Inkbunny

IB Gear Latest Popular Members Search
 
Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Tickle a Tails
« older newer »
Flyboys

Medium (920px wide max)
Wide - use max window width - scroll to see page ⇅
Fit all of image in window
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Download (new tab)
Cleaning around my flat earlier, this popped into my head XP. To give it some context, I see this question being posed by those who are in the social justice cult and it's as sinister a question as this drawing is meant to show XP. An ally in this context is actually just an unthinking serf who will never dare question you. Having one's cake and eating it, having supporters whom are expected to dance to your music and you don't ever have to accept them. Toxic.
Keywords
Details
Type: Picture/Pinup
Published: 7 years, 1 month ago
Rating: General
MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
549 views
28 favorites
75 comments
BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
75 Comments on this Submission
Leave a Comment...
JusuTengu
JusuTengu
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Damn, this is really badass! :D
Harleking
Harleking
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Yes, no, maybe.
Maybe both and non of it the same time.
Who knows :D
DefeatedFallen
DefeatedFallen
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Hahh, "anal" <3 "anally" ~€=3
nekkofox
nekkofox
7 years, 1 month ago
link
I read "Anally" and I was all on board, then I read it again and I noped.
EstebanG
EstebanG
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Am I anally what?!
Sicko pervert... I knew there was a reason I like you.
TheAtomicDog
TheAtomicDog
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 7 years, 1 month ago by Owner
Much like GWB declaring that "if you're not with us, you're against us."
Or Donnie Trump placing personal loyalty to himself as the highest test of character.

What's the symbolism of the ring tied to that antler?
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Haha, there isn't any, I just felt like drawing a ring there. All my cartoons are spontaneous things with no deep thought put into them, they're just little doodles to relax.
Athendae
Athendae
7 years, 1 month ago
link
IS ON THE RIGHT ANTLER! THAT SKULL IS GAAAAAAAAAY
TheAtomicDog
TheAtomicDog
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Okay. But perhaps being an American, I automatically thought "Ooo! Ancient Anglo-Euro-ethnic Mystic Druidic-type shit up in this bitch!"
makuajoka
makuajoka
7 years, 1 month ago
link
I misread that as are you anally...
MaximilianUltimata
MaximilianUltimata
7 years, 1 month ago
link
It indirectly (and I would hope unintentionally) implies that ideological purification and extremism is new and no one else did it before.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Er, no, that is definitely not a point intended to be made XP. Only that this ally bullshit is part of the whole host of such phenomena and ought to be recognised as a poisoned chalice and subsequently rejected XP.
TheRevengeX11
TheRevengeX11
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Ally? Are we at war?
snofox
snofox
7 years, 1 month ago
link
more or less?
JakeDaMaus
JakeDaMaus
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Draw a line, pick a side :3
JunkBox
JunkBox
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Draw a line, draw a line, draw another line, start coloring... ;-)
JakeDaMaus
JakeDaMaus
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Shade
Profit :3
KichigaiKitsune
KichigaiKitsune
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Yeah. That's just freakin' bad-ass.
JunkBox
JunkBox
7 years, 1 month ago
link
Really nice work, I like the mystical look.

Although I've clearly been in the weird parts of the 'net for too long, I misread that without one space between words!
ChaosRaccoon99
ChaosRaccoon99
7 years, 1 month ago
link
I try to avoid becoming allies with things that look like a wendigo.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
I think its more toxic when you label people murderous morons when you don't even know what they believe or stand for and refuse anything that threatens your world view - i.e. anyone that questions you. Again, seeing things like this make me regret standing up for groups like furry raiders - an action for which I recently got suspended from FA.

Dehumanization is toxic.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
I don't do that.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
You blanket the left with terms and definitions of your own design - you refuse to relent on your strawmen when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Some leftists are meeting your stereotype, especially the ones committing acts of arbitrary violence or using strawmen of their own, but attacking all of the left as if they were that just makes those people seem like figure-heads and champions of the left.
 
You've called me a murderous moron, I can quote you on it. I was also labelled as a Stalinist by you as well, though not directly like the other two.  

You say you don't like it when people put you on blocklists - as in public blocklists, and label you as a fascist or nazi, which you are not. Well, that is a two-way street. If I'm going to be put on those same lists and given the same labels we should at least be on board that using force, aggression, and mistruths to disagree with people is bad.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
Though it may sound hyperbolic, saying a socialist is murderous is accurate in so far as the basic facts of history and present day prove that embracing socialism leads to death and destruction. To believe its good is to be no different than a neo Nazi. I don't create straw men, but you're happy to make one of me so you can go on living with your vapid head up your arse with your neck resting on your balls.

