Undercover cops and their unwitting liberal co-conspirators

Hi,

I'd just like to say, that posts like these warm my heart and give me hope.

Once upon a time, Seattle was alot more like Portland than the Starbuck/Microsoft yuppie hell it is now.

Anyway, I had some very similiar experiences during the WTO in Seattle a few years ago, as far as people screaming, "stop the violence". In my case, cops were beating people in crowds and running thier horses through crowds. At some points, I felt I was in the minority by yelling things like, "Fuck you! You traitor bastard pigs!". Several people told me to stop being violent. Whatever. I remember one girl in particular, she was one of those girls who speaks every sentence as if its a question? "I just want to tell you? That You're not being very peacefull?". What a world.

Anyway, if you want to visit an Orwellian hell somwtime, come to Lynnwood, WA. It's 15 Miles north of Seattle and one point we had more fast food resteraunts per sq. mile than anywhere on earth. Now, our city has installed between 4 and 10 cameras at every single intersection with a light in the entire city. The only jobs here are service industry jobs. Fast food, retail, changing oil, cashier jobs. It's one giant ratrace of assholes in SUV's circling Mcdonalds like the filthy buzzards they are. If you want to see what the future holds and just how bad it can get, come visit Lynnwood. We're always ahead of the game.

So, Keep up the good work!

This is a very good article. I agree with nearly every point it makes. However, there is an error in judgment that many anarchists make. I've seen it here in Boston too. That error is that anarchists seem to lack strategy. Many anarchists expect the underclass to swallow their message in a single gulp. The human mind does not work that way. It is often necessary to bring people through a series of small steps before they can see the whole picture. Therefore, there is utility in targeting individuals such as Bush with propaganda. Propaganda targeting capitalism itself is only effective in strengthening those that are already anti-capitalist. In order to win over the co-opted underclasses, you need to start small. Targeting Bush is a good first step. The anarchist movement seems to suffer from an ailment similar to one that has historically effected the communist movement in the US. Anyone that has observed communist politics in the US has seen the factionalism that arises from the "lefter than thou" mentality. Many anarchists seem to be suffering from a shallow "more anarchist than thou" mentality. Moreover they mistake thoughtful tactics with a narrow focus for ignorance of the larger picture.

I agree with the main point of this article, but I object to the characterization of rednecks as fascists. Rednecks are poor and working-class whites who are victims of the system, and many of them know it. Potential allies. The working class is the only large potential source of votes I can see for the left, if we could learn to talk their language. Very concrete actions and proposals instead of leftist theory, focus on economics, jobs, money, survival. Check out The Redneck Manifesto by Jim Goad. Not real great on the political end, but he has it down cold about how Americans look down on and demonize the working class. Read his book and give it some more thought.

Me and my comrad: we very, very bad. Our vocabulary is so broad we only said f*** 4 times in one short paragraph, that's all. Me and my comrad, we so very, very bad we beat on the fence with a pan, we hollered insults at the man, trying as hard as could be to convince them to think like me, as in our masks we danced so thrilled with ourselves we pissed our pants. When those around us complained we attacked them just the same, knowing that we are smarter and more enlightened than they, jumping and cussing we had our way.

What a sad pathetic joke you children are.

While I do not doubt that some anarchists are merely nihilists engaging in immature antics, I disagree about your opinion on using foul language. There is much to be gained in demonstrating open disrespect for authority. Using foul language is just one way of displaying such disrespect. There is a psychological barrier installed in the mind of most individuals. This barrier causes them to cower before authority. Demonstrating the one can viciously defy and insult authority breaks that psychological barrier. I am all in favor of disrespect.

On the Importance of Disrespect:
 http://www.stop-fascism.org/july_15,_2003.htm

Maybe you should take a few lessons in vocabulary yourself, since you misspelled comrade twice in your short ageist diatribe. Why do you think the author is young? Nice close-minded stereotyping, you pathetic ageist pig.

Also, you obviously have a pretty demented mindset to describe defending one's right to free speech as an "attack". In short, you are a coward. What did you do at the protest? Wave your sign? Oh, it's so horrible to pound pots and pans and voice your dissent as loudly as possible. Maybe if less people in this country were cowards like you, and more like the people of Venezuala, Argentina, or Vietnam, I'd actually live among a people I could respect - in a country where the people stand up for themselves. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We live in a nation of cowards and hypocrites (like yourself), but there are still some of us out here who remember Martin Luther King's warning that rights are never given, only asserted.

And those that wear masks do so just because we are "thrilled with ourselves". I assume you have been out in the streets during the protests over the past year, but perhaps I am wrong. Because if you been out with us even once, I find it hard to believe you failed to notice every other cop carrying a video camera. Fatherland Security is working on a facial recognition system - this is no paranoid fantasy, the government admits its existence. So next time you see one of your comrades (or comrads, if you prefer) wearing a mask, try thinking for yourself for once, instead of repeating tired stereotypes.

