Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#434912 - 10/12/10 11:14 AM Deceptive "Strength" Ideas
XUL Offline


Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 238
Loc: Oslo, Norway
I had a funny exchange of words with an acquaintance. He's very much the "survivalist" type who's expecting everybody to be as militant and uncompromising as he is... which of course is little but silly romantic fantasy. But he's having fun with all his camouflage fatigues and machine guns and whatnot.

Anyway, a mutual friend had had some trouble with a violent ex boyfriend which at a heated moment caused her to call the police -- even though she's a self-professed anarchist who always preaches that the government is a bad thing - and yada yada yada.

My friend saw it as weak to call the police. He argued that if you're against the establishment, you shouldn't take advantage of it when you're in a pressured situation. You should go down with honour.

Myself, I said that I'd phone the hotline of Belse-fucking-bub himself for help if I was at a disadvantage, caring nothing about whatever crazy "pride" this might offend: When you're in the hot spot your only concern should be to get the situation under control - with any means available to you.

In fact this is a perfect example of "counterproductive pride". So what if you have the idealised political idea that society ought to not have governments and all that jazz? This is fair enough. It's something that you talk about over your glass of red wine or whatever... but when the shit hits the fan you want to call for anybody who's even remotely on your side - and if you fail to do that you're a stupid fuck.

Anyway, that was my argument.

Now I ask: "Practise what you preach" people say. Is that really important?
_________________________
The Maxistic Paradigm

Top
#434916 - 10/12/10 12:00 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
Roho_the_Rooster Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6999
Loc: Pre-Apocalypolis
Your politically naïve friend is what we in the industry call a “blow hard”. They are fairly easy to spot, as they are generally seen in a seated position regaling all with stories of “what they would have done”. “Practicing what you preach” is the opposite of hypocrisy.
My international ignorance is showing again. I thought survivalists were an American phenomenon. Nice to know that rugged individuality and radical personal responsibility is fairly universal…along with armchair revisionists who like to tell what they would have done had they been the ones in another's shoes. Its a balance thing. If I had been there, I would have set your friend straight pronto!
grin
_________________________
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces

http://theepicureandilettante.blogspot.com/

"Life is the only race you lose by reaching the end." - M.M.

Top
#434919 - 10/12/10 12:56 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
Old_Pig Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3969
Loc: The Deep South
If I was to live by the "practice what you preach" maxim, I would practice nothing at all.
_________________________
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
Robert A. Heinlein


Top
#434921 - 10/12/10 01:02 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
John Prophet Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 996
Loc: My suburban lair
I’d say it’s best to take it the other way and “Preach what you practice”. Your friend’s flaw wasn’t in calling the police; it was taking such an irrational anarchist stance in the first place.

The goal shouldn’t be to take a stance and then try to back it up. The goal should be to know yourself well enough to determine what will work for you and then decide what you will “preach” based on that.

Aside from appearing hypocritical, as Roho pointed out, not practicing what you’re preaching is also a good indication that whatever you believe is not realistic and therefore wrong. Championing impractical ideas about how things should be done is pointless and does not reflect very well on the intelligence or general productive worth of the individual who claims to believe those things.

I guess the only real problem with not “Practicing what you preach” is that people are less likely to respect you or take you seriously. Some people might react to that by saying that they don’t care about what other people think. However, if that's the case, it begs the question: why were they “preaching” to anyone else about their views in the first place?



Edited by John Prophet (10/12/10 01:33 PM)
_________________________


Top
#434925 - 10/12/10 02:36 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: Old_Pig]
Roho_the_Rooster Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6999
Loc: Pre-Apocalypolis
Originally Posted By: Old_Pig
If I was to live by the "practice what you preach" maxim, I would practice nothing at all.


Why can't I say cool stuff like that?
_________________________
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces

http://theepicureandilettante.blogspot.com/

"Life is the only race you lose by reaching the end." - M.M.

Top
#434927 - 10/12/10 05:27 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: John Prophet]
Machismo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/10
Posts: 1132
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: John Prophet
I’d say it’s best to take it the other way and “Preach what you practice”.


Exactly.

Quote:
Your friend’s flaw wasn’t in calling the police; it was taking such an irrational anarchist stance in the first place.


Exactly. Sometimes I think you and I were separated at birth, John. We certainly think alike on many questions.

