Browsing around yesterday, I got a notification saying someone had posted a comment on my AnCoal video. I was kinda hoping it would be negative, as the vid has an almost 50 percent dislike ratio. He didn’t disappoint, being the first person to actually post a negative comment. Sorta like how Hoploo was the first longform response to my idea, even though tons of people bitched about it. In it, a guy named Biky makes a series of replies in one comment that would be too good to pass up. But why leave it on YouTube when there’s space on my site for this content fodder? Let’s hit it.
So before someone accuses me of “cherrypicking” like he falsely does, this is the full quote in a screenshot. Then, we’ll hit my response, immediately.
“Wow, you couldn’t skip the 3 minutes of ad hominems and poisoning the well at the beginning, could you? First off, the “plague” part is part of Hoploo’s humor. Calling something a “plague” is just a funny way to call an idea as “being stupid”, nothing else.”
If by “ad hominems and well poisoning”, you mean “giving as good as I got” and “reading the description for his video, which SHOULD be read before watching it”, sure. If by wanting me to skip it, you mean skip addressing him doing it, then that’s closer to a point, but no. He insulted both me, and my logo, along with my idea, all in a vid putting me alongside multiple others with whom he has a negative rapport, and in doing so, set the terms of our interaction. He wanted negative vibes, hostility, and sarcasm, and I gave it to him. If that’s a problem here, it’s his problem too, and something you should hit him for too. Yet not once did you attack him. On anything. In fact, the only comment you made on his vid was this one.
So clearly you have zero problem with ad homs and well poisoning, or a host of other fallacies, as long as they come from your guy. Let’s not make this about who’s the illogical one.
“is to have a primary coalition understood and sub-coalitions for various goals
we’re not always going to agree with each other
we can however work together where [it works] (?)
An explanation would definitely be needed, because how do you expect pacifists and non-aggressionists work under the same umbrella as militant activists? We see violence as counter-productive to our goal, which is a stateless society in which people only have voluntary interactions and stop any involuntary ones from happening (ie: defending themselves and others against aggression).”
Simple. I’ve made it clear I’m militant, yet I somehow manage to work with pacifists all the time (one of whom currently has my logo in her banner, and IDs with AnCoal). They don’t have to endorse my methods, and I don’t have to endorse theirs, but if they get a pacifist future, it’ll be stateless, so I win, and if I get a stateless future, it’ll be closer to pacifist, so they win. Mutually beneficial relationships, yo.
“>it also seeks to shrug the image that many anarchists have been trying for, where we’re all supposed to be peacenits in the face of the totalitarian state
Initiation of force is unjustified. That is not to say that we shouldn’t defend ourselves against aggression, but starting trouble for our ideal society is detrimental to the cause of anarchy (ie: voluntary interactions). There are better ways to get rid of the state than violence, like education (spread of ideas and pointing out the Newspeak of the state) and agorism, while also protesting voting, because by voting, you are “””giving privileges””” to people to control you and other people by use of force. Additionally, violence will be used by the state to “justify” doing even more violence in the name of “bringing peace back together”, by getting rid of those who violently oppose it (and subsequently, of anybody that is not violent or not even against the state in general, because that’s how the state expands). Militant activism is just like pouring gasoline on a fire.”
Okay, first? I posted the transcript to my site – no reason to misspell “peaceniks”. Second, militance isn’t aggression. They can concur, but are not mutually inclusive. Third, agorists are left-anarchists, and suggesting working with them has gotten me flak from many Rothbardians, because Rothbard shat on Agorists, frequently, and his parrots joined in. And why? Because Samuel Edward Konkin III, the originator of Agorism did it because he saw the rothbardian way as ineffective. So working with them, AnCaps, and others, together, is a coalition already. Welcome to the fuckin party. Fourth, I’m gonna need you to prove this statement, “Militant activism is just like pouring gasoline on a fire.” Sounds like artificial depth, but maybe you could explain more. That is, unless you think militance and aggression go hand-in-hand, in which case I think it’d be generous to state that you’re misinformed.
“ancoal is militant, organized panarchy
Which is why I personally oppose it (can’t speak for other people).”
Okay. Just know that by “militant”, I don’t mean you have to be. AnPacs are welcome as long as they don’t shit on someone who shoots back at a gunman, even if that gunman has a costume. Also, what the hell are you doing with a frog holding a gun saying “hippity hoppity, how bout you get the fuck off my property” if you class yourself as non-militant or pacifist?
And again, why the fuck aren’t you criticizing Hoploo? His example of AnCaps is Hoppean snake memes flying helicopeters – Pinochet was a MILITANT AGGRESSOR! This is why folks like you piss me off – so quick to defend your guy and your ideology that you ignore details of people you think are on your “side”. This is cognitive dissonance, and does NOTHING to help anarchy. This is why we need AnCoal. But go on…
“Fine enough, there are many sects of communism, but how people view property is still a basis on what people will see as justified and unjustified actions. We all agree that we want to live in a society based on voluntary interactions, but some communists view owning more property than one uses as aggression (as Proudhon put it: “property is theft”), some view hiring people or renting equipment as extortion, some view even trying to sell property as aggression and capitalists view all those as justified. You are not addressing Hoploo’s point. After the state has been defeated, will you let ancaps have their own society based on private property, or will you try to “defend yourselves against somebody owning property” (ie: attacking ancaps for owning property and for hiring people voluntarily)? Because the end of the ancoal would mean, to some, the rise of a new state (ie: a bunch of people initiating aggression against other people). If the answer is no, then you are ok with other people owning private property, which is the point Hoploo was trying to make.”
I damn well addressed Hoploo’s point. The communist worker did not create the AnCap society and is entitled only to voluntarily transact with it. If they don’t they become a threat to the coalition – the militant coalition. But feel free to make it seem like because I spoke from a leftist’s POV somehow I didn’t say it. I not only said it, but many people have reported I cleared that up for them. Continue.
Never heard of Berkman, I might have to read it to understand some communist ideas that I have a hard time understanding. But I barely read ancap material, most of the things I know are a combination of ideas coming from video materials, conferences I participated in, debates I had and 70% meditation and consistent logical thinking. No matter where I am heading in life, I will always advocate for the NAP in one form or the other.
And to my memory and knowledge, Kropotkin and Berkman both basically respect NAP, which is why they didn’t want a transition state. I’ll make the point again though if you’re going to reject working with someone, maybe you should know about them first.
Rothbard cucked to the rightist state before he died anyway First of all, stop using the false left-right dichotomy, the left-right paradigm was invented by statists to brainwash people. It’s just another form of Black or White fallacy (also known as false dichotomy).
No. No it isn’t, and no it’s not. It was originally a matter of which wing in which one sat, to signify allegiance, and eventually manifested in progressives and liberals (the left) being opposed by regressive conservatives (the right). I’m not just going to ignore fucking history. That’s why I actually read AnCom literature before deciding that, while I sympathize, it’s not for me. Ignoring history doesn’t fucking make it leave. I’ll stick to this, thanks. Continue.
Secondly, stop using cherry-picked quotes from authors or influential people as a “gotcha” to discredit ALL your opposition. We don’t agree with everything somebody advocated for. Like for example, Rothbard was ok with abortions, while 50% of ancaps are not. Most ancaps agree with John Locke on private property on how something becomes private property, but pretty much all ancaps agree that the state is not protecting private property, but the state exists by infringing on property rights (if you don’t know, Locke advocated for a state to protect the rights of the people in the geographic region it controls, basically crapping on everything else he advocated for and not being logically consistent with his beliefs – ie: not reaching the conclusion of what he advocated for). We might use expressions as “rothbardian” or “lockean” for some arguments, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everything those people advocated for.
First, I’m not goddamned cherry picking anything. Second, what the hell do you mean by “Rothbardian” if not “what Rothbard said”? Maybe tell Hoploo to call himself a propertarian rather than a Rothbardian, and we won’t have this problem. But oh wait…
You don’t criticize him at all. Funny how that works. Almost like your mostly mad that I hit your guy after he hit me. But whatever. You gave me more content, so if you read this, unlike you don’t read AnCom lit before reflexively opposing them, maybe you can respond in a thorough enough way that it doesn’t seem like a cultist defending their beloved personality. Maybe start a blog – would be better than comments sections for your longform style. Cause I like to do constructive criticism, sometimes, and you could do well in this space. Anyway, I have today’s episode of Hellscape to take care of. See ya on the flip, yo.
Still solo on this, except my awesome patrons, and most of my stuff takes days of research and many hours to put together solo.
I don’t have a staff to feed, but I need to eat. If you want to support articles like this, feel free to help with a monthly or one time donation… as yet, I have not profited from this site. Hell, I haven’t even gotten half minimum wage, and most days, I get zero dollars. You can help change that.
Please consider donating on Venmo or PayPal. And if you really appreciated it, and want to help me make more of these more regularly, consider supporting me on BitBacker, SubscribeStar, or Patreon. Without your support, I can’t eat, much less make content.
If there’s a way you want to support me that I don’t list as of yet, let me know, and I’ll likely be more than happy to accomodate. But thank you so much if you decide to. I want this to be my job, and you could bring me one step closer. Also, consider subbing to my newsletter for a weekly update as to happenings. Also, feel free to subscribe to my weekly show on one of the platforms not-too-statist to have me.