Anarchy Radio 09-05-2017

  • Posted on: 5 September 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)


Smoked out! The West is burning. Hurricane Harvey and the future of cities.
"American Horror Story: Cult," Eden" TV series and what they tell us. Tech as
the new religion - while civ reveals itself all the more fully. One call (about indis-
criminate violence), action briefs.


JZ needs to disavow Kevin Tucker and his calls to take down the grid. It is obvious they don't agree with each other, yet JZ is fine working with Kevin Tucker. People want to act like people are sick that kill indiscriminately in a direct manner. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to what Kevin Tucker has in mind. Kevin Tucker is a very delusional person that hedged his bets on rewilding against everyone else.

And John, if you don't mention this comment on your show, you are a coward.

To be fair KT's supposed main objection is that ITS is wasting its time and energy not attacking things like the grid, and that their violence is more a product of civilization and not an attack on it. If your aim is to "attack the grid", however, it is not wrong because those who die are collateral damage and they would have died anyway. So destroying the means that billions of people need to live is on the level of a "mercy killing" or culling so that some people can live more resiliently. So he's against gratuitous violence and not "necessary" violence. Of course he gets to determine what is necessary, because that's totally anarchist.

I've not seen him make that specific objection - it seemed much more like a "killing innocents is wrong" type of objection (not in those words, of course) every time I've seen him write or talk about it.

You and JZ work well together. Make it every week? The show needs debate. JZ you are under selling yourself. You need to be in front of people challenging you to entice you into getting your critique out there. Well done caller for an interesting call, it made the show.

JZ and Elijah to caller: "This scenario is a spurious strawman. Indigenous people don't do that. They don't attach indiscriminately"
Moments later: "Of course that would be understandable and we've seen various versions of it already to some degree. I mean there were plains indians who attacked settlers - men, women and children - for obvious reasons, so it's not hypothetical"

indigenous people are hypothetical

Put the FULL dialogue you creep! I've heard the podcast and you ain't being straight you saggy ball bag!

that's pretty much verbatim what happened

Someone wrote a whole long essay about hunter-gatherers killing white kids but don't let history get in the way of a good argument.

hey atassa, its pretty different to kill entire settlements of people when those very settlements are contributing to the genocide your people are facing than it is to kill random people because a small group of fools in Mexico got frustrated that their more ambitious attacks were mostly failures so they decided to pick easier targets.

No, it isn't. Checkmate. Slaughtering innocents isn't anything but slaughtering innocents. But whoooooo is innocent, you may ask. Is anyone truly innocent? Well, once we go here, we fall back to might is right and the indigenous deserve to die because they stood in the path of an inevitably, therefore were reactionary.

To clarify: Every person and the lands they came from, at some point, were sacred. Had the American Indians assimilated to capital, either by accepting their proletarianization or by backing capital and becoming capitalists, their fall could've been detourned towards social revolution. Like Russia's and China's peasants, they were defending outdated forms of property and were ground up in the process of modernization. This wasn't something that anyone could've stopped. Had they not stalled the process, many lives would've been saved.

On the flip side, had the peasants of Russia held out against Stalin, the USSR would've been left open for a second attempt to impose foreign imperialism. The indigenous' best choice, ultimately, was to of dropped the sad sack sacred land arguments, made a Stalin figure up and aggressively modernized. So many lives would've been saved and the American Indians would still have a nation to point to, even if it was their own pipelines crossing their land, their factories polluting their water. This is what it would've taken and what it still takes. The overthrow of capital won't come from the ancients of any people.

well if it isn't uncle Joe himself coming back from the grave and informing us that in order to defeat Capitalism we must give up and just become capitalists ourselves.

The caller kept flipping between asking JZ about "understanding" why the hypothetical violence might occur and "supporting" that violence. Understand it, yes. It has happened in isolated incidences. You don't have to support it to understand it. Of course, the majority of human-on-human indiscriminate violence comes from within civilization, not the other way around, but why bother with details.

But what Simon is really driving at here is - would you support indiscriminate violence or not, and that is a surrogate question about supporting eco-extremism. The problem with this logic is eco-extremists and people in the throes of genocide aren't the same. This is something like an Ethics 101 question and the answer is dependent upon your level of misanthropy. We know where eco-extremists are coming from. They want to see humanity go extinct. I don't think you'll find that level of stupidity in humanity living outside of civilization. Even Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said that he was fighting to protect his people and their way of life. They were fighting FOR something. They were never self-proclaimed nihilists bent on "eliminating all of humanity", "approaching the void", "speaking for Wild Nature", or some other theological bullshit.