Actually, you are a perfect example of many of the author's points in the above article. Congratulations!

Does anyone else see the above conversation as proof that face to face contact is better than electronic contact? Jesus people. You all talk about your fronts and bringing down the man...get a group together. Arguing semantics on the internet is hardly bringing your goals any closer. You would be amazed at how easy it is to make ties and unite after you have actually met someone face to face. I'm at college right now...but maybe I'll pull something together when I get back. Thats going to be awhile. Why doesn't someone organize a forum or something?

this is my favorite part of the story:

"Look at you, little hipster boy, with your uniform on," she continued. "Why don't you go back to your cafes and pretend to intellectualize and f***ing vote Democrat, just like you're told. That'll fix everything, right?"
"Oh - she's seen me at the cafes," he embarrassingly laughed to his suddenly silent friends.


when "he embarassingly [laughs] to his suddenly silent friends" he's probably being sarcastic. sure sounds sarcastic to me. the joke's on YOU eric and you don't even get it, regardless of your "enlightened critical thinking".

this story sounds like the rant of a 19 year old that thinks he's figured everything out. should be a bumpy ride over the next few years for you. we've all been there.

Good article - liberals routinely collaborate with the fascists. Even worse though their mealy mouthed pseudointellectualism placates others into believing the lie that gradual political change is an option and that voting matter.

But here's another thing about the liberals and their complicity with the oppressors - PEACE KEEPERS at demonstrations. When the liberals have a permitted anti-war parade on Sundays there are people called peacekeepers who boss everyone around and collaborate with the police essentially as undercover cops. The liberals are so brain poisoned by the 1% that they think it is perfectly acceptable, in fact necessary, to cooperate with the police and to plant informers amongst politcal demonstrators.

So the whether the liberals are more like simple minded children or are actually fascists in disguise doesn't matter - the result of their collaboration with the 1% is the same.

Ah, the ageism seems to be spreading like a virus around here. Fairly typical when one has no logical argument to make.

So Kurt, please enlighten me as to the sarcasm inherent in the comment, "Oh - she's seen me at the cafes."

I don't see how this comment could in any way be interpreted sarcastically. The liberal obviously admitted that he frequents cafes, being the pre-yuppie hipster that he is, or else why would he say my comrade has seen him there? On the other hand, if you believe he doesn't go to cafes, then why would he say my comrade has seen him at cafes?

Also, I know a monkey fear face when I see one. And our liberal hipster was quite obviously displaying the classic cringing fake smile/grimace common to all primates in situations of embarrassment/fear. The primate fear face is very similar to a smile, but everyone can easily tell the difference if they are moderately observant. So if our pre-yuppie had actually been being sarcastic, he would have been genuinely smiling, a quite different expression. But then again, where is the inherent sarcasm in his comment?

And Kurt, here's another simple question for you: why did you single out this one small interaction from this fairly long story, using illogical ageism-based criticism to boot? Hmmm . . . . let's all think for a minute why this might be. Perhaps this interaction hit a little too close to home. Could it be . . . . that you yourself identify with our pre-yuppie liberal hipster?

Kurt, Kurt - perhaps if you were a little wiser, your insecurities wouldn't be so obvious to those whom you come into contact with.

Oh - and for future reference - the use of ageism in any argument is a sure sign of the lack of any logical ability.

And hey, maybe we have a trend here - two illogical ageist arguments coupled with spelling deficiencies.

Grown, Grown - you're ageism is so boring Kurt, and it really makes you look rather unintelligent. Whenever you learn to debate logically, just let me know. I love a good logical debate.

"The liberal obviously admitted that he frequents cafes, being the pre-yuppie hipster that he is, or else why would he say my comrade has seen him there? On the other hand, if you believe he doesn't go to cafes, then why would he say my comrade has seen him at cafes?" -- yes, he was being sarcastic. it's called wit, something in which you lack.

"Also, I know a monkey fear face when I see one." -- oh brother.

i really love P.I.M.C...a broad cross-section of political thought and culture are (seemingly) naturally inherit in a medium where everyone has a voice and is given the tools to project that voice to the masses. unfortunately, as this "article" shows, sometimes the arguing voices are childlike in nature -- shrill, argumentative -- and prone to a hypocrisy that borders on hysterics.

taking a political category, say liberals, and generalizing that entire cross-section of our culture as being only able to understand life "[truly] through the eyes of a beaten woman who blames herself when her husband beats her" is extraordinarily biased. most liberals i know support anarchy, <em>as a concept</em> granted, but they certainly don't sit in their cafe's (or their couches, or wherever else you picture them sitting) and berate an entire swath of American culture such as you have done in your "articles."

i seem to recall that a true anarchy was about building a community -- most anarchists i know are anti-racism, anti-sexism, and anti-elitist while still being anti-establishment. you have proven yourself to be an elitist (and, i should add, somewhat of a sexist) and a hypocrite -- a hypocrite because you are now so far left, you now resemble the far right -- they are just as elitist and crass as you've shown yourself to be.