I don't criticise all the left, I'm on the left myself. I criticise the far left. Socialists, commie bastards, who leave ruin in their wake wherever they get power. You can support such shit if you want but I'm going to call it out for what it is regardless. And, of course, you don't argue with the message behind this image because its true, so you have to resort to lying about me. Pathetic.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
If socialism only referred to Planned Economics, sure - I'd give you that! But socialism, as a word, is like capitalism as a word. They refer to several different things, this isn't 'redefining' either. Corporatism, for example, is a form of capitalism used by fascist countries during world war 2. I wouldn't call you a murderer for support capitalism even though there is a branch of capitalism that was used by nations that murdered - the same with state capitalism as is used in modern Russia and China.

Otra vez, once more - loud and clear. Anarcho-Syndicalism, as a single example, - a libertarian ideology that rejects planned economics outright and any strong centralized authority and instead encourages people at a local level to organize so that the country is run from the bottom up rather than the top down - goes against your strawman, and it is a strawman because I told you this before and you dodged it and continued to call me a murderous moron and a Stalinist. If you would like to prove me wrong - feel free to accept the fact that calling all socialists murderous morons is a bit off. Its like calling capitalists murderous morons, and there is history to support that too, same as calling white people racist or murderers.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Socialism means one thing, which is that outlined in the Communist Manifesto. If it isn't a planned economy, it isn't socialist. So when I refer to socialism I refer to socialism. Anarcho-Syndicalism has its own term, so it is not socialism. I'm not interested in debating Anarcho-Syndicalism because it isn't pernicious and all over the mainstream left. This cartoon isn't simply about socialism either, its about the creepiness of allyship, which expects the so called non marginalized to use their voices to elevate the so called marginalized, for nothing, just because they're told to. Allies are supposed to be equal partners in a relationship rather than doting, sycophantic yes-men desperate to appease the son of a bitch who manipulates their emotions.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Marx isn't the only socialist philosopher just as Smith isn't the only Capitalist one. The communist manifesto didn't even outline the beliefs - Kapital did. The namisms are not what I'm talking about either by the way - they are pretty much all the same anyhow and most things based on them are still one person's thoughts; besides these two there are several authors and thinkers on the socialist left, some of whom get to write some deviation of 'murdered by the NKVD' on their epitaph.

But hey - I'm willing to accept that you don't consider it socialism if it means you are willing to accept that I am not a murderous moron and that some people that use the term socialist to describe themselves do not agree with statism or totalism. It isn't that hard to ask before causing a supernova.

And since you really want me to respond to this picture and its message itself as divorced from my claims of strawman against you: Yeah, people who hardline are very bad - to varying degrees. Of course you only apply it to the 'social justice cult' - I'll assume we both have the same definition of what an sjw is for now - when I feel it could be applied broadly. Any movement or person who is going to say 'if you don't agree with me 100% you are not a real x' is bad (which I assume is the message of this). Its like the anti-western argument that gets thrown around so much, except replace western with whatever belief system it is. 'If you don't agree with me all the way you are anti-me', movements like this tend to err on the totalist side but are also doomed to fail. I mentioned it before in different words, things resistant to change break. If ideas can't adapt, they die. It doesn't matter if they are left or right.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
I don't care how many other "philosophers" you attribute to socialism. Socialism is a collectivist planned economy. Everywhere, literally, it is applied, destruction follows. And I'm not talking about places like Sweden, which are mixed economies, capitalist with some socialised services and welfare. The extent to which a country is committed to socialism is the extent to which it is ruined. To support it is either to be completely incompetent or outright malicious, there are no two ways about it. It is as morally repulsive as being a neo Nazi. I don't care if you have a myriad of other little political philosophies, socialism is one thing. As far as I'm concerned, people are keen to put their political ideology under the umbrella of socialism for two reasons: 1) it currently lacks the social stigma of fascism and 2) it is popular. Your beliefs are a miniscule fringe, but call yourself a socialist and suddenly you're part of a huge movement. I don't ally you with evil, you chose it, so if you don't want me to lump you in with these genocidal  morons then don't call yourself a socialist. I'm sick and fucking tired of all the excuses, the slippery diversions, the pathetic, mewling technicalities. Look at the world, look at its history, look at the consequences of ideas instead of focusing on textbooks. Hundreds of millions are dead, millions more destitute and starving, as a direct result of socialism. We know this because despite the fact it has been tried in multiple countries, all over the world, from a huge range of cultures and backgrounds, it has the same results. Socialism is evil. End of.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
See, this is the same thing I did last time. I give you an inch and you start shitting. You say "Syndicalism isn't socialism" I go 'okay then' And then you proceed to explode.

