Malek's Log

[demi]

FoC loses cause he refuses to organize with the other libertarians and form a communal defense.


PS Since I don't follow your love life, how old is flannel girl?

17

[Flannel Boy]

FoC loses cause he refuses to organize with the other libertarians and form a communal defense.


PS Since I don't follow your love life, how old is flannel girl?

Based on her high school graduation date (estalking, don't ask), she's a couple of years older than I am. Unless she skipped some grades!

and I only know about her political beliefs through second hand information. who know what she actually believes.

[Mandark]

Man, I don't pay enough attention to know how old you are.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ages at Evilbore I know:

Willco - a year or two younger than me

Prole - oooooooooold

Phoenix Dark - perpetually twelve

[close]

And isn't she going to law school, or whatever you got into after failing your LSATs?  If she's an anarchist, I bet it's just as an intellectual novelty which doesn't affect how she lives, like believing in some remote conspiracy theory.

[Flannel Boy]

Even look at Survivor, people don't want to see a Lord of the Flies social experiment, they want to see MXC-lite/Realword then have an orderly democratic vote for who leaves the Island. People are very happy with the social institutions that have been built up and would be scared shitless if they were taken away. I bet if there was something catastrophic to happen and there was a social breakdown, pie in the sky libertopians like JayDubya would be the first to have the smug grin wiped off his face.

There must be, and mandark touched on this, some belief that these social and political institutions hold men back from greatness. Without these institutions weighing men down, men would really flourish.
I have no idea where this optimistic view of human potential comes from. It sure isn't informed by history or psychology.

[Dickie Dee]

Man, I don't pay enough attention to know how old you are.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ages at Evilbore I know:

Willco - a year or two younger than me

Prole - oooooooooold

Phoenix Dark - perpetually twelve

[close]

And isn't she going to law school, or whatever you got into after failing your LSATs?  If she's an anarchist, I bet it's just as an intellectual novelty which doesn't affect how she lives, like believing in some remote conspiracy theory.

yeah, it's probably nothing serious

are you sure they didn't say "she's a NARC, ese"

[Flannel Boy]

Man, I don't pay enough attention to know how old you are.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ages at Evilbore I know:

Willco - a year or two younger than me

Prole - oooooooooold

Phoenix Dark - perpetually twelve

[close]

And isn't she going to law school, or whatever you got into after failing your LSATs?  If she's an anarchist, I bet it's just as an intellectual novelty which doesn't affect how she lives, like believing in some remote conspiracy theory.

I'm 26.

THE LSAT IS NOT A PASS FAIL TEST.  :'(

(Still scored higher than at least three evilbore members who took the test.)

I assumed it hasn't seriously affected her; after all, she's attending law school. It's hard to imagine that the legal system in an anarchist society would be anything like the one in a modern interventionist nation state.  

[recursivelyenumerable]

Have you read the anarchist FAQ?  It's pretty good.  This section sort of addresses what you're asking about, I think.

If they're coming at the question from an Ayn Rand place, they think of government as a crutch for the weak and ineffectual.

Rand is not an anarchist, even in the oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalist" sense.

[Flannel Boy]

Why would anyone believe that the great unwashed--untrained in complicated legal, political, social, and bureaucratic matters--would be good decision makers? Or is the assumption that the system would somehow, by necessity, turn them into good decision makers?

[Flannel Boy]

As can be seen, the only armed force for the defence of the an anarchist society would be the voluntary, self-managed militia bodies organised by the free communes and federations of workers' associations. The militias would be unified and co-ordinated by federations of communes while delegates from each militia unit would co-ordinate the actual fighting. In times of peace the militia members would be living and working among the rest of the populace, and, thus, they would tend to have the same outlook and interests as their fellow workers.

The built-in assumption is that they would always be unified. Have revolutionaries never had disagreements amongst themselves before? 

Also the article talks about the state as if it were a single entity. This is a nice abstraction, but there are many individual states. How exactly do these unified militias fight them off?

