TheLUL OP wrote

So, you get annoyed seeing discussion around and rational for projects you don't like, in a space you otherwise like spending time in. But, rather than channelling that annoyance into giving your best long arguments against the rational for the projects existence (which could sharpen your philosophy and critiquing abilities), instead you'd rather just give short insulting straw-mans.

All of that to me just reads as a petulant person trying to preserve the dogmatic aspects to a space they enjoy.


TheLUL OP wrote

Potentially so, I just figured if I was looking at a list of revolutionary groups espousing various political philosophies, and I didn't know who any of them were, my main motive for deciding which to pick first would be whether I was in a mood to read about groups who had a roughly positive effect on the world or a roughly negative one.

Do you have a themed sub-categorisation you'd suggest? Or would you sub-categorise them by date? Or leave them as one big list sorted alphabetically?


TheLUL OP wrote (edited )

If we're talking about the same communique, they actually didn't claim to have smashed any windows, which is somewhat surprising, since they even went to the effort of bringing chains to lock doors with, but maybe they were worried about alarms going off.

The main reason that I view them as holding character vices is just that they promoted Ted K as a 'freedom lover', when Ted has argued for example that 'rebels should have as many children as they can' and that he hopes "the population explosion gets completely out of hand, because that will increase the likelihood that the system will collapse. Once the technological system is gone, population will decrease very rapidly, because without modern technology it will be impossible to produce and distribute enough food to supply such an enormous number of people."

On a side note, there's also texts in the roughly good category of groups, which discuss arsons of logging company offices and horse slaughterhouses.