As the Piraha said to Daniel Everett after he told them how he came to Christianity following his grieving over the suicide of his stepmother - they laughed and told him his stepmother was stupid for killing herself. The Piraha don't kill themselves.

The desire to eradicate all of humanity for its sins against Wild Nature could only ever be the product of a civilized religious fanatical mind. That a Catholic leads the charge for eco-extremism in NA from his suburban life in the southwestern US is quite fitting.

I agree with your assessment, but your point only goes so far as to say that eco-extremism is stupid, and the product of the ultra-civilized. While this is a solid position and one which I think most balanced individuals take, it is entirely separate from the subject of morality. We can say that eco-extremism is pathetic, and that is our opinion. But when it comes to morality, the question requires an entirely separate line of inquiry. For when JZ says that the actions of ITS are disgusting, he means they are morally reprehensible. I think a lot of the difficulty in these debates stem from a failure to separate these two issues, which causes both sides to talk past one another. You've covered the first issue well here. I address the morality question below in a separate post.

It seems to me that what JZ and Elijah are saying when they debate with the caller is that indiscriminate attack is justifiable if one is part of an indigenous group being displaced, subjugated or slaughtered by civilization in REAL TIME, but as soon as a certain amount of time has passed after this initial steamrolling, or after a certain degree of assimilation has taken place, indiscriminate attacks are no longer justifiable and become morally reprehensible. They may not know that this is what they are saying, as they are quite obviously lost in a vicious solipsistic circle, but it remains none the less what they are saying. We know for instance that JZ has read "Against History, Against Leviathan," and understands the history of civilization well enough. That book portrays succinctly how nearly every human alive today has indigenous ancestors who at one point fell victim to an advancing civilization (with some of those groups getting a far more thorough reaming than the Native Americans ever did). For some of us there are relatively recent ancestors, while others would have to trace or lineages further back. But we all can make the same claim; that that somewhere along the line we had ancestors who were screwed by civilization, just as the Native Americans were.

Therefore, if anyone considers the indiscriminate acts of violence perpetrated by Native Americans on white settlers justifiable (and there were many of such acts), but on the flip side condemns modern day examples of indiscriminate violence by groups such as ITS, they are basically saying either one of two things. One, that the right to attack indiscriminately is revoked after a certain period of time has elapsed, or two, that the right to attack indiscriminately is revoked after a person or group of people reaches a certain degree of assimilation into the conquering civilization. If one admits that we all have indigenous ancestors who were either slaughtered or subjugated against their will, and that each at the time of their oppression had the right to fight back with indiscriminate violence, then these are the only two reasons that said right can be justifiably revoked. Either that too much time has gone by, or that a certain degree of assimilation has occurred. Or a combination of both perhaps. The question then becomes only one of measurement of something entirely subjective, arbitrary, and in the end, irrational (as it infers the existence of an objective morality). So who gets to act as judge? Who determines what the time cutoff is? Who weighs the "degrees of assimilation?" Is there an omniscient being among us who we may entrust the duty to?

Zerzan does not seem to understand that Simon was neither condemning nor condoning.

It may be obvious to you, but it is not so to everyone. Others, including JZ, consistently conflate rationality, or as you put it "preference and if/then based effectiveness," with morality in making their argument. Hence all the polarization and the vitriol that spills out in the discourse. Would there be all this condemnation of ITS if it was only the effectiveness of their actions that were being scrutinized? Of course not. We wouldn't even be talking about ITS if people only considered the rationality/effectiveness of their actions. It is the moral question keeps their actions in the spotlight.

This is not to say that I disagree with you on the "cold blooded affair" point. I agree that from my view as an ultra-civilized person, being myself countless generations removed from indigenous life, that lashing out in such a way seems very stupid and very hollow. But this is only my opinion and I can affix no objective morality to it. Therefore while I will never support the actions of ITS, I recognize that I am not in a position to condemn them unless I condemn all acts of indiscriminate violence across history. Neither is anyone else. If others continue to impose their subjective notions of morality on the issue, they will continue to be challenged by those who see the glaring inconsistencies in their argument.

Those condemning on moral grounds will never cease to condemn, because they fail to see the fallacy in their reasoning, and notions of morality arouse passions like no other. They believe so strongly in their convictions that they feel compelled to engage this topic as though they are Jedi battling the forces of darkness.

ITS is not targeting anyone. ITS is killing everyone randomly. Your point would only make sense if native Americans were killing everyone randomly. They weren't.

Incorrect. ITS does not attack within their own circles. They have identified a common enemy, and it is only within that enemy faction they attack indiscriminately. This is the same as with the Native Americans. It may seem different on the surface, but only due to degrees of assimilation. If the members of ITS were one generation removed form indigenous life, your position would be different. It is true their attacks appear more random, but this is only because they are have been so far assimilated into civilization by this point, and because civilization has become so utterly monolithic. So we say to those who would resist it "Sorry, you are a part of us now. If you decide you don't want to be anymore, your only option for resistance is to use non-violent means that your captors condone. If you begin attacking people, we will condemn your actions as being too random to fit in with our notion of morality, which you are now eternally subject to. You cannot break free. We won't let you." Civilization is like Hotel California, apparently.

You can say that indiscriminate attack doesn't make rational sense to you (as a productive form of resistance), and that you feel it is feeble, reactionary enterprise, but that is as far as you can go. Perceived rationality is a separate subject from morality. You cannot say it is immoral, while simultaneously saying it is moral for "indigenous" peoples, without drawing a completely arbitrary line somewhere. Ironically, in drawing this line you rely on un-examined notions of morality that have been instilled in you by civilization itself.

Except those two joggers, which were killed because the other people they wanted to kill didn't show up.

I don't understand this fascination with "that's you, not me" argumentation. It isn't an argument, but rather a non-argument, making a non-point. So what if the line is arbitrary? Did you tackle the argument? No. No you didn't. You just did the tired, stale "You're a hypocrite!" argument. That got stale in Plato's time, why keep using it as if it had any solid grounding?

Indigenous people (which is an abstract definition popularly used by leftists that want to be vague about everything and don't understand the specifics of anything) certainly have and can kill people, as have the civilized, in many, many horrible ways that aren't justifiable by most acceptable standards. The moral arguments fade away when we have to tackle questions of effectiveness and/or if being a monster can do anything at all except be a monster.

Anarchists historically have acted out of concepts of popular will. Nechayev may of murdered for manipulative reasons one of his own cohorts, but when we are proudly claiming actions, it is because anarchists feel the killing was justified and others may judge it in the same light as they. Yes, this is arbitrary and subjective. There is no fixed morality and this should be obvious to anyone that has ventured beyond their little safe spaces and philosophy holes. Anarchist action is about inspiring as much as it is about acting against something they personally disagree with. The hope is in spreading a sentiment, which can't be chained by moral goodness, nor of cold necessity, but something in between.

The audience, an anarchist hopes, will not remain an audience and will act because they feel motivated by the activity going on. It may not be copycat actions and often an assassination can lead to a popular uprising, but not through an A-to-B-to-C approach. Rather, by attempting to read the sentiment of the time and inspiring it to come out and cohere with others. To make a bigger thing, a more powerful thing. A thing that can *create change* in some way, which benefits those whom the anarchist was targeting with their propaganda of deeds.

It's not a fascination, it a means of separating two issues that are often fallaciously conflated. There are two entirely separate questions here regarding eco-extremist action. The first concerns morality, and the second concerns rationality. Let'set aside that subjectivity of morality or a moment someone has demonstrated a specific act to be immoral. Ok great, you've shown something to be immoral. But it does not follow from this that the action must necessarily also be irrational. Rationality must be treated as an entirely separate subject. For instance, someone facing a choice between death by starvation and theft will have a very rational reason to choose the latter, even if they hold stealing to be immoral. The same is true in reverse; if one succeeds in demonstrating something to be irrational, it does not automatically follow that it must also be immoral. The second premise must be independently supported or else it is a non-sequitur.

Many people who are so vocal in condemning ITS conflate these two issues and their argument becomes a vicious circle of impassioned but fallacious reasoning, whereby a first premise is used as justification for a second, and that second premise is then used as justification for the first, without either having been independently demonstrated.

If you think this is a "stale' observation with "no solid grounding," then you are lacking a fundamental understanding of what it means to engage in rational discourse. Socratic reasoning, in my view at least, does not become stale through the passage of time. So long as we employ the use language to argue topics, we must adhere to the agreed upon definitions we prescribe to the words we use, else we are talking nonsense. Feel free to abandon your faculties for reason if you like, but know that in doing so you cease to be worthy of debate.

