Reclaiming Anarchy from Bullshiters - A Response to the Lies of @sterlinluxan
UPDATE: So many flags, no counter arguments. Is this the level of "anarchy" we are dealing here in Steemit?
I was waiting for this kind of desperate response to my previous post.
I was also expecting the anarcho-groupies clumping together, cheerleading like statist minions. It seems that more anarchists need to read Max Stirner and Individual Anarchy. Newsflash neo-anarchists. Blaming the state is just the beginning.
Oh before I start. Let me get on the Sterlinluxan douche wagon
First things first. @Sterlinluxan calls me sophist. Sophism means to make a smart argument in order to deceive.
Apparently for our friend, saying that I am an anarchist while not holding the Government responsible for everything, is sophistry. The matter of fact is that he is the sophist by making this overgeneralised argument.
I am a polyatheist. I don't believe in many gods and still don't hold religion responsible for its crimes. Does that make me a hypocrite or an objective critical thinker?
I am also pro science. I don't believe though in many aspects of scientific inquiry. I may like the nuclear energy by I detest the atomic bomb. Does that make me a hypocrite or a rational human being mr anarcho-psychologist (seriously wtf)?
People that over-generalise like Sterlinluxan or the dollarvigilante do it because they have a specific mantra for their agenda. As a 'anarcho-psychologist' he should have told you that in order to lure people into your ideals you need a clear enemy. He picked "The Goverment". Teenagers from basements around the world unite!
Let's take some of his so called "rebuttals". You see, to actually make a rebuttal you need to actually refute. He hasn't refuted anything.
Compassionate Communication...My Intentions are Pure
Your intentions are self-serving . Using the word 'delusional sophist' has earned you a place on my shit list. Pictures of hearts and other psychological trickery used in your post won't cut it. You are a manipulator of the masses much like any politician. Your savoir-vivre language won't cut it either unless you are speaking to emotionally challenged teens.
Look, I am also using an inspiring picture! How calming! Please upvote my empathic positiveness!!!
However, he does say some things I agree with, and I believe we share many commonalities. I just think he missed the mark and conflated anarchism with communism at times.
You obviously don't understand neither anarchocapitalism nor anarchocommunism. Again. Read Max Stirner. There is absolutely no part where I make any reference to communist ideas. You are pulling things out of your ass using "nice" language. I would prefer if you were rude but honest instead. I prefer "real" people rather than your kind. Also stop using debate tactics like "appear to agree with your opponent on something, in order to keep appearances". Again. You are not in your safe facebook space anymore. Political correctness won't cut it.
At one point, he actually said: "I adhere to ideals of capitalism, anarchy and free-market economics myself." But if he adheres to capitalism, anarchy, and free-market economics, why did many of his complaints seem to contradict or undermine these ideas? The thrust of my rebuttal will continuously return to this glaring issue.
I like how you use "thrust" in order to use psychological connotation for putting your opponent underneath in a powerful and sexual manner. Again. As an honorable person in my shit-list, I will expose every single linguistic trickery you have been using in order to make that ridiculous name personal for yourself. One reason I speak in a rather vulgar way is because I detest the likes of your manipulative language.
As for your argument. I am against Diabetes. This doesn't mean I won't eat cake. See? Room temperacture I.Q has helped me get into this conclusion.
In the first section of the article, the author asks a common question and then refers to anarchists as having a "wet dream." He said:
What makes you think that if tomorrow the governments around the world ceased to exist something will change? Let’s say the dollar crashes, economies fail and all of your end-of-the world wet dreams come true.
I was referring to some anarchists. not all. moving on...
In addition, anarchists realize that belief in authority is the foundation of government. It is the myth that seduces politicians into harming others. This is why many anarchists suggest that things would be better without governments since they have been responsible for murdering billions of people.
You are doing the exact same shit with your followers. Most of them hit upvote just because they believe everything you say. Most haven't even read my previous post. Authority is the foundation of many things including government. Authority can also exist in anarchic communities. The problem is not the authority but being able to choose if you want to be under it.
Democide is the idea that governments have killed their own citizens by the droves. It is true. Public crimes have always vastly outweighed private crimes. Therefore, in the worst case scenario, we can expect some improvement to civilization in the absence of State control. Even if abolition of government did occur overnight.
This is one of the biggest straw-man I have ever seen. Just because public crimes have always outweighed private ones it doesn't make "the government" responsible. People kill for ideas, religions, honor, resources and so on and so forth. If abolition of government happened overnight nothing would change. Same goes about religion or anything else. These are vague ideas used from demagogues like yourself in order to gain sheeple followers. Too bad you came under my radar.
The author admitted to accepting anarchism, which by definition means "without a ruler." In this sense, should not the collapse of government also represent his "wet dream"? Or does he prefer the sustained existence of government? I am rightfully confused.
