Thanks for your response and synopsis. I have always considered him/her to be a blithering idiot and I’m at a loss to understand how this thread has gone to seven pages with no end in sight. Thanks again.
Ahh cool, I wasn’t aware of the source. I cribbed it from Robert Anton Wilson but was aware it didn’t belong to him originally.
Kind of funny that Jung disputes StS’s central thesis when Jung was his primary source.
How about we just lock Rand Rover and SmashTheState in a room together? Maybe throw in Der Trihs and Carol Stream for good measure? Then we can watch with a two-way window, like they have in police stations.
Hey Guin, I’m watching your favorite movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwhaLQy13o
nm
If by funny you mean “totally expected”, then yes.
Smashy is rather obviously very stupid, very dishonest, or both. Is it really any surprise that (yet another) of his claimed-but-never-quoted cites does not actually support his position, but its author would have argued against it, was its author able to respond (much like Foucault actually did)?
Glad I could explain my position, and no problem, thanks to you for behaving honestly and putting your cards on the table.
Well, you were certainly right, and I admit that I’ve probably helped (too much) to keep this thread going, I should’ve stuck to my guns as I really do believe that it’s a waste to be spending time engaging idiots who aren’t here to learn/debate so much as they are to cause problems. I think, though, that a similar thing might happen if it was someone like Lekatt posting an OP in the Pit about how he’s a misunderstood genius and such. People like that invite and deserve scorn and sometimes they get it.
But yes, you’re quite welcome.
Well I’m enjoying Smashy’s thread on the OPU.
Yes, I will readily admit that there’s some hilarious crazy that he’s spewing in that thread.
:rolleyes:
In reality, cops really do beat the shit out of the homeless, in pretty much every town in North America.
Do you deny that there’s some crazy shit he’s spewing in that thread? Like, for instance, the claim that America, Canada, the Republican and Democratic party are all “fascist”, just like ancient Rome and Mussolini’s Italy? Or that by spelling them with the letter K, he’s somehow symbolizing his resistance to authority, rather than the fact that he’s an idiot man-child?
Are you honestly going to support his claims?
Eh, I’ve spent enough time around radical leftists that that sort of rhetoric is just the window dressing. No, I don’t agree with all of that, but it’s also pretty irrelevant to the major thrust of what he’s talking about. Pretty much all the guys like him that I’ve ever met talk like that. Maybe you just haven’t spent much time around serious leftists.
The stuff about the business associations I can totally believe, that kind of shit happens everywhere. In New York Giuliani who was really nasty to the homeless btw, tried to do exactly what he’s talking about an end street vending in New York. That was kind of the last straw for him, that’s when it became mainstream to think he was a crazy dictator wannabe.
I don’t take the term ‘fascist’ too seriously because I’ve heard too many arguments about what it really means and the way people actually use it in day to day speech and what it really means aren’t the same. Most people understand what he is saying as, “Authoritarian assholes.”, which to a degree he’s right.
Often these rightwing shitheads get into office and they start shutting down social safety nets left and right, and then they dump it on the cops who have to deal with the homeless problem which only gets shuffled around. It is pretty sickening to think that a person is not allowed to have shelter in Canadian winters. How we treat the poor in our society really speaks to the morality, or lack thereof underpinning our culture.
Didn’t say it was. But it is pure Grade A crazysauce.
No, I have.
You’re also confusing political idiocy with leftism.
And, note, he hates both the political left and the political right (while being too stupid to recognize the actual spectrum because he’s stuck on definitions from the 1800’s). He’s not a leftist any more than any other person in Crazytopia can be placed on the political axis.
Anarchism is a political belief in much the same way that baldness is a color of hair and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I’m not sure what your basis for a claim about “most people” is, but no, he’s said fascism, specifically, and tied it to ancient Rome and Mussolini’s regime. Casting that as “authoritarian” is trying to put words in his mouth. He really is talking about honest to goodness fascism, and he really is out of his gourd.
:rolleyes:
Uh huh.
Recycling atheist tropes?
That’s pretty much how people colloquially use the word, ‘fascism’. I refer you to your rant about the connotation and denotation of conspiracy theory. Just because it’s not intellectually sound doesn’t mean that people don’t use it that way. But go ahead and keep making the argument, then I’ll start thinking YOU’RE crazy. 
You’ve passed the point of ‘trying too hard’ a ways back. He might be everything you claim he is, but you’re definitely doing a great job of being everything that he says that YOU are.
By the way, your overly glib “un hunh”? Is that designed to simply avoid the issue since you don’t have a leg to stand on, but still want to argue that someone who can’t tell the difference between Liberalism[sub]2009[/sub] and Liberalism[sub]1809[/sub] isn’t in fact both stupid and suffering from delusional perception?
Avoiding the point?
A (totally unworkable, fanciful) system of governance where there is no government is not, in fact, a system of governance. It may be many things, but arguing against a government is not in fact a form of government.
Yet again, he was not using it in the way that most people use it, to mean “authoritarian”. Come on, he went to great length to specifically tie it to ancient Rome and Mussolini’s political system. You may (and evidently do) want to ignore that in order to put words into his mouth and pretend he wasn’t saying what he was saying, but, nope.
Your apologia for Smashy is getting to be more than a little bit odd. The man goes out of his way to connect the US, Canada, and both the Republican and Democratic parties to ancient Rome and a modern fascist state. Your response to that is that, well, other people use the word fascism differently so let’s just pretend that he was using it differently, too.
Well, if he’s said I was someone who tenaciously pointed out his bullshit, and that was all he said about me, then you’d have a point.
As it is you’re evidently going out of your way to be a schmuck and are personally attacking me for being right, since you can’t factually refute the truth about your new friend.
So we see this sorry spectacle of you arguing that, yeah, what I’ve put forth is exactly what Smashy said and in exactly the same context he used it, but some other people use the same words differently… so can’t we just pretend that Smashy was, too? Reality is such a bore, let’s just make some shit up now.
And, gee, if I don’t pretend that your silly apologia has any weight, why, then all the rambling nuttery that Smashy threw my way must be true!
Your ‘leg to stand on’ assertions have no leg to stand on. You are arguing by assertion.
You’re babbling like a crazy person. How seriously am I supposed to take it? No anarchism isn’t a form of government, but it is a political stance.
Ok, and so what? I’ve heard that kind of ranting many times before. It’s a big shrug to me, and beside the point of the discussion. The meat of the discussion is the local politics of Ottawa, and everyone from Ontario who has weighed in has stated that his facts are indeed straight on that. All the other hyperbole is irrelevant. You’re focusing on the crust. Your argument is stupid, not because you’re not right, but because it is trivial.
Yeah, I never said he was right, I said it’s irrelevant. You’re cherry picking the bullshit that simply doesn’t matter. You’re just making your argument trivial.
You’re seeking bullshit because you are too heavily invested in this.
If you have some commentary on the actual OPU and not his hyperbolic asides, I am more interested in that.
Sounds like you need a political action committee to keep you from being oppressed. :rolleyes:
What is it I am arguing exactly?
[quot]And, gee, if I don’t pretend that your silly apologia has any weight, why, then all the rambling nuttery that Smashy threw my way must be true!
[/QUOTE]
Were you making a point about intellectual honesty and sound critical thinking? Because this last bit really undermines that point.
You’re putting words into my mouth in order to legitimize your argument in your own mind. What you’re really doing is ignoring the heart of his discussion and focusing on the fluff. It sounds awful personal, and not all that critical.
I personally am very interested in the work of the OPU, and it’s interesting to hear about Ottawa’s politics. The rest of it, the shit that has nothing to do with the actual core subject matter, the stuff you are trying to debunk, just doesn’t matter one bit to me. It’s trivial nonsense, I don’t care. I’ve heard the same rant about western fascism before, and I’ve heard the same rant you are making against it before. You’re just focusing on the least interesting aspect of his posts.
Gawd
I hope the writers from South Park are reading this. There is some comedy gold here.
The running dog jackals of the ruling class killed Kenny! The bastards!
Are you for real? You’re really going to contend that it’s an “assertion” that Liberalism in 1809 is not fungible with Liberalism in 2009?
Kay.
First off, seriously, you’re doing a good job of showing your true colors. And yeah, you’re not looking good. But I see you’ve decided to go with obnoxious ignorance.
Rather than “babbling like a crazy person” I’m evidently just using words whose definitions you do not know. “Political”, in the context of running a society, means having to do with government. Politics is the art or science of governance. That’s what it means.
There’s corporate politics and academic politics and familial politics, but when someone talks about the politics of running a nation they’re talking about government politics. Demanding government politics be about ending the government is, yep, like those “atheist tropes” that you have such trouble with.
See, even under Smashbard Celine’s anarchosyndicalist commune system (or whatever the nutter is on about), we’d still have geographic regions that required some sort of agreement among people as to how to run them. Let’s call them “towns, villages and cities.”
And we’d need to have a set of rules for how those “towns, villages and cities” ran, so let’s call those “laws”.
And we’d need a system for determining when those laws were violated and people to argue and judge the cases. Let’s call those “courts and lawyers/judges.”
And we’d need a person or group of people to make decisions about how the “towns,villages and cites” were run. We can quibble over how they’re chosen, they could be “elected”, or we could have random people rotate in and out of the positions doesn’t matter. In either case, let’s call them something like “mayors, councils and legislatures.” Or we could just have everybody vote on everything, and we could call that something like "pure democracy.’ And if we wanted that to be at all distinguished from mob rule, we’d also need something like a binding set of “laws” that guaranteed the rights of the minority. We could say that it was enforced by something we might call “state power”.
Now once we have all these “towns, villages and cities” with their “mayors, councils and legislatures” who are running their systems of “laws” via “courts and lawyers/judges”, if they’re in a nation of 300+ million people, we’ll need a way to organize them. Now, we can either have all the “mayors, councils and legislatures” get together and decide things directly, and then we could call that something like “a representative democracy” or “a republic.”
But of course, there will be a more local need for an ability to deal with services and infrastructure. We can then group these “towns,villages and cites” into something slightly larger. We can call these larger geographic areas something like “states and provinces.”
And then, we’ve got the issue of how to run these “states and provinces” together as a whole so that roads don’t just turn into wheat fields when you cross the boundary of geographic areas that we might call “state lines”. We’d also need some mechanism for the “states and provinces” to come together if the need for collective defense or bargaining arises. We could call that a “federal government”. And it, too, would need its systems of procedures and laws for how it would go about relating with the various “states and provinces” as well as individuals, who we can call “citizens”. So let’s then call those rules and policies “federal laws”.
Hmmm…
Way to clearly admit you were wrong and rationalizing facts afterward to create a distorted apologia. Shows a lot of integrity on your part.
As for so what? Just because you’ve heard crazy ranting a lot does not make it any less crazy. Just because it’s crazy in the context of other story doesn’t mean it’s less crazy. Just because you’re not interested in how crazy it is?
Yep, doesn’t make it any less crazy.
Ah, I see. So I’m 100% right and I pointed out something of his which really is nutty, just like I said, but it’s still “stupid” because it doesn’t fit in with your apologia. Right.
You’ve just defined stupid to mean “accurate and correct, but something I just don’t want to hear!!!”
Whatever. Have the last word if you really want because I’m tired of dealing with you.
You’re a fucking idiot.
I’ll leave it at that.
When you wake up from your intellectual torpor look me up.
Why don’t you meltdown and engage in some racist trolling about it?