Further, my statement was absolutely an argument. I demonstrated that if we admit indiscriminate violence by some group in the past as being morally justifiable on the grounds that they were fighting an oppressive civilization, then we cannot rationally say that a modern group is immoral for doing the same. We can look at their reasoning and say that one seems a lot more productive than the other, but we cannot impose morality. This is an enlargement against those who would say otherwise, and there are many people saying otherwise. That is partially what is involved in argumentation - to refute fallacious claims. I would not have written anything were this not the case. You seem to imply that I cannot make this form of argument unless I have some personal cause that I am championing, which is also fallacious.

Wow I really need to learn to edit before I press submit. I forget this forum does not allow editing. Sorry for the mistakes. I meant to say "this is an argument against those who would say otherwise." And the sentence in the first paragraph was supposed to read "Let's set aside the subjectivity of morality for a moment and pretend someone has demonstrated a specific act to be immoral."

So, you're saying ITS attacks everyone except themselves. Therefore, they are not truly indiscriminate, and thus that makes them the same as Native Americans? ? ROTFLMAO!! (You can't make this stuff up folks).

How could your definition of 'indiscriminate' killing be any meaningfully different, if it simply refers to everyone other than the person(s) doing the killing? If the enemy is 'anyone but me/us', then that is precisely what indiscriminate means.

The Native Americans only attacked those colonists who encroached on their territory, or else those other Native American tribes whom they had a long history of feuding relations with. Their targets were not all colonists everywhere in North America, nor were they all other Native American tribes everywhere. A few tribes welcomed Europeans and willingly assimilated. And some tribes even assimilated into other tribes. For the first 100 years or so of the fur trade in Quebec, the Algonquin worked with French settlers and colonizers. They even formed an alliance against the Iroquois Confederacy. There was no indiscriminate abstract enemy called 'civilization' in the 17th century.

ITS, by contrast, seems to be little more than a few Facebook friends planting bombs or shooting random people in random locations throughout Mexico. And it's not even clear whether they are the ones actually doing the killing or not, or if they are merely reporting the killing and taking credit.

To conflate the actions (even hypothetically) between ITS and Native Americans is just silliness.

A few tribes welcomed Europeans and willingly assimilated. And some tribes even assimilated into other tribes. For the first 100 years or so of the fur trade in Quebec, the Algonquin worked with French settlers and colonizers. They even formed an alliance against the Iroquois Confederacy. There was no indiscriminate abstract enemy called 'civilization' in the 17th century.

This is correct.

It's also funny that one Fan Blog related to EE ( takes its name, Miko-Ew, from a name used for the Blackfeet. The name refers to them as being of the "Blood Tribe". Oooo.... so edgy.

The Blackfeet were some of the first natives in the area to take up trade and have friendly relations with French trappers. Why? Because the French were giving them guns to use against other tribes! It was only when the Miko-Ew found out that the Americans were planning to treat all natives equally, meaning take their land and give them guns to kill themselves with, that the Miko-Ew decided to attack the invasive white-man species. Only when their competitive advantage over other tribes was threatened did they view the white-man and their "civilization" as an enemy. Until then, they were happy to co-exist with civilization and welcomed its technology.

Will the EE cheerleaders write about this, or do they just cherry-pick examples to uphold their "warrior culture" stereotype of The Ancestors that they mythologize?

The French did not settle in Western Canada or in Montana during the 17th and 18h centuries (although their were some Metis peoples there at the time). It was the British colonists who were trading with the Kainai (Blood tribe). Miko-Ew is what the neighboring Cree called the Kainai people. So that's the name they told the English explorers. But you are otherwise right that the Plains Indians were happy to trade with European settlers and receive guns, blankets, horses, metal knives, axes, and buckets in exchange for beaver pelts, deer skins, buffalo hides, racoon fur, etc. The tribes even went so far as to violate their own cultural prohibitions against overhunting in order to acquire trade items.

It really wasn't until the Canadian Pacific Railway started being constructed throughout the prairies that First Nations found common cause in opposing white European culture in general. But by that time, they had already overexploited their own hunting grounds, been divided and conquered by being forced to sign individual Treaties (11 in total), and the buffalo had been wiped out by European hunters. Before the Treaties, the relationship between European settlers and First Nations in Canada was a hodge- podge of shifting alliances, wars, local battles, peaceful trading, and mutual tolerance....all depending on the time and place and people involved.

It's ironic that EE adopt Native American names and attitudes without understanding the actual history.

I agree with this, and I am most certainly not an EE cheerleader. I am a neutral party trying to formulate rational conclusions to difficult philosophical questions. The only reasons the example of Native Americans was brought up in this case, was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of morally condemning indiscriminate violence in one case, and supporting it in the other. I understand that a great many tribes were friendly for many decades before becoming hostile. This is irrelevant in relation to the points I made in my original comment, or any comment I have made since.

I have only been stating that indiscriminate violence cannot be said to be immoral in the case of EE if we do not similarly condemn it in the case of Native Americans. This is a purely philosophical question, and I have said nothing more, and nothing less. When it comes to rationality, I think that EE is profoundly idiotic, but that is a separate issue and not one which I set out to discuss here. Good Christ how are people so compelled to build strawman arguments? Shit really does baffle me.

And what I am pointing out is that the violence by Native Americans is not the same as for ITS. There is no moral equivalency. Native Americans targeted specific groups of people, usually for legitimate reasons of either self defense from European settlers, or from ongoing feuds with neighboring tribes. Unlike ITS, they did not set out to kill everyone else in North America who was not in their own personal tribe.

Let me make this perfectly clear once again: there is no moral equivalency between the indiscriminate random violence by ITS, and the specifically targeted violence by Native Americans.

Some people just don't know how to debate without employing fallacy after fallacy. Nowhere have I said or even implied that ITS is "the same as Native Americans." You are erecting a massive strawman here and the rest of your argument is built upon a foundation of sand. Many of the things you said are certainly true, but they have nothing to do with the point I am making. I applaud your efforts though.

Perhaps if I phrase things differently they will become more clear. Did some tribes kill whites indiscriminately, or not? To say that their attacks weren't indiscriminate because they only attacked whites "encroaching on their territory" is only to say that civilization had not yet conquered the entire world. In which case, I refer again to the point I made clear earlier, that you are drawing arbitrary lines based on the degree to which a group has been subjugated by civilization. This is akin to saying "When civilization is in the act of encroaching on your territory, you can attack any and all members who come into your territory and we won't call this indiscriminate, but as soon as civilization has thoroughly conquered you and your former territory has been completely parceled out, if you continue attacking people we will now call this indiscriminate. The first we will say is justifiable, and the second we will condemn." This is what I meant when I said you are but measuring degrees of assimilation. If you think your position is any more solid because you haphazardly label one discriminate and the other indiscriminate, then you delude yourself. Technically neither parties actions are truly indiscriminate, as I demonstrated earlier. You are working hard to show that one is, and the other is not, because you think you can smuggle in a notion of morality this way, but this remains fallacious, for that notion depends upon manipulating a definition in order to comport with your agenda. An indiscriminate act is defined literally as one "not marked by careful thought or distinction." ITS is making very careful distinctions, just as the Native Americans did (to your point). Their target pool is much, much broader, and their reasons may seem less rational, but they are still making a clear distinction in determining who the enemy is. That they consider the enemy to be very close to all-pervading does not change this fact.

We cannot change definitions to suit our agendas, unfortunately. Even if you and I are debating opposite sides, we both still need to agree on what indiscriminate means, and apply the term appropriately. The first obvious choice is to use the dictionary definition, which we've just examined. If we use that definition, neither groups actions can be called indiscriminate. Alternatively, we can agree to use the term a little more loosely, but if we do that, then no side gets to claim a monopoly on it, or to decide the extent to which the definition can be stretched. Sorry, but that's just not how debate works, and this is exactly what you are trying to do here. "It's indiscriminate when it is convenient for my argument." This is fallacious. Either we agree to stick to the dictionary definition and neither is indiscriminate, or we agree that both groups attacked a perceived enemy indiscriminately. Choose one.

If the former, then you agree that both were discriminating and the merits of said discrimination can only be judged on rationality, not upon morality. If the latter, then you agree that both were indiscriminate, and the merits of each can only be judged on rationality, not upon morality. Again, you can only smuggle in your notion of morality is if you can succeed in showing that one can be defined as "good," and the other as "bad," and the only way you can do this is to say one was discriminate and the other was not. Which you can't, not without a bunch of mental gymnastics where you get to play governor of the dictionary and manipulate the definition of words for your advantage. "Let me just fudge the definition of indiscriminate a little ways, so I can show that ITS is indiscriminate, but only just that far. For if I were to fudge it any further, then I would also have to admit that the Native Americans were indiscriminate too." Yeah buddy, find that sweet spot where words mean precisely what you want them to mean. And let me just throw this in there too, so that I can pretend my position is made stronger by it: ROTFLMAO!!

By the way your last sentence really did make me laugh. Yes, I did indeed conflate (bring together) two examples, but only so far as to prove an important point, as outlined in the paragraphs above. Conflation to such an extent is entirely justified. It only becomes unjustified (fallacious) if I draw false comparisons, or if I use accurate comparisons and draw inaccurate conclusions from them. I have done neither here, and I challenge you to find a specific instance that demonstrates otherwise. But you won't, because I haven't. This is just a modified version of your opening strawman argument. As I said, fallacy after fallacy.

"To say that their attacks weren't indiscriminate because they only attacked whites "encroaching on their territory" is only to say that civilization had not yet conquered the entire world"

No it isn't to say that at all. Many tribes had good relations with whites. That's precisely why they didn't attack them, not because they hadn't yet conquered the entire world. Had those good relations continued, it wouldn't have mattered to those tribes if whites had conquered the entire world.

"you are drawing arbitrary lines based on the degree to which a group has been subjugated by civilization. This is akin to saying "When civilization is in the act of encroaching on your territory, you can attack any and all members who come into your territory and we won't call this indiscriminate, but as soon as civilization has thoroughly conquered you and your former territory has been completely parceled out, if you continue attacking people we will now call this indiscriminate."

That is some pretty fucked up logic. Here's why: Many whites were empathetic to Native Americans and actually went native (joined a tribe). The tribe didn't kill them indiscriminately for that. Unlike ITS who simply kill people without knowing anything about who their victims are; they could be killing a primitivist for all they know. Also, some tribes had good relations with whites, and felt white immigration was mutually beneficial, especially early on in the 17th and 18th centuries. Later on when the Indian Wars were raging, some tribes took sides, and fought along with the US government against other tribes, while others fought along with other tribes against the US government. And some tribes remained neutral. In Canada, the Blackfoot tried to stay out of most battles, and one chief (Crowfoot) ended up refusing to to help join forces with Sitting Bull to fight against the US government. Chief Crowfoot also refused to get involved in the NorthWest rebellion. The point you keep missing is that in pre-Treaty times, the relationships between the Native American indigenous population was different in different regions at different times. Tribes never engaged in indiscriminate violence against everyone else who weren't in their own personal tribe. And their struggles today are not against all white people or everyone else who isn't in their own personal tribe. Native Americans still have white allies and would never kill them simply because they are living here in North America. But this is exactly what ITS does. Just living in North America makes you a target of ITS violence. They don't discriminate. They are an equal opportunity terrorist group. Native Americans continue to pick and choose their battles, from Oka, to DAPL.

The ITS target pool isn't merely broader, it's aimed at everyone else who isn't them (whoever 'them' are). They even threaten to kill anarchists. If ITS violence isn't indiscriminate, what is? What would indiscriminate violence look like to you?

The rest of your diatribe is just grade 10 level gibberish and Dunning-Kruger mic dropping.

"The point you keep missing is that in pre-Treaty times, the relationships between the Native American indigenous population was different in different regions at different times." Wrong. I understand this perfectly well. I realize that there was much less violence in pre-treaty times, and that post-treaty, there was a wide spectrum of responses by various tribes. Some went peacefully, some did not. I do not discuss this because it is not related to my question. The ONLY thing I am concerned with here, is whether or not some tribes engaged in indiscriminate attack at some point? Yes or no? If yes, should this be considered morally justifiable? Answer these questions directly, or you are evading.

If you answer yes, they did in some cases attack indiscriminately, and yes, it was morally justifiable, but then turn around and morally condemn the actions of ITS because there "version" of indiscriminate attack is morally unjust, you are being inconsistent and hypocritical. For an attack to be truly indiscriminate, it has to be utterly without distinction. If it is utterly without distinction, then it is performed without a shred of reasoning. Therefore, our only options are to label indiscriminate attack either as moral, or immoral. Whatever we decide must be without exception, for if we make an exception, it can only be because we are judging perceived reasons, which means the act wasn't actually indiscriminate. Indiscriminate attack in all cases is either fully moral, or it is fully immoral. There is no room for anything in between.