Remember when you said you didn't do that?
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
I explode with facts, not hyperbole and straw men. My being frustrated does not affect the validity of ANY statement I make, so stop pretending it does. You're the one who calls yourself a socialist, who says it is many things and makes excuses for it. I'm calling you out on it. Deal with it. You're so keen to defend the fucking thing that you bring it up to me on a completely unrelated drawing.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
There is nothing to be frustrated about, and no facts. I fucking hate Stalin and Planned Economics - but you keep saying I am associating myself with them.

Why would I associate myself with people that think I'm a thug for wanting confederation? How in the everloving piss-stained blankets of Zeus am I complacent in murderous ideologies I stand against?

Syndicalism wasn't put under the umbrella of socialism for either of those two reasons. Its put under the blanket because, while it has much more in common with capitalism than planned economics, it supports unionism and worker's rights. Syndicalists have been murdered and killed by both Marxists and Fascists since the creation of Syndicalism. There was an entire phase of the Russian Civil War, way way before Stalin, where the entire purpose of the Red Army was hunting down rogue groups which, aside from the social democratic Mensheliviks, included left-libertarians.

You can't just order me to redefine a word because you refuse to not call me a murderer unless I do - especially if when I concede to your definition you just push even further. Jesus fuck.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Don't pop up out of nowhere on unrelated drawings talking about how socialism is many things, when it isn't, and attacking me for having a problem with it then. You know my beef is with socialism, I have made myself abundantly clear. I don't give a shit if you're an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I'm not interested in your political beliefs and how you compartmentalise them. If you're not a socialist then great, nobody should be, congratulations. So stop defending it.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
I mostly mentioned it in passing because, if you read the comment which I am sure you did, that is one of the examples I gave of the numerous strawmen you use.

I have no problem with this image itself, but it isn't by itself, its in the toxic context of your dehumanization of the people by lumping them into groups by which they are not in. If you see all far leftists as stalinists - that is your problem.

And show me where I'm defending planned Economics. Feel free. Show me, do it.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
I don't dehumanize people. I point out that socialism is dehumanizing by definition because it's collectivist. As soon as one is collectivist the individual ceases to matter, only the group matters, so it becomes as anti human and dehumanizing as it's possible to get. I oppose this crap, I don't perpetuate it. The reason I use words like evil and murderous is because I refuse to hide behind euphemism and sugar coat things to protect people's sensibilities. I'm not saying people aren't human I'm trying to tell them what they are sticking up for is evil and they can choose to change their minds. You're not born a flag waving antifa commie fuckbag, you choose to be one (you being general and not you specifically). I'm not straw manning jack shit, I'm calling a spade a spade. As for you, you haven't defended planned economics, you've defended the term socialism by claiming it has many meanings, when it doesn't. By having so many different things labeled as socialist it becomes HARDER to combat the extremely dangerous and sickening elements of it, which is why it is stupid as fuck to use the term unless you actually mean it.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
I'd believe that if you could show me where I support Planned Economics or violence.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
Never said you did. I said you were defending socialism by claiming it refers to multiple things. By pretending socialism means many things you make it harder to pull apart, harder to pinpoint what is wrong with it, harder to point out the truth of how bad it is. You muddy the waters and in doing so help socialism as an ideology, whether you support planned economics or not. And this isn't as personal as you're making it out either. I don't know you from Adam and the only reason we have exchanged words is because you have been contacting me. I don't give a shit about who you are.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Read;
It does - just like Capitalism does.

Listen. Japan's economic system is different from that in the USA, which is different from that in Sweden. If someone came to you and said capitalism was bullshit and they gave examples like China, Japan, India, and Russia - what would your response be? They'd clearly be talking about State Capitalism.