I also love the assumption that people that work together think alike and have the same interests. This is a nice fiction. Has anyone actually worked with blue collared workers? I have worked with many . . . WE SHARE FEW OUTLOOKS AND INTERESTS

[drohne]

if other political ideologies want to compete for the frivolous adherence of stupid young people they need cool graffiti ideograms

edit: no insult intended to the object of malek's affections. stupidity in women is an aphrodisiac.

edit 2: probably in men too. for those so inclined

[recursivelyenumerable]

Why would anyone believe that the great unwashed--untrained in complicated legal, political, social, and bureaucratic matters--would be good decision makers? Or is the assumption that the system would somehow, by necessity, turn them into good decision makers?

That question is sort of addressed by this answer from the FAQ.  But is it the case that the various authoritarian (whether the authority is elected or not) systems in place now (and in history) necessarily generated good (for the interests of the people) decisions made by good decision makers?

[Flannel Boy]

How would these anarchist decision makers coordinate efforts to prevent a flooding of the Red River in Manitoba? What happens if syndicates disagree thus preventing a coordinated effort? What the fuck do factory workers, for example know about flood prevention anyway?

Firstly, the class struggle will help workers gain experience of managing their own affairs. Struggles to resist oppression and exploitation in the workplace will mean that workers will have to organise themselves to manage those struggles. This will be an important means of accustoming them to make their own decisions. By participating in the structures created to conduct the class war, they will gain the skills and experience needed to go beyond class society. The process of struggle will ensure we can manage our own working time when we take over the means of life and abolish wage slavery.

Workers in class struggles rarely organize themselves. Even if they did, the skills required to fight class warfare are not the same skills it takes to run a company, run a city, run an electricity plant, run a sewage system, etc. This really takes no time to think about. These skills aren't really transferable. We live in a complicated information age, learning to fight the bourgeoisie means jack shit when it comes to running and organizing our institutions.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Struggle in an anarchist context isn't just fighting the bourgeoisie, it's also about creating alternative social organizations ("building the new world in the shell of the old").  So in that sense it's definitely relevant.  see here

[Mandark]

see here

My attention span isn't near long enough for that.  I demand either a summary or a sci-fi novel that serves as an allegory.

[Flannel Boy]

I agree with mandark. I mean, I'm staring at an 800 page contracts case book. Have some fuckin' mercy.

Skimming I keep noticing a presumption that people will always co-operate in these unions* and communes. I did a word search for conflict or compete, and the only times those words are used is to contrast anarchism with capitalism. It's nice to see all disagreement disappear in utopias . . . just not buying it.


*I was at a trial involving union fraud. There's always an incentive for some to NOT cooperate.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Summary: co-ops are cool.  I'd have to agree BTW, although my only data point is the worker-owned anarchist cafe on 12th & Oak where pretty nice people serve pretty good vegan food for pretty low prices.  It's a nice place to chill too, though I've never had any success meeting women there for some reason.   :'(

[Flannel Boy]

Summary: co-ops are cool.  I'd have to agree BTW, although my only data point is the anarchist cafe on 12th & Oak where pretty nice people serve pretty good vegan food for pretty low prices.  It's a nice place to chill too, though I've never had any success meeting women there for some reason.   :'(

If only they'd cooperate.

[Mandark]

The underlying assumption of human (or worker) harmony as a natural state (impeded only by our current, corrupt institutions) seems like the mirror image of the hardcore Chicago School view of people as ruthlessly efficient rational actors.

[recursivelyenumerable]

The one time I ever went there at their old location on 21st and Division, I did have a couple of attractive girls at the next table repeatedly try to talk to me.  I flubbed it but that was my own fault.  But then rising property values jacked their rent up and forced them to find a new location, and I've never met any women there since.  See, capitalism ruins everything.

[Flannel Boy]

The underlying assumption of human (or worker) harmony as a natural state (impeded only by our current, corrupt institutions) seems like the mirror image of the hardcore Chicago School view of people as ruthlessly efficient rational actors.

