Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Is anyone here an advocate for non-violence?
« Last post by LuciferX on Today at 09:15:45 am »
Real prejudice is not identical with the prejudice of itself.
As stated, I have no desire to waste time or energy attempting to dissuade those of you who condone violence from your desire for it, but wish only to connect with other Discordians who have commitments against it.

That being said...

Violence [...] is the only useful tool for dealing with Nazis.  You can't convince a Nazi of anything, but you can pound on them until all the white supremacy leaks out.

I would like to point out that this is both objectively false and itself a form of prejudice.

You can find many such stories if only you look.
As stated, I have no desire to waste time or energy attempting to dissuade those of you who condone violence from your desire for it, but wish only to connect with other Discordians who have commitments against it.

That being said...

Violence [...] is the only useful tool for dealing with Nazis.  You can't convince a Nazi of anything, but you can pound on them until all the white supremacy leaks out.

I would like to point out that this is both objectively false and itself a form of prejudice.

You can find many such stories if only you look.
Violence is a tool, like any other overt behavior.  And like any tool it is useful for some jobs but not for others.

It is the only useful tool for dealing with Nazis.  You can't convince a Nazi of anything, but you can pound on them until all the white supremacy leaks out.  Function over form.  If you're a pacifist, you are deliberately depriving yourself of one of the tools with which primates excel.  You are limiting your options...for what?  So you can feel smug and superior while Jethro and Hans haul your next door neighbor away1?  I am sure your neighbor will appreciate your moral virtues.

You seem to have mistaken us for Moonies.  Eris started a massive war that led to the "bronze dark age" because she wasn't invited to a party. Just IMAGINE what she'd do to a cunt like Richard Spencer just for that shitty haircut.

And there is no rule that says you can't be clever and violent, or both at the same time.  One day you maul a Nazi with a sock full of pennies, the next day you out a Nazi to his boss.  Both are effective. Both are appropriate, which you choose only depends on the circumstances.  If you are tiny or old or just not good at whupping on people, choose the latter.

Lastly, violence against Nazis is good for everyone, including the Nazis.  Because if you don't punch them today, you have to hang them tomorrow.

1  This isn't hyperbole.  The original Nazis started out just like the new ones have.  They even had violent opposition.  It just wasn't violent enough.

Bring and Brag / The Beyond-One
« Last post by Bobby Campbell on Today at 06:11:15 am »
Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« Last post by Bobby Campbell on Today at 06:10:32 am »
God damn that is cool!!

The implications and possibilities of all this is overwhelming my McLuhanesque sensibilities  :eek: :fnord:

Keep bringing these jewels back from the other side!
Aneristic Illusions / Re: General Trump hilarity free-for-all thread
« Last post by Cain on Today at 06:07:40 am »
Yes, there was quite a bit of confusion on that point.

Still, I think it's a safe bet that "fighting for Trump" will manifest itself in trashing the "globalists" at the White House.
I can't shake the simulation hypothesis. I don't believe it, on account of I'm physically incapable of believing anything
I don't believe it either. I can't shake the fact that it kind of looks a lot like the same tired old mysticism trotted out and dressed in scientific looking wrappings, just like intelligent design is actually creationism and singularitarianism is the same tired old messianic/apocalyptic prophecy we've heard again and again.

Anyway, as for my own woo, I have on at least one occasion prayed to the Atomic Bomb like in Beneath the Planet of the Apes and Fallout 3 (only I didn't have one right there so I prostrated myself facing Los Alamos). I also spend a good deal of time in contemplation of the teachings of various misanthropic fictional pantheons including the Great Old Ones, the Ruinous Powers, and to a lesser extent the House of Troubles

My main religious (that's probably not precisely the right word) influences are SubGenius, Discordianism, Taoism, Buddhism, the aforementioned fictional pantheons, the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Epistle of St.James

