Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[Kaelik]

That's it Kaelik, get all of that hatejizz out. Just fucking flail on your massive hateboner for me until your done. I'd hate to give blue trollballs. Just remember to clean up when you're done.

Your extremely pathetic attempt to dismiss everything I say as caused by some kind of personal hatred of you would be a lot more convincing (but still wrong) if DSM wasn't telling you literally the exact same thing.

Maybe you should briefly consider the idea that I am saying what I am saying because it is in fact true, and not a product of hatred. I would say the same thing if it was Frank, Deanrule, or Maj. In fact, I have very explicitly said the exact same thing to Maj about religion, also to hyzmarca about specifically anarchy. It is almost like I actually believe that people saying they are X but then not actually in any way fitting the definition of X are wrong regardless of whether or not I like them.

[Prak]

I'm not dismissing what you say, Kaelik, I'm dismissing you. Because you always say I'm a badwrongidiot. It's fucking old, get over yourself. You can tell because I'm actually engaging DSMatticus, while I'm just trying to make you as uncomfortable as possible so you'll go away.

[Kaelik]

I'm not dismissing what you say, Kaelik, I'm dismissing you. Because you always say I'm a badwrongidiot. It's fucking old, get over yourself. You can tell because I'm actually engaging DSMatticus, while I'm just trying to make you as uncomfortable as possible so you'll go away.

No dumbshit, I ignore you the vast majority of the time. I responded to this because you specifically asked how people felt about you being an idiot. Unsurprisingly, people don't feel spectacular about how you consider yourself a Christian who practices SatanismAnarchoCommunist who practices strong state government and regulation.

Because that is completely incoherent.

[Laertes]

Realising that your stated beliefs are bullshit is a good first step. It's a necessary first step. The next step is to find out what your actual beliefs are, and you can do this by examining cases and listening to your instinctive revulsion towards or support of various outcomes. For example, examine the situation of a wealthy person approaching the end of their life who wishes to spend a great deal of money buying themselves a prolonged existence which poorer people cannot afford. Should she be allowed to? Should she be prevented? Should the state step in and use her money to buy the best healthcare possible for everyone? Which of these feels the most fair or the least fair?

Resist the urge to distort this to fit your view of what you would like your beliefs to be: honesty is important. For example, if you discover that you are a racist, it's important to acknowledge that and then take steps to overcome it, rather than simply going into denial.

Also resist the urge to redefine words or make up your own label. Sure, no label will describe you perfectly. You're a person and people are complex. But labels aren't for your benefit, they're for the benefit of other people. A label which instantly communicates 90% of the information is good and a label which makes perfect sense but which you have to spend half an hour explaining is a failure.

But yeah. Good luck. You are now where I was at 26ish, and I sincerely wish you the best in it.

[erik]

I am a billionaire I just don't have that much money or live a wealthy lifestyle. But I would like to be referred to as such.

[Pixels]

Billionerik?

[DSMatticus]

Kaelik is saying the same thing I am saying, and as such is definitely 100% right. You are not an anarchocommunist. You should not describe yourself as an anarchocommunist. You do not walk like that particular duck and you do not talk like that particular duck and it is because you are in fact not that particular kind of duck. It is not the thing that you are, and the thing that you are is not it.

Kaelik is being an asshole about it, because that is how a Kaelik do. I am being mildly snarky about it, because it is the sort of trivial funny-dumb that warrants gentle mockery more than a proper Kaeliking. But it is wrong nonetheless. You cannot simultaneously claim to be an anarcho-anything and reject the idea of anarchy as stupidly implausible while actively supporting the exact opposite of anarchy. If this were a wikihow article on "How to Not Be a Thing," it would perfectly describe your approach to anarchocommunism.

Also, for fuck's sake Kaelik is not out to get you or anyone else. Kaelik is not complicated: if you say something stupid, he yells at you. His batting average is not perfect, but it is pretty fucking high, so if you find yourself on the receiving end of his rage more than infrequently odds are that you're saying some stupid things. You don't have to respond to him, and if your first instinct is to entrench or take it as a personal attack you probably shouldn't respond - you'll just make everything worse.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I have to pick a new apartment. I'm actually kind of nervous because I have been screwed over by landlords before and I'm concerned I'm going to get ripped off.

(Note to anyone wanting to reply: Telling me I'm stupid is not new information, I am aware everyone thinks I'm stupid. If the fact you think I'm stupid is any part of your reply, assume I don't care to hear anything from you at all.)

A few questions:

1. In the area I live in, most people require an "application fee". Is that an actual thing, or is it just a money grab? (Take in 100 applications and just pocket the money without actually considering the application seems like a very likely scam).

2. How deep to landlords run credit checks? I have some old medical bills, and one thing from Verizon about 4 years ago (it's complicated, but I'm also not paying the thieves). Other than that, I'm clean. No judgments, no evictions, etc. Or do they just look at the numbers and not the reasons?

[Ancient History]

The application fee is a money grab, but it's also an actual thing. A thing where they grab your money. But it's been universal in every place I ever went.

[fbmf]

The application fee is a money grab, but it's also an actual thing. A thing where they grab your money. But it's been universal in every place I ever went.

This is my experience also.

As far as credit rating, it's a standard credit check., so your credit history may will be an issue. Nothing to do but apply and find out. Naturally you forfeit the app fee even if you fail the credit check. You knew that was coming.

Game On,
fbmf

[momothefiddler]

Prak, I (think I) would like to live in a world where peoples' needs were taken care of and there wasn't a huge emphasis on individual property or authority over other people. I would also like to live in a world where I could pick bodies like outfits when I woke up in the morning.

I realize that neither of these is currently an option, and probably never will be, and thus I do not put forth effort to move the world closer to those states.

This means that I am not an anarchocommunist or a shapeshifter, though I believe it would be true for me to say "I would be an anarchocommunist if it wasn't a naive pipe dream" or something of the sort. I might also refer to this as "having anarchocommunist leanings" just as I might mention "having shapeshifter leanings" (probably not exactly though; that's awfully stilted) because I desire that sort of thing even though I don't consider it realistic

Does this describe you?

[TiaC]

So, if I say that I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote democratic because they can actually win, is that distinct from what Prak is doing?


What is the general term for "I think this would be nice, but it is currently unfeasible"?

(Note to anyone wanting to reply: Telling me I'm stupid is not new information, I am aware everyone thinks I'm stupid. If the fact you think I'm stupid is any part of your reply, assume I don't care to hear anything from you at all.)

I think that you are often too busy being defensive to allow people to be nice to you.

[momothefiddler]

So, if I say that I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote democratic because they can actually win, is that distinct from what Prak is doing?

I think it's just smaller-scale unfeasibility, but essentially the same, yeah.

What is the general term for "I think this would be nice, but it is currently unfeasible"?

Uh... daydreams?

[Prak]

No dumbshit, I ignore you the vast majority of the time.

Sorry, "When you respond to me, you always..." better?

But yeah. Good luck. You are now where I was at 26ish, and I sincerely wish you the best in it.

I'm fairly certain that even the grand exalted Kaelik was a dumbass at 26ish. So, I'm not really sweating this much. I fucking learned something. That's something people are allowed to do. And Kaelik just rants at people and says mean things about them on the internet because he'd lose his job if he vented on anyone he actually works with, so whatever, like I give a toss. (cue him saying I'm wrong)

Kaelik is saying the same thing I am saying, and as such is definitely 100% right. You are not an anarchocommunist. You should not describe yourself as an anarchocommunist. You do not walk like that particular duck and you do not talk like that particular duck and it is because you are in fact not that particular kind of duck. It is not the thing that you are, and the thing that you are is not it.

...yeeeess... as I realized just before 12:25am this morning when I posted

sorry, I found where it all went pear shaped. I was stupid enough to think a term that I figured meant "no government, success trough communal effort" wasn't loaded down with other libertarian bullshit.

Or rather, I should have said "I just realized this term I've been using doesn't mean what I thought it means."

It's like when you only know a word from having read it, and have never heard someone say it, so you one day realize you pronounce it wrong. And some dickhead decides to call you an idiot. If I had money, I would put it on the idea that that's happened to everyone here, including Kaelik (cue him saying I'm wrong).

This is just me doing that with a political theory that I (incorrectly) understood through it's roots (anarcho- meaning "no rulers" and commun- meaning "together," and possibly relating to the political idea of communism). Yeah, I'm wrong. I get it.

Kaelik is being an asshole about it, because that is how a Kaelik do. I am being mildly snarky about it, because it is the sort of trivial funny-dumb that warrants gentle mockery more than a proper Kaeliking. But it is wrong nonetheless. You cannot simultaneously claim to be an anarcho-anything and reject the idea of anarchy as stupidly implausible while actively supporting the exact opposite of anarchy. If this were a wikihow article on "How to Not Be a Thing," it would perfectly describe your approach to anarchocommunism.

Yeah, pretty much.

Also, for fuck's sake Kaelik is not out to get you or anyone else. Kaelik is not complicated: if you say something stupid, he yells at you. His batting average is not perfect, but it is pretty fucking high, so if you find yourself on the receiving end of his rage more than infrequently odds are that you're saying some stupid things. You don't have to respond to him, and if your first instinct is to entrench or take it as a personal attack you probably shouldn't respond - you'll just make everything worse.

I get that. I didn't meant to imply a vendetta, I'm perfectly aware that's just how Kaelik do. I amuse myself by making it pornographic, in a vague hope that something like negative conditioning will take affect. To be fair, yes, I say a lot of dumb shit. I'm puzzling this shit out, and I have a bunch of stupid ideas cluttering my brain from my upraising, like a mental equivalent of cleaning out a dead parents' closet of "Precious Moments" figurines. If it makes anyone feel better, I've kind of developed a "shoulder Kaelik" who points out when a thing I'm typing sounds completely fucking idiotic and ignorant.

Momo, essentially, yes. It was late, I was tired but not actually feeling like sleep, I got sloppy with my words. ...sloppier.

[TiaC]

So, if I say that I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote democratic because they can actually win, is that distinct from what Prak is doing?

I think it's just smaller-scale unfeasibility, but essentially the same, yeah.

I do live in an area where the Republicans don't even run for most local positions. I was wondering if it was different because I'm not voting for a position that is sharply at odds with what I claim to support. I intentionally didn't say that I support Peace and Freedom, only that I agree with them.


If a candidate ran who completely agreed with you, but did so on some tiny ticket that could never win, and you voted for a more viable candidate, that doesn't change that you would have preferred him to win. Really, it seems like you are just coming out against idealism of any sort.

[Kaelik]

So, if I say that I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote democratic because they can actually win, is that distinct from what Prak is doing?

There is a huge difference between saying "I think X would be best for people, but is unlikely to be implemented" vs "I think X would not be best for people, but I really wish it would... or something."

It might be fair to say that you are not an advocate of either position. But in one case you clearly believe X, where in the other, you don't.

If you were appointing an executive officer, you would pick someone who did X in one case, and you wouldn't in the other.

I'm fairly certain that even the grand exalted Kaelik was a dumbass at 26ish.

How old do you people think I am? I've been posting on this forum for like 10 years. You knew me when I was 26.

And Kaelik just rants at people and says mean things about them on the internet because he'd lose his job if he vented on anyone he actually works with,

Don't be Chamomile, you have enough faults of your own.

(cue him saying I'm wrong)

You are a Christian, but are in denial about it. Also we are apparently 12 now, where we pretend that our ability to predict that someone will disagree is in any way meaningful.

...yeeeess... as I realized just before 12:25am this morning when I posted

sorry, I found where it all went pear shaped. I was stupid enough to think a term that I figured meant "no government, success trough communal effort" wasn't loaded down with other libertarian bullshit.

Or rather, I should have said "I just realized this term I've been using doesn't mean what I thought it means."

No you idiot. The reason DSM and erik and I all told you you were an idiot right after you said that is because you still have not grasped what you actually said, and how wrong it is.

Even if anarchocommunist meant exactly what you thought it did, you would still not be one. At all. Not even a little bit. That is the singular point people have been trying to get across with the "I'm an X who is not X." structure. It is not that anarchocommunist means things you didn't know it means, so you are wrong.

It is that you specifically said, "Here is the limited definition of what Anarchocommunist means to me. Under that definition, I am an Anarchocommunist. Also, under that definition I think Anarchocommunism is a really bad idea and I do everything in my power to make sure it never happens."

This is just me doing that with a political theory that I (incorrectly) understood through it's roots (anarcho- meaning "no rulers" and commun- meaning "together," and possibly relating to the political idea of communism). Yeah, I'm wrong. I get it.

No you don't get it. You just said, "I believe that I want no rulers together society, but in fact I don't want that at all, and do everything I can to make sure that never happens."

Until you recognize the actual problem with what you said, you will still be wrong in the exact same way that people have been criticizing you for.

I've kind of developed a "shoulder Kaelik" who points out when a thing I'm typing sounds completely fucking idiotic and ignorant.

It isn't doing a good enough job, because you keep convincing yourself that you are less wrong than you are to make yourself feel better.

[DSMatticus]

The best term i know of for my leanings is anarchocommunist.

I act in favour of strong government, strong market regulations, taxes and civil liberty.

I was stupid enough to think a term that I figured meant "no government, success trough communal effort" wasn't loaded down with other libertarian bullshit.

AAARGH

You described yourself as an anarchocommunist. Then you described yourself as being in favour of strong government. You have also correctly identified that anarchocommunist means no government.

How are you not getting that the problem has nothing to do with some libertarian baggage you may or may not have missed, and everything to do with the fact that "no government" and "strong government" are exact opposites of eachother. You did not get the definition of anarchocommunist wrong in any way that is meaningful to this discussion. You claimed to support two diametrically opposed positions simultaneously. Which is why people keep responding to you with jokes about how they are an X, except they aren't an X.

How old do you people think I am? I've been posting on this forum for like 10 years. You knew me when I was 26.

How old are you? For some reason I've always had the impression you were getting your bachelor's around the same time I was, and I just turned 25 this month.

[TiaC]

So, if I say that I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote democratic because they can actually win, is that distinct from what Prak is doing?

There is a huge difference between saying "I think X would be best for people, but is unlikely to be implemented" vs "I think X would not be best for people, but I really wish it would... or something."

It might be fair to say that you are not an advocate of either position. But in one case you clearly believe X, where in the other, you don't.

If you were appointing an executive officer, you would pick someone who did X in one case, and you wouldn't in the other.

I think Prak actually thinks that anarchocommunism would be a good thing, but realizes that it makes assumptions that aren't true. So "This would be a good thing, if not for basic truths of human nature. So even though I claim to support it, my actions actually oppose it." vs. my "This would be a good thing, if not for political inertia. So even though I claim to support it, my actions settle for a compromise."

I'm fairly certain that even the grand exalted Kaelik was a dumbass at 26ish.

How old do you people think I am? I've been posting on this forum for like 10 years. You knew me when I was 26.

Well, you've said that you are a lawyer in your first year of employment. Therefore, it is entirely possible that you are 26 now. However, that assumes a very direct lifepath with few delays. You are unlikely to be too many years older, as few people would start law school too late. So I guess late 20s.

And Kaelik just rants at people and says mean things about them on the internet because he'd lose his job if he vented on anyone he actually works with,

Don't be Chamomile, you have enough faults of your own.

I do find it interesting how many people think that your actions are personal. I view you more as a weather hazard. Lightning doesn't strike you because it hates you, it usually strikes you because you did something stupid.

[Prak]

I'm fairly certain that even the grand exalted Kaelik was a dumbass at 26ish.

How old do you people think I am? I've been posting on this forum for like 10 years. You knew me when I was 26.

I have not. Nor do I know how old you are. There was a chance you actually were 26 and got through your dumb shit phase earlier than me.

And Kaelik just rants at people and says mean things about them on the internet because he'd lose his job if he vented on anyone he actually works with,

Don't be Chamomile, you have enough faults of your own.

Ok, whatever. You call people idiots because that is how you enjoy your time on the Den. Or something. I honestly forget the exact thing you've said.

(cue him saying I'm wrong)

You are a Christian, but are in denial about it. Also we are apparently 12 now, where we pretend that our ability to predict that someone will disagree is in any way meaningful.

Ah, you're coming back to the old "satanists are just opposite christians!" meme. So don't care. Also, who said my prediction was important? Flippancy, and repetitive flippancy, amuse me. I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock what you do Kaelik.

...yeeeess... as I realized just before 12:25am this morning when I posted

sorry, I found where it all went pear shaped. I was stupid enough to think a term that I figured meant "no government, success trough communal effort" wasn't loaded down with other libertarian bullshit.

Or rather, I should have said "I just realized this term I've been using doesn't mean what I thought it means."

No you idiot. The reason DSM and erik and I all told you you were an idiot right after you said that is because you still have not grasped what you actually said, and how wrong it is.

No, I grasp it. I don't think I quite said what I meant, but what I said was close enough, and I can see how it's dumb. Is that what you wanted? Sorry, I thought I said "Kaelik and DSM are right" in some form already.

Even if anarchocommunist meant exactly what you thought it did, you would still not be one. At all. Not even a little bit. That is the singular point people have been trying to get across with the "I'm an X who is not X." structure. It is not that anarchocommunist means things you didn't know it means, so you are wrong.

"I believe [thing]. I know [thing] is unrealistic and not feasible. I am not stupid enough to try to try to push for things that are unrealistic and not feasible, no matter how much I believe them. Because they are and unrealistic and not feasible, and I recognize this. So I advocate for the thing that is feasible and realistic, because that produces the most good."

How would I be as wrong if I had understood "anarchocommunism" correctly?

It is that you specifically said, "Here is the limited definition of what Anarchocommunist means to me. Under that definition, I am an Anarchocommunist. Also, under that definition I think Anarchocommunism is a really bad idea and I do everything in my power to make sure it never happens."

