Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

[ProIndividual]

You (and the authors you mentioned) are trying to redefine anarchy.

You are completely brainwashed. How can the ACTUAL source of the definition be overruled by those OBVIOUSLY diametrically opposed to it?

You're right, you're right. The KKK should be able to redefine "the N word" to me "shiny happy people". right?

The State redefined the word...if you actually read history, it has it's own definition previous.

Try reading the following:

The ideas of Antithenes

The words of Diogenes of Sinope

The ideas of Hipparchia

The ideas of Zeno of Citium


These Ancient Greek authors are the OPPOSITION to Plato and Aristotle your schools don't teach you. Plato and Aristotle believed in a goal of a "Utopian State"; the people I list tended to believe these men were insane, and stating a goal of oxymoronic ideals.

In Ancient China:

Loazi and the Toaists of the same period (5th-4th Century BC)


Start in Ancient philosophy, where the city-state tyrants, known as Archons first appeared, and where anarchy (-an is Greek for "without", Archon is Greeks for "ruler") first appeared.

Then maybe you'll wake up and READ, instead of parroting nonsense you learned in school. School is BS dude, it lies to you alllll the way through.

When you accept the definition of anarchy is not violence, chaos, and disorder, but is non-violence except in self defense, spontaneous order (a major capitalist tenant), and voluntary organization, then maybe we will have an intelligent conversation.

Until then, it's just State propaganda vs truth (I am accurately speaking truth, while you continue to spew BS).

 

[ProIndividual]

I prefer to use the word "autarchy"(a system of self-rule), which I suggest anarchists here use.

Maybe I should, because dullards can't see through the semantics. But I won't, because I am what I am, and I'm proud of it, and it's history. Sure, some of it is not-so-good...but in comparison to the State, we are golden.

Besides, what will be the result of this intellectual slight of hand when newly recruited autarks discover they are really relabeled anarchists? I don't want them to feel how I did once I realized the word "anarchism" was totally redefined by the State. That very moment is what opened my eyes to the bullshit I had been fed since a child. I don't want people to abandon anarchism as I did Statism because intellectual dishonesty and PC BS. It is what it is...and what it is has been propagandized by the State. We need to fight the propaganda, not give into it and play their game. Either they wake up, or they don't. Either way, we're right on the facts. That's good enough for me to sleep at night.

 

[AceNZ]

You are completely brainwashed.

Oh, come on.

If you're ever planning on communicating with the rest of civilization, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the common meanings of the words you're using.

From dictionary.com, for anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.

This gets back to the original thread topic: why are non-anarchists against anarchists? In part because the definition above is what nearly all of the people you run into are going to think you mean when you use that word. What the original users or creators of the word may have meant is immaterial if your goal is communication. I'm willing to adapt, but most people won't be.

 

[Seraphim]

anarchy=no government, is misleading and false.

No ruler, no IMPOSED structure - sure. No government? That is Statist propaganda and a blantant change in the definition of a word with defined roots that do NOT mean NO GOVERNMENT.

Statism is the result of misunderstanding and FEAR. Those who seek to RULE, use this to sell statist oppression as some sort of positive Godsend.

Oh, come on.

If you're ever planning on communicating with the rest of civilization, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the common meanings of the words you're using.

From dictionary.com, for anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.

This gets back to the original thread topic: why are non-anarchists against anarchists? In part because the definition above is what nearly all of the people you run into are going to think you mean when you use that word. What the original users or creators of the word may have meant is immaterial if your goal is communication. I'm willing to adapt, but most people won't be.

 

[ProIndividual]

ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!

Look up the "N word"...then look it up in a 1930s or previous dictionary ( I have). Words are PC'd up as time goes on.

The original dictionary definition in this country for the "N word" was a person of African descent with large lips, wooly hair, and wide nostrils. This did not include other peoples with black skin, like Aborigines in Australia, or Indians of Asia.

Now, you're PC dictionary says this:

1.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive .
a.
a black person.

b.
a member of any dark-skinned people.

2.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.

3.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.


Notice how they Pc'd up the definition to mean, in meaning 2, "a person of any race"...this is an out-and-out lie. Anyone with a dictionary from the first 160 years of our country would know this by just opening up their older dictionaries. From 1776 until at least 1930ish, the "N word" meant what we all KNOW it really means, and what I stated above. It was a racial classification ONLY!