Nietzsche called the most dangerous party member someone "who through his all too credulous avowal of the party's principles incites the others to apostasy". You, my friend, are one such party member.

"oh--he saw me identify with our pre-yuppie liberal hipster!" --kurtkabang

<listen to the silence, now, of all my friends.>



yeah, man, you burned me but good!

Ah, another offended liberal.

Well, let's start from the top. If I were to define a statement as being sarcastic, I would logically be able to explain why the said statement was sarcastic. For example, suppose I made the sarcastic statement, "Oh yeah - the New York Times is really insightful." And you could ask me, "Why is that statement sarcastic?" And I would tell you that my statement is made in sarcasm because the NY Times is not at all insightful.

Now Iggy, I ask you to do the same. Logically show me how the statement, "Oh - she's seen me at the cafes" is sarcastic. It is a simple question. Merely passing it off as "wit" is not a logical argument. How is it "witty"? I can explain why a statement is sarcastic. Can you Iggy?

As for the monkey fear face "oh brother", try picking up a biology book Iggy. Take your pick, but I can even recommend one to you on short notice - The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris (pg.163-164 deals with the monkey fear face). Morris studied at Oxford with animal behaviorist Niko Tinbergen before moving on to become curator of mammals at the London Zoo (in case you are wondering as to his qualifications).

And now, let's move on to double standards. So it's OK for you to generalize and say that "most liberals i know support anarchy, <em>as a concept</em> granted, but they certainly don't sit in their cafe's (or their couches, or wherever else you picture them sitting)." But it's not OK for me to say, "Its like millions of liberal brains must understand life truly through the eyes of a beaten woman who blames herself when her husband beats her. These liberals must sit on their couches every night watching Lifetime movies and look over at each other and say, "Yeah, she's right - It is her fault. She really shouldn't have talked back to him like that."

That's quite a double standard Iggy. You use the phrase "most liberals I know", while I use the phrase "millions of liberal brains." Notice I didn't say all liberals, and neither did you. I further went on to qualify my statement by saying "These liberals must sit on couches . . ." - meaning not all liberals, just those who think like wives who blame themselves when their abusers beat them. You say I am extraordinarily biased - well take a good look at what you just said. Most liberals support anarchy? And they don't sit on couches or go to cafes?

Next - hypocrisy. First, let's continue with your fine little double standard. You criticize me for generalizing, and then you proceed to blatantly make a generalization yourself. It's looks like you're the hypocrite Iggy.

You call me a hypocrite because, as you put it, "you are now so far left, you now resemble the far right." I am not a leftist nor am I an anarchist, and nothing in my article stated otherwise. Also, I am a member of no "party", although I'm sure everyone was very impressed with your Nietzsche quote. It takes a lot of originality to repeat what someone else has thought for you, especially when it has no bearing on my article whatsoever - since, as I said, I am a member of no party.

So I ask you now, why am I a hypocrite?

And why am I a sexist? You didn't even give any flimsy illogical jargon to back that one up yet, so I am very interested to hear your answer.

Oh, and I almost forgot, I'm an elitist as well. Well Iggy, maybe you should research as to the definition of elitism. As far as I know, elitism can mean one of two things. First, it can describe someone who believes in rule by an elite. Or, secondly, it can describe someone who is conscious of a membership in a select group. So please tell me how I am an elitist.

You know Iggy, not everyone has to "be something" - be it a communist, an anarchist, a liberal, a conservative, etc. There are those that think for themselves. I know, it may be hard for you to grasp - but maybe if you read enough Nietzsche you'll begin to understand. And yes - I am being sarcastic with my last statement, because no amount of reading will lead to an independent value system - different from those prescribed by the societies we live in. Only by constantly questioning one's motivation, beliefs, and actions can one attempt to free themselves from the fetters of socialization and develop their own new, personal, individual value system.

Oh - and don't think I didn't notice your ageism as well: "sometimes the arguing voices are childlike in nature." Again - the use of ageism is a sure sign of lack of logical ability.

As I said before, I love a good logical debate. Just try using a little more logic next time.

holy shit. i go to cafes AND i liked the original post. FUCK! i must be doomed! this thread fucking kills me. it makes me say "oh shit! i'm crapping my pants!', then i run in the street in front of my house and i get hit by a car and die. thanks fuckwads. what if the cafes are collectives? fuck, it makes no matter. i'm gonna go ride my bike. it's getting cold here in minnesota. eat shit.

You are f*cking funny. I read your post and me and my friend Eric high fived cracking up. You are beautiful.

