Democrat vs. Republican

[Peter Kropotkin]

and fast-growth tyranny (by way of instant conversion to Socialism).

Or by way of conversion to Fascism.

Same thing, esssentially.

Look at the alleged "Antifa" in North America: if you know the history of the Weimar period, these "blackshirts" behave in exactly the same ways as Hitler's "brownshirts." Exactly. They're racist, they're destructive, they're lawless, they're used to punish the existing system by megalomaniacs like Soros...

So don't buy their nonsense about being "antifascist": they are as Fascist as anybody can be...and yet they are the dedicated footsoldiers of the Left, not the Right. Make sense of that paradox, if you can.

K: I was an anarchist for over 10 years.. ''Antifia" is not a collective group
with a dental plan... they are just random individuals with no set
authority system... they are not driven by or paid by Soros... that is just
another right wing meme that is wrong.. (which shall be a theme today)
they combine when the feeling strikes and disband just as quickly...
they have no organized belief system and no real set political agenda...
what they do hold in common is the idea that justice is a virtue to
be followed and quite often they hold that injustice is just another
name for the state...as they are often, not always, but quite often
anarchist, of course they hate the state and can be seen as "lawless"
that is kinda the nature of their belief system... but frankly,
anyone who fails to stop at a stop sign can be seen as "lawless"
or if you jaywalk, that is thumbing your nose at authority and being
''lawless"..... the term ''lawless" is really how one cares to define it...

One could make a very strong case that the modern GOP/MAGA party
is far more lawless than "Antifa"........

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

Or by way of conversion to Fascism.

Same thing, esssentially.

Look at the alleged "Antifa" in North America: if you know the history of the Weimar period, these "blackshirts" behave in exactly the same ways as Hitler's "brownshirts." Exactly. They're racist, they're destructive, they're lawless, they're used to punish the existing system by megalomaniacs like Soros...

So don't buy their nonsense about being "antifascist": they are as Fascist as anybody can be...and yet they are the dedicated footsoldiers of the Left, not the Right. Make sense of that paradox, if you can.

K: I was an anarchist for over 10 years.. ''Antifia" is not a collective group
with a dental plan... they are just random individuals with no set
authority system... they are not driven by or paid by Soros...

So confident, you are...and yet, you can see that they have a level of coordination that is most remarkable.

To be sure, some are just hangers-on who are there because it gives them a free opportunity to make trouble. But interestingly, the Right is not giving such opportunities, it seems...certainly nowhere near on the scale that Antifa is doing. It's the Leftists who are coordinating this, manifestly.

This is an old Leftist tactic. It goes, "The free citizenry are the ones making the problem on our behalf, where we need it made, and just when we want it...anything else is a conspiracy theory." I could give you a spectacular recent example of that from the recent (and very underreported) repressions in Cuba. And that's a Marxist government, for certain.

I'm never sure whether the Leftist objectors are naive about this, or just so absolutely dishonest that they lie through their teeth to protect their own conspirators. Either way, the evidence is in what's being done. The Right is not being served by the American riots; the Left is. And that even includes the Jan. 6th incident, which I think we can both agree is a public relations problem for the Right, and a win for the Left. So either the Right is very, very incompetent at rioting, or something else went down there.

One could make a very strong case that the modern GOP/MAGA party is far more lawless than "Antifa"........

One could, could one?

Well, let's see the "one" make that case that "one" could make.

[Peter Kropotkin]

once decades ago, I went to the worldwide anarchist convention
in San Francisco... around 1990 or so.... and it was very interesting...
we had seminars on anarchistic matters.. I went to several...
about anarchism and the government.. anarchism and economics,
anarchism and the police.. that type of thing...
anyway, the convention was from a Thursday to a Saturday...
on Saturday night, a group of people, went down Market Street
and did their anarchist thing... burned a few cars, dumped garbage cans,
broke a few storefront windows...and the news the next day reported
how an "organized" anarchist group damaged widespread parts of downtown...
none of which was true.. and how do I know?
I was there, in the room when it was decided to go downtown
and cause problems... it was a last-minute decision made by
a small group of people... the entire convention has a couple of
hundred people, and this group was about 25 or so people...
it wasn't organized.. anarchists don't organize or plan ahead..
no one paid them or even encouraged them.. it just happened..
but listening to the news, you would have thought that they
burned down the entire city of San Francisco... don't believe
the news... they build up these type of events for ratings
and to show a political viewpoint...

