Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:10 am
by Tybaltus
Originally posted by C Elegans
is often people who has a strong belief in the good sides of human nature,
Ah. Thats why I feel that way. Because human nature tends to be a bad thing to me. To have a system like anarchy to work would certainly be the end of me-literally.

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:11 am
by Dottie
Originally posted by Aegis
The whole anarchy thing is a contradiction. For something that means lack of organization, and utter chaos,
It doesnt mean lack of organization or utter chaos, it means lack of leaders. Atleast that is the origin of the word aswell as the opinion of most people calling themselfs anarchists.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:19 am
by C Elegans
Originally posted by Tybaltus
Ah. Thats why I feel that way. Because human nature tends to be a bad thing to me. To have a system like anarchy to work would certainly be the end of me-literally.
Same thing with me

I honestly think humans are far to egoistic, competative and eager to get the better of somebody else, for an anarchistic system to work. Same thing with all "collectivistic" ideas, as soon as a system is dependant on nobody
using the system for their own benefit at the cost of others, I think that system is doomed. IMO you can't make egoism work so that weaker and less productive individuals (ie children, sick, disabled, elderly) get the same benefits and equal rights. Well this is a long discussion, but I am sure you get what my general opinion on this is.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:27 am
by fable
Originally posted by HighLordDave
The place was overrrun with teenage kids wearing black shirts and black pants, odd hair cuts often dyed colours that aren't natural to any human follicle, dog collars and piercings in every place imaginable and tattoos galore. The people waiting for the gates to open were obviously a crowd that styled themselves as non-conformists or folks who were out of the social mainstream.
Every generation, it never fails: some youth try to imagine themselves as rebels by dressing all alike, using the same outfits, jewelry, and hairdos established by their favorite music idols, who in turn are the product of rich, fat middle-aged millionaires working out of LA.
The sad part is that they'll outgrow any impulse to rebel before they learn what rebellion means, and turn into their parents.

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:31 am
by Dottie
Re: Re: something that made my day
Originally posted by fable
The sad part is that they'll outgrow any impulse to rebel before they learn what rebellion means, and turn into their parents.
Will you marry me fable?

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:36 am
by Aegis
an·ar·chy Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anarchy
\An"arch*y\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. anarchie. See Anarch.] 1. Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.
Spread anarchy and terror all around. --Cowper.
2. Hence, confusion or disorder, in general.
There being then . . . an anarchy, as I may term it, in authors and their re?koning of years. --Fuller.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anarchy
n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Technically, we are both right Dottie, but the most part, Anarchy is supposedly something without order, thus chaos. Anarchy can never really exist. Once regualr order is gone, anarchy kicks in, but anarchy, to a degree, is a form of ordered chaos, as people adhere to anarchy, and can recognize it. That is where the contradiction comes in.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:41 am
by HighLordDave
Re: Re: Re: something that made my day
Originally posted by Dottie
Will you marry me fable?
Is this a first for SYM?
@Dottie:
I wouldn't give this kid enough credit to think he actually knew anything about anarchism other than the shirt was cool. He had the appearance of a 16 year old who just wants to get his parents's goat and wear clothes to piss them off.
He was one of the kids our friend RandomThug was railing against a few posts back. I just think it's terribly funny to see someone who's supposedly "against the system" standing in line for a corporately-sponsored tour; I compare it to former hippies who drive mini-vans and worry about their retirement plans.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:45 am
by C Elegans
posted by Fable
The sad part is that they'll outgrow any impulse to rebel before they learn what rebellion means, and turn into their parents.
This is so true. Idealism and naivity often turns into cynism and passivitiy, "it's not realistic", "it's not how the world works" and "it's no idea, what can little I do anyway". Or, in many cases it's just a question of comfortability. Someone once said that nothing revolutionary could ever happen as long as people have a certain degree of comfort, and sadly this is all too true - just look at the rich Western world. It is amazing what people accept, isn't it?
They that are discontented under monarchy, call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy, call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy, call it anarchy, which signifies the want of government; and yet I think no man believes, that want of government, is any new kind of government.
Thomas Hobbes
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:48 am
by Dottie
I know that the word is used very frequently as lack of order or chaos. The point imo is that its rarely used that way by people who call themselfs anarchists. There is many political oriented words wich meanings are generarly confused - Facism being another example. If you ask a couple of random people about it you will get rather different answers. Personaly I think that the best way to handle this is to ask the person who uses the word to describe himself what he means with it - The chances for constructive debates are much higher than if your just tossing it around as a curse.
@HLD: I understand that, and you're probably right. I just thought the thread was taking a 'lets all bash subcultural youth' turn.

