Anarchism and Welfare

[Cain]

I keep thinking the title of this thread is "Anarchism and Warfare", which I would personally find a lot more interesting.

[Don Coyote]

He also made a comment about how if his daughter is ever raped, he hoped they would kill her, so she wouldn't have to live with the horrible shame. Or something like that. He did, however, later say that he changed his mind.

I think it was he would rather his daughter was murdered than raped, because rape according to him is much worse. In other words he didn't want to deal with counseling and emotional support for his daughter in this hypothetical situation.
He did recant his position though.

He is still a fucking sick fuck for thinking it's ok to have sexual fantasies involving the violent death of a partner.

No, it was definitely that he hoped that if someone raped her that they would murder her.

You are probably right.

[Freeky]

He also made a comment about how if his daughter is ever raped, he hoped they would kill her, so she wouldn't have to live with the horrible shame. Or something like that. He did, however, later say that he changed his mind.

I think it was he would rather his daughter was murdered than raped, because rape according to him is much worse. In other words he didn't want to deal with counseling and emotional support for his daughter in this hypothetical situation.
He did recant his position though.

He is still a fucking sick fuck for thinking it's ok to have sexual fantasies involving the violent death of a partner.

No, it was definitely that he hoped that if someone raped her that they would murder her.

You are probably right.

She is, I remember that, too.

[Triple Zero]

And while we're on the subject (and this isn't directed specifically at you, Nav, this is something that comes up periodically and has always bugged me), why the fuck are people always looking for reasons to ban people from PD just because they don't like that person?

Correct me if I'm wrong (I assure you I'm not), but authoritarianism and personality politics are pretty antithetical to the nature of this place.

Yeah but it's yet another thing to disagree and argue about, really REALLY disagree about and discuss how hateworthy stupid and disgusting something is, SO much that we're in almost unanimous disagreement with eachother.

Either way, I agree with the disagreement that being a complete and utter disgusting shithead in parts of one's life pretty much unrelated to this board can in no way really be a bannable offense.

[BabylonHoruv]

I keep thinking the title of this thread is "Anarchism and Warfare", which I would personally find a lot more interesting.

If I didn't know it would turn into a thread about my sexual fantasies, just like this one, I'd start a thread on that.  Anarchists played a fairly important part in both the Spanish civil war and the Soviet revolution.

[East Coast Hustle]

One is forced to wonder why you bother starting threads at all, knowing that.

[BabylonHoruv]

One is forced to wonder why you bother starting threads at all, knowing that.

This one was because Dok persists in harping on the "Anarchist on Welfare" thing as if welfare is against Anarchist principles.

That way I have a thread to link to every time he does that. 

[East Coast Hustle]

Bollocks. Anyone dumb enough to be an anarchist is too dumb to have prinicples worth caring about anyway.

[BabylonHoruv]

Bollocks. Anyone dumb enough to be an anarchist is too dumb to have principles worth caring about anyway.

For you maybe, he seems to care enough about the contradiction that he perceives to mention it fairly often.

[navkat]

And while we're on the subject (and this isn't directed specifically at you, Nav, this is something that comes up periodically and has always bugged me), why the fuck are people always looking for reasons to ban people from PD just because they don't like that person?

Correct me if I'm wrong (I assure you I'm not), but authoritarianism and personality politics are pretty antithetical to the nature of this place.

You're not wrong. Usually I would never even suggest such a thing but it sounds like this guy admitted to committing a serious crime and bragged about it on here. From an admin/former PR Assistant/leadership perspective, that's problematic from a couple of angles:

1. The obvious: if someone's committed a serious crime that has not yet been prosecuted and we are made aware of these acts, every single member who has opened the thread is now potentially laden with the responsibility to report it. Additionally, the admin, the forum owner and the host, using your good judgement, are all potentially responsible to lock the thread, remove it from view/disable edits, save a copy of it and deliver it to the authorities as evidence.