As I'm sure you noticed, my comrade Eric's post was not about the evils of frequenting cafes. The point I was making with our liberal hipster was that he should spend less time intellectualizing about how "evil" Bush is, etc. and more time actually doing something to affect a real change. And of course, most importantly, not to tell others how to dissent.

I have no doubt that you, my beautiful crustacean, and all others like you are acting, not just talking. By including my entire exchange with the pre-yuppie hipster, Eric was simply trying to record as truthfully as possible all actual events without deleting anything.

I think it's pretty telling though how every critical poster focused not on the real issues of Eric's article, but on this one superficial exchange. Hitting a little to close to home for all those that like to talk the talk, "Oh, those poor Iraqis" but then turn and say, "Those protestors and critical massers are so violent by taking to the streets and inconveniencing me behind the wheel of my SUV (complete with my "Attack Iraq? No!" bumper sticker) on my way to slobber down my double latte. I was two minutes late! That's just going to far!"

So arthropod, and all other arthropods out there - please do not misunderstand - I love you all. Ride your bike. Shit your pants. Try to stay warm, and watch out for the cars! Motherf*ckers!!

The people you are criticizing for being apathetic liberal cafe dwellers got off their asses to go protest Bush, just like you. You seem to have little tolerance for dissent. Not really very flattering. You come off as fascists, with the claim that people deserve to be put to death by death squads if they don't behave in the manner you deem politically correct.

Get ready for the attack.

I see just the opposite. While the electronic conversation in this thread, immediately above your comment, has its share of insults, it is not completely devoid of meaningful ideas. The face-to-face conversation among apparent fellow-protestors described in the initial article, on the other hand, seems to have devolved more quickly to hostility and miscommunication. [Gosh, eric blair, I wonder why a "liberal" had a "monkey fear face" after feeling that your challenge to the cops was "violent". Maybe he associates thoughts of getting bashed by the police - whether realistic or not - with fear?] Notice, Neat, that (as told by eric) "the liberal" didn't say directly, "I'm afraid what you're saying will incite the police to violence," or "Please be careful not to confront the cops TOO personally." He implied they were being or becoming "violent". And eric and comrade didn't attempt conciliation, such as, "I'm sorry if they scare you, but it's important to make them think." As described, the verbal challenge to the police was quite respectful, with just one direct insult - "You're traitors ... ." But the exchange with "the liberal" was defensive, then turning to offensive, as it became increasingly hostile. I assume that the quotations from the protest may not be precise or complete, so it may be of questionable fairness to compare them with the exchanges here in this thread. However, clearly eric blair expresses more anger in this article towards "the liberal" than to the uniformed cops.

Actually, both liberals such as our pre-yuppie hipster and cops are equally traitorous in my book - both traitors to their own people - hence the title of the article, in case you missed it. And neither I nor my comrade is going to apologize to someone when they attempt to restrict our personal freedom - we were not restricting his personal freedom. My comrade explained to him how words are not violence.

And George, how am I intolerant towards dissent? We were not telling anyone how to protest. I don't think you can call voting Democrat dissent. And as far as the cowards of this country deserving the death squads when they come - I find it hard to believe that after reading my article you would think I would be supporting said squads. I battle fascism wherever I find it. It's just that it's looking a lot like 1933 Germany in this country right about now, and unless the pacified domesticated apes of this country wake up - then yes, they will deserve the squads when they come.

And "double sigh", I'm sure you would prefer me not to defend myself from my offended liberal critics. That would be quite convenient - wouldn't it? However, when I make an arguement, I can support it with logical debate. Can you?

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
--Mark Twain

mark twain, you're so ageist you liberal traitor!

yeah, i really opened his mind there, didn't i.

Since just about nothing would benefit the Establishment more than sowing the seeds of discord among those who oppose them, then maybe the original article is by an agent of "them". Really, what would have a better effect at diffusing opposition than dividing us up? I say this in jest, the article is probably probably sincere but I think you get the point.

An appeal here to stop using labels and namecalling. If you think your tactic / perspective is so far superior to those of others, then sell others on your point of view without calling them something or making a generalization about them.

it warms the heart to know someone besides myself enjoyed "stupid". it takes strength to say to yourself "oh shit! i'm crapping my pants!" when you're crapping your pants. and then even more strength to share it online, but when you do, it feels great. thanks m. mangold.

mark twain, you're so ageist you liberal traitor!

yeah, i really opened his mind there, didn't i.

************************************************
THIS ABOVE POST WAS NOT PUT ON BY ERIC BLAIR. Is there anything lower and more pathetic than posting things using someone else's name?

And as far as agents go, using someone else's name to post shit on the internet is something they would do.

Isn't showing up at a demo in PDX, when there is no chance it will change anything, just more wasteful masturbation? When Bush was in town, I was drinking beer and working in the garden. Does Bush really care if a few thousand people stand around holding signs? I'm sure he's thinking, "yeah, I hate it for you...good thing you're not doing anything to actually challenge my authority."

