Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Of LLVM's Top Contributors Quits Development Over CoC, Outreach Program

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
    They can also restrict power that existed by making the rules clear under which they can be exercised.
    On the contrary, the enforcers of said rules have ultimate power over those that obey them. You are only considering the subjugated.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post

      Thought so.

      I sincerely hope you are never my neighbour and you never live and work in the same community as me. Just like this LLVM contributor, I will choose to peacefully not associate with people I strongly disagree with... namely thieves, socialists and commies.
      Have fun. Lets be perfectly honest here. I'm not gonna miss you. Despite the recent political drama, I still maintain friends on all places of the political spectrum.

      Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
      I also sincerely hope that some unsuspecting soul does not suffer the misfortune of accidentally employing you or others like you. I expect you take care not to mention your communist inclinations during interviews though, as you know that would mean you would not get the job. So you enter the work place by cover of darkness. You eye another man's stuff and decide that it's all fair game to take it if you can get enough people to side with you.
      Likewise, I'll try getting nutcases like you fired from your place of employment as well. Its funny, if I couldn't find a job due to my political leanings, that as you've guessed I don't really bring to work, you'd call it just deserts and my being w worthless socialist. However the instant shitbags like you and James Damore get fired, its some goddamn conspiracy against you. Why would a corporation fire someone who believes in them so much? I dunno, unlike myself who does in fact keep his mouth shut in the hiring process and actually does his job, you're likely to keep yammering on like an idiot and cause a PR disaster that no one wants.

      edit: I also have no issue finding work. I am a top tier UNIX/Linux operator. My skills, not my political opinions speak for themselves. So cry harder.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fuzz View Post
        On the contrary, the enforcers of said rules have ultimate power over those that obey them. You are only considering the subjugated.
        The enforcers have the power whether the rules are written down or not.

        But written rules make it possible to control that use of power.

        Cheers,
        _

        Comment


        • Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
          The enforcers have the power whether the rules are written down or not.

          But written rules make it possible to control that use of power.

          Cheers,
          _
          Very true about the enforcers of power; however, one could argue that once rules are in place the populace gets manipulated into thinking the enforcers should always be the ones enforcing rules -- ignoring that rules don't adjust to change well. The enforcers enforce the rules, why would they want them to change? If you say benevolent rulers will allow the rules (and thus the ruling class) to change, you suddenly don't really need enforcers. It's a circular argument and doesn't solve anything

          This is where I tend to agree with Karl Marx the most (Capitalism vs Proletariat) but the identification of the pattern doesn't do us anything; which is why I think the problem is likely systemic within modern western society. This is where post-modernism and the criticism of structuralism is most promising but also incredibly misunderstood. Our societies seem to have an inherent desire for fragmentation.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post

            Bullshit. The word "Libertarian" was used by French Anarchists in the 19th century when the term "Anarchist" got too hot to handle. The term "Anarchist" with a capital A was first adopted by Socialist Author JP Proudhon in the 1830s. Before then it meant chaos and disorder. Proudhon was called an "Anarchist" by his critics, to which he replied "I am an Anarchist, I am here to destroy the system". Before you start ret-conning him too as a capitalist, he is the person is quoted "Property is theft". Again, 1830s.

            the Libertarian meant "freedom from the state and the property owners that propped it up", and that the state was run by property owners and businesses. Which it is. It was never synonymous with the earlier "Liberal" that started with John Locke.

            In the 20th century, in the wake of socialist libertarian an Anarchist movements, long after the original liberalism is on the ropes, and socialists are asking about civil liberties for those without property. Then, the "libertarian" and "anarchist"(Murrary Rothbard 1949) capitalists come into play.

            You simply don't know history. Socialist Libertarians used the word 100 years prior.

            https://www.gutenberg.org/files/360/360-h/360-h.htm

            The socialist critique is the state is in fact propped up by large businesses and is one in the same. It actually makes a little more sense than to claim to be a capitalist, but then argue the most successful capitalists really aren't capitalist.
            For someone so educated you fail to see whats right in front of you. You can't change humanity.. and if you try the force and the guns will come out and you'll have a system that is pretty much hell on earth. All the pretty words describing ideas won't change that.

            We are what we are. I think Ayn Rand had some very good ideas about who we are and how we can use our faults to best serve humanity. And if you want history, look at hers as she had seen all this first hand. On the same page.. go look at Karl Marx's employment history if you want a laugh.
            Last edited by k1e0x; 05-30-2018, 12:44 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

              For someone so educated you fail to see whats right in front of you. You can't change humanity.. and if you try the force and the guns will come out and you'll have a system that is pretty much hell on earth. All the pretty words describing ideas won't change that.
              Brilliant comeback, which again, is more projection. Is that like the 1870s when police where hired to put down strikes, and owners hired mercenary armies to shoot striking workers?

              Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              We are what we are. I think Ayn Rand had some very good ideas about who we are and how we can use our faults to best serve humanity. And if you want history, look at hers as she had seen all this first hand. On the same page.. go look at Karl Marx's employment history if you want a laugh.
              You want a real laugh, look at Ayn Rand's employment history. Rand was a hack writer. Marx, for better or for worse was actually a political analyst. He was the Nate Silver of the 1840s. Anyways, we were discussing "Anarchism" which is explicitly Not marxist as Baukin walked out of the first communist international after getting into it with Marx.

              Oh, did I mention Ayn Rand was a terrible hack writer?

              Comment


              • "After Atlas shrugged, he cried."
                SearingTruth

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post

                  Brilliant comeback, which again, is more projection. Is that like the 1870s when police where hired to put down strikes, and owners hired mercenary armies to shoot striking workers?



                  You want a real laugh, look at Ayn Rand's employment history. Rand was a hack writer. Marx, for better or for worse was actually a political analyst. He was the Nate Silver of the 1840s. Anyways, we were discussing "Anarchism" which is explicitly Not marxist as Baukin walked out of the first communist international after getting into it with Marx.

                  Oh, did I mention Ayn Rand was a terrible hack writer?
                  He was a bitter man. Angry others were doing what he could not. The Cubans called the communists Los resentidos "the resentful ones" .. As capitalism grows and prospers some people are left behind. Their explanation for this isn't an inward view on their own failure, they don't focus on how to become successful.. they say to themselves "people stole it from me, the system made me fail". They are angry.. "the resentful ones", this is why they kill.

                  I'm not a big objectivist tho I do believe there are some lessons there.. but lets talk about Rand for a moment.

                  Her real name was Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum and she was born in St. Petersburg in 1905 making her ~12 years old at the start of the Russian revolution. her father had the unfortunate misery to be a small business owner who owned a pharmacy. He was very proud of his business. Alisa helped out with the family business and worked there as well, she was in the store the day Lenin decided to "loot the looters". Her fathers business was taken from him (violently ransacked) by the communists. She said the look on her fathers face that day of hopelessness she would carry with her for the rest of her life. And then her family walked.... yes, walked... ~1300 miles across war torn Russia to Crimea to attempt to escape the communists. You must assume there is a reason for this as people don't tend to walk across continents to escape paradise. It's a wonder they survived, many did not. To fathom the starvation and rape and.. whew.. not a good time. The attempt to escape failed however with the fall of the Ukraine and the white army. During the war she lived in a small damp, unheated house in a town that changed sides 4 or 5 times, literally a battlefield. During the war she worked to teach the illiterate soldiers to read and write. Years later she returned to St. Petersburg and attended collage at the age of 16. At this time there were still uncorrupted German professors teaching in Russia. Alisa learned to write philosophy in the classical Russian style of fiction as political works were often banned in Russia. (that is why her books are done the way they are) The Communists eventually purged the middle class from the universities.. This caused her parents to worry about her ability to survive the changes coming in Russia.. and at the age of 20 Alisa said goodbye to her parents forever and escaped to the United States. I can't even imagine what that would be like.

                  You see... Atlas Shrugged is really a story about her father whom she was very close to. It's also a story about communism from someone that knows far more about it.. really knows, than Marx.. as in she lived it, she didn't have to theorize about it. The work takes on a little different light when you know her history. So is it good? Umm Yeah, I thought so.. other people did too. Do I think objectivism is exactly right? No. But I do like the aspect of thinking of our faults as people such as greed and selfishness as a potential boon to society. It makes sense. People are motivated by this. A preacher devotes his live to the church for his personal wish of obtaining morality. A man donates to charity because he wants to feel good about himself. A person will mentor a student because they internally want to pass on their own knowledge, it's about what they want not the student. These are selfish actions that have the byproduct of helping others and it is part of our nature. It's not something that should be eradicated if that were even possible to do. Taken to excess they are bad, but that can be said about anything. So in that light objectivism has a valuable lesson.

                  But enough about Rand. It's something I mentioned but I don't have enough skin in that fight. She is however a strong female hero.. more people should know her story but.. her story has the wrong politics for today I guess. Anyhow..

                  I think that the world and how we evolve on a philosophical level happens very slowly.. I don't think we have quite figured out what to do yet with the fall of the Monarchies. Democracies have eventually turned into Corporate Fascism. There is nothing more dangerous than combining money and power, IE: business and government. Communism is stagnant at best.. it can't work unless we can change our nature and remove traits we've had since the stone age. Perhaps.. just maybe the problem comes down to people controlling others. A state at all. And where as we have evolved in some areas, for instance we believe slavery is wrong.. we still have a bit left to go till we can say using force on others is also wrong.

                  The truth is neither of us will be around for that change.. it might be 100 years, it might be 1000.. but that doesn't stop us from knowing the right answer today. We don't have to have everything figured out in advance. For instance if we were in the 1800's we don't have to know how an end to slavery will affect everything.. we just have to know it's wrong. Once we accept that as a people that we can go from there. Force *is* wrong.
                  Last edited by k1e0x; 07-02-2018, 07:21 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

                    He was a bitter man. Angry others were doing what he could not.
                    Where have I heard this before. I did not get this at all from reading marx. Sounds like gross projection. Speaking of angry bitter men, there are no shortage in the ancap scene.

                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    The Cubans called the communists Los resentidos "the resentful ones" .. As capitalism grows and prospers some people are left behind. Their explanation for this isn't an inward view on their own failure, they don't focus on how to become successful.. they say to themselves "people stole it from me, the system made me fail". They are angry.. "the resentful ones", this is why they kill.
                    Yes you are the victim here. Lol no.

                    I'm not a big objectivist tho I do believe there are some lessons there.. but lets talk about Rand for a moment.

                    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                    Some shit about rand and Russia.
                    Nowhere ever did I bring up, mention, or defend the USSR, or communism. You just brought that up as a broad defense of Anarcho-Capitalism. Sure, Rand knew the horrors of the USSR, but she seemed to ignore the putrid trash filled streets of American cities in the late 1800s, workers paid in company scrip. Private armies of mercenaries

                    You are also missing that oppressed workers are somehow jealous assholes, while oppressed capitalists are rightful in their rage.

                    Comment


                    • Check this out: "The dark side of women tech groups"
                      Last edited by mastermind; 07-22-2018, 07:43 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X