If you answer no, they never did not attack indiscriminately, then you are forced to grant the same for ITS. Or else you are manipulating the dictionary definition of indiscriminate to comport with your agenda, as I discussed in my last post. It might be difficult to accept this, but there is no way out of this dichotomy. An action is either fully indiscriminate, or it is fully discriminate. The two definitions are not loosely related, they are polarized opposites. No amount of ad-hominem makes this inconvenient truth go away.

"The ONLY thing I am concerned with here, is whether or not some tribes engaged in indiscriminate attack at some point? Yes or no?"

Who fucking knows for sure? I wasn't there keeping score for every skirmish or battle. Even if some tribes did occasionally indiscriminately attack some people, it wouldn't have been a generally consistent pattern of behavior for all Native Americans (otherwise we'd know about it), the way it is with ITS. ERGO: no moral equivalence.

Now answer my fucking question, ok asshole? What does 'indiscriminate' mean to you? And would you say ITS uses indiscriminate violence?

I already answered your question buddy. Haven't you been reading? Indiscriminate means without discrimination. Nothing more, nothing less. This is what it "means to me" because this is what the word actually fucking means. In order to be indiscriminate, there can not be an ounce of discrimination, by definition. Therefore, ITS does not use indiscriminate violence if there is even the slightest discrimination involved, and as I have already stated, they quite clearly DO discriminate. The reasoning behind their discrimination may not make sense to us, but that is another matter (the entirely separate matter of rationality, as I have been saying all along). I acknowledge that sometimes a word may be used in a looser context than that which is permitted by its actual definition (which I initially did do), but if two sides in a debate cannot come to an agreement as to what extent the meaning may be altered when structuring their arguments, then they must each agree to hold to the default dictionary meaning. If one side refuses to do so and insists that their special meaning is the one which shall be used, then they are arguing fallaciously, as you have been all this while. That you continue to do so without acknowledging your error, may in fact suggest that your Dunning-Kruger reference was aimed in the wrong direction. Perhaps you should take a long hard look in the mirror buddy.

Also, I do not care if the potentially indiscriminate actions of the tribes were not consistent. My argument rests only on the question of whether they occurred or not, and whether or not those occurrences, however isolated they may have been, should be considered morally justifiable. Since we cannot agree on a loose idea of what indiscriminate means, we have to use the dictionary meaning. So, using the official definition, answer the following question: Did the Native Americans use indiscriminate violence? In this case you should answer "no," and I would be in agreement. If we hold to the true meaning of indiscriminate, then we see that their actions were clearly not so. But to acknowledge this by accepting the true definition, is also to acknowledge that ITS discriminates (much to your dismay and after a great lot of squirming and mental gymnastics trying to get out of it). And herein we are left with the rock bottom truth. Both discriminate. Correct or incorrect?

"I already answered your question buddy. Haven't you been reading? Indiscriminate means without discrimination."

Noooo, really?

Definition of indiscriminate

1a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment indiscriminate reading habits indiscriminate mass destructionb : haphazard, random indiscriminate application of a law

2a : promiscuous, unrestrained indiscriminate sexual behaviorb : heterogeneous, motley an indiscriminate collection

Yep, this is exactly like what ITS is doing. Randomly, without careful distinction, indiscriminately, killing people. How the fuck can you possibly dispute this?

I'm not the one making any "error", YOU are. Starting to get tired of your dumbfuckery.

The thing is, deep down you know unequivocally that ITS is in fact making a careful distinction. They are thinking, judging, and discerning in their choices, all of which are forms of discrimination. This is painfully obvious and you would admit it if your pride didn't take such a beating in the process. The fact that you say I have no grounds to claim there is discrimination in their actions is utterly dumbfounding. The word "judgement" is a direct synonym to discrimination. If you fail to see any judgement in their actions, you then you are far beyond the capacity for intelligible debate. I don't believe that you fail to see it, however. My suspicion is that you are just that pig headed. If you can't agree that there are elements of discrimination/thinking/judging/discernment in their actions, then we are done here. You can have the last word with your inevitable parting string of insults. It won't make a difference. Both of us know what the truth is, and you can protest as loudly as you want. I know that you know there is judgement taking place, and that your blustering is but an effort to save face.

"The thing is, deep down you know unequivocally that ITS is in fact making a careful distinction. They are thinking, judging, and discerning in their choices, all of which are forms of discrimination. This is painfully obvious...."