I'm NOT saying you should be like 'oh hoy boy socialism is great' But when you lump everyone into Planned Economics you don't make people not want to be socialist, you just legitimize the few Marxists still around by making them into a bigger boogey man. When someone comes up to you and is like 'I am a socialist' I assume your reaction, based on what you did to me and others, is thinking of images of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China. Now, fair enough - like I said and keep saying Planned Economics is bad and even under the guise of democracy leads to totalitarianism and murder - but if they then say they do not believe in Planned Economics your reaction should not to be to continue pushing Planned Economics down their throat like you are deaf.

Its not 'harder' to attack Planned Economics if it isn't the only type of socialism. That is like saying its 'harder' to attack dictatorship if Theocracies like ISIS and Iran count. I don't muddy anything, because I stand up against statists. You don't think Orwell helped the Soviet Union by writing Animal Farm and 1984, do you?

When people come around and say they are socialists that don't believe in Planned Economics your reaction seems to be to label them with it anyhow just because its 'easier' than having nuance...Which...isn't that what this picture is critiquing, actually? People with no nuance?
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Socialism is planned economics, that's the whole bloody point of it. If someone does not support planned economics but tells me they are a socialist, it's not me who has fucked up. I'm not muddying waters by sticking to the definitions of words, other people are by using socialism to mean a myriad of different things, which it does not mean. Sympathy and compassion for the working class, alleviating poverty etc are good things but socialism makes those things far worse, it is the most destructive political ideology ever conceived, as borne out by real events. Trying to diversify its definition is like disagreeing with the core of fascism but still referring to yourself as a fascist. But very few people do that, don't they, because we have a wide public awareness that fascism is bloody awful. We need the exact same state of affairs regarding socialism, which has by a gigantic margin the larger body count. I want to be clear, simple and to the point, so I do not engage in slippery technicalities like you are doing. If you don't believe in planned economies you are not a socialist. Capitalism is not comparable, it isn't an ideology, but a lack of one. Capitalism doesn't directly lead to murder, purges, starvation etc like socialism does, because it represents freedom of enterprise with each individual making their own financial decisions. But yes, I'm against what you refer to as state capitalist societies, which are really former fully communist states with relatively recent injections of capitalism to prevent complete economic collapse. These countries are completely reliant on strong capitalist free market economies that surround them.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Slippery technicalities - like redefining words? And it seems you are not even doing it with socialism anymore, was that you just pawning state capitalism onto socialism? And at what point was Japan Communist? Japan is probably the best example of state capitalism beyond India (which also isn't communist).

Socialism is a lot more than the strawman (strawman being when you invent the political beliefs and stance of your opponents and attack that instead of addressing they themselves) of Planned Economics and it isn't defending Planned Economics to say that. Just like Liberalism is more than Social Liberalism or the right wing is more than the alt-right. Either you are being a hypocrite, or you really stick to your guns no matter what.

If we are going by the definition of socialism as it is in cyclopedias or academic sources like Britannica, Socialism means more than Planned Economics.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
I don't know about Japan, I haven't learned about its economics, but I know Russia and China were communist and they haven't embraced capitalism the way the west has. And we do far better than them. The core of socialism is a planned fucking economy following the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is the same everywhere it is implemented, has the same effects, the same failures. The only difference is the degree to which those failures manifest. If you are not a socialist, if you do not support a planned economy, don't put your beliefs under the umbrella of socialism or you are going to confuse the sodding argument. I have had the same, consistent definition of socialism throughout all my interactions with people like yourself, who fling accusations at me, yet I'm the one who is being slippery? I'm not playing with technicalities. Russia and China were factually communist countries and with China in particular mostly still is. They have not broken away from the clutches of communism, so they've ended up with a perverse type of economy that is wholly dependent on the support of western capitalist countries to stay above water.

There is more to socialism than planned economics yes, but without planned economics it isn't socialist anymore, it is something else. I would say the wider evil is collectivism in general, whether it is from the right or the left. The reason I focus on the left is because left collectivism is currently popular and represents a serious danger to all of us. And socialism, along with postmodernism on the cultural side of things, are the terms most recognizable as the sources of left wing collectivism. The whole picture I'm trying to illustrate with all these cartoons and journals is that groupthink, collectivism, is fucking disastrous.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
See, we agree on quite a bit but you just have to stick to your strawmen. Its really sad. I hope you won't get too pissed when our names are next to one another on one of those twitter comments.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
What fucking strawmen? A strawman fallacy is to set up a false version of your opponent and then tear it down. I have been specific about what I'm arguing against and I have put forward clear arguments against it. I have read socialist literature and I have observed the results of it being applied in practice, which are demonstrably horrific. A strawman isn't me describing what I object to, then you popping in to tell me I'm not nuanced enough, that socialism is more things. Planned economics is inseparable from socialism, it is an economic theory before it is anything else. One can agree with aspects of it that appear on the periphery and then call what you believe by another name but if you don't support the core ideas of socialism then you're not a socialist. You wouldn't be sharing any views in common with me on this if what I was doing was inventing socialism by my own definition and attacking it like creationists who claim evolution is monkeys turning into men like magic.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
I have read socialist literature too - I studied political theory, history, and international relations for four years.

