THE NEW BLACKLIST

[Pope Lecherous]

What does what you're saying now have anything to do with what you said to begin with?

Double standard may not be the right term, but it's the first that comes to mind.  People sit here talking about how much they value voting and everyone should vote all the time, and that's great.  Voting is great.  For the people who supported Prop 8, would they have voted knowing that their names and whereabouts would be made available to people who might hurt them?  Some would, some wouldn't.  Although i disagree with prop 8, i would admire people who are willing to take that risk by voting in accordance with their belief.  Should voting be personally dangerous?  No, that would really suck.  If it was, would you have the courage to go the polls anyways and would you be ready to defend yourself physically if need be?  These are the ridiculous questions i posed before.

If a person is unwilling to do that, they should reassess the 'depth' of their conviction and the importance of being able to vote.  If you would find the risk unacceptable go ahead and don't vote.  As i have pointed out there are plenty of fucked up places, where the 'burden' can be taken off the hands of citizens who are unwilling to stand up for what they believe in.  So hey for all those people who WOULDN'T get violent  FUCK YOU and you can go to Somalia. 

That pretty much sums up what i was trying to convey.

You have used the word "strong" in quotes; you have much to answer for.  You can't just imply that there's something wrong with labelling an unspecified group "strong", without identifying group and/or false qualities associated with strength.

Also, that anarchy means men with guns tell you what to do.  And can kill yuo without filing paperwork.

Those are the 'strong' ones i was referring to.  They feed off the weak, through violence and fear.  The anarchy that i would like to see would ultimately destroy them.

As for fight the power or no: "Go right ahead, throw yourself at The Power--your blood will just grease its gears, but whatever."
Somalia.

You're right we can't make a difference and we shouldn't try 

Somalia

[Template]

I have lost track of the discussion, but I now can maybe state my own views.

Those who vote for invasiveness should expect it used against them.  If you make tradition synonymous with law, you lose the tradition when we change the law.  Enclaves of whateverthefuck can survive indefinitely.

Attempts to enforce alien moral codes courts disaster for the host society.

Voting against gay marriage decreases the options for success of people that the voter will never see.  And that makes the whole world suck a little bit more than it has to.

Voting according to one's beliefs should start with one's beliefs about the legal/political system.  The originating belief of the American governmental system is that government should only control certain things, and only so much.  Everyone fucking forgets this, and should burn for heresy.

You have used the word "strong" in quotes; you have much to answer for.  You can't just imply that there's something wrong with labelling an unspecified group "strong", without identifying group and/or false qualities associated with strength.

Also, that anarchy means men with guns tell you what to do.  And can kill yuo without filing paperwork.

Those are the 'strong' ones i was referring to.  They feed off the weak, through violence and fear.  The anarchy that i would like to see would ultimately destroy them.

Well, that's a fantasy.  What I read sounds like the Nietchean type "weak" given a keyboard to type with.  Being "weak" does not mean you're free from being an asshole and getting called on it.

It's just as well that you hate the police, they're only a medium of power anyways.  Resist the signal, stop obsessing over the carrier.

As for fight the power or no: "Go right ahead, throw yourself at The Power--your blood will just grease its gears, but whatever."
Somalia.

You're right we can't make a difference and we shouldn't try 

Somalia

Recently, I was on a trip associated with the phrase "I am the weapon."  It lasted probably months, and it risked my health.  Do never plan to draw first blood.  The devil that troubles you hides in everyone's minds; our work is to banish or weaken it.  We call the Work "Operation Mindfuck".

fuck

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

My convictions include a belief in the right to work for political process through due channels without harassment or threats to health, life and livelihood. It would seem, based on your posts, that you find that conviction somehow weak and unworthy of the protections of Democracy.

[Pope Lecherous]

Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

No.

My convictions include a belief in the right to work for political process through due channels without harassment or threats to health, life and livelihood. It would seem, based on your posts, that you find that conviction somehow weak and unworthy of the protections of Democracy.

Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

the end

[Scribbly]

Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

I think I see what you are driving at here. Essentially, you seem to be suggesting that America is rapidly getting to the point where people who hold inconvenient views will be punishable by mob rule because they'll be able to hunt down the dissenters and extract justice.