I don't know why we can't all agree that liberals are fools and leave it at that. I haven't voted in years, but this time I'm voting Bush. He's done more to wreck the notion of "good government" than anyone since Stalin. With four more years, we'll see either revolution or fascist consolidation and fifty years of bloody dictatorship.

And that's a chance I'm willing to take.

If you really dislike liberals, just tell them that you've sworn to vote Bush, thereby muting their reformist voice. They get quite pissed, but fuck 'em. Besides, what's the worst an angry liberal can do? Nothing they wouldn't do otherwise.

"Its like millions of liberal brains must understand life truly through the eyes of a beaten woman who blames herself when her husband beats her."

So, let me get this straigt, eric - people who don't agree with you are like victims of abuse who welcome the abuse. Your entire "argument" boils down to "Anyone who doesn't agree EXACTLY with me is a fucking idiot." Well, good for you. Good luck with that revolution

What I discussed in my article is exactly the opposite of what any "agent" would want to post on this site - An "agent"'s wet dream would be for me to post an article confirming that liberal Democrat-voting non-thinking do-nothingness is the epitomy of effectiveness is affecting social and political change.

And I guess attempting any discussion, other than a discussion repeating and advocating the insanely ineffective philosophy of Democrat-voting liberals, is not a discussion - it is simply "sowing the seeds of discord."

And if you want define name calling as calling someone out for what they are, be it a traitor to their own people or a disgusting ageist bigot, then I wholeheartedly admit that I am a name caller. But unlike some other name callers here, I can back up my naming with logical arguements.

I am a name caller - in Vietnam, a "strategic hamlet" was a concentration camp, "collateral damage" is the wholesale murder of innocent people, "cops and their liberal co-conspirators" are traitors to their own people, and one who uses ageism to put down another when logic fails is an ageist bigot.

Lumping me in as "the enemy" and attributing to me all opinions they have, eh?

I think you and everyone should always defend themselves. I didn't tell George to get ready for a defense, I told him to get ready for an attack. Granted your response to him was quite gentle compared to many other posts in this thread. My double sigh is in response to all the hostility in this thread, much of it, but not all, coming from you.

Everyone here has opinions and points, which would be much better communicated with more respect and less name-calling, accusations, stereotyping, etc., etc., etc.

fucking duh it wasn't posted by eric blair. you two just cannot get jokes or sarcasm can you?

you two are real bright. and how do we know that the "cafe" comment was sarcasm? because WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE CARE OR BE EMBARRASSED IF YOU SAW THEM AT A CAFE????

the joke's still on YOU.

So I suppose I "attack" others when I argue logically, but my offended liberal critics do not "attack" me when they spew out their illogical ageist empty rhetoric (which I don't think could even be defined as an argument).

Read my post to you above once more - did I call you the "enemy"? No, I simply logically deduced that you would prefer that I not defend myself. When I make a post, why don't you sigh and say, "Eric, get ready for the attack"?

It's logical deduction - and you've shown your bias.

And this thread is getting a bit redundant. I would think at least one person out there would understand basic semantics and be able argue in a logical manner. I could have a much better discussion with a bunch of Philosophy 101 students than with those that seem to be the norm on this thread (offended liberals).

I believe M. Mangold's full quote was, "Why don't you go back to your cafes and pretend to intellectualize and f***ing vote Democrat, just like you're told. That'll fix everything, right?" So I don't know, if that's cool in your book, then fine - I guess you wouldn't be embarrassed. But if that's cool in your book, then you certainly are a pretentious loser.

The joke's on whom?

"So I suppose I "attack" others when I argue logically, but my offended liberal critics do not "attack" me when they spew out their illogical ageist empty rhetoric (which I don't think could even be defined as an argument)."

-Logical arguments are not attacks, however logical arguments that contain hostility can be considered attacks. There are several ways to respond to criticism.

"Read my post to you above once more - did I call you the "enemy"? No, I simply logically deduced that you would prefer that I not defend myself."

-No you never called me the enemy, and I never said you did. It was my logical deduction that you considered me to be many things that I did not display (enemy was just a convenient one word description for that) because you illogically deduced that I wouldn't want you to defend yourself. It was not logical for you to deduce that I wouldn't want you to defend yourself. The idea that it would be "convenient" for me if you didn't defend yourself is just strange. It indicates that you made assumptions about me that are not true, possibly based on your experience with others, but certainly not based on anything I wrote. It has no effect on me one way or another, whether or not you continue to defend yourself, and I have no reason to want anyone to keep quiet.

It was logical to deduce that I thought you would be hostile to George's comment. As I wrote above, there are many ways to respond to criticism. I deduced, from the posts above, that your response to his criticism would be hostile. Although as I wrote in the previous post, your response was much more gentle than I expected.

"When I make a post, why don't you sigh and say, "Eric, get ready for the attack"?"