Anarchism is pretentious to preach in public unless you really want, and could thrive in, a world of violent gangs unrestrained by anything but other violent gangs. The Shihan of my dojo could pull this off, if he wanted to, which he doesn't. Put him in a room with ten gun-toting bastards who want to kill him, and don't be surprised sixty seconds later when he's the only one standing. He's that good. Anyone who isn't that good should shut up about anarchism and put time and energy into learning not only hand to hand, but guns too, and the art of war - because that's what anarchism is. Unending war.
_________________________


Top
#434930 - 10/12/10 06:11 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: John Prophet]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Quote:
I’d say it’s best to take it the other way and “Preach what you practice”. Your friend’s flaw wasn’t in calling the police; it was taking such an irrational anarchist stance in the first place.

Very well put.

I ain't going to begrudge someone getting the law on their side to protect them. That's why we have law, so it's not every person for themselves.

I also don't begrudge someone changing their mind, giving up on a bad idea and adapting to the reality of their situation. That's not hypocritical. I guess what matters in that regard is what ideas this person promotes from now on.

I've heard some anarchists say things like: We have criticisms of the existing order, but that's the one we live in; we have ideas about how things could be done better, but for now we have to make due with the system that currently exists. I don't see anything hypocritical in that, either. Depends on how nuanced your friend's position is when you get down to it.
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#435306 - 10/16/10 07:51 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
Riddles Offline


Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 82
Loc: Maryland
Originally Posted By: XUL

My friend saw it as weak to call the police.


Originally Posted By: XUL

In fact this is a perfect example of "counterproductive pride".


Exactly. Calling the police can and often does lend itself toward self-preservation. Refusing to do so because of counterproductive pride is a sign of weakness that can lead to one's demise. It sounds like your friend has genuine weaknesses that he should be evaluating.
_________________________
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
--Mark Twain

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#435377 - 10/17/10 05:23 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: Riddles]
Lilibeta Offline


Registered: 12/06/08
Posts: 157
Loc: Alberta, Canada
My personal opinion is that it's all well and good to have the strength of your convictions but self-preservation should come first.

I'm abnormally independent so I try to deal with situations myself. But I'm also intelligent enough to realize when I can't win and if my safety is at risk, I see no shame in calling in those whose job it is to protect me.

I don't want to be a martyr to any cause. Not even my own.
_________________________

For my sins I will ask no forgiveness. For my sins they are not to forgive.

Top
#435391 - 10/17/10 11:12 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
Cryptodelic Offline


Registered: 07/17/09
Posts: 134
Loc: Seattle
_________________________
Low Priest

L P S Clock: 10:30

Top
#435392 - 10/17/10 11:48 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
inky Offline


Registered: 03/18/09
Posts: 103
Loc: USA
I'm all for being prepared for a situation but I do consider all the options before jumping to extremes like your survivalist friend clearly tends to lean towards. If survival is his ultimate goal, I find it a paradox that he'd be so willing to sacrifice himself over an ideal.

Your other friend's actions aren't really surprising. Political opinions always shift in a given atmosphere. Besides that, it may be pertinent to point out that even in a so-called "non-establishment" society an organized body of leaders will eventually take power or control. I don't expect the herd will abandon it's search for a shephard should the worst happen.

Of course every advantage should be sought out. It's just the intelligent thing to do when your back is against the wall. Just my two cents.

Top
#435417 - 10/18/10 10:35 AM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Originally Posted By: XUL

Now I ask: "Practise what you preach" people say. Is that really important?


I concur with John Prophet that it is just as or more important to preach what you practice, as it is to practice what you preach.

Know yourself, see yourself, and then construct your life approach and philosophy accordingly. That way, no one will be able to accuse you of folly or hypocrisy, and you won't have to spend your life playing catch-up with some idealized self.


Most survivalists, anarchists, and libertarians are puffed-up blowhards who are the first to cry "Someone should do something!" the minute they so much as hit a pothole on the highway. They're against public schooling (until they have children), they object to socialized medicine (until they get sick), they protest against taxes (but complain when the infrastructure starts to crumble, and the police don't show up when called), and they abhor welfare (because the government needs to get its hands off their Medicare).

Really, they believe that they should be the only ones who get to suck Federal Tit, because they're special. Of course this isn't going to happen, but still, a little honesty about the matter would probably make everyone much happier!

Quote:
I've heard some anarchists say things like: We have criticisms of the existing order, but that's the one we live in; we have ideas about how things could be done better, but for now we have to make due with the system that currently exists. I don't see anything hypocritical in that, either. Depends on how nuanced your friend's position is when you get down to it.