2. Some of our members on here (for whom we care) have been the victims of rape and other violent violations (I hesitate to use the word "crime" because lawfulness is not at issue here) who (depending on the circumstances and according to your good judgement, of course) may be construed to suffer egregious offense proximately akin to harassment. I'm not talking about butthurt here. I'm not talking about short-circuiting our mutually shared belief that we all need to "get over" the bars in our cages composed of that which deeply "offends" us. What I'm talking about is the fact that there is genuine and measurable damage when someone has been the victim of these violations and an ongoing cycle of self-loathing-->vulnerability-->injustice-->FEAR-->living with having to "suck it up" that you can not inflict some sort of agony on the responsible party. Being exposed to another violent "responsible party" who is openly and brazenly flaunting his (criminal) violent, malevolent incursions is a little much to ask people to bear. It hits a little too close to home for someone who continues to have bi-monthly panic attacks and pillow-screaming, crying jags over their personal ordeal.  I think it more than reasonable/fair to judge that as akin to the same packet of fear-->vulnerability-->helplessness-->anger that is delivered to a member who has been harassed, stalked or threatened by another member which is why we deem it as a bannable offense. Bannination, to my understanding, is not a punitive measure, but one of prevention and protection: nobody should have to eat that shit and we aren't going to facilitate it here.

Now you may think the second is a slippery slope and I concede that there is a good reason to see it that way. From the viewpoint of strict adherence to our policy that we don't ban people for being offensive, my second point would be moot. But we do not believe in strict, senseless adherence to anything. Our preservation of the right to be a scourge-of-the-earth offensive fuck is, at its very core, based on the dearly held belief that you should not hold a belief so dear, you are unwilling to part with it in the name of good common sense. I strongly believe this is one of those common sense moments.

Now, here are some "differential diagnoses" to demarcate some subtle differences in category:

- For all I know, half you guys could be on the sex-offenders list. Many of you have probably been in fights, gone to jail, done some fucked up things to past girlfriends, whatever. I don't care. It's none of my business because you don't make it my business. If someone were to disclose in the spirit of "I realize this is fucked up but I smacked my girlfriend last night and I'm not proud of it." Okay. I'm sure some people would respond angrily to that but disclosing that in the spirit of making amends/seeking advice/decompressing is a lot different than disclosing violent acts in an effort to make this audience unwilling party to self-masturbatory, exhibitionist thrill-motivated disclosure.
- Telling jokes about dead hookers, dead babies, Korean sex slaves, paedophillia, rape and a wealth of other shocking topics is also not the same because it's hypothetical. A reasonably intelligent human being--even if they are not amused, do not see the humour and find such talk offensive--could assume that no one is implying they have done, are doing or plan to commit these acts nor are we soliciting, promoting or propagating the commission of such malevolence by ourselves or others. Let me put this clearly: no one (such as I believe may also be true of the case that sparked this discussion) is attempting to put out a "smoke signal" to see what "friendlies" may be in the audience who may respond positively (privately or not) to these admissions and possibly derive pleasure from/join in the perpetuation of these activities (thereby, making PD party to conspiracy as well, but that falls under #1).

I agree that you can not censor people for being offensive but I assert that it is not censorship to chuck someone out on his ass as a preventative measure to end his gleeful usury of our members to validate, exhibit and possibly propagate his malevolent, violent (criminal) activities.

I know this got long but I felt your question (and this matter) deserved a thorough, intelligent reply. Thank you for allowing me to present this/taking the time to read and consider.

[Cain]

Given we have no dead members posting, I see no threat to any existing members.

[navkat]

Given we have no dead members posting, I see no threat to any existing members.

Are you being facetious?

[Phox]

The problem, nav, is that BH only admitted to reading and writing snuff fiction.  No actual acts of violence sexual or otherwise that i know of.

[Cain]

Given we have no dead members posting, I see no threat to any existing members.

Are you being facetious?

Yes, but I'm also right.  Which is the best way to be facetious.

You, on the other hand, really haven't done the research and are going to feel very silly about your post up there.

[East Coast Hustle]

And while we're on the subject (and this isn't directed specifically at you, Nav, this is something that comes up periodically and has always bugged me), why the fuck are people always looking for reasons to ban people from PD just because they don't like that person?

Correct me if I'm wrong (I assure you I'm not), but authoritarianism and personality politics are pretty antithetical to the nature of this place.