-That's kind of a weird thing to ask. I am not continuously monitoring this thread, ready to jump in at any time to make a comment to any poster. I read this thread when George's post was the last. I certainly did read this thread earlier... at which time I can't say whose post was the last, but I didn't feel the urge to comment until I did so. I read George's post and sensed a weariness that I shared, and that's what prompted me to make my post. I didn't really share too much of the feelings of anyone in this thread until then.

"It's logical deduction - and you've shown your bias."

-As I wrote before, it's not at all logical. Uh...and what is my bias?

Never mind. I'll tell you what it is. I don't like hostility. I think it doesn't allow for good debate. As I said before, you're not the only one displaying hostility in this thread. People can disagree without accusing each other of things, stereotyping them, insulting them for their supposed habits and showing aggression. In fact people are much more persuasive when they debate calmly and coolly and resist the temptation for the low blow.

The subject matter in this thread is not really my cup o' tea, so I won't comment anymore. I don't have any interest in debating any of it. I just felt George's weariness. That's what I got from his post anyway, whether it was there or not.

Hey Sigh Man - how do you define hostility?

So "Logical arguments are not attacks, however logical arguments that contain hostility can be considered attacks." If you want to define an argument as being an attack, then of course ALL arguments are attacks - verbal attacks. One can attack another's hypothesis using observations based on logical conclusions, or one can attack another's hypothesis without using logic. When you define my arguments as attacks, I take that as the highest compliment a debater can receive.

Now hostility - please define hostility for me. And how does one "show aggression" in an argument? I'm violently threatening someone with physical harm? Please point out to me one comment I made that was not logically deduced from the comments posted on this thread.
Now I can point out plenty of comments made by our offended liberals that were not logically deduced from any comments I made on this thread. Unsupported comments including: that I am an elitist, sexist, fascist, anarchist, etc. - none of which are substantiated at all in any of my posts.

Earlier I asked my attackers to show me what would lead them to logically deduce these claims. And of course, not one response has been offered yet. That is how a logical debate works. You can't just switch the subject when someone calls you out on your illogical arguments. Either admit you arrived at your conclusions illogically, or logically prove your adversary wrong. Now I take for granted that most adults understand these simple common-sense principles of logical argument, but I obviously give many of my species to much credit - at least the offended liberals who have posted here.

Oh, and you claim that you never said that I called you the enemy. Let's back up here and scan your above post - to quote - "Lumping me in as "the enemy" and attributing to me all opinions they have, eh?" Now to me, lumping you in as "the enemy", is the exact same thing as calling you "the enemy." If I'm lumping you in with enemies, then you are saying that I have said that you are the enemy. How much clearer do I need to be? Logically show me how "lumping" one in with the enemy is different from calling you an "enemy." It's a simple question.

When you warned George to "get ready for the attack", George had just accused me of having little tolerance for dissent, and then he proceeded to say that I came "off as fascist." Now you tell me Sigh Man, why shouldn't I logically attack George to defend myself after he has made such "hostile" accusations (according to your convoluted definition of hostility - not mine)? When you "double sigh" and tell George to get ready for the attack, right after George has blatantly attacked me (and even attacked in "hostile" manner - again according to your definition, not mine), why shouldn't I logically deduce that you do not want me to defend myself. The very essence of logical debate is to attack your opponent's flaws in logic.

And what did your weariness stem from Sigh man? Look back at the thread - I responded with logical arguments and met nothing but illogical ranting. And I only responded after I was first attacked. You think you're weary, try logically defending oneself over and over again - and not even receiving one justification from any one of my opponents as to the logical basis of their claims. You're weary? George is weary?

You're incredibly biased in favor of our offended liberals. And I think it is rather poignant that you too confuse speech with violence - thus illustrating one of the main points of my article. Congratulations!

Why you deserve a round of applause! If only our offended liberals had more defenders like you - who at least attempted to argue logically - my weariness would be greatly diminished.

Geez Eric,

"Oh, and you claim that you never said that I called you the enemy. Let's back up here and scan your above post - to quote - "Lumping me in as "the enemy" and attributing to me all opinions they have, eh?" Now to me, lumping you in as "the enemy", is the exact same thing as calling you "the enemy." If I'm lumping you in with enemies, then you are saying that I have said that you are the enemy. How much clearer do I need to be? Logically show me how "lumping" one in with the enemy is different from calling you an "enemy." It's a simple question."

I answered your question. Lumping me in with the enemy is not "the exact same thing" as "calling" me the enemy. As I stated, I logically deduced that you saw me on the opposite side of you in different ways than I am, enemy is the word I used to describe this situation, because you attributed characteristics of your opposition to me. I asserted that I did not indicate such characteristics, so your deduction was not logical. Your deduction took more than a mere reading of what I wrote to George, it took a leap to conclusions that were not indicated. I didn't not want you to stop defending yourself. I do not care if you do so or not. I could go on and pick this apart word by word, but what a waste of time. You have the energy and interest for this I am sure, but I do not.

