One of the key issues I see with statists is the same as is seen with the devoutly religious. They know very little about their own beliefs and refuse to do any real research into them. Instead, they simply listen to their 'elders' and accept what they are told by them on face value and then attack any notion that their beliefs are not well-foudned with rhetoric rather than knowledge.
They FEAR knowledge. They fear to actually do the research.
I challenge ANY statist to do some real research into the state, government, law, psychology, sociology and history and come out the other side as devoted and loyal to the state as when you began.
But you won't. Because you are too scared to challenge your own beliefs.
God FUCKING forbid you might have fallen for a line of bullshit and that you might have to adjust your worldview to accomodate fact, reason and reality.
Anarchists, I challenge you to share this. I want to see how many statists have the balls to risk their perception by looking for truth simply because they really believe we need the state. I also want to see how many of you anarchists have the balls to initiate a potential debate, how many of you truly believe you can debate your own beliefs. Because, for all that I believe that a stateless society is the only way we can even get close to peace in this world, I refuse to be surrounded by those who don't seek to understand their beliefs better than anyone else. If you can't challenge statists to do this and to debate with you, your belief in anarchy is for naught. As realistic as anarchy is, if you can't explain WHY it is realistic, if you can't explain WHY the state is horrorific and detrimental, then you might as well be like the statist: an ignorant, blind, zealous believer.
My opinion? If you TRULY believe in something, you aren't scared to learn all you can about it and if what you believe is true, it can withstand your questioning its validity. Otherwise, you're lying to yourself and/or it is a lie.
A³
That's about what I thought. I guess calling people out and challenging them not to be cowards was too much for too many.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Telling people what they're going to do before they even can do it is provocative, manipulative, and indicates that they cannot have a conversation with you because you're already engaged in a conversation elsewhere.
Also, I would recommend taking your own advice. By that I mean examine your approach and results it solicits and revise your approach. For example, you referred to anarchy as a belief. The fact that humans do not exist in separate, opposing moral categories is objectively and observably true. Accepting the truth is not a belief.
Meanwhile, Statism not only is a belief, but an irrational conclusion. From this, we can derive that people did not arrive there by way of logic, reason, or evidence. As such, the likelihood that logic, reason, or evidence will pull them out of it is very slim. They NEED for their conclusion to be valid because to question it would potentially lead to a loss of their friends, their family, and everything they thought they understood about the world. So you are essentially challenging people who cling to beliefs for what they view as self-preservation to risk that self-preservation.
If somebody handed you a knife and said to slit your wrists as hard as you can and you will find true happiness; to not worry, that the blade is dull and would in fact feel good, would you accept their invitation? Do you think the provocativeness of your presentation would be inviting? You literally said to people that they have to do what you want them to or else it means X, Y, and Z about them. Which in a way is inviting people to leave behind all the abusive people from their past to side with another abusive person.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
RIght, my issuance of a challenge is somehow akin to coercion because, what, I wasn't pleasant about it? I made no threats. I used no force. I simply said I fucking dare you.
If you're a statist, I dare you to do some actual fucking research and be willing to accept the evidence no matter what. Chances are, you won't come out the other side sucking Uncle Sam's dick. And then I, perhaps, insulted statists by saying they are scared. But is it really an insult when all my experience and all the information I have says they are scared to do research? That they refuse to really look into this shit because "What if I've been lied to and fooled all my life? How horrible, how embarassing... I don't want my whole life to change because I learned too much."
As for the anarchists, again, no threats, no force, simply I fucking dare you to share this and/or to go out and fucking debate this shit with statists. If you really believe anarchy is the way, then you should be able to argue for why it is the way. Not rhetoric, not shittalking, seriously be able to argue, debate and defend it with evidence, facts, logic, reason, rationale. But that's not what I'm seeing much of anymore. It's mostly shitposting and circle jerks in the echo chamber with all the other anarchists you know.
Did I present this in a confrontational and none too pleasant way? Yeah, I fucking did. If you don't like how I presented it, then do it your own way. But the fact that people would rather get caught up in bitching about the tone of the message rather than talking about the message itself is disgusting and sad.
It's very fucking simple: truth wishstands scrutiny. If your truth cannot withstand scrutiny, either it isn't the truth or you don't understand it. Either way, that's a problem. That's the fucking point here.
Statist arguments can't withstand scrutiny because they are almost always rhetorical or fallacious.
Anarchist arguments that can't withstand scrutiny are due to the anarchist being unable to argue their points and that's because they aren't trying to better understand the very thing they are so invested in.
So, in summation, I'm sorry if you were upset by this, that's very sad because I assume you're an adult. But funny thing about upsetting people, even though it may drive them away, from me at least, it sticks in the back of their mind gnawing at them. More often than not, when I piss people off, eventually, my point gets through. They don't always come back and say 'you were right' but they change their bullshit that I called out. Because people that are honest with themselves(admittedly not a common or easy thing for most), they may get pissed and storm away, but eventually, they'll ask themselves if that thing that pissed them off really just scared them and if, maybe, they shouldn't put their asses to the test.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"If you can't challenge statists to do this and to debate with you, your belief in anarchy is for naught. "
Fuck you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Did I hurt your feels? I'm sorry. But seriously, if you can't bring yourself to stop gladhanding with anarchist and shitposting on statist posts but to actually engage in a discussion and debate about anarchy, then, while you may support anarchy, like any other blind zealot, you show you have no real basis for that support.
The hallmark of an anarchist is typically one that is critical in their thinking and knowledgable in their topics and willing to learn what weaknesses they have so they can shore them up.
So if it upsets you that I'm daring you to learn your weaknesses and I'm daring you to prove to yourself whether or not you actual have a case for supporting anarchy, then that's on you. But if anarchists aren't able to put themselves in the fire of debate then it is for naught because it is only through knowledge and the spreading of that knowledge that ANY idea has a chance. You can only know what you don't know by testing what you think you know and you can only spread what you know by bringing it up to those who disagree with you.
Either you're an hip, edgy, angsty person who likes being the underdog and has embraced anarchism for its non-acceptance by mainstream society or you're someone that wants to better themselves and have their freedom and realizes that the only way any of us live in a free world is if all of us want a free world and so we need to get the discussion out there, not keep it amongst ourselves.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit