Disobey Authority!

[redstar2000]

Question Authorities

Why it's smart to disobey officials in emergencies

For nearly four years - steadily, seriously, and with the unsentimental rigor for which we love them - civil engineers have been studying the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, sifting the tragedy for its lessons. And it turns out that one of the lessons is: Disobey authority. In a connected world, ordinary people often have access to better information than officials do.

Proof can be found in the 298-page draft report issued in April by the National Institute on Standards and Technology called Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications. (In layman's terms, that's who got out of the buildings, how they got out, and why.)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/start.html?pg=3

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Loknar]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:24 PM
[Stupid Image]
Or, another great argument for offing the pigs.

[Elect Marx]

Crap; so we SHOULDN'T assume authorities always have the best information and are looking out for our interests? :lol:

It would seem that people where saved by thinking for themselves.

Oh, don&#39;t worry its just massive explosions against the support structure of the building; someone will be here shortly to help <_<

We don&#39;t want people to panic for the wrong reasons but as for a totally unrelated matter; I feel a strange urge to buy some plastic wrap and duct tape.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:55 PM
Question Authorities

...which in your ideal society (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) will get me a bullet in the head.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 12 2005, 07:27 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jul 12 2005, 07:27 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 07:55 PM
Question Authorities

...which in your ideal society (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) will get me a bullet in the head. [/b]
Hrm, I think Redstar&#39;s idea (and he should feel free to correct me) is that espousing reactionary ideology wouldn&#39;t be tolerated. A bullet to the head? What a waste of a bullet - it&#39;s a lot easier to, say, refuse to print yr ideas, etc. The same sort of things capitalists do to revolutionaries now. It&#39;s just existing class relationships turned upsidedown with the majority on top, and the capitalist minority subject to being pushed around.
Of course, is this an ideal society? No, it&#39;s just part of the messy business of getting there.
Like the mass starvation and world wars on the way to yr capitalist end-of-history (or, more politely, barbarism).

Of course, returning to the topic at hand . . .
Fuck, it&#39;s better when people take matters into their own hands as required by unique circumstances and situations.
Yup.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 12 2005, 07:03 AM



Or, another great argument for offing the pigs.

It&#39;s a joke, moron.

At least go to the website: maddox.xmission.com

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Because I make a habit of saying "Off the pigs" in absolute seriousness . . . :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 12 2005, 02:27 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 12 2005, 02:27 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 07:55 PM
Question Authorities

...which in your ideal society (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) will get me a bullet in the head. [/b]
I&#39;m glad to see that you&#39;ve begun reading my stuff, Moneybags.

Now, the next step is called reading with comprehension...for example, showing where I advocate that anyone in communist society who questions "authority" will receive "a bullet in the head".

This is a very important step in what we communists call rational argument...producing evidence to support one&#39;s assertions concerning the views of another.

I am dubious as to your capabilities in this regard; but I encourage you to make an honest effort anyway. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 12 2005, 07:45 PM
Hrm, I think Redstar&#39;s idea (and he should feel free to correct me) is that espousing reactionary ideology wouldn&#39;t be tolerated. A bullet to the head? What a waste of a bullet - it&#39;s a lot easier to, say, refuse to print yr ideas, etc.


He must have a worthless philosophy if it needs to prove itself right by shutting everyone else up.


The same sort of things capitalists do to revolutionaries now.

I don&#39;t see anyone shutting down socialist websites or newspapers.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:53 AM
I&#39;m glad to see that you&#39;ve begun reading my stuff, Moneybags.

Now, the next step is called reading with comprehension...for example, showing where I advocate that anyone in communist society who questions "authority" will receive "a bullet in the head".
What are you going to do comrade if I don&#39;t "shut up" ? Swear at me ? Tickle me with a feather ? Here&#39;s a clue (see if you can guess who wrote these) :

"Or even worse...if that&#39;s what it takes to win&#33;"

"Well, I frankly advocate a more "ruthless" and, if you like, "Stalinesque" approach."

In a society of censorship and property siezure, it&#39;s a safe bet that firing squads won&#39;t be too far away.