No sunshine. It wouldn't because people will still clamp together like flies on shit under leaders much like your facebook "anarchic" followers. Nothing really changes. It is about individualism vs collective mentality. Ingrain this into your "anarcho-psychologico-sophistry".
In the same section, the author mentions that anarchists have a desire to "redistribute wealth." This is inaccurate. Not all "anarchists" argue for equal redistribution of wealth. Generally, that idea is aligned with communism or anarchists who trumpet socialism.
I never said that. Here you are blatantly lying. Weird. You didn't use a direct quote this time. I wonder why. Is there any lower level you can drop in order to win an argument?
To summarize, not all whales are evil. And no self-respecting anarchist is anti-whale merely because whales are rich. The anarchist just realizes that any violence or social disparity that crops up as a result of wealth is a direct byproduct of government coercion and economic intervention.
Never said whales are evil. You just extrapolated that in order to make an argument out of nowhere. I just stated how things are
Government is always the epicenter of suffering and depredation, not money; I cannot emphasize this point enough.
Hasn't your mom taught you never to use the word "always" in social paradigms? How about religion? science? Why use such vague generalisations? Your sheeple like it?
In the next section, the author takes the stance that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will not save humanity. In a bold claim, he suggests this that cryptocurrencies and fiat are equally bad:
Never said this either. I said that cryptos are still on their early stage and that right now they are on the same level. Your quote mining skills are exceptional. You are truly a lowly sleazy individual.
Cryptocurrencies were purposely designed by anarchists as an attack on government and as a way to liberate mankind.
Unless you know who is the inventor of Bitcoin, you are speaking, again, our of your ass. all coins copied bitcoins code.
The Anarchist Who Loves Government,
Never said this. Again. lies
First he says that "the problem is not the government." I want to return the reader's attention to his earlier comments. He said he accepts anarchism. Generally, if someone accepts a philosophy that rejects rulers, they will not turn around later and claim that rulers are not the problem.
Just because I accept a philosophy that rejects rulers it doesn't mean I cannot be an anarchist. Not all anarchist became anarchist because they blame the state. Anarchism is simply more efficient than the state. Your deductive reasoning skills are primordial. Again. I can be an atheist without blaming religion for humanity's ills.
I went through his whole “rebuttal” 3 times. He is not making a single argument that is not either something he came up or a blatant lie. Now it makes sense how he amassed so much sheep-followers.
I don’t buy the “good intentions” from people that lie openly and use manipulation tricks in order to make a point. I don’t buy arguments from individuals or followers that claim to be anarchists but have not even read Max Stirner and instead whine all day about the “bad state”.
I came to Steemit in order to find truthful, original, freethinking individuals. So far most people are sheeple belong to celebrity following lists. How can anybody refute them without getting flagged? They monopolise knowledge. How is this any better than facebook? I hope this will change. Here is a picture with compassion. The magical "marketing" word that ties everything together.
@kyriacos - I did try to read both your posts, but they are both tied to what seem to be tortured logical fallacies. Neither were that well written to be frank, but this one is full of ad hominem attacks, ambiguity, and tu quoque.
To begin, why this obsession with Stirner? You seem to imply those that haven't read his work are some how not really anarchists, and as such you're indulging in a no true Scotsmen.
Secondly, although I agree there is personal responsibility for the individual for all actions they take in society, government subsumes this by claiming authority to make those decisions for us. As such, claiming people are sheeple for pointing out the state isn't legitimate is a strawman argument & ad hominem simultaneously. Also, claiming that non-government based solutions like Bitcoin to represent money instead of the Fiat we have today does nothing to impact the state because the state will adopt it is circular reasoning.
Thirdly, in comments you mention the state & religion as existing. I'd like some clarity - do you mean physically, or that they exist virtually only? If your contention is that they have a physical existence, you have to prove that they have mass in of themselves. You cannot claim that they are the people, because people can not be logically both individuals & the government/religion at the same time.
People do not have the authority of the state as individuals, and only the job roles of the state contain such authority currently. Job roles, like the concepts of religion and government, are virtual and have no mass in of themselves. So... Please explain how the state or religion exist beyond the realm of ideas.
To be honest, this is my biggest bone of contention with you, although it explains why you are so aggressively attacking anarchists who blame the state for what it does to imbalance society. It isn't the fact the state is made up of people that is the problem. It's the fact the concept of the state, the idea of it, is logically and ethically invalid. Claiming "people just need to stop being sheep" is the same as saying anarchy is unworkable because of the inherent nature of man. It's claiming anarchy cannot work at its root.
Claiming having groups prevents anarchy presumes anarchy can have no voluntary hierarchies either. Explain how you can prevent group associations without a state.