And what? It would be like if I said evolution was real but I called it creationism. If I defined creationism is the gradual process by which living creatures change over time to adapt to a new environment...what would your reaction be? Because I somehow doubt you would be giddy.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
I haven't defined socialism as something it is diametrically opposed to though, have I? I simply haven't gone into an essay of the entire contents of socialist bullshit just because I used the word. I have focused on one principle of socialism but it is a core principle, inseparable from it from its inception. Your argument here is nonsense.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
It really isn't.
You say its a core principle and that is your justification for saying a core principle...I guess its better to be wrong than fix your mistakes?
Marx is not the end all be all of socialism.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Never said Marx is the be all and end all of socialism. I said socialism began as an economic philosophy, it still is one, it rests upon the foundation of collectivism and a planned economy. That is why every socialist country in the fucking world that has ever been has had a planned economy. Stop. Lying. You. Trash.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
Yes, lying. Every socialist country has planned economies. To tell me I have strawmanned socialism because I define it by ITS CORE CHARACTERISTIC AS AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY is a LIE. I don't give a shit what academic pricks talk about and define as socialism when we have already seen it in practice and know what it is about. Fuck you. Fuck your links, fuck your boasting of your education which is patently worthless given you're a fucking anarcho-syndicalist. Fuck off yourself. Cunt.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
And I guess you are hopping on the anti-intellectualism bandwagon? Must be fun being able to call everyone who claims to have knowledge an academic prick.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
When REALITY contradicts what an academic CLAIMS, that academic is a fucking prick. Just because retarded socialist bastards parasitize state money to teach bollocks in universities does not make them worthy of respect. Academia is supposed to be about evidence and the evidence is that socialism destroys everything it touches. Fool.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Ah, so Britannica is wrong?
What sources WOULD you listen to? Just the ones that agree with you? Do you ask them if they are an ally first?

The evidence is how socialism is defined in the English language. String together as many pointless incomprehensible insults as you like, it doesn't make you right, and it doesn't change English.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
You fucker. The Britannica article expressly states that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. You can't have the public own production because the public is millions of people, so the ownership is administrated by those who run the country on behalf of the public. Since the state owns production it then has to decide what needs to be made, how much, when, by whom and by what methods. In other words it has to plan the economy! Jesus motherfucking Christ.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Unions
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Unions = planning. If its not supply and demand, if it isn't voluntary transactions with the market running itself then it is a planned economy. Unions lol. Fuck me sideways.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Right now, its CEOs and BoD and Investors - this seeks to add one to the equation. This is voluntary - its bottom up organization. It doesn't infringe on the free market in so far as trade and the selling of goods. There is no state planning.

Fuck you sideways? You haven't even bought me dinner yet.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
From the article you linked on syndicalism:  

The structure of the ideal syndicalist community was generally envisioned somewhat as follows. The unit of organization would be the local syndicat, a free association of self-governing “producers.” It would be in touch with other groups through the local bourse du travail (“labour exchange”), which would function as a combination of employment and economic planning agency.

Economic planning agency. Economic planning agency. Economic planning agency.

Lying bastard. Go to hell.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
At a local level - in the place of a state to provide inter-commerce. Or do you think that the Federal Government of the US, who as far as I'm aware also regulates interstate trade, is also planned economics. By the way, don't answer this, because either you do and I need to go drown myself or you don't and we are back at step one - I'm also not going to respond.