What I'm not sure about is that you seem to be rather schizophrenic in whether you condone this, or think it somehow makes those who will hold those views more noble to go out and express them when they are going to wake up to a lynch mob in the next morning.

My response would be that this may very well become more 'normal'. But it isn't something that should be encouraged at all, and if some bastard comes to my house looking for revenge because I expressed myself- in an institutionalized way at that- in a fashion he didn't like, I'm glad I have enough friends and family living near me or with me at any point that said bastard would, even if he managed to get me, be taking his teeth home in a baggie.

Of course, I don't have any children. I imagine if I did have dependents, my outlook would change somewhat. It's easy to gamble with your life when you don't have anyone else relying on you to survive.

[Pope Lecherous]

Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

I think I see what you are driving at here. Essentially, you seem to be suggesting that America is rapidly getting to the point where people who hold inconvenient views will be punishable by mob rule because they'll be able to hunt down the dissenters and extract justice.

What I'm not sure about is that you seem to be rather schizophrenic in whether you condone this, or think it somehow makes those who will hold those views more noble to go out and express them when they are going to wake up to a lynch mob in the next morning.

more noble

My response would be that this may very well become more 'normal'. But it isn't something that should be encouraged at all, and if some bastard comes to my house looking for revenge because I expressed myself- in an institutionalized way at that- in a fashion he didn't like, I'm glad I have enough friends and family living near me or with me at any point that said bastard would, even if he managed to get me, be taking his teeth home in a baggie.

Of course, I don't have any children. I imagine if I did have dependents, my outlook would change somewhat. It's easy to gamble with your life when you don't have anyone else relying on you to survive.

Thanks for answering the question.

[Template]

...
What I'm not sure about is that you seem to be rather schizophrenic in whether you condone this, or think it somehow makes those who will hold those views more noble to go out and express them when they are going to wake up to a lynch mob in the next morning.

more noble

This discussion relies too heavily on the concept of {"a person" "to be" "noble"}.

What is "noble", and how can a given "person" "be" "noble"?  Does "nobility" require the individual to risk things they love?  Why?

The truly "noble" might never risk anything, while the least noble could risk everything-ruin everything, even-for no public benefit.

Assume we can assign a number to "nobility".  The average "nobility" of a group persecuted for its views might be greater than the average "nobility" of the group that currently holds the same views, but that doesn't say anything about the most-noble people to hold the views.  They're probably essentially the same.

There's no telling whether or not saints walk among us these days, that would be martyred if born in other eras.  Don't ask the hidden to show itself, if you have to use violence to bring it forth.

[Template]

Hey, Pope Lecherous: Do you have kids?

Would you be willing to risk them being Napalmed if you voted?

If you answered yes to that, does that make you a better/more strongly convicted person than someone who answered no?

No.

"No" to what?

Um... no one said that, but in the real world your anonymity is shrinking at a rate proportional to how accessible information becomes.  That's how Democracy should work but guess what, all someone needs is your name.  What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

the end

What does anonymity have to do with anything?  Do you think that, in the future, violent mobs will pressure others to support the mob view?

In any case, use all recourse available under law.  Or disappear them, tracelessly.

What did you expect?

Just asking.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

[BADGE OF HONOR]

 Dude used the word "anarchy" and suddenly everything made sense.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Point.

[East Coast Hustle]

this thread disgusts me more than a little.

[Template]

Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

oh but we must have martyrs

didnt you read 1984?  we need martyrs to prove we are right

[Aufenthatt]

Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

oh but we must have martyrs

didnt you read 1984?  we need martyrs to prove we are right

... I'm inventing Godwin's law for Orwell

I've heard too many references to 1984 today.

[Pope Lecherous]

Huh, I always saw being "noble" as a willingness to sacrifice your own conviction/success/prosperity for the well-being and safety of those you love, not the other way around.

Yea, I think many people would have a big problem with you sacrificing your principles to achieve something desirable...  Do the ends justify the means or dont they?  It seems that has been labeled as the bad in these parts.

To me it is unclear what you value more in this situation; The benefits of voting and democracy, or life?  From the outset it seems like you have switched and simply for the sake of being able to disagree.