I'm technically agnostic, even though I'm confident that every specific deity, as described by their relevant faith's dogma, does not exist. This leaves a small window of non-discounted possibilities though, due to three considerations. In ascending order of importance: 1.) Some deities could be stripped of their aspects that contradict each other and observed reality and still remain recognizable as that deity. Still very highly unlikely that any of them existed in any sense other than the way that, for example, John Frum was likely based on a real person 2.) the supreme beings of Jainism (although not the rest of the faith) really do have non-overlapping magesteria with science, this is because being as they are free of all passions desires and attachments they don't get up off of their all-powerful asses for anything ever. and 3.) Most importantly once you realize that many ancient deities relied on tools for their most iconic abilities it brings many of them down from the realm of the fantastical into the realm of "fuck, I could do that". Tesla coils anybody? The specific characters probably still aren;t real but their power level drops into the realm of plausibility

Also, even though I know this can't be what's happening, sometimes it feels like NHGH is answering my prayers; A lot of public figures that I don't like have gotten pancreatic cancer.

I believe that a cat's penis has incredible magical powers and that, like the holy grail, is a divine channel between heaven and earth that has been presented throughout the history of the arts and sciences as an object of transcendent value which we should only dismiss at our own mortal peril.
Seconded, provided that much of it is taken as metaphor

Going back to my brief mention of Taoism and Buddhism, the ideas of wu wei and of freeing oneself from passions and attachment really speak to me because I believe that many or even even most of society's ills derive from people overreacting to things; the societal equivalent of an anaphylactic response or cytokine storm. People need to learn to stop doing shit or giving a fuck except when it really really matters. Race is completely void of meaning, creed is completely void of meaning, ethnicity is completely void of meaning, culture is completely void of meaning, manhood is completely void of meaning, womanhood is completely void of meaning, order to no clear end is completely void of meaning, romance is completely void of meaning, sex is completely void of meaning, the sun the moon and the stars are completely void of meaning, thrice accursed Jerusalem is completely void of meaning, dreams are completely void of meaning, all things are devoid of inherent value (especially gold), tradition is completely void of substance, the beliefs of ancient cultures are completely void of substance, and most things in the news will not effect us in any way except through the exaggerated actions of others
Aneristic Illusions / Is anyone here an advocate for non-violence?
« Last post by IPunchNazis on Today at 03:25:40 am »
When I first signed up, you all clocked me for what I was: a troll. But a few of you actually understood the joke: that my intention was to hold to you a mirror-image caricature of the seemingly addicted-to-violence mentality that pervades this board.

I became quickly bored (as I'm sure you all were with me from the start) and went back to lurking after realizing that those of you who are keen on aggressive action in the face of conflict with an enemy you equate with evil are at no risk of changing your minds, and I have no intention of making the mistake of arguing with you like so many others have come here to do.

Say what you will about not defining Discordia, but I have always imagined the Discordian as an out-of-the-box thinker, someone too clever for physical confrontation. If anything, the Discordian should be the person who tricks others into getting into fistfights, rather than being directly engaged. When I think of Discordia, I think of conflict resolution through trickery and manipulation (and preferably without bloodshed). Don't tell the enemy they can't have what they want; fool them into thinking they want something they can have. To me, a Discordian is a master at social engineering.

So unless these calls to arms and violence are themselves an elaborate and clever cover designed to trick others into thinking that Discordians are bloodthirsty mouth-breathers while real actions are taken covertly, I have to ask in earnestness if anyone else here has a commitment to non-violence in their personal politics.

Over the past few days, in reading up on the Charlottesville incident, I've found my views shifting somewhat. At first, I was appalled that opponents to the alt-right's rally would purposely engage in a way meant to escalate the conflict into violent chaos. I assumed that the Nazis were a clever distraction meant to prevent the progressives from reexamining their own failures in the 2016 election and that everyone was taking the bait.

For instance, this reaction to a (very entertaining but violently passionate) rant by Doug Harmon sums up my initial views quite well:

Strongly disagree with this very simplistic viewpoint. So quick to shun all discussion, label it a black-and-white moral "no-brainer", and lump anyone who doesn't agree with him in with the most extreme factions of the opposition. Fact of the matter is that there are very real socioeconomic and psychological forces at play driving people to the far right and until we start listening to and working towards solutions to these issues, the tensions will only escalate. Nonviolence is the only way forward if we hope to deescalate the situation and resume any semblance of a reasonable national conversation.