People don't drop out of this thread because they can't back themselves up logically. They do so because they realize that it is a waste of time. Logic is great, but you don't hold yourself to the same standards of logic that you do others. You use logic as a tool only. You are not a fan. If you loved logic so much you would've accepted my answer. But it is more important for you to win.

The fact that people do not continue, does not mean you've won the argument, it means they've realized that arguing with you is a waste of time. Nothing good comes of it.

If you don't take this to be true now, please take note of your future interchanges with people who don't agree with you. Study what happens and ask yourself if it can be true... if you care to.

I wish you well, really I do.

This article demonstrates the need for eternal vigilance by the working class in maintaining ideological discipline. You did well, my brother, in outing the overweight white undercover infiltrator, the agent provocateur, whose job is to sew discord and confusion among the people. The day will come when such lapping dogs will find themselves on the other side of the gun.

One last thing, Logic Man. Bite me.

I do hope you continue to use logic, not just to win, but to find the truth. Others can see the lack of logic in their own thinking better, when it is not rammed down their throats. You might say that you haven't done that, but sometimes it is better to understand people's perception of what you are doing, especially when many people seem to have the same perception.

You did get a lot of hostile reactions. People were reacting to the hostility in your original story. Hostility breeds hostility. However some people were just sad to see it. I think George wished that you would see something in yourself that you seemed not to. My apologies to George to keep using him here. It is more accurate to say that I am referring to my perception of George and his comments, rather than George himself.

I don't think he was wrong in being offended by your statement that liberals deserve to be killed by death squads if it comes to that. You might condemn fascism everywhere, but that doesn't cancel out the offensiveness of your statement. It is like someone saying that a woman deserved to be raped because she walked into a bar at night (where she got raped). People do have such attitudes when they hear women are raped under such circumstances. It is a hostile attitude. These people might also say they don't like rapists, but their previous statement makes it seem like they dislike women more.

Logic. Two different people can both be logical, and come to different conclusions. This is because they are each using different sets of factors to come up with their conclusions. If they remain respectful to each other, they can discuss the different factors they use and enlighten each other, even if they don't come to an agreement. If they are not, one side will switch off, and nothing is gained.

Your original story contained hostility. Some responded with hostility. Some did not, but still criticized you. It seems that all got equal disdain from you. It takes one person to initiate the deflation of hostility, but it takes two to accomplish it.

I know you can come back at me with paragraphs and paragraphs, and that I haven't addressed everything you wrote about, but I'm not as interested in the minutia of the argument as you. I have already spent too much time on it. I hope you will take this as an earnest interest in communicating something to you. I think others participated in this thread with a similar attitude, but found it not worthwhile to stick around.

Again, I do wish you all the best.

This is really my last post.

I never equated speech with violence. I used the word "hostility." Speech can be hostile without being violent.

You should let Eric do all the talking. You're not as talented as he is.

You wrote: "I know you can come back at me with paragraphs and paragraphs, and that I haven't addressed everything you wrote about, but I'm not as interested in the minutia of the argument as you."

Now do you think you are fooling anyone with this statement? First, the post that your above quote is pulled from contains paragraphs and paragraphs. (And you didn't stop there - you then submitted a second post paragraphs and paragraphs long as well.) But though you write paragraphs and paragraphs, you admit that you have not addressed the logical questions I have asked of you - simple logical questions. Just as all the other offended liberals did when asked to back up their arguments. So perhaps I applauded you a bit too quickly Sigh Man.

I agree that, as you say, "others participated in this thread with a similar attitude, but found it not worthwhile to stick around." And it is plainly obvious why they did not stick around. I called them out on their illogical arguments, asked them simple questions, and they had no answers. So yes, I agree they all have similar attitudes as well.

You say, "People don't drop out of this thread because they can't back themselves up logically. They do so because they realize that it is a waste of time. Logic is great, but you don't hold yourself to the same standards of logic that you do others. You use logic as a tool only. You are not a fan."

Again, a simply question for you Sigh Man - Give me one example where I hold myself to one standard of logic while applying different standards to others. Logic is a tool - a beautiful tool that clears away superstition, bigotry, and falsehoods. I didn't think we were still living in the dark ages here, but obviously I am wrong again. Who doesn't know that logic is any truth seeker's greatest tool? Unless, of course, if one is not concerned with seeking the truth, and instead prefers the comfort of fuzzy illogical thinking, so that they can live in cozy denial all their lives - which is probably the most common cause of all the worst acts of genocide ever committed by the human species -the quite collaborators. But I guess ignorance is bliss, right?

Now I'm not quite sure why one who does not use logic as a tool, but is simply a "fan" of logic is superior to one who uses it as a tool - quite the opposite actually. I've never heard anyone say, "I'm a great fan of logic, but I'm against using it as a tool." Sounds like a fool to me.

