pouët.net

doom, how about international politics? who's the boss of the world?

Is that a trick question?

I think somebody need to dig up Kekkonen's bones from grave and write some graffiti to grave <Joke>

and how exactly anarchists are on-topic here? or do you think "building bombs" = "anarchists"? that's so 1880s.

so shut the fuck up, seriously. anarchists never triggered any progress? whats about spanish revolution 1936? and machno's hulyaypole commune? and kropotkin as a scientist? and and and...
if you think anarchism is "to fuck up around and fuck up themselves", go and read kropotkin.

and tomcat has for sure NOTHING to do with anarchism. because anarchism implies antinationalism. and is not compatible with that whole madman talk about the hungarian crown rule etc.

dipswitch is on topic =D

but it is compatible with handing out dildos

dipswitch : i was referring to the common language (ab)use of the word, every non-combatant coward bastard messing with bombs :p

If tomcat was really preparing some bomb (0day news can be so false...), i don't think he lives in an occupied or uber-oppressed country, then he has no moral reason for such an act of violence.

speaking about the historical anarchists, i really think they haven't brought any real progress to modern civilizations, their peak times were always marked with violence from their side or even more violence from the counter-reaction they always induce... extremism always induces fruitless violence, that's my deep conviction. And History has proved that any big (by the size of its population) human civilization need a form of government to hope to remain civilized : it's a necessary condition but unfortunately not enough... oh and even anarchist groups seem to have 'natural' leaders too...

some intellectuals like calling themselves anarchists but they are rather peaceful independent minds, and those have prolly brought to cultural progress or even scientific one if you want. Anarchy is a nice literary or utopian concept, perfect to explore vast mindspaces with friends around an appeasing joint, but those who believe in it as a real pragmatic concept are as dangerous as those who believed in facism or communism.

and whats wrong with violence, or communism for that sake?

Zest, you really haven't read anything about what dipswitch and I pointed you to have you?

the spanish revolution was bloody violent and they quickly lost against a bloodier counter-reaction. What was the gain for spanish people seriously??

eh, no the spanish fascists revolted against the republic and the anarchists and others fought to preserve democracy but they lost. don't distort historical facts please.

i've not said the contrary, besides those spanish anarchists looked like more communists, and real an-archy and democracy are antinomic : how could you guarantee democracy without a form of government or even 'council' ? take the example of a man who kills her wife and neighbor because they sleep together : man need a supra authority to give justice and punish him, if not then it's the law of the strongest who prevails. If anarchists are against a state as a tax collector, then how can they redistribute wealth and build the needed common infrastructure ? or are they like amish people or hardcore communists removing money and imposing common tasks, then they destroy fundamental individual freedoms and that's not my conception of democracy.

imo peaceful anarchists are dreamers, violent anarchists are society scum :p


though i do believe in space- and time-limited self-regulated anarchies like Hakim Bey's conceptual TAZ with no private property... like the scene :D : there are some basic ethical rules and some (contested) councils but no supra authority, and there is an unbeatable freedom to access knowledge and meet people and just have fun! But that's possible because people gather either in 'cyberspace' where basic real life needs don't apply while they are secured at home or at work (uh), or in parties which are like temporary autonomous golden parentheses from daily life worries. So i may consider myself as a kind of cyber-anarchist while being an average joe trying to live in the less bad political system which is a balance between social and liberal democracies imho.

A new hope is that those new cyber freedoms are bringing more and more freedom and power to people in real-life, with the examples of lively political blogs around the world or ambitious humanist wiki projects etc...

cyber anarchy greatly strenghtens democracy :)

uh i really do sound like 90s ^^ but cyberpunks aren't dead! contrary to what Atari Teenage Riot said ;)

you sound like one of those second life nerds without a clue/life.

heh xeNusion, 2nd life clearly sucks as an alternative society in so far as it's exclusively based on property and L$ : it's like a pacified copycat of our western societies, an übercapitalist dreamworld. Far from the scene ideals :p

what ideals?

the no girls allowed on all parties rule being enforced always everywhere, and no more pictures of the same ugly norwegian drinking beer on slengpung? isnt that the ideals?

??

I might have to clearify if you are a noob. There was once a very good rule on alot of demopartys. No girls allowed. It helped to bring a better partyatmosphere.

This was ofcource before someone come up with the idea of putting 500 pictures of Nosfe and Leia drinking beer on a site and call it slengpung. Maybe its connectec somehow. I dont know.

dubmood is off topic :(

ah, yeah, sure. coffee anyone?

I don't think that was a rule, more of a situation... (this is the part where you get a clue)

Moscovici (1970)
- persistent minorities can successfully affect majority thinking...
- given that they are visibly committed and consistent...
- and given that this does not become dogmatic - i.e. they
retain flexibility.

Nemeth (1986)
- majorities seldom justify the reasons for their judgements
and values because there is no need in the status quo.
- minorities force re-evaluation of these judgements and values
by breaking the tacit acceptance inherent in the status quo.

Say we assume that not all anarchists are violent, and we assume that not all anarchists are opposed to order and peace per se. A prediction from Moscovici's model would state that non-violent anarchists can have a non-violent effect on the majority position, given that they are an identifiable and distinct group. It's worth thinking about, if only hypothetically.