I'll go to hell and leave you alone here, but first I would like to say one final thing. I would like to apologise for both of the times I've commented with hostility off the bat, both times kind of redirected anger at other people, who are by far much worse in the language they use, and there seems to be several points on which we agree despite the disagreement. If this image is truly not marred by your image of those that disagree with you and is a genuine critique of those that meet dissent with insults and aggression then good on you, though I would still say that the language you use is not going to change any minds. There are people far far worse, and as far as I can tell none of your things promote violence, harassment, or the use of force against those you disagree with (you've even made a journal asking people not to do that) - a lot of people on here and FA on both sides like to monopolize on the increasing desire of folks to 'play hero' up to the point of feeding the increased balkanization of society with violence used against people they've convinced themselves as the ultimate enemy, the furry raiders as an example which as I mentioned I was suspended for defending.

Anyhow, hasta luego
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Planned economics is not regulation. Regulations are there as safeguards, because all games require rules. A planned economy is that which dictates what is produced, when, how and in what quantity, along with who gets the goods and at what price they are sold. Regulations in a free market economy is nowhere near this. Price, demand, supply, method, etc is regulated by the unplanned transactions of all the people participating in the market by spending money and offering services voluntarily. The reason it works is because there is no plan, because economies are so insanely complicated it is literally impossible to know enough to predict them. If anyone, anywhere, could successfully predict the economy then the stock market would not exist as it is, because we would know what would be successful and to what degree before any of it happened. This is why, when socialist countries try their planned economies, they invariably end up running the thing so ineptly that even the barest essentials run out and people literally starve to fucking death. I don't care if a state government plans the economy or if a network of committees at the heads of trade unions do it, it has the same exact lack of competence and godlike omniscience required to know exactly what is needed.

In addition to this, planned economies stagnate not just in incompetent lack of supplying the basics but innovation dies too. Because people can't just put their skills and ideas into the market to see if anyone wants them, nobody innovates anything by choice. This is why the soviet union, to make any of its technological advancements, had to enslave people in forced labour camps and make them do whatever the state wanted. Turns out when you demolish the possibility for people to make their own financial decisions in a free market, nobody wants to work hard because no matter what they do they can only ever have what the planned economy plans for them to have. The innovators, the specialists, the people bloody good at things have to be chained and forced to do it. The only exceptions are those rare people of talent who are also fanatically devoted to the glory of the system with extraordinary religious zeal.

You describe yourself as anarcho-syndicalist and linked me to what you consider to be an accurate definition of it. It describes an aggressive destruction of capitalism via class warfare. You advocate the destruction of the very thing that has made all of us in the west so much better off compared to any other people, at any other time, at any other place in human history. What is more, this is a cause so apparently noble that even civil war and a violent overthrow of society is justified by it. I don't know you as a person or how you rationalize this garbage but I'm telling you, honestly and bluntly that the fucking shit you align yourself with is evil, murderous, genocidal and the burning down of fucking everything that mankind has achieved through millennia of bloody heartache, death and struggle. Justify it to yourself if you wish but this is sickening and worthy of shame. You're damn right I don't advocate violence, or harassment, or any of the fucking disgusting, morally repugnant and ethically horrendous shit the far left does. I draw cartoons and express myself in blunt, harsh, strident language. I'm not going to change communist, whateveryoulikeist minds, no, because its a batshit religious faith. I could no more change your mind on this crap, no matter what tone I wrote with, than I could change an Islamic fascist jihadist or a member of Westboro Baptist Church.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Was going to let you have the last word but, still calling me a murderer? Really, Roar?
And if you don't understand how people believe something you could always try to ask instead of adding in the other fluff that doesn't really get anywhere dialogue wise - this big scary murderous wobble won't bite or throw bombs, promise.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
I have not called you a murderer, stop bloody lying for god sake. I have said you support a political ideology that is murderous. If it is applied in the real world people will die. You haven't killed anyone, you simply support something that, if it were ever applied, would be murderous. That is as bad as being a neo Nazi, not guilty of a crime but supporting evil nonetheless. That is your choice, not mine, and the article YOU provided makes it clear. Class war.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
I provided the article to show its a type of socialism. When Anarcho-syndicalism was first created most groups were revolutionary, but then most ideologies were - you could count the number of universal suffrage democracies on both hands. Today, though, we live in a world filled with democracies operating under universal suffrage with expansive civil liberties, you will be hard pressed to find an anarcho-syndicalist group that advocates a bloody civil war in the place of grassroots organization.

Its a libertarian ideology that, as one of its core beliefs, doesn't even hold itself as the end all be all of political ideology. At the minimum it seeks to create a decentralized democracy open to all ideologies that is adaptable and responsive to the people rather than the elite. Anarcho-syndicalism is one of the few ideologies that holds itself as being fluid and adaptable for a changing world.