You're not wrong. Usually I would never even suggest such a thing but it sounds like this guy admitted to committing a serious crime and bragged about it on here. From an admin/former PR Assistant/leadership perspective, that's problematic from a couple of angles:

1. The obvious: if someone's committed a serious crime that has not yet been prosecuted and we are made aware of these acts, every single member who has opened the thread is now potentially laden with the responsibility to report it. Additionally, the admin, the forum owner and the host, using your good judgement, are all potentially responsible to lock the thread, remove it from view/disable edits, save a copy of it and deliver it to the authorities as evidence.

2. Some of our members on here (for whom we care) have been the victims of rape and other violent violations (I hesitate to use the word "crime" because lawfulness is not at issue here) who (depending on the circumstances and according to your good judgement, of course) may be construed to suffer egregious offense proximately akin to harassment. I'm not talking about butthurt here. I'm not talking about short-circuiting our mutually shared belief that we all need to "get over" the bars in our cages composed of that which deeply "offends" us. What I'm talking about is the fact that there is genuine and measurable damage when someone has been the victim of these violations and an ongoing cycle of self-loathing-->vulnerability-->injustice-->FEAR-->living with having to "suck it up" that you can not inflict some sort of agony on the responsible party. Being exposed to another violent "responsible party" who is openly and brazenly flaunting his (criminal) violent, malevolent incursions is a little much to ask people to bear. It hits a little too close to home for someone who continues to have bi-monthly panic attacks and pillow-screaming, crying jags over their personal ordeal.  I think it more than reasonable/fair to judge that as akin to the same packet of fear-->vulnerability-->helplessness-->anger that is delivered to a member who has been harassed, stalked or threatened by another member which is why we deem it as a bannable offense. Bannination, to my understanding, is not a punitive measure, but one of prevention and protection: nobody should have to eat that shit and we aren't going to facilitate it here.

Now you may think the second is a slippery slope and I concede that there is a good reason to see it that way. From the viewpoint of strict adherence to our policy that we don't ban people for being offensive, my second point would be moot. But we do not believe in strict, senseless adherence to anything. Our preservation of the right to be a scourge-of-the-earth offensive fuck is, at its very core, based on the dearly held belief that you should not hold a belief so dear, you are unwilling to part with it in the name of good common sense. I strongly believe this is one of those common sense moments.

Now, here are some "differential diagnoses" to demarcate some subtle differences in category:

- For all I know, half you guys could be on the sex-offenders list. Many of you have probably been in fights, gone to jail, done some fucked up things to past girlfriends, whatever. I don't care. It's none of my business because you don't make it my business. If someone were to disclose in the spirit of "I realize this is fucked up but I smacked my girlfriend last night and I'm not proud of it." Okay. I'm sure some people would respond angrily to that but disclosing that in the spirit of making amends/seeking advice/decompressing is a lot different than disclosing violent acts in an effort to make this audience unwilling party to self-masturbatory, exhibitionist thrill-motivated disclosure.
- Telling jokes about dead hookers, dead babies, Korean sex slaves, paedophillia, rape and a wealth of other shocking topics is also not the same because it's hypothetical. A reasonably intelligent human being--even if they are not amused, do not see the humour and find such talk offensive--could assume that no one is implying they have done, are doing or plan to commit these acts nor are we soliciting, promoting or propagating the commission of such malevolence by ourselves or others. Let me put this clearly: no one (such as I believe may also be true of the case that sparked this discussion) is attempting to put out a "smoke signal" to see what "friendlies" may be in the audience who may respond positively (privately or not) to these admissions and possibly derive pleasure from/join in the perpetuation of these activities (thereby, making PD party to conspiracy as well, but that falls under #1).

I agree that you can not censor people for being offensive but I assert that it is not censorship to chuck someone out on his ass as a preventative measure to end his gleeful usury of our members to validate, exhibit and possibly propagate his malevolent, violent (criminal) activities.

I know this got long but I felt your question (and this matter) deserved a thorough, intelligent reply. Thank you for allowing me to present this/taking the time to read and consider.

Nav, I love ya....but you're so far off-base with this that I can't even come up with a cogent reply other than to just say "uhh, no."