Stop using PC BS dictionaries for definitions dude...try reading their context when the word came into being historically...there the authors of the periods will define correctly. This is why State schools (and all schools have to meet State requirements) want you to look to dictionaries as an end-all be-all for all meanings of words...because they rig the dictionary...as I've just demonstrated.

They redefined the "N word" in order to PC it up, and lay cover for racists who use it...and if you can't see that, you're blind.

I'm sorry to be sort of rude, but you don't have to like me for me to be right...and your insulting manner in which you treat my personal philosophy angers me (as it should). Majority opinion of what the word means is irrelevant to what it ACTUALLY means...the crowd is fickle and stupid.

Wikipedia is better than dictionaries, when sourced correctly, as it is not so PC. Look up the "N word" there, you'll see what I mean. Compare to your PC dictionary, go ahead, I dare you. Then do the same for anarchism...and every word you've ever learned. Re-education time!

 

[ProIndividual]

This gets back to the original thread topic: why are non-anarchists against anarchists?

You're absolutely right, it sure does...it's because you people are intellectually lazy.

People that rely on dictionaries and encyclopedias for definitions and meanings are intellectually lazy. READ THE ACTUAL USE OF THE WORD WHEN IT CAME INTO USAGE, BY THE AUTHORS THAT USED IT.

For Pete's sake!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Maybe I should, because dullards can't see through the semantics. But I won't, because I am what I am, and I'm proud of it, and it's history. Sure, some of it is not-so-good...but in comparison to the State, we are golden.

Besides, what will be the result of this intellectual slight of hand when newly recruited autarks discover they are really relabeled anarchists? I don't want them to feel how I did once I realized the word "anarchism" was totally redefined by the State. That very moment is what opened my eyes to the bullshit I had been fed since a child. I don't want people to abandon anarchism as I did Statism because intellectual dishonesty and PC BS. It is what it is...and what it is has been propagandized by the State. We need to fight the propaganda, not give into it and play their game. Either they wake up, or they don't. Either way, we're right on the facts. That's good enough for me to sleep at night.

This is a great point. However, as you will notice throughout the threads that discuss anarchism on these boards alone are full of comments that stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "anarchy" due to propaganda, ignorance, and intellectual laziness. I don't think it's a good thing to dumb down language, but in persuasive speech/writing, it is important to consider the audience. You and I can use the word and understand it perfectly, but most folks in the US don't understand it. It's sad, but true. Such is the life of the rhetorician and intellectual-seemingly endless frustration.

 

[ProIndividual]

it is important to consider the audience

Yeah, good point I guess. Touche'.

 

[acptulsa]

ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!

Damn, dude. Call the world idiots because people accept dictionary definitions? And still no civil tongue in your fingers? And all to stretch out to thirty-five pages a converstation that this forum has seen a million times before? So nice to have you here.

Where are the civil anarchists of this forum when you need them?

Seems to me this forum is dedicated to advancing the cause of elecing a man who preserves, protects and defends the Constitution, and here we have three hundred fifty posts about how Somalia with three weeks of freedom was better off without a Constitution than this nation, with about two hundred years of freedom before we got lazy enough to ignore it and let them incrementalize us to shit was with a Constitution. Just damn.

Hello lurkers. This guy ain't all of us. Hello, general public. The fact that he has over 170 posts doesn't mean he represents us or Dr. Paul. Thank you.

We get treated like this and we aren't even the people who call Che Guevara wannabes anarchists. Damn.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Damn, dude. Call the world idiots because people accept dictionary definitions? And still no civil tongue in your fingers? And all to stretch out to thirty-five pages a converstation that this forum has seen a million times before? So nice to have you here.

Where are the civil anarchists of this forum when you need them?

Seems to me this forum is dedicated to advancing the cause of elecing a man who preserves, protects and defends the Constitution, and here we have three hundred fifty posts about how Somalia with three weeks of freedom was better off without a Constitution than this nation, with about two hundred years of freedom before we got lazy enough to ignore it and let them incrementalize us to shit was with a Constitution. Just damn.

Hello lurkers. This guy ain't all of us. Hello, general public. The fact that he has over 170 posts doesn't mean he represents us or Dr. Paul. Thank you.

We get treated like this and we aren't even the people who call Che Guevara wannabes anarchists. Damn.