I've already linked you several groups, and philosophers too I believe though correct me if I'm wrong about that, in another post though, so you already know this. Stop grasping at straws to find some reason to say I support murder and am 'worse than a neo nazi'. Its like the fucking people who sift through my gallery and call me a rapist. You are just making shit up based on fantasy.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Oh and just to be clear, I have noticed your complete lack of counter arguments throughout this, all you've been able to attempt is misrepresentation. You don't want to confront the reality of your own beliefs, which is fine, but don't come to me for a debate if you're going to just pretend none of the points I make which tear you apart ever happened. You're exactly the same, exactly, as every socialist I've ever argued with.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Lack of counter-arguments? How? What haven't I provided a counter argument to?
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Every point I made demonstrating your political ideology is awful and how socialism is about a planned economy. You have literally linked me to material confirming what I said, sidestepped it and told me I don't need to continue the argument (convenient for you). All you've had so far is that I'm strawmanning, which I've shown to be false, that I've accused you of being a murderer, which is false, that socialism is many things and can be separated from a planned economy, which is rendered false by the definition of it that you yourself supplied. You've claimed I dehumanise people, when calling them out on their bullshit does nothing of the sort. All you've done is give me shit to answer to and after I do so you find something else.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Actually I apologized for saying this picture was something it wasn't and apologised (again) for misreading your journal. I think you might need to reread that. It kind of affirms my point though, that you really don't care if someone agrees with you on something you'll find some reason to go on the offensive.

And you are, you've said I advocate for murder and believe in planned economics. I condemn violence when I hear about it, and have - repeatedly - reaffirmed that I do not believe violence should be used in liberal democracies with free and fair elections and especially should not be used against 'ideological enemies'.  If you believe that syndicalism isn't the ideology I believe in, and that I'm misinterpreting the ideology (which I'm going to assume is what you are saying, in a very tumblrist fashion) then feel free to tell me what ideology it is that matches my belief system. The only reason I can see for rejecting this is if you either A/ don't want to admit that I don't advocate murder or B/want me to agree with you 100% or not at all. You have said you don't want to do either of those things so I look forward to your next comment involving something about what ideology you think aligns with my person beliefs or some way I've misinterpreted the various philosophers and organization platforms I've read for syndicalism and syndicalist organizations.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
You told me you're an anarcho-syndicalist, you linked me to the definition of it. The definition states it is a belief in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism via class warfare resulting in the victory of the working class. This is called killing people. It is black and white endorsement of murder and violent, forced takeover and demolition of the government. When you demolish the safeguard of a nations security and law, you produce chaos and civil war. I'm not assigning you with shit, you told me what you believe and I have simply described it according to the very material you sent to me.

You've said you agree with me on some things but never specify what those areas of agreement are. I know you've acknowledged that your comment on this image was unwarranted, but there is a wider thing being discussed now, isn't there? If you don't want to continue then fine, there's nothing I can do to make you. I will end by saying that for someone who has gone out of their way to get in touch with me, on more occasions than this one, with accusations about my character, I won't be taking any bollocks from you about how I'm determined to go on the offensive. Don't start shit with me then if you have a problem with it, because I'm not going to take any from you.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
I did tell you what I believe! I told you I don't believe in murder and violence as a political means. In fact, I told you that before anything about being an anarcho-syndicalist in the grand scheme of our talks. Your only point against me so far as been the contentious falsehoods that I support planned economics and murder which I've I don't. If you believe I've misinterpreted the ideology, I'd appreciate your thoughts on what ideology DOES represent my beliefs. Because if you are going to tell me that anarcho-syndicalism is murder and central state planning, and then pin that on me, after I've said I disagree with both murder and planned economics. I didn't get my personal definition of syndicalism from Britannica - I, again, linked it because it is a reliable source of precursory information most of the time. I got my definitions of syndicalism from books written by syndicalists and from organizations like the IWW and the WSA. I will give you that the IWW isn't strictly syndicalist, just unionist, and that as a libertarian movement with a main tenant of "We don't claim to have the correct line or all the answers" its going to result in a disparate spectrum of beliefs. Though I have no trouble telling people that 'agree' with me, but believe violence is a means to an end, that I do not support them.

I did apologise, yes - but it makes it hard to tell how tame or extreme your beliefs are when you meet anything even slightly against you or your beliefs with an explosive flurry of tumblrist remarks like calling me a murderer or refusing to answer questions that could end things before they even start. I think, at the very least, you have to own that.

Like I said - I've continuously taken a stand against violence. Something that people just simply don't do anymore, it is one thing to be against it, but to actively discourage and oppose it makes you a target by everyone. I'm not sure if you've noticed that or not. When you actively speak out against the 'hero' mentality that has arisen, of people dreaming of a civil war in which they will be part of the 'winning side' and 'eliminate' their 'ideological enemies' you get a lot of shit. People are comfortable, and detached, the reality of a civil war or civil unrest or of an actually 'ideologically pure' society doesn't really sink in. Its almost like a game, I guess - where they have convinced themselves that there is already a state of affairs that needs them to take up arms and prepare. Its more troubling that its resulted in the creation of militia forces on both sides. I feel in the fandom at least some of the big voices on both sides are to blame, I see NEVER address that mentality unless its to stir up that same mentality on their side. Its only about talk and critique and not practice. I have more than enough proof that I stand against violence and have actively opposed it to where I shouldn't be getting called an advocate for murder - I think getting my livelihood threatened for those very beliefs more than puts force to my words. I don't have enough watchers to qualify as a popufur and being part of the libertarian side of the ideological scale makes people naturally distrustful because it already puts you at odds with most people, who believe government is good either on the left or right.


As for where we agree, I'm pretty sure the first comment ever I made on your journal had points that we agreed on. It was the one you had to make another journal for - because so many people were linking people they disagreed with to it and using you as their tool to 'fight' people. Though my memory is hazy.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
Its called doublethink. You can say you don't believe in violence but a lack of government, anarcho-syndicalism, is physically impossible without violence and murder. You're holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. The world isn't some magical fucking fairy land where the great vision of the society free from the oppressive yoke of capitalism can be ushered in through peace. Lack of capitalism leads to poverty on a massive scale, lack of government leads to a dictatorship. The result is always the same, the revolutions are bathed in blood and the new order is worse than the one which came before it. There is no way around this and there never, ever will be.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
I believe you are genuine in your stance on nonviolence, and I agree that having such an opinion will make you a target. I know myself what it feels like for people to besmirch your character and pretend you're scum, so I can empathise. I'm not doing this to say you are evil, because all people have evil and good in them, we are all capable of believing in horrible things while thinking they are good. In fact for the vast majority of us, who are not psychopaths and misanthropes, must believe an idea is good to hold it, so it is most often the case that the worst things people believe and do are done so with a clear conscience. The same ability to be so horribly mistaken exists in myself, I actually used to be a socialist, I was very sympathetic to it and remember reading about anarcho-syndicalism in my 20s and thinking it sounded like a grand idea. But eventually it is imperative that one should focus on the reality of the world as it is, not as one wishes it was, and to recognize, however personally painful, that ones beliefs are catastrophic for mankind. As in one of my favourite lines of the Bible "Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.", it is the results which matter, not the intentions or the theory.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
Edited 7 years ago by Owner
" RoareyRaccoon wrote:
I believe you are genuine in your stance on nonviolence


Thanks, and yes - that is what got me suspended from FA, with the threat of further suspensions for longer periods of time though I intend to keep advocating for it.


On the ideological front - I think since we both agree that violence is bad I'm not going to rail you on any other beliefs. The left libertarian philosophers I've read proposed non-violent methods to achieve a change in society through unionization and local organization.

A lot of people get caught up in ideals of romantic revolts as a consequence of how they are normally portrayed, as I said, and it gets an audience - but its bad for those who live out their lives when that happens...and those people happen to be the people that make all the stuff; the working class. I'd say you shouldn't use violence if a much more peaceful way is possible, even if it means you have to compromise.
Lapsa
Lapsa
7 years ago
link
I'm starting to make a lot of typos.
Sangie
Sangie
1 year, 7 months ago
link
Adler!!! I am an ally of Louis... He's hot <3
WheezyKB
WheezyKB
7 years ago
link
" I don't create straw men


HahahahaHaHahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahhhh

*wipes away tear*

Funniest thing you've ever written, friend.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
7 years ago
link
Okie dokie!
Zrcalo
Zrcalo
6 years, 7 months ago
link
I fucking love this piece!
New Comment:
Move reply box to top ↑
Log in or create an account to comment.
 

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.