their own circumstances. Anything else is utopian pandering.
  19. Mr. Darth, you are a true nihilist. Misters All/Work and Harehunter, every system of dominance provides *something* to its subjects. Even feudalism had the promise of divine justice and every peasant got his fief. (One might say, his forty acres.) Hell, even slavery was disguised by the white man as bringing liberty to the negro. That example may seem too extreme, but it also seems applicable enough to draw out the following criticism: What is written on a piece of paper means nothing compared to actual power relations. Law is practically nothing more than its enforcement, from both the citizens and police. (In particular, the police will enforce whatever laws serve themselves when the citizens do not misbehave.) And Mr. Harehunter, I do not think you understand the effects of power in general: It creates its own perpetrators and victims. Virtually every quintessential social psychology experiment screams this, loudly: Zimbardo, Asch and Milgram, for starters. You seem to believe that power is necessary, but perhaps power simply is. We do plenty of things for overwhelmingly arbitrary reasons; and our insanely hierarchical societies may be traits which we have not yet selected against. And, I am still hesitant about the plausibility of ungrounded confidence. Well-placed lies are always possible, and I am fine with them when they work. However, most abusers tend to have chronic interactions with their victims, so they will have every chance to ferret out weakness--and when they find it, they will often play with that knowledge to torment their victims. (This sort of torment can often evade and even subvert "compassionate" authorities, when the tormentors have enough charisma and cleverness. The more of an authority one is, the less one can ever identify with those suffering below.) And most importantly, when the victims know that they are only safe because they are living a charade of strength, they are still experiencing violence: They are learning that vulnerability will be met with retaliation. Even when this is entirely true and practical in the moment, it encourages all sorts of repression and retaliatory denial which society simply does not prepare victims for in the slightest: In fact, people commonly respond to psychological defenses by rubbing salt in the wounds, and blaming victims for not being healed by the continued assault.
  20. Politics is war by other means.
  21. The state is not a "force" for good; it merely acts to prevent anarchy and compete with rival states. If The People are not granted their daily bread, they will claw their way into Heaven and kill God--so let them eat cake. (Or, as Harehunter suggests, "our rights" are paid for in blood.) And anyway, I still find your use of the word "petty" disturbing. While the physical violence of bullying may not be profound--though often, it is; and we disguise it with the narrative of schoolyard antics and bad apples--some of the most pervasive damage is the cycle of behaviors and expectations that it leaves behind. (Or, put differently, the psychological aspects of abuse are less punctuated but also more diffuse. And, they do an excellent job at obscuring physical abuse.) Children are already totally inundated in violence; we adults are just bystanders, when we are not distracted by tee-vee. (This is generally how every social system of abuse operates.) My interest in violence is simply to say that the underpowered must always fight back; any other sort of optimism is pure fancy. You believe in confidence (one might say "good behavior") as a means of escaping abuse. That simply does not suffice: Generally, having that belief shattered with violence is one of the tremendous shocks of abuse. It is the sort of violation of boundaries that leaves people expecting their boundaries violated, which makes it particularly offensive when it is suggested that they "man up." Were they not confident enough before, when they clearly and repeatedly said "no?" Maybe it was their fault. Maybe they're weak, and will never be able to beat back their oppressors. Maybe all they can hope for is that their oppressors treat them kindly this time. Maybe they really wanted it. Maybe they're too cowardly to admit their own desires for abuse. And to think--all they needed was some courage. Well, buck up, kids!
  22. I agree that there are both systemic and individual factors causing violence. I would just hasten to add that all acts of abuse of all types can be dismissed immediately and consistently, so merely behaving submissively should never indicate trustworthiness.
  23. At the risk of describing a true Scotsman, I wonder to what extent those who give into kind requests could actually be described as bullies. My skepticism comes from the nature of the would-be victim: To what extent are they "normal," or otherwise in possession of social power (including artful appeasement)? Could they win? And, if the bully truly will give into a kind word from the truly disempowered, then that is almost the best diagnostic criterion I could make to say they are not actually a bully.
×
×
  • Create New...