A good post, but the bolded above is a gross exaggeration. The long train of abuses by TPTB against the people began almost from the start(the Federalists' betrayal of the Revolution, turning a free and highly decentralized society into a highly centralized one with a central bank), with brief interludes of advances in liberty scattered throughout. /end ramble

 

[acptulsa]

A good post, but the bolded above is a gross exaggeration. The long train of abuses by TPTB against the people began almost from the start(the Federalists' betrayal of the Revolution, turning a free and highly decentralized society into a highly centralized one with a central bank), with brief interludes of advances in liberty scattered throughout. /end ramble

Oh, sure. And at the time, the Constitution permitted slavery too. Doesn't mean we didn't do better than Somalia, does it? I still say thank God for the chunk of parchment.

'We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.'--Thomas Jefferson

I know old Tommy boy was talking about the amendment process, but seeing the lawlessness rampant after a government falls sure gives the quote a different meaning. It seems to me we're somebody yet to come's barbarous ancestors still...

 

[AceNZ]

ACENZ, accept the facts by READING them, or just keep saying you're not brainwashed because a dictionary says so. Please!!

I do believe that one of the most damaging weapons of the Left is an ongoing corruption of the language. Many words today mean something different than what they originally did. Not quite Newspeak, but sometimes it feels like we're headed in that direction.

However, my point remains: if your goal is communication (and I'm now doubting that it is), then you need to use words in the way that others understand them. Either that, or at least clearly define your terms very early on. If that happened in this thread, I missed it. If you and your buddies in the in-crowd want to revert to old-style English (or Gaelic or whatever), you're welcome to. Sorry to break it to you, but if you use those words with the rest of the world, we won't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with intellectual laziness or brainwashing. It is simple social language convention.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I do believe that one of the most damaging weapons of the Left is an ongoing corruption of the language. Many words today mean something different than what they originally did. Not quite Newspeak, but sometimes it feels like we're headed in that direction.

However, my point remains: if your goal is communication (and I'm now doubting that it is), then you need to use words in the way that others understand them. Either that, or at least clearly define your terms very early on. If that happened in this thread, I missed it. If you and the your buddies in the in-crowd want to revert to old-style English (or Gaelic or whatever), you're welcome to. Sorry to break it to you, but if you use those words with the rest of the world, we won't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with intellectual laziness or brainwashing. It is simple social language convention.

I agree, and all the linguists and translators I'm aware of agree as well. Language is dynamic and constantly changing, so it's important to consider what people now understand about words before using them.

 

[ProIndividual]

Damn, dude. Call the world idiots because people accept dictionary definitions?

No. I said they're intellectually lazy and brainwashed because of it.

Idiots cannot learn.

Intellectually lazy people CAN learn, but refuse to.


You tell me which is worse...it's clear I have my own opinion.

 

[ProIndividual]

I do believe that one of the most damaging weapons of the Left is an ongoing corruption of the language.

Then quit getting your information from sources that have corrupted it.

 

[acptulsa]

No. I said they're intellectually lazy and brainwashed because of it.

Idiots cannot learn.

Intellectually lazy people CAN learn, but refuse to.


You tell me which is worse...it's clear I have my own opinion.

Oh, far and away what you're encountering have here is the worst sin of all. Realism.

No wonder we make you so unhappy.

 

[Revolution9]

What anarchists in charge? Are you writing from some other country where anarchists are in charge?

And that sonny boy is the sum total of your ignorance. Now..go take up a cause worth fighting for like freedom and liberty and not the counterfeit illusion you so wickedly defend. And do me a favor. Keep your snide comments to the board and out of my personal panel. I consider such tactics chickenshit..and on good authority too..LOL!

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Clearly desperate. You make this wild claim, and fail to prove it. Anarchists have voluminous evidence to prove that it works.

Absolute piffle. Anarchism worked quite well as a weaponized illusion in the 20th century. Your denial of this encapsulates the desperation you are holding tightly to. Freedom and liberty are NOT anarchy. Anarchy is quite similar to psychopathy in its methods and excuses for behavior.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I didn't watch this crap but if you think a series of LOLcatz styled rebuttals is appropriate it just shows the bankruptcy of your position.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I don't know. Do you suppose you, or your state can know, for all people everywhere in every capacity? Can you not accept that each individual would need their own "age" of competency? It matters not how many times the Earth has circled the Sun, but only how the individual's capacity for empathy, reason, and self-interest develop in order to be a legitimate party to certain contracts.

I guess the first appeal to that status comes from mommy and daddy. Your premise fails hard yet again. Why? It is based on illusion and gifted to YOU by YOUR Master.

Rev9