Absolutely. It's only when people turn into absolutists or preachers-from-on-high that they end up creating boxes for themselves.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#435610 - 10/20/10 04:35 AM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: Machismo]
XUL Offline


Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 238
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Originally Posted By: Machismo
a world of violent gangs unrestrained by anything but other violent gangs


Interestingly, this is somewhat akin to how I see the actual world such as it actually is, today. With some important modifications, of course, in that whenever a centralised power is lacking, some force or other will always lay claim to the monopoly on violence and thus, in effect, create a state. (Even with certain "rights" being made for the citizens of such said state, as was examplified by the earliest "human rights" we know of, those after Cyrus the Great of the ancient Persian Empire.)

I actually find it a a little amusing whenever somebody faces themselves in the doorway such as in my initial example. There is the world that you'd like to see -- and then there's the world that you actually live in. Personally, I prefer to create my own little bubble-world within the actual world that is as much like my ideal world as is pragmatically possible. (My home is my castle and all that jazz.) It seems silly to me, however, to not use all the powers that be to your advantage -- but it becomes a mental problem if you harbour ideas that will not allow you to stay on top of a situation, because of some martyr complex or whatever.
_________________________
The Maxistic Paradigm

Top
#435613 - 10/20/10 05:24 AM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
Machismo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/10
Posts: 1132
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: XUL
...whenever a centralised power is lacking, some force or other will always lay claim to the monopoly on violence and thus, in effect, create a state.


The problem with anarchy is precisely that no one has a monopoly on violence. It is one end of a spectrum, the other end being when the group that holds the monopoly is wantonly murderous, a condition for which I don't think there's a word in English, so for now I'll coin the silly word, wantonocracy. Between it and anarchy are many gradations, all defined by violence. Somewhere near the center is the typical Western democratic republic, where the group that has a monopoly on violence allows itself to be restrained by laws, and those laws are for the most part non-threatening to most citizens most of the time. That central position on the spectrum is physically safest and permits a sustained focus on matters unrelated to thuggery, so anyone who advocates anything other than that central position should be the sort of person who can thrive in a thuggery-dominated reality or else should have a plausible strategy for keeping thuggery at bay, neither alternative being typical of professed anarchists, most of whom severely underestimate the human propensity for mayhem.
_________________________


Top
#435859 - 10/22/10 03:19 AM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: Machismo]
XUL Offline


Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 238
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Originally Posted By: Machismo
The problem with anarchy is precisely that no one has a monopoly on violence.


I don't want to cross the line into political territory as that is not allowed in this forum, but I would like to state that it might be important to distinguish between "anarchism" (which is the political idea that there should be no - or, rather, as little as possible - government) and "anarchy" (which is a state of chaos and/ur uncontrolled social unrest such as for instance the situation in Somalia). In my opinion, anarchism should probably rather be called autarchy, principally to avoid this common misconception.

Back into the track:

What I wanted to problematise was the often incongruent relation between idealism and realism. The question is: When you find that your ideas are in conflict with reality-as-it-flows, can you abandon your ideas and principles - at least for some time - without your feeling of personal integrity being compromised?

This is a tough one for a lot of people. Especially if and when they have invested a lot of personal prestige into the advocation of some arbitrary set of ideas and/or principles that they experience as personally meaningful standards to live by.

I am personally a total whore like that. If for instance I were kidnapped by some Islamic terrorist group and offered the choice of converting or being ceremoniously beheaded on an internet video, I'd be the world's fastest motherfucker to drop down to my knees and praise the eternal glory of Allah. With tears and passion to boot. And what's more is that I would think little of it. Preserving my life trumps all other considerations. OK, so that's an extreme example but I think it's quite telling. There will be times in all people's lives when "having principles" will become a luxury that's ill affordable.
_________________________
The Maxistic Paradigm

Top
#435870 - 10/22/10 05:23 AM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: XUL]
Machismo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/10
Posts: 1132
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: XUL
I don't want to cross the line into political territory as that is not allowed in this forum...


I think we're OK so far. I'm pretty sure we just need to stay away from any topic likely to be discussed by a serious political candidate. I doubt we'll see any political ads on TV debating the merits of anarchy. But if anarchy actually became a political hot potato, we would have to stop discussing it here.

Quote:
...but I would like to state that it might be important to distinguish between "anarchism" (which is the political idea that there should be no - or, rather, as little as possible - government) and "anarchy" (which is a state of chaos and/ur uncontrolled social unrest such as for instance the situation in Somalia).