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:54 am
by RandomThug
Anger?
I dont sense a single notion of anger in my post, and niether do you... if you see where im coming from. Right? RIGHT!
Anarchy is something that I don't believe could fashionable work, much like socialism to me it is an ideal that lives best within the mind but not in actual practice.
I dont consider myself a "punk rocker" because I dont consider punk a music genre, rather an ideology. I consider myself an American and therefor a greedy capatilist dog. Oh yeah and Democracy.
thug
p.s. I hate you all and hope that you suffer the pains of all nine hells.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 11:00 am
by C Elegans
Re: Anger?
Originally posted by RandomThug
p.s. I hate you all and hope that you suffer the pains of all nine hells.
ROFL
I view punk as a 1970's subculture including music, clothing style and ideology. It was a short lived subculture, but it made a great impact on music, fashion and youth culture for many years to come. Since the concept of punk was against commercialism, against the establishement and against mass culture, it was sort of given from the start that it could only survive for a short period before being picked up by commercial interests. However, "post-punkers" still exist today, but the true "punk" just as the true "flower power" or "glamrock" and other youth subcultures, were very brief.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 12:48 pm
by KidD01
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:03 pm
by Nightmare
Hey, not
all goths are idiots...
Being part of the rocker/goth crowd at school, we actually understand most things about the world, and are some of the most "informed" people in the school. Or so we like to think anyways.

Also, a fair bit of goths are some of the nicest people you meet these days... (really)
I'm not a goth, and I don't have tattoos or anything (although I'm might be getting an eyebrow ring soon), and I don't wear dog collars or spikes or anything. I kept my hair very, very short (so no mowhawks or spikes, although apparently I have the "mowhawk head" for one, and one of my friends wants me to get one).
But, I
do enjoy wearing black and freaking people out, so that kind of counts for something.

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:46 pm
by fable
Re: Re: Re: something that made my day
Originally posted by Dottie
Will you marry me fable?
Why you incredibly sweet thing, you. :bats eyelashes:
Gaxx writes:
Being part of the rocker/goth crowd at school, we actually understand most things about the world, and are some of the most "informed" people in the school.
@Gaxx, nobody is intending to directly criticize you, and I strongly suspect that you are not the norm for your group.

Most of us have had first hand experience of short-lived high school and college age rebellion and the kind of group mentality that lies behind it (and the commercial exploitation that lies behind that). So our experiences, like yours, are colored by those people we've seen, and known--and, at least some of us, been.

Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:54 pm
by Tybaltus
Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Hey, not all goths are idiots...
Being part of the rocker/goth crowd at school, we actually understand most things about the world, and are some of the most "informed" people in the school. Or so we like to think anyways.
Also, a fair bit of goths are some of the nicest people you meet these days... (really)
I'm not a goth, and I don't have tattoos or anything (although I'm might be getting an eyebrow ring soon), and I don't wear dog collars or spikes or anything. I kept my hair very, very short (so no mowhawks or spikes, although apparently I have the "mowhawk head" for one, and one of my friends wants me to get one).
But, I do enjoy wearing black and freaking people out, so that kind of counts for something.
Oh, I couldnt agree with you more. There was a group of gothic people at the school, and occasionally, I talked to a few of them, played chess against a few of them. Most of them were really nice. Im not a gothic person, but I know lots. One of my brothers is sort of a goth-he doesnt really put on make up like some of them do, but he listens to the music, he wears all black clothes sometimes, and hes one of the nicest people I know. The steriotype that all goths are wierd and scary and out to freak people out in disturbing ways is WAY off key, and is just a rotten steriotype. And I cant stand steriotypes, usually. I know sometimes I use them accidently, and it shames me to do such things....
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 9:24 pm
by Bloodstalker
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:19 am
by Ode to a Grasshopper
Originally posted by Bloodstalker
I think Dottie found his substitute for Georgi
That was quick...

I imagine she'll be heart-broken when Tammy or myself tell her...
I have a philosophy that has been described as anarchistic, but I don't consider it so. If the law suits my purposes or at least doesn't interfere with them, then I'l obey the law. If not I'll ignore it, and just have to be careful not to be caught.
Whilst I do enjoy the odd moment of chaos (hence the avatar stunts etc.), it's more in the interests of seeing what will happen than out of any ideal or philosophy.
Anarchy, while being perhaps the best system in theory, is unworkable in practice IMO. Much like Communism.
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:26 am
by Dottie
Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I have a philosophy that has been described as anarchistic, but I don't consider it so. If the law suits my purposes or at least doesn't interfere with them, then I'l obey the law. If not I'll ignore it, and just have to be careful not to be caught.
The idea that laws and morality isnt connected is certainly something that exists in many ideologies. Though imo it has more to do with personal choice than general organization of society.
And im sure Georgi will understand.

Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:44 am
by Ode to a Grasshopper
To my mind the law reflects the morality of those who make the law, which may or may not coincide with the morality of individuals. In my case it often does, but not all the time. Ergo I often obey the law, sometimes not.
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:00 am
by Dottie
I think laws are sweeping statements that doesnt reflect anyones morality at all, but rather is a very practical way to make a society work in a special way, or work at all. In the case of most moral systems I think its very difficult to make any laws that doesnt conflict with it in atleast some situations.