avbeav

avbeav wrote (edited )

I think this is a fine example of The Ship of Theseus style argumentation. The title has the bold claim that »peaceful protests benefit the state«, yet at the last page:

Peaceful and non-violent actions have their place in revolutionary movements.

I find it interesting how this »diversity of tactics« is used as a euphemism for violent protest. If people are so much in favour of »diversity of tactics«, how about including non-violent protests within that diversity?

There seems to be this conflation of non-violent with non-disruptive and not-doing-any-property-damage which is quite a straw man.

If it's not disruptive, it's not effective.

Non-violence is ineffective.

I strongly doubt that any significant number of activists committed to non-violence would view graffiti as violence, as this flyer suggests. Oh, so you don't carry a gun or a knife — well, then you must also hate people who paint on buildings!

If we address the elephant in the room, which is likely Extinction Rebellion, because that's the movement Peter Gelderloos loves to hate, how about we look at what they actually have to say about diversity of tactics,

We recognise that non-violence is essential to our campaign, whilst recognising that using non-violence is a privilege that is not available to everybody.

I am not even arguing for or against anything here, but I don't find the way that Peter Gelderloos (and hence this flyer) puts forward their arguments particularly helpful. Not only about this, but also his anti-vegan publications, but don't get me started.

2

avbeav wrote

In a country where your health insurance depends on your job, that is a big thing to ask. In a capitalist system, people are pushed into evil jobs, to act against their conscience to earn a wage. Someone needs to reach out to those people and support them in leaving behind their violent gang of racist thugs called the police. Life After Hate and that stuff.

−2

avbeav wrote (edited )

As I read this, there was a public declaration about the intention to wipe out all human and non-human animals before even discussing that whole ark thing with Noah.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was continually only evil. The LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. The LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground—man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky—for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favour in the LORD’s eyes.

1

avbeav wrote

Mark Zuckerberg has tiptoed his way through this pandemic with nary a scratch. But let’s be honest, he might be the most dangerous man in this article.

And carrot might very well be the most delicious vegetable in this sentence.

He talks about building space colonies, and we assume he’s out to save himself. But what if he’s actually out to save humanity?

Yay, when the environmental collapse has made Earth unlivable, we'll all get to party at Bezo's space station. I can't wait!

1

avbeav wrote

Take for example the (often liberal) sentiment of "I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils". There is no consequentialist argument for this. Perhaps if you in an organised block of citizens threaten to hold your vote in order to influence policy, but as a purely individualist act a consequentialist would argue your goal is to achieve the most ethical outcome.

I find this sentiment condescending, this assumption that choosing not to vote is a disorganised individualist act.

Neat drawings and all, but I didn't get the connection between guy at the office to lesser evilism to fascism. I find it contradictory when he continues:

And it can be kind of baffling to assert that when bad things happen, maybe we should do something about it, but you just can't take for granted that when someone agrees that something is bad, they're agreeing it's a problem.

Clearly, he is suggesting that we vote for someone who is admittedly evil but how is that doing something against the problem of an electoral system that only offers you a choice between a few evil people?

3

avbeav wrote

You could also just find a OpenWRT-compatible router and set it up to tunnel the traffic through Tor. It's quite easy to install.

it could be dangerous to log into personal accounts with it.

If an exit note is MITMing your connection and you log in to a personal account on a HTTPS-lookalike connection then, yea, sure, it can get hijacked, but these days most web browsers show warn you when trying to submit login credentials over HTTP.

2

avbeav wrote (edited )

Hardly anyone wears a mask where I live. I have been yelled at several times for wearing a mask. The last time the yelling male wouldn't leave me alone and went on and on about the virus being a hoax and hurling insults at me in the centre of a city.

I was arrested last week and of course the officers weren't wearing any masks.

4

Reply to comment by avbeav in Meat and the H-Word by avbeav

avbeav OP wrote

That's pretty much the consideration the author is bringing up in the first paragraph:

feelings about the word are so fraught that the offense caused will outweigh any good I could possibly do, and will cause me to be far less persuasive than I otherwise would be. And isn’t this about persuasion, ultimately?

1

avbeav wrote (edited )

So here's the thing: If someone points a gun to your head ­— let me ask you this — if someone points a gun to your head and you are asked to make a choice. Which choice do you make? Do you tell them "No, I'm not gonna make a choice"

Such logical. Very argument.

You have the choice between eating a box of nails and a bar of soap. What choice do you make? Do you tell them "Nah, I'm not gonna eat any of that"?

You have the choice between voting for a rapist and voting for a rapist. What choice do you make? Do you tell them "No, I'm not gonna vote for either of those"?

5