This is a very important step in what we communists call rational argument

Arguments so rational they need censorship to work. :lol:

[enigma2517]

Heh wow still didn&#39;t read it.

Ok chum the point is this. CNN or FOX news doesn&#39;t let communists come on and debate about creating an egalitarian society. In fact, most TV stations are very tricky about the whole debate thing, and like to cut people off/spin the facts/etc. In case you haven&#39;t noticed, only the rich can really make their views be heard far and wide.

The point is, if the whole inverting class relationship thing works and workers control everything, I doubt they&#39;d "share" their broadcasting utilities with reactionaries. This is more about freedom of the press rather than freedom of speech.

Secret police aren&#39;t going to hunt you down if you don&#39;t "pledge allegiance to the motherland". You can talk all you want but as far as publishing information or somehow else making it available to the masses, well, doubtful.

Real communists like debates, but debating about capitalism would be like debating about feudalism in the modern day. Nobody would take you seriously, and much less likely allote you space on their webserver or an hour of broadcasting time. However, nobody said we make the rules. If you find a collective that would be willing to help you then nothing would hold you back. Not sure how likely that&#39;ll be though.


In a society of censorship and property siezure

Is this capitalism we&#39;re talking about here :)

[KC]

In a society of censorship and property siezure, it&#39;s a safe bet that firing squads won&#39;t be too far away.


Censorship wouldn&#39;t do anything, as nobody would listen to you anyways. I&#39;d consider it more harmful to actually let you talk than to censor you.

There are already firing squads in capitalist society. In fact, it was the default method of execution in Utah until 1980. It&#39;s still legal in Idaho and Oklahoma. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_squad)

[Professor Moneybags]

Heh wow still didn&#39;t read it.

Ok chum the point is this. CNN or FOX news doesn&#39;t let communists come on and debate about creating an egalitarian society.

That&#39;s their choice, as it is your choice who lives in your house.


In fact, most TV stations are very tricky about the whole debate thing, and like to cut people off/spin the facts/etc. In case you haven&#39;t noticed, only the rich can really make their views be heard far and wide.

I don&#39;t see my views being debated either. However, I&#39;m not claiming to be "censored", as he is.


The point is, if the whole inverting class relationship thing works and workers control everything, I doubt they&#39;d "share" their broadcasting utilities with reactionaries. This is more about freedom of the press rather than freedom of speech.

Same in principle, same in practice. What you don&#39;t understand is that Red here is claiming that because all TV channels aren&#39;t preaching his brand of revolution and because he&#39;s not allowed to do the media equivalent of spraying grafitti over your house, that he&#39;s being "censored". In other words, he thinks that someone failing to fulfil their alleged duty to provide him with a microphone is the equivalent of some government agent kicking him in if he says the wrong thing. Do I need to point out what he&#39;s trying to pull ?

Instead of the real dichotomy, "freedom of speech vs censorship", Red is offering one of their so-called "censorship" vs his censorship. He&#39;s offering censorship as an inevitable aspect of society and the only question that remains is whether you what "his" or "theirs". And what does Redstar&#39;s censorship consist of ? "Hitting hard" anyone who says something he doesn&#39;t like.

I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;d prefer CNN&#39;s so-called "censorship" any day.


Secret police aren&#39;t going to hunt you down if you don&#39;t "pledge allegiance to the motherland".

Then there isn&#39;t any censorship.


You can talk all you want but as far as publishing information or somehow else making it available to the masses, well, doubtful.

Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore don&#39;t seem to be doing too badly despite their anti-government views.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:23 PM
Censorship wouldn&#39;t do anything, as nobody would listen to you anyways. I&#39;d consider it more harmful to actually let you talk than to censor you.


You consider other opinions are "harmful" ? I don&#39;t think any comment is necessary for that one.