You are just making empty assertions. No arguments, no reasons, no examples, and just saying 'yes they are discriminate'. So, no, it isn't "painfully obvious". What "careful distinction" are ITS making? I don't see anyone being targeted, just random people.

Troll harder....

You will find examples if you look, grasshopper. Whether you will recognize them or not is a different story...

But, alas, I shall not be searching out specific quotes for you. Sorry to disappoint. Since you did ask the question though, I will go so far as to say that ITS has stated in numerous places that they consider those who share their views and tenancies to be their comrades, blood brothers, etc. Those who fight in the war against civilization are on their side, and those who propagate civilization are the enemy. You may not consider these to be rational distinctions (I certainly don't), but they are distinctions. And yes, painfully, painfully obvious ones. If they aren't obvious to you, then as much as it saddens me to admit, I fear there is no hope for us to reconcile our differences. And with that, there is no point in continuing discussion. You will carry on denying the obvious (speaking of trolling), or you will continue asking dumb questions so we can argue in circles. In recognition of this utter futility, I will neither read nor respond to any further posts under this section. You have my word on that.

Trolling, by the way, is actually considered a form of mental disorder. Were you aware?

"You will find examples if you look, grasshopper"

So, you're not going to tell me? It's a secret that I have to 'look' for? Why don't you just tell me which killings were distinct targeted killings? And tell me why those specific people were killed.

Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

So who gets to act as judge?

The initial question was a moral question. It was predicated on "would you support or condemn" the violence. That is a moral question and not a rational one. We can understand (by using reason) the drive to commit indiscriminate violence, but we can also morally judge whether to support or condemn it.

Personally, I don't want to live in a world guided by indiscriminate violence that has human extinction at its foundation. That seems "stupid". Just as the commenter above noted about the Pirahas judgment on suicide. If you don't value your own life, or any human life, what's the point in living? The Piraha understand this. The eco-extremists do not.

Thank you for your excellent comment anon 18:21. I'm glad there are discerning listeners out there!

Trying to provide the right answers to the wrong questions is one of the many traps of living in civilization.I think it was Karl who said the caller was creating a straw man with his hypothetical question, and I think Karl is right.

hey what the fuck is going on with the comments here? i just wanted to read snarkbait and all I got was intelligent discussion and argumentation! damn you all to hell!

OMG this shit is hysterical

LBC Tabler Physically Attacks Anarchists, in Defense of Eco-Extremism

"After voicing these concerns and being met with smug indifference, one comrade ripped Atassa in half. The LBC tabler responded immediately by grabbing this person by the throat from behind the table, pushing through the table, putting them in a chokehold, and taking them to the ground in an attempt to choke them unconscious. A second comrade punched the attacker in the face in an attempt to get them to release the first. In response, an associate of the LBC tabler jumped on the second comrade from behind in defense of the choking attack, taking them to the ground and punching them repeatedly in the head until they were pulled off by bystanders."

"LBC escalated the conflict to physical violence extremely quickly."

"The person who put the comrade in the chokehold, after complaining about being kicked out because the other side had “started it,” was asked if the book was worth as much as the comrade’s neck and stated “Yeah it is.”"

lol, oh my gentle, gentle jesus...

Well, to be fair: what did they expect? Did they think those tablers would respond with shrill counter-accusations or throw some water in their face or something?

You can't just let someone fuck with your shit like that with no reprisal to show for it. It sends the wrong message and lets your antagonizers know they can hit you up again and again.

Prison-yard rules 101, mf.

Sounds to me like some "anti-authoritarians" were attempting to lay down some authority on what people can and can't read, or publish, and ended up getting their asses beat by a bunch of nihilists

Nihilists - 2
Vanguardchists - 1

"It's not authority when we do it, tho. Cuz muh an-narc-keys, and stuff"

Huh? Nihilists don't have any ideologies to follow, and that goes for hugging freakin' trees, culling over-populations of animals or declaring any land sacred. Real nihilists have nothing to do with this petty cat-fight!

Just like real nihilists have nothing to do with anarchy.

So please fuck right off, k?

It's a coincidental relationship based on circumstance; like that slightly creepy, racist guy your mom starts dating and you can't be too critical because mom needs to get laid and might kick you out of the house instead

Is that what happened to you?

Nah, my mom's too weird for dating. She's basically a shut-in.

So you keep her in the basement? Or is it all voluntary?

I tell her to get out more because I worry she's becoming ... Unsociable!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.