Oh, and your analogy is incredibly flawed. A woman has no reason to expect to be raped just because she walks into a random bar at night. However, when the domesticated sheep of this country stand by and do nothing when they see their rights being taken away, when they see millions upon millions of poor peasants murdered with their tax dollars, when they see countless death squads trained by our military to round up, torture, rape, and kill dissenters in third-world dictatorships around the world - they should expect the same fate for themselves one day. Especially since history documents the inevitable terrible fates of societies on the obvious path our society is on, and has been on, since our society first began.

And my, my, I am really getting tired of repeating this Sigh man, but you force me to once again.

Lumping (as you use the term) is defined as: to unite into one aggregation, collection, or mass. Again, you wrote that I lumped you "in as the enemy"", but then went on to deny that you said that I called you an enemy. Read the freaking definition. You said I united you into one aggregation, collection, or mass - that aggregation, collection, or mass being "the enemy." Hence your quote: "Lumping me in as "the enemy"", can be seen as nothing else than you saying that I term you as a part of "the enemy" - part of the mass of enemies, part of the aggregation of enemies, part of the mass of enemies (remember "enemy" is your word, not mine).

I didn't think it needed to be any clearer when I answered the last time, but I guess I overestimated you Sigh Man. Still, at least you tried, I guess. More than can be said for the others who responded with nothing when asked to back up their accusations.

And you continue with, "The fact that people do not continue, does not mean you've won the argument, it means they've realized that arguing with you is a waste of time. Nothing good comes of it."

The sole reason "nothing good comes of it" is that not one of my offended liberal critics has backed up their assertations when questioned in a simple logical manner. If they do so, then the resulting discussion would be useful. And no one, other than you, Sigh man, has "argued with me." Each one has disappeared - backing up none of their illogical criticisms - when asked simply logical questions as to the basis of their statements.

And actually, in my opinion, overwhelming good has already been accomplished by the publication of my article. If I got one person to think for themselves, then good has come of this. And now we've got other posts carrying on the discussion. Until people realize that they have the power to affect change directly, that their elected officials have betrayed them ever since this nation was founded, and that they will continue to betray them until we think outside of the narrow lines of reasoning that they dictate - until then, only more horror awaits. And unfortunately, based on my personal observation of the majority of my ignorant TV-watching insanely gullible and domesticated countrymen, from coast to coast and north to south - real horror at home is what it will unfortunately take to wake the sheep from their self-deceiving sleep. But I for one will do everything possible to not let it come to this.

Turn off your TV - permanently! It does wonders. (If you can't turn off you TV permanently, then are you addicted to your television?) Get your news from non-biased sources only - for example, Free Speech Radio News - daily on the internet, which anyone reading this has access to. Question all that you have been taught to believe. And spread the word. Plant the seed.

....by your acute assessment of my character. It is true: I am a talentless, unread, unenlightened yahoo. No match for the intellectual rigeur of Logic Man. Nay, my TV-fed brain has been addled by bourgeois propaganda that I have not subjected to the logical scrutiny of a great mind like Logic Man. Thank goodness for Logic Man. Defender of the weak, savior of the oppressed, vanguard of the proletariat, scourge of the exploiter, and all around man about town.

That was great Sqeeky. Please write more. Indymedia needs more intelligent content. Stuff about tv and stuff. That's really smart.

Here you go:  http://www.fsrn.org/

And yes Sigh Man (logic man) - I'm sure just from Sqeeky's first post that she could destroy your illogical arguments just as well as I.

And one last thing - to George Bender - you made a good point a while back in this thread - I should have qualified the word "redneck" when I used it in my article.

My great-grandfather, my grandfather, and my father were all small farmers - leasing most of their land. My dad was forced to sell off his small farm in the mid 1970's, around the time I was born. He worked as a meatcutter for a while, and now has worked for 25 years as a steelworker in a factory (just like so many small farmers all around the planet). My dad is a beautiful person - and I love my working class people. So believe me, I do not use the term rednecks to describe working class people.

When I use the term "redneck", I am referring to rascist, nationalistic, sexist, ignorant, right-wing whites.

Thanks for pointing out my need to better qualify my wording.

Not much. The pre-yuppie's quip "She's seen me at the cafe" was not funny, but it was intended to be. I'll explain: While "admitting" he frequents cafes, the accused also implies, awkwardly, that his accuser frequents the same cafes or else would not have knowledge of his patronage. Then he passed gas, slipped on some wet paint, mistook the womens' room for the mens', and everyone kind of chuckled under their breath, until the silence wasn't so prickly anymore. All subsequent attempts at humor in responding posts have been equally ungainly. Please quit. It's hurting the part of me that senses fun. I've always been soft for that part.

Rigor is spelled r-i-g-o-r.

You didn't think it was French, did you?