Have romantics ever looked at hunter and gatherer death rates from violence? It's been estimated to be between 10 and 20%, far higher than rates in modern Western nation-states. Shouldn't this give them pause when blaming institutions for debasing us instead of lifting us up from our natural depraved condition?

edit: usage error

[Madrun Badrun]

Summary: co-ops are cool.  I'd have to agree BTW, although my only data point is the anarchist cafe on 12th & Oak where pretty nice people serve pretty good vegan food for pretty low prices.  It's a nice place to chill too, though I've never had any success meeting women there for some reason.   :'(

If only they'd cooperate.

 

[Flannel Boy]

edit: no insult intended to the object of malek's affections. stupidity in women is an aphrodisiac.

I don't think she's stupid. But pretty people, not unlike Hamm in the last episode of 30 Rock, can say and do silly things without being corrected. Maybe no one has bothered to challenge her views because she looks so damn good in flannel.

[recursivelyenumerable]

In order to annoy everyone, I'd like to add that whatever innate biological nature humans may possess ultimately doesn't really matter anyway, since we'll soon enough possess the technological means to change it.  So there.

[Flannel Boy]

Is an anarchist co-op, which is operated and protected within a state, an example of anarchist success? If someone steals from them, they go use the state police. If another company breaches a contract, they go to a state courthouse. If they need water, they use the state water treatment and sewage facilities. If they need educated workers, they, at least indirectly, use state schools. If the street on which the cafe is located needs repairs, they use state construction workers.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Well, it's difficult to find any complete and conclusive examples of success of any comprehensive social system that doesn't exist, seeing as it doesn't exist.

[Dickie Dee]

In order to annoy everyone, I'd like to add that whatever innate biological nature humans may possess ultimately doesn't really matter anyway, since we'll soon enough possess the technological means to change it.  So there.

The crossover of libertarians and singularity-afficiandoes is pretty telling. Both seek some uber-rational state of being, yet seem unwilling to rationaly discuss human beings as they actually are.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Here's Noam Chomsky though!

2. Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this epoch?

I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.

Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.

In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.

3. What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on? Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and "mob rule"?

As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on.

Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and authority, but seem to have no other merits.

Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.

What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.

[recursivelyenumerable]

The crossover of libertarians and singularity-afficiandoes is pretty telling. Both seek some uber-rational state of being, yet seem unwilling to rationaly discuss human beings as they actually are.

But the point is that human beings don't have to be that way.  You're kinda begging the question.  Anyway, I don't think belief in the possibility of biological reform implies belief in a quasi-eschatological "singularity".  The former may not be inevitable, but it's not a huge stretch from the current situation.  The issue then becomes: who controls whatever reform does occur, and to what social end is it directed?  That's one of the reasons I want to go back to school and study biochemistry.

[Dickie Dee]

The crossover of libertarians and singularity-afficiandoes is pretty telling. Both seek some uber-rational state of being, yet seem unwilling to rationaly discuss human beings as they actually are.

But the point is that human beings don't have to be that way.  You're kinda begging the question.  Anyway, the possibility of biological reform isn't the same as belief in a quasi-eschatological "singularity".

The belief that "things would work my way if only we were all modded, dammit!", is not something I think works in your favor. Unless I'm being unfair and linking the two too strongly.

[Flannel Boy]

the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.

We can argue about where the burden of proof should lie, but in a practical sense it seems to lie with those who advocate radical change. In order to be convinced of change, I have to be convinced that the change is, at the very least, practical.

An anarchist society cannot survive against militaristic nation states.

The closest analog to an anarchist society is hunter and gatherer societies. These societies, the only form of society at the time on Earth, were unable to survive the innovation of the nation state that emerged in the Middle East thousands of years ago. A large top-down state will always prevail over anarchist societies, which are unable to put up a united coordinated, defense against a powerful, well-ordered state.

There's a reason why every square mile on Earth is ultimately controlled by a state. A true anarchist society, one which is not protected by a state, will simply not last. And the state which is imposed on the society will surely be worse than the state that it originally freed itself from. The only realistic choice is between better and worse nation-states.

[recursivelyenumerable]

The context is that human nature, in the sense of what humans do, is determined by the effects of social institutions, etc. operating on a biological base.  Most socialist anarchists would agree that human nature in this sense is not currently conducive to an anarchist society, but they'd argue that this is only a result of social conditioning, not a constraint imposed by the biological base, so it can change (at least in principle).  I don't personally have a strong opinion on this question, but if it is in fact a constraint imposed by the biological base, that can change too.  So, one way or another.  The same reasoning applies to feminism vs. gender determinism for example.

[recursivelyenumerable]

There's a reason why every square mile on Earth is ultimately controlled by a state. A true anarchist society, one which is not protected by a state, will simply not last. And the state which is imposed on the society will surely be worse than the state that it originally freed itself from. The only realistic choice is between better and worse nation-states.

Let's call this the Jack Handey critique.  "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they’d never expect it."

[Flannel Boy]

hunter and gatherers were able to maintain anarchist societies. I think they were able to do so because their communities were extremely small and close knit, allowing for high levels of social monitoring that enforced "tit for tat" moral behavior. In such a community, you couldn't cheat easily without getting caught. And once caught, you had no where to go. The risk of getting caught and the punishment for getting caught dissuaded "cheaters."

And there would be little incentive to cheat. What goods did your tribe have? Small tools, food, shelter, and mates. What's the point of stealing, when you got nothing to steal? There also wasn't much reason to refrain from doing your fair share. It's not like there was a lot of work: You hunt, gather, sleep, eat, and have sex.  

Modern societies are simply too dissimilar to hunter and gatherer societies. They're too large, complex and impersonal to allow for the needed social monitoring. And, unlike our ancestors, we have way too many goods. AND WE WANT THEM ALL

[Flannel Boy]

There's a reason why every square mile on Earth is ultimately controlled by a state. A true anarchist society, one which is not protected by a state, will simply not last. And the state which is imposed on the society will surely be worse than the state that it originally freed itself from. The only realistic choice is between better and worse nation-states.

Let's call this the Jack Handey critique.  "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they’d never expect it."

I don't think that an anarchist society would better meet the needs and wants of people either. But the inability of an anarchist society to even protect itself makes the need for that argument superfluous; even if it did meet the needs and wants of people better than a modern nation state, who cares if it wouldn't be allowed to exist.

[recursivelyenumerable]

The thing is that if all nations in the globe anarchized simultaneously, they wouldn't need to worry about being attacked by hostile terrestrial nation-states.  The problem, though, is that they'd be very vulnerable to alien invasion, because without a centralizing authority to coordinate the resistance, everyone would have to seek information by themselves using Google, so, unfortunately, even if someone were to devise an effective means of anarchist defense against alien invasion, they would be completely unable to disseminate it.  It would be impossible for anyone to find thanks to Funcom's Alien Invasion expansion pack for Anarchy Online.

[Barry Egan]

 It would be impossible for anyone to find thanks to Funcom's Alien Invasion expansion pack for Anarchy Online.

bravo

[Flannel Boy]

[youtube=560,345]tI4Qel8qvW0[/youtube]
And with the way you look I understand
that you were not impressed.
But I heard you let that little friend of mine
take off your party dress.
I'm not going to get too sentimental
like those other sticker valentines,
'cause I don't know if you are loving some body.
I only know it isn't mine.

[Flannel Boy]

[youtube=560,345]ipmll8e3Kzc[/youtube]

When I want you in my arms
When I want you and all your charms
Whenever I want you, all I have to do is
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream

When I feel blue in the night
And I need you to hold me tight
Whenever I want you, all I have to do is
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam

I can make you mine, taste your lips of wine
Anytime night or day
Only trouble is, gee whiz
I'm dreamin' my life away

I need you so that I could die
I love you so and that is why
Whenever I want you, all I have to do is
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam

[Flannel Boy]

[youtube=560,345]cxbFLYa0_bw[/youtube]


Each morning I get up I die a little
Can barely stand on my feet
Take a look in the mirror and cry
Lord what you're doing to me
I have spent all my years in believing you
But I just can't get no relief, Lord!
Somebody, somebody
Can anybody find me somebody to love?