There are already firing squads in capitalist society. In fact, it was the default method of execution in Utah until 1980. It&#39;s still legal in Idaho and Oklahoma. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_squad)

But they&#39;re not shooting people for having the wrong opinion, though, are they ? :rolleyes:

[danny android]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 02:35 PM

I don&#39;t see anyone shutting down socialist websites or newspapers.
This sight was recently brought back after being shut down for a long time. The creator of it was arrested among other things.

raise the fist (http://www.raisethefist.com)

[danny android]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 02:12 PM

Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore don&#39;t seem to be doing too badly despite their anti-government views.
I don&#39;t know a lot about Noam Chomsky but I know that Michael Moore definitly isn&#39;t telling people to start a revolution. He is mearly telling people to reform the currently existing system, though it is true that he has said horrible (and true) things about the ruling class he has not told the people to destroy them. Therefore he is more like a thorn in there side, not the hammer which will crush them.

[KC]

You consider other opinions are "harmful" ? I don&#39;t think any comment is necessary for that one.

I forgot a crucial part of that sentence. I consider reactionary opinions more harmful to whoever says them than to society. Everbody would think youre crazy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 15 2005, 04:46 PM
I don&#39;t know a lot about Noam Chomsky but I know that Michael Moore definitly isn&#39;t telling people to start a revolution.
Maybe not, but it certainly dispels the lie that "non-conforming" views are "censored" or "silenced".

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by danny android+Jul 15 2005, 04:34 PM--> (danny android @ Jul 15 2005, 04:34 PM)
Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 02:35 PM

I don&#39;t see anyone shutting down socialist websites or newspapers.
This sight was recently brought back after being shut down for a long time. The creator of it was arrested among other things.

raise the fist (http://www.raisethefist.com) [/b]
I&#39;ve heard of that one. He was arrested for hacking, though, wasn&#39;t he ?

[KC]

Nope. He was a suspected terrorist.

[danny android]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 07:40 PM


This sight was recently brought back after being shut down for a long time. The creator of it was arrested among other things.

raise the fist (http://www.raisethefist.com)
I&#39;ve heard of that one. He was arrested for hacking, though, wasn&#39;t he ?
I&#39;m not sure I havn&#39;t done a lot of research on the guy.

[inquisitive_socialist]

what moneybags is doing is like what Fox TV does. i haven&#39;t posted for quite some time but this issue bothers me. Moneybags takes quotes from Redstars website and puts them out of context so that they make no sense. Fox does it and landoverbaptist ,com does it. they take bible verses out of context so they sound creepy. if you took the sentece "we should shoot em all if they were child molesters" and quoted me out of context like moneybags, you just get "we should shoot em all..." a much twisted byte of my overall point. redstars quotes that have moneybags sao insensed are all little jokes in redstars papers. if you actually read all of whats written it is much different sounding. he jokes about stalinesque means of getting things done because many people in america and abroad are miseducated about stalinist commnuism being what we want. read dumbass.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by danny android+Jul 16 2005, 10:55 AM--> (danny android @ Jul 16 2005, 10:55 AM)
Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 07:40 PM


This sight was recently brought back after being shut down for a long time. The creator of it was arrested among other things.

raise the fist (http://www.raisethefist.com)
I&#39;ve heard of that one. He was arrested for hacking, though, wasn&#39;t he ?
I&#39;m not sure I havn&#39;t done a lot of research on the guy. [/b]
One of his links was to a site that had a section for bomb making. So Sherman says.

[KC]

One of his links was to a site that had a section for bomb making. So Sherman says.


Yeah it was for riot weapons. I saw the page he was talking about. It wasn&#39;t that bad it was like making firecrackers to distract cops or something like that. The FBI stretched it. The funny thing is that i can go to my library and rent the anarchist cook book and can learn to make much worse things.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 04:02 AM
Moneybags takes quotes from Redstars website and puts them out of context so that they make no sense.
It makes plenty of sense from where I&#39;m sitting. Redstar advocates silencing those who do not agree with him. That is Stalinist.


he jokes about stalinesque means of getting things done because many people in america and abroad are miseducated about stalinist commnuism being what we want.

I don&#39;t think he was joking. The fact that he hasn&#39;t bothered to reply to my post to claim otherwise seems to have escaped your attention.

You will excuse me if I don&#39;t see the funny side.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 18 2005, 03:56 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