People wanting to "stab Nazis" as Dan seems to advocate here are a big part of the problem.

The small group of people who were in Charlottesville violently anti-protesting have given Trump the ammunition for his "on all sides" rhetoric. Had Antifa not been there, the left would have the clear moral high ground. Instead, they showed up looking to pick fights with Nazis and they got one... except one of the nonviolent protesters was the one to pay the price for it. This whole "it's okay to assault Nazis" thing needs to end. Violence is not okay. It makes us no better than them.

You know how Rosa Parks wasn't the first person to refuse to give up her seat, but she was specifically chosen to be the first civil rights case that everyone could get behind because she had no record, no dirt, no skeletons in the closet? Civil rights leaders of the time knew that this must be the case going into the fray, because the other side is absolutely going to attempt to sling any mud that they can to discredit the movement...

Well, the tactics of Antifa are our skeleton in the closet this week. Because of their use of violence, there is no clear provocateur of the conflict. Police say so themselves... No one forced the kid to run through a crowd with his car... but let's not pretend that the preceding "mutually engaged combat" had nothing to do with it... his attack was a reaction to escalating conflict, likely compounded by mental illness. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just saying that had Antifa not been there looking for violence, the right would have no one to point the finger at, as they are known to do.

Antifa ruined the spirit of counter-protest by practicing eye for an eye. In their absence, the car attack may not have happened; if it did still happen then we would have had a nation unified against political violence. Instead, we've become enthralled by the prospect of more of it because "Nazis"... I fear for the coming months.

If we want the Right to distance themselves from their extremist factions, we MUST be willing to do the same on the Left. Anyone throwing punches or using weapons at rallies should be shunned by their respective groups and arrested, even utilizing citizen's arrest by their own in-group if necessary. I don't give a shit if they're punching Nazis or Communists or Progressives or Regressives or Black Lives Matter or White Lives Matter or whatever. It's not up to individual citizens to decide when violence is justified, except in cases of self-defense. That's a matter for our top lawyers and judges and lawmakers who spend their lives studying these topics to decide, and it's a rule that only the state is capable of being objective over and enforcing.

I do NOT want to see mob rule in America. There's a reason ACLU defended the white nationalist's right to protest. There's a reason that you've got black cops out there defending the KKK's right to speak... The reason is that discourse, even hateful discourse, is the bedrock of our democracy. If we're going to go to war with Nazis because they represent a clear and present danger, we need to decide that as a country and act in unison. Easier said than done, I will admit. But the wheels of justice turn slowly for a reason.

However, I found a counterargument that made me begrudgingly entertain the alternative:

The battle for civil rights was a two-pronged attack. One prong was staunchly nonviolent (MLK, Rosa Parks, etc) and the other prong was more militant and had no such commitment to nonviolence.

Would the nonviolent civil rights crusaders have been nearly as successful without the militant wing of the movement?

There's no definitive way to answer that question, obviously. The best we can do is speculate.

But I think it's highly likely that the mere presence of the militant wing on the national landscape helped the nonviolent civil rights pioneers to an immense degree.

Think about it. Imagine a 1960s where there's no Black Panthers, no Huey P. Newton, no Malcolm X. To whites, MLK would have seemed like a dangerous radical, somebody on the fringe, wanting to smash the status quo.

But that's not how it played out in reality. Because there were other, "scarier" African-Americans out there, many white Americans saw the nonviolent side of the movement as a voice of reason and peace in the middle. This made the nonviolent message of MLK and Rosa Parks that much more palatable to white Americans. Instead of being on the fringe, they seemed like the reasonable centrists.

Bottom line? Well, I sure like the idea of nonviolence, but I'm also not convinced that it can always solve things on its own. Nonviolent appeasement of Hitler sure didn't work.

So I now must admit that I have to consider that the aggressive and confrontational element is a necessary evil, so to speak, and that the problem cannot be resolved (I.E. the alt-right's agenda defeated) without it. Perhaps the far-right has indeed become a very real threat with another civil war on the horizon.

I am still, however, surprised to see so many Discordians hungry to participate in the violence. Are there any of you, like me, who aren't? Who would, if anything, attempt subvert it instead of willfully helping to immanentize it?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10