Oh, look at how ''evil'' anarchist are, be very afraid of them...
the amount of damage from those anarchists might have been,
might have been several thousand dollars...certainly not
the amount of money reported by the news.. I know
because I went to the city a day or so later and found they
had already cleaned up the mess...

the point of this is that the media has an agenda, you seem to
think that the news is reported objectively.. it isn't.. the
one's in the media have an agenda and they aren't afraid to
show that agenda... and in this case, the media agenda was
to make the anarchist into villains of the highest order..


Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

the point of this is that the media has an agenda...

You don't actually respond to questions or conversation, do you?

If I were cynical, I'd start to think that maybe you know your views are vulnerable, and don't want any light shed on them. Thus, just to keep talking and not listening prevents others from examining the reasons for your various claims. But that's cynical.

I'm not sure that shows much confidence in your beliefs. It seems, rather, a failure of nerve.

[Peter Kropotkin]

the point of this is that the media has an agenda...

You don't actually respond to questions or conversation, do you?

If I were cynical, I'd start to think that maybe you know your views are vulnerable, and don't want any light shed on them. Thus, just to keep talking and not listening prevents others from examining the reasons for your various claims. But that's cynical.

I'm not sure that shows much confidence in your beliefs. It seems, rather, a failure of nerve.

K: not at all. I am considering starting a thread that engages with these matters..
but as is my habit, I am thinking about it... considering if a thread will work
or not.....

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

the point of this is that the media has an agenda...

You don't actually respond to questions or conversation, do you?

If I were cynical, I'd start to think that maybe you know your views are vulnerable, and don't want any light shed on them. Thus, just to keep talking and not listening prevents others from examining the reasons for your various claims. But that's cynical.

I'm not sure that shows much confidence in your beliefs. It seems, rather, a failure of nerve.

K: not at all. I am considering starting a thread that engages with these matters..
but as is my habit, I am thinking about it... considering if a thread will work
or not.....

Kropotkin

Odd.

There's already a thread where we're "engaging these matters." And it's already "working." What else could one want?

[Trajk Logik]

Just look at the legalization of marijuana, how it started in one state and is now growing across the country.

A profound disaster for all involved, for many reasons. Anybody who knows the clearing time for marijuana from the human nervous system knows how devastating the proliferation of even that "mild" drug is bound to be socially, even without the dangers of lacing with various chemicals intended to "enhance" the high, which is certain to continue.

We're bad enough with our present politicians, educators, and machine operators; we don't need them stoned, semi-stoned, or perpetually in a brain fog too.

A ridiculous straw-man. Everyone is different in how they handle intoxicating substances. Just because something is now legal to use doesn't mean everyone is going to start using it. I've used it for 30 years and have held a job longer than most people, went back to school and got a degree, and have three kids, two of which are in college (the other is still in high school) and one of which was his class's valedictorian.

As an independent libertarian, I support people being free to ingest whatever they wish. If taking a particular substance makes you violent then it's your responsibility to recognize that and not take it. Jail people for being violent, not for taking a certain substance when that substance doesn't affect everyone the same.

I might add that, at least for me and some others, marijuana has opened our minds to thinking more objectively. Rastafarians often refer to it as "Wisdom Weed".

[Trajk Logik]

the point of this is that the media has an agenda, you seem to
think that the news is reported objectively.. it isn't.. the
one's in the media have an agenda and they aren't afraid to
show that agenda... and in this case, the media agenda was
to make the anarchist into villains of the highest order..


Kropotkin

The media's agenda is to be the mouth-pieces for the two political parties. Abolish the political parties and you abolish the media's biased agenda and go back to true independent journalism.

[Immanuel Can]

Just look at the legalization of marijuana, how it started in one state and is now growing across the country.

A profound disaster for all involved, for many reasons. Anybody who knows the clearing time for marijuana from the human nervous system knows how devastating the proliferation of even that "mild" drug is bound to be socially, even without the dangers of lacing with various chemicals intended to "enhance" the high, which is certain to continue.

We're bad enough with our present politicians, educators, and machine operators; we don't need them stoned, semi-stoned, or perpetually in a brain fog too.

A ridiculous straw-man.

Not at all, actually. I've seen it. Any student is smarter off the stuff than on: using weed is like teflon-coating the brain. Things just stop sticking the way they should. Any driver is better off the stuff than on -- faster reactions, better judgment...and less jail time for motor manslaughter. Any professional can do his or her job better without being messed up. If my architect, or cop, or accountant, or surgeon is on the stuff, count me out. Let others play Russian Roulette. That's so obvious and easy to test, I don't think we have to say more, do we?