Fourthly, you say "just because I accept a philosophy that rejects rulers doesn't mean I cannot be anarchist", which is a true statement. However, it is a complete non sequitur to Sterlin's rebuttal. He said it is not typical for an anarchist to claim rulers are not the problem. For someone who claims to reject rulers, you do seem to be defending them from their biggest detractors.
Finally, last I checked "flagging" is the steem.it method for down voting a post, usually for offensive material. To some anarchists like myself, ad hominem and illogical thought is not something to promote, to others it's down right offensive. So am I surprised followers of Sterlin flagged this as offensive? No, particularly given the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks you have used to promote your position.
I didn't call you a sophist. I wrote that as tongue-in-cheek, because I thought your style of communication was unbecoming. I actually said that in my post. I would offer a fully fleshed out response, but you don't seem interested in an actual dialogue or civil conversation.
And you instead flagged my post? How very noble of you! You seriously can't take any critique. Using your ratings to undermine the validity of the post without even providing proper counter arguments.
you are such a slime.
You used it as a title to sell because you are a sensationalist.
Dude I can't even answer you without you hiding my comment. You obviously called me that in your title to be sensationalist.
You haven't even refuted my points. zero. nada. I don't feel sorry for you but the pathetic people that follow you.
this guy got BTFO sterlin style. With class. Learn some Kyriacos -Dave
@seedofliberty
i want to see you refute my arguments sterlin cheeleader
I will write a detailed response if you will answer me one question, Does the state exist? and be willing to defend your answer.
Yes, the State exists. Science exists. Religion Exists,
they all caused damage and good. they are all made of people.
if I was talking with a theist they would tell me religion created all the ills of the world. if I talk with you, the state
...a creationist...science
see the pattern here sheeple?
The State exists as a concept for the description of a regional monopoly. It physically doesn't exist in any way but there are people whom embody it with their actions.
You say most people here on Steemit are sheeple. So with how many of the 65k+ steemers did you get in touch so far to come to that conclusion?
Many. Surely I don't have an accurate sample but I can tell a lot are, chasing celebrities in order to make pennies on the dollar.
I know its only because it is the beginning since most members are just fans of celebrities. We know this because whales sponsor them in order to get Steemit on the foreground.
My impression is that the trending posts actually cover a healthy diversity of topics. So I have no issue here, when there are some celebrity posts among them.
As you can see I am drowning in "healthy" from the followers of anarcho-celebrities.
I don't agree with these downvotes. Therefore I upvoted your post.
If by every dollar it's made you'd make 3 pennies you would be rich. I'm sorry but you should realise that a decent % of the steemit users are crypto users, crypto users usually look for the profit, so it's logical that they will upvote where the money i.
I understand this but upvoting sheer stupidity when the argument is cut and clear will hit like a boomerang later on.
so long for the "evil fiat" manipulators....
Upvoted only to protest censorship of this post.
This is not an endorsement nor does it reflect my opinions in any way.
Except flagging posts is not akin to censorship. Flagging exists to stamp out abuse and serve the interests of the community and protect Steemit as a platform.
Where is the abuse? I see two competing opinions and a bit of a personality conflict. I see no abuse here. BTW @sterlinluxan if someone came along and was flagging you based on opinion, even ones expressed less than politely, I would upvote that to oppose the flagging as well. I'm not taking sides here, except against flagging based on disagreements.
This is DEFINITELY censorship, as we can now not see the post in its entirety due to low ratings, please elaborate how it isn't. You have literally deconstructed this mans post by flagging it. Now we can't even read to understand the authors entire perspective but only make educated assumptions. You are delusional if you think this is anything but the very definition of censorship.
Nothing about the post is inaccessible or censored. Next to the "Images were hidden due to low ratings." red message you will find a button to "show" the original post. The site pulling the images is probably more to do with nsfw flagged content.
Sure the post remains accessible but who will still be able to actually get aware of this post after all the downflags? Only the followers of kyriacos will find it in their feeds.
Hi enki, I see your point but I have to respectfully disagree. I see any modifications to a post that requires filtration as a level of censorship. In this particular case I don't know if it's because of flagging or if it just happens to be that the system isn't build to handle nsfw content yet, which I know a lot of people are waiting for. Either way, I would like to see posts in their entirety in the future regardless of flags.
@kyriacos I wasn't suggesting that there was any nsfw. I'm saying the reason the site pulls the pictures is likely due to that concern. There is currently no way to distinguish a post as flagged for nsfw, aggressive personal attacks, tolling, plagiarism, spam, or whatever other reason people choose to flag. It's a blanket response.
I think if you were to drop the personal attacks and name calling you might not have reactions like this from other users. I think you're clearly intelligent and have value to add here. Hopefully we can resolve to a more civil discourse in the future for such disagreements. I don't think there's much to gain by simply attacking each other.