...ok, I suppose it's entirely possible that I hallucinated what I wrote, but...

The best term i know of for my leanings is anarchocommunist. Namely, i think it's be ideal if people could just fucking act like grown ups and be part of their immediate community that made sure everyone's needs were met through communal effort.

However, I am also a realist, and so realize that won't happen any time soon (or ever), and so when I'm actually making political decisions, I act in favour of strong government, strong market regulations, taxes and civil liberty.

Yep, what I said was "I believe in this thing (that I miscall). But I know it wouldn't really work, so I don't drag that dumb belief into the voting booth with me, and instead vote based on other beliefs that don't involve unfeasible (a)political structures.

This is just me doing that with a political theory that I (incorrectly) understood through it's roots (anarcho- meaning "no rulers" and commun- meaning "together," and possibly relating to the political idea of communism). Yeah, I'm wrong. I get it.

No you don't get it. You just said, "I believe that I want no rulers together society, but in fact I know that wouldn't work at all, and do what I can to not be a dick to other people (or myself...) with my political voice."

Fixed that for you. Or I fixed it to what I'm pretty sure I said, given what I typed. I mean, I suppose it's always possible that I went completely insane.

Until you recognize the actual problem with what you said, you will still be wrong in the exact same way that people have been criticizing you for.

Then I'm fucking wrong about what I said, apparently. I can only try to convey what I meant to say, and what I'm pretty sure I did in fact say.

I've kind of developed a "shoulder Kaelik" who points out when a thing I'm typing sounds completely fucking idiotic and ignorant.

It isn't doing a good enough job, because you keep convincing yourself that you are less wrong than you are to make yourself feel better.

No, I was curious. And hey, I learned something. I can't keep all the stupid to myself, it leads me to improving my understanding of concepts and occasionally to what niche terms actually mean.

[Kaelik]

(cue him saying I'm wrong)

You are a Christian, but are in denial about it. Also we are apparently 12 now, where we pretend that our ability to predict that someone will disagree is in any way meaningful.

Ah, you're coming back to the old "satanists are just opposite christians!" meme. So don't care. Also, who said my prediction was important?

Whargarbargarl? Gin Houk NargarfargarlBargl?

I said you are a Christian because that is obviously false and something you would disagree with, and then predicted you would disagree with it. To demonstrate how completely stupid it looks when you predict someone will disagree with you.

Are you really so fucking dumb that you did not get that when I strikethroughed earlier I was specifically making an "I am X, I am ~X" joke at your expense because this entire thread has been you talking about how you are X and ~X?

[Prak]

apparently, yes, yes I am that dumb. Alternatively, very fucking tired.

edit: (I went that direction because it's a thing some people actually think. and of fucking course I'm reactionary. I also seem to recall that discussion coming up on this board at some point)

I think I'm going to try to stop attempting political discussion when I'm tired.

[DSMatticus]

PRAK

PRAAAK

GOD DAMNIT PRAK

PRAK GOD DAMNIT

IN WHAT SENSE DOES SOMEONE LEAN ANARCHOCOMMUNIST BY DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ANARCHOCOMMMUNISM

IN WHAT SENSE DOES SOMEONE BELIEVE IN ANARCHOCOMMUNISM BY BELIEVING ANARCHOCOMMUNISM IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE

IN WHAT SENSE IS IT CORRECT TO IDENTIFY AS ANARCHOCOMMUNIST BY ACTIVELY REJECTING THE VERY IDEA OF BEING ANARCHOCOMMUNIST

AGREEING THAT NICE-SOUNDING BULLSHIT SOUNDS NICE BUT IS STILL BULLSHIT IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED BULLSHIT

CAPS WERE NECESSARY I REGRET NOTHING

[TiaC]

I find the lack of punctuation bugs me more than the caps.

Also, he's never said that it's impossible, just unfeasible. I think that means he sees it as a problem of social inertia, not of inherent flaws with the position. He seems to believe that it would be theoretically possible for anarchocommunism to work once you set it up. You seem to be assuming that he considers it truly impossible.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

The application fee is a money grab, but it's also an actual thing. A thing where they grab your money. But it's been universal in every place I ever went.

Hmm... I wonder if 20 years from know when I own my own property if I could just accept applications with a fee and just shred them...

[ishy]

"I believe [thing]. I know [thing] is unrealistic and not feasible. I am not stupid enough to try to try to push for things that are unrealistic and not feasible, no matter how much I believe them. Because they are and unrealistic and not feasible, and I recognize this.

Prak, do you know what the word 'believe' means? It doesn't sound like you do.