[Flannel Boy]

[youtube=560,345]doFKkuzoawM[/youtube]

[Flannel Boy]

okay

now i'm embarrassed

[youtube=560,345]nxpblnsJEWM[/youtube]

[Flannel Boy]

[youtube=560,345]G7aIB7sFVdc[/youtube]

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

My question to you is what if Flannel Girl actually was interested in you?  Do you like her or the idea of her?  Meaning if she went up to you and made it clear what her intentions were (relationship), would you still have the same level of interest in her or would you lose interest and find another girl?

[Reb]

He would freak the fuck out and in self defence find reasons not to like her.

[Flannel Boy]

Since I barely know her, I'm probably mostly in love with the idea of her. Nonetheless, if she demonstrated actual interest in me, I don't see why my feelings for her would change. They would only change if I discovered that she was substantially different than I imagined or she had a terrible personality. If she confirmed my hopes and dreams, my affection for her would only grow.

[Reb]

Her liking you would mean you would have to take some action, so everything would change.

[Flannel Boy]

Her liking you would mean you would have to take some action, so everything would change.

I'd gladly step out of my safe, comfortable, isolated bubble for Flannel Girl.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I've always found reasons not to like people I like once I discover they like me.  The last time, it was I like her -> I realize she likes me -> I find reasons to stop liking her -> she stops liking me -> this makes me like her again -> but she doesn't like me anymore -> misery.  This was over the course of a year.

[Reb]

I've always found reasons not to like people I like once I discover they like me.  The last time, it was I like her -> I realize she likes me -> I find reasons to stop liking her -> she stops liking me -> this makes me like her again -> but she doesn't like me -> misery.  This was over the course of a year.

This was what I was getting at.

[Flannel Boy]

Since I barely know her, I'm probably mostly in love with the idea of her. Nonetheless, if she demonstrated actual interest in me, I don't see why my feelings for her would change. They would only change if I discovered that she was substantially different than I imagined or she had a terrible personality. If she confirmed my hopes and dreams, my affection for her would only grow.

Dearest friend, you know that this is real life we're talking about, and if you know anything about it as much as I do then you'd know that this is probably the case. Right now you're tailoring her according to your interests and fantasies. The more you do it the more likely you're gonna be shocked by how different she is.

She's a human being who has her own unique personality, while in your mind you're basing hers on yours.

/tough love

I have based her personality on insufficient information, but I'm not trying to create a female malek.

To quote Jenny Lewis:

When you're kissing someone who's too much like you
It's like kissing on a mirror
When you're sleeping with someone who doesn't get you
You're gonna hate yourself in the morning

I want her to be different from me, but not to the point where we can't relate or share similar interests. In my mind, she's extroverted, strong, flirty and fun. But she's also intelligent and has a great sense of humor.

[Reb]

You are now genuinely depressing me.

[Diunx]

Malek should just post a fucking pic of Flannel Girl already.

[Flannel Boy]

Malek should just post a fucking pic of Flannel Girl already.

I don't have one. Even if I did, I wouldn't post it.

[Madrun Badrun]

OMG Jin who is that?

[Flannel Boy]

For the record, that's not Flannel Girl.

[TVC15]

Since I barely know her, I'm probably mostly in love with the idea of her. Nonetheless, if she demonstrated actual interest in me, I don't see why my feelings for her would change. They would only change if I discovered that she was substantially different than I imagined or she had a terrible personality. If she confirmed my hopes and dreams, my affection for her would only grow.

You're getting sicker, faster.  Man, what would your idol say?

nsfw

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Let's get straight to the point and answer the important questions:   Malek, would you fuck yourself?

[Flannel Boy]

Let's get straight to the point and answer the important questions:   Malek, would you fuck yourself?

No. I wouldn't want to have sex with someone who would just cry afterward.

Who looks better, honestly?

Flannel Girl. And it isn't even close.

[bud]

have you ever had a girlfriend?

[Flannel Boy]

Yes, but none of them were girls I found very attractive or felt a great deal of affection towards.

[bud]

the fuck

then why did you go out with them? was it just for the sex or what?

were they obese