There was was no nsfw content @enki .
@sterlinluxan refuses to properly debate. I make a detailed post about every point he made. He is just trying to bury it. this is why he is downvoting ferrociously along his other scamming buddy. mr . bleached out douche vigilante.
What abuse? Seriously. You used lies in your post in order to make money and I am the abusive one? You personally attacked me with lies which I debunked in this very post that you ar enow trying to hide.
You call yourself an anarchist? Give me a break...
Flagged because your abusing. Everything is subjective so fair game right ? (sterlinluxan)
Same !
Likewise. Upvoted out of disagreement with the flagging as unwarranted. Not going to use the C word.
Come on guys can't we all just get along?
Obviously some people cannot even accept a counter argument
Sad but true - to some degree the 65K folks in here are a reflection of the 7+ bio. out there. Look around the world and you have a fast answer to your obviously rhetorical question ;-)
Well this would be great news! If the 65k here already reflect the diversity of the human population then this would prove that Steemit has already the right appeal to pull in the rest of the planet. Yeah, time to power up ;-)
go for it ;-)
I am not saying this @shaka. I am merely describing the majority of people so far since most of them got introduced into Steemit by their celebrities like the dollarvigilante and the psychologic-anarchist.
the whole thing is pathetic. if this continues Steemit won't last
It is funny seeing @dollarvigilante flagging me when he was bitching and moaning before about someone else flagging him.
not even an attempt to refute my points. what kind of people is Steemit attracting?
@kyriacos - "Blaming the state is just the beginning." care to elaborate on that?
The state is the only entity threatening me with violence. Which is all I care about. I dont care if corporations are huge and some people are super wealthy. So as an anarchist, who do I blame besides the state?
@rich77
Aren't you tired seeing ghosts where they don't exist? Let's say the state goes away. Do you seriously think that nobody else will threaten you with violence? Seriously now!
The State is not a monster. The state is made of PEOPLE. the problem is not the state, not religion, not science not any other abstract concept that is MADE OUT OF PEOPLE. the problem is people being sheep.
If the state seized to exist, if religion seized to exist people will still clumb together. Check this thread! I am posting something and the sheer democracy and power of two anarchic whales has stolen my potential upovotes! and we are on anarchic-crypto website!
Its like I am paying "mental tax" and censorship penalties because the authority of the masses decided what to do.
Seriously people. You need to stop following these idiots if you want to start discovering real anarchy. Individualist anarchy is the only true anarchy simply because it eliminates this groupie mentality that is present even if the state gets abolished.
"The problem is not the authority but being able to choose if you want to be under it." do you see the contradiction? you can choose to leave steemit, nobody is forcing you to stay.
you will always get backlash from real anarchists if you arent consistent with your philosophy.
mental tax? these guys arent threatening you or stealing from you, they are simply ostricising you, and maybe you deserve it. gotta be consistent or you may as well be an ancom :)
I never said Steemit was a problem for me @rich77. wtf are you talking about?
There is no contradiction in my anarchic philosophy.
They are using their numbers in order to enforce their will. This is very much like the state
seriously you people need to open a book ASAP
@kyriacos ...I've known @sterlinluxan for a while...I am a Classical Anarchist...and I am sure he doesn't agree with everything I say...& I don't expect him or you either...but we share some 'common ground' & we are basically civil with each other because of that...I Agree on points you made as well...I've been reading some of Stirner, but I am not professing his works as the 'Bible' of Anarchy...you reject opposition of the State?...that's rule number ONE when it comes to Anarchy...Fascism directly opposes us because they believe they ARE the STATE! I've believed that for years...anyway you have 100 followers...where are they?...you've got 35 votes so they can't All be flags!...I've been around for years, but that doesn't make me a celebrity!...I read a LOT of posts here...not just you two's stuff...many of us envy the fact that you HAVE that many followers!(both of you)
@terryrall
I never said Stirner is the Jesus of anarchy. I merely said that based on the assumption he made—that is—an anarchist is only a by-product of state violence. This is simply not true and Stirner's philosophy can demonstrate this.
I have made the state work for me. I would prefer if it wasn't around but I am not going to use violence to take it down or oppose it. There are other ways to take something down.
I got 80 followers just from my first post bashing neo-anarchists. I have 11 friends on facebook. I am here only 2 weeks now. People will slowly see who is right and who is not. dont worry.
Do words get removed by flags too? or just images?
Neither really, you can still click on "show" to see the images.
guys seriously. what's your problem here?
Mr psychologic-anarchist decided to sprout lies because he didn't like one of my posts. He called his friend the dollarvigilante and they started flagging all of my posts and comments.