But more: those who use drugs to "solve" their problems don't actually "solve" anything at all. Rather, they avoid the experiences that one needs in order to mature. That's why a thirty-year-old drug addict behaves like a 13-year-old (or whatever age they first turned to chemical "solutions"), in terms of judgment and maturity; having missed all the experiences and struggles so key to making one into a strong, mature, world-handling person, they are totaly fixated and socially dysfunctional. And the means to catch up are permanently missing...because a 30-year-old simply cannot have the experiences that a 13-year-old can have.

Check the jails: they're full of people who have been fixated in this way, by short-circuiting their own maturation process through artificial "solutions." And they can never recover, after that. God forbid their terrible judgment and their bad experiences should become general.

I might add that, at least for me and some others, marijuana has opened our minds to thinking more objectively. Rastafarians often refer to it as "Wisdom Weed".

Yes; and Rastafarians are famed for their history of intellection, civilization-building, and their contributions to academic achievement.

[Trajk Logik]

A profound disaster for all involved, for many reasons. Anybody who knows the clearing time for marijuana from the human nervous system knows how devastating the proliferation of even that "mild" drug is bound to be socially, even without the dangers of lacing with various chemicals intended to "enhance" the high, which is certain to continue.

We're bad enough with our present politicians, educators, and machine operators; we don't need them stoned, semi-stoned, or perpetually in a brain fog too.

A ridiculous straw-man.

Not at all, actually. God forbid their terrible judgment and their bad experiences should become general.

Yes, actually. Again, you assume that because something that was illegal and now isn't means it would be generally used. Did that happen when prohibition was repealed? Nope. So you are straw-manning.

Whoever said that people are only trying to solve problems by taking drugs? There are some that want to experiment and try new experiences.

Social media and it's addictive and divisive nature has had more of a negative impact on "civilized" society than any drug could hope to - proof that you don't need drugs to necessarily degrade society as a whole. Social media has done more to divide us while sharing a joint brings people together to talk about deep and intellectual topics, like the one this thread is about (and like I said I have been using for 30 years).

You are the one that has steered off-topic and failed to respond to the rebuttal to your non-sensical argument you made about local and state politicians running for national office and jumped on what I said about marijuana legalization. Intellectual dishonesty is a symptom of political partisanship.

I might add that, at least for me and some others, marijuana has opened our minds to thinking more objectively. Rastafarians often refer to it as "Wisdom Weed".

Yes; and Rastafarians are famed for their history of intellection, civilization-building, and their contributions to academic achievement.

Only for those that think that civilization-building is the end-all goal of human beings. It seems to me that you would need to first solve some deeper metaphysical philosophical problems that would then enlighten one to the nature of the "good life". Living in today's "civilized" world doesn't seem to civilized, hence the point of this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

...you assume that because something that was illegal and now isn't means it would be generally used.

No, that's nothing I ever said. But it's been much less accessible, much less socially-permissible. And so it should be.

Whoever said that people are only trying to solve problems by taking drugs? There are some that want to experiment and try new experiences.

You're referring to hallucinogens. We know how damaging those can be to one's regular grip on reality.

But this is not an interesting debate, because people who love drugs are addicted; and addicts don't negotiate. Addicts aren't interested in facts, but only in justifying and perpetuating their addiction. And I have no interest in helping them do that.

Social media and it's addictive and divisive nature has had more of a negative impact on "civilized" society than any drug could hope to - proof that you don't need drugs to necessarily degrade society as a whole.

In some ways, that's true. But it's also irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. The toxicity of social media or nicotine does not excuse the toxicity of fentanyl. It just means they're all toxic.

I might add that, at least for me and some others, marijuana has opened our minds to thinking more objectively. Rastafarians often refer to it as "Wisdom Weed".

Yes; and Rastafarians are famed for their history of intellection, civilization-building, and their contributions to academic achievement.

Only for those that think that civilization-building is the end-all goal of human beings.

"End-all?" Hogwash. But do you prefer "civilization-destruction"? You think that will work out well, instead?

Back to the main topic. You're not going to give up the drugs, and I'm not going to bother making a case that you should anymore. Debating addicts merely makes them feel more justified, and reinforces their commitment to the habit. The thing they're already undermining is their cognitive judgment, which is the thing they need to be using to realize their problem; so they're coming to the discussion disabled already, and unwilling to concede even the basic rational arguments. They'll offer excuses such as "Oh, caffeine's addictive too," or "You're so ignorant you don't realize that hemp can be made into clothing and rope."

Yes, they're just that dumb about it.

And it's also really, really, really boring to argue with addicts.

[Trajk Logik]

...you assume that because something that was illegal and now isn't means it would be generally used.

No, that's nothing I ever said. But it's been much less accessible, much less socially-permissible. And so it should be.

Of course it is. Here you assume that politicians, educators, machine operators would all start getting stoned if it were legal. No, I am referring to drugs in general. Do you have the same experience being drunk vs sober? An experience is not necessarily a hallucination.
Again, another over-generalization - as if all drug users are addicts, as if everyone that drinks beer on the weekends is an alcoholic.

"End-all?" Hogwash. But do you prefer "civilization-destruction"? You think that will work out well, instead?

It worked out well for most of human existence. When civilization ends up ruining the planet or causing our extinction via nuclear weapons and AI, is civilization all it's cracked up to be? You seem to be viewing reality through a very narrow tunnel of space and time. Smoke some pot to broaden your perspective.

LOL. This isn't the main topic, you dolt. Smoke some pot.

[Trajk Logik]

...you assume that because something that was illegal and now isn't means it would be generally used.

No, that's nothing I ever said. But it's been much less accessible, much less socially-permissible. And so it should be.

Of course it is. Here you assume that politicians, educators, machine operators would all start getting stoned if it were legal.

We're bad enough with our present politicians, educators, and machine operators; we don't need them stoned, semi-stoned, or perpetually in a brain fog too.

You're referring to hallucinogens. We know how damaging those can be to one's regular grip on reality.

No, I am referring to drugs in general. Do you have the same experience being drunk vs sober? An experience is not necessarily a hallucination.

But this is not an interesting debate, because people who love drugs are addicted; and addicts don't negotiate. Addicts aren't interested in facts, but only in justifying and perpetuating their addiction. And I have no interest in helping them do that.

In some ways, that's true. But it's also irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. The toxicity of social media or nicotine does not excuse the toxicity of fentanyl. It just means they're all toxic.

Again, another over-generalization - as if all drug users are addicts, as if everyone that drinks beer on the weekends is an alcoholic.

It worked out well for most of human existence. When civilization ends up ruining the planet or causing our extinction via nuclear weapons and AI, is civilization all it's cracked up to be? You seem to be viewing reality through a very narrow tunnel of space and time. Smoke some pot to broaden your perspective.

[Trajk Logik]

...you assume that because something that was illegal and now isn't means it would be generally used.

No, that's nothing I ever said. But it's been much less accessible, much less socially-permissible. And so it should be.

Of course it is. Here you assume that politicians, educators, machine operators would all start getting stoned if it were legal.

We're bad enough with our present politicians, educators, and machine operators; we don't need them stoned, semi-stoned, or perpetually in a brain fog too.

You're referring to hallucinogens. We know how damaging those can be to one's regular grip on reality.

No, I am referring to drugs in general. Do you have the same experience being drunk vs sober? An experience is not necessarily a hallucination.

But this is not an interesting debate, because people who love drugs are addicted; and addicts don't negotiate. Addicts aren't interested in facts, but only in justifying and perpetuating their addiction. And I have no interest in helping them do that.

In some ways, that's true. But it's also irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. The toxicity of social media or nicotine does not excuse the toxicity of fentanyl. It just means they're all toxic.

Again, another over-generalization - as if all drug users are addicts, as if everyone that drinks beer on the weekends is an alcoholic.

Only for those that think that civilization-building is the end-all goal of human beings.

"End-all?" Hogwash. But do you prefer "civilization-destruction"? You think that will work out well, instead?

It worked out well for most of human existence. When civilization ends up ruining the planet or causing our extinction via nuclear weapons and AI, is civilization all it's cracked up to be? You seem to be viewing reality through a very narrow tunnel of space and time. Smoke some pot to broaden your perspective.

Back to the main topic. You're not going to give up the drugs, and I'm not going to bother making a case that you should anymore. Debating addicts merely makes them feel more justified, and reinforces their commitment to the habit. The thing they're already undermining is their cognitive judgment, which is the thing they need to be using to realize their problem; so they're coming to the discussion disabled already, and unwilling to concede even the basic rational arguments. They'll offer excuses such as "Oh, caffeine's addictive too," or "You're so ignorant you don't realize that hemp can be made into clothing and rope."

Yes, they're just that dumb about it.

And it's also really, really, really boring to argue with addicts.

LOL. This isn't the main topic. It would be more entertaining to talk to an addict than someone who can't stay focused on the topic. Smoke some pot.

[Immanuel Can]

And it's also really, really, really boring to argue with addicts.

LOL. This isn't the main topic.

That's fine. Actually, I don't know why you brought it up. Let's drop it, and go back to the main.