Yet I would argue that anarchism in practice is anarchy. No government means no laws and no laws means competition by gunfire. The only reason no thug is aiming a gun at me is because a cop is aiming a gun at the thug. Take away the cop and the thug is free.

I'm a person who rejects on principle abstraction sans praxis. I require ideas to be assessed in terms of their practical implications in the real world, and in the case of anarchism, that means thuggery unleashed.

Quote:
In my opinion, anarchism should probably rather be called autarchy, principally to avoid this common misconception.


That concept incorporates the elimination of government and therefore I would argue that autarchism in practice is anarchy, lawlessness, and having to dodge bullets. Under autarchism, what restrains the thug? I would argue that nothing weaker than a gun will restrain a gun. Might trumps all, and renders moot all opposition except equal or greater might. Only in a world without thugs could autarchism be operationalized without continual gang warfare. We are far from living in such a world. Remove cops and gangs take over. Power abhors a vacuum.

Quote:
What I wanted to problematise was the often incongruent relation between idealism and realism.


Excellent topic! I would argue that realism without idealism can be safe, healthy, and productive but idealism without realism will prove dangerous, unhealthy, and counter-productive. First maintain realism, and only then, if at all, indulge in idealism.

Quote:
The question is: When you find that your ideas are in conflict with reality-as-it-flows, can you abandon your ideas and principles - at least for some time - without your feeling of personal integrity being compromised?


Yes, but I would abandon my previous ideas permanently, because I would deem them erroneous. Reality is the arbiter. Ideas that conflict with reality are in error. Willfully remaining in error is asinine. I hate being asinine.

Quote:
This is a tough one for a lot of people. Especially if and when they have invested a lot of personal prestige into the advocation of some arbitrary set of ideas and/or principles that they experience as personally meaningful standards to live by.


Usually such people have failed to put into practice the dictum I stated above. First maintain realism, and only then, if at all, indulge in idealism. Doing otherwise will inevitably have consequences at least inconvenient if not dire. Suffering the penalties of error is justice. When it happens I applaud it. When it happens to me, my response is divided, one part anger at myself, one part fear for my well-being, one part gratification at having acquired wisdom, and one part reverence at having witnessed justice in action.

Quote:
I am personally a total whore like that. If for instance I were kidnapped by some Islamic terrorist group and offered the choice of converting or being ceremoniously beheaded on an internet video, I'd be the world's fastest motherfucker to drop down to my knees and praise the eternal glory of Allah.


I might beat you to the floor. Survival is the first law. In fact, it is precisely that first law that underpins my dictum of first maintaining realism, for realism is just another word for survival instinct. One reason non-human animals are de facto Satanists is the fact that survival is their god, as it should be, for them and for us.

Quote:
And what's more is that I would think little of it. Preserving my life trumps all other considerations.


As it should, barring a scenario of having to choose between your own survival and that of someone or something you love just as much, perhaps a daughter, or perhaps a work of art so precious to you that you would die to preserve it, a decision that can be sane if it isn't self-deceitful or herd conformist, since death will come to you eventually, and perhaps today is a good day to die, if the thing you are preserving is sufficiently precious to you in your demonic core. To deny the foregoing is to name every soldier fool, and I am unwilling to give every soldier that name.

Quote:
There will be times in all people's lives when "having principles" will become a luxury that's ill affordable.


The best solution is to have principles that support survival. Organize my mind around my survival instinct. Make survival my god. Be an animal.
_________________________


Top
#436109 - 10/24/10 04:00 PM Re: Deceptive "Strength" Ideas [Re: Machismo]
XUL Offline


Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 238
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Originally Posted By: Machismo
The only reason no thug is aiming a gun at me is because a cop is aiming a gun at the thug. Take away the cop and the thug is free.


But what is motivating the cop?

In my opinion he's just another thug. At the end of the day he's got the same motivation as whomever else it is who want to command your behaviour and tax your productivity. It matters little to me what fancy flag and silly symbol the "cop" or for that matter the "thug" comes sailing under - they're all the same.

The thing is, wealth cannot possibly be created in an anarchistic world because it requires that some form of governing body is taxing the efforts of some kind of submissive class of workers. And it is in every thug's interest (whatever you call them) that a sort of "order" which facilitates this power exchange is implemented as soon as possible.
_________________________
The Maxistic Paradigm

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Forum Stats
12281 Members
73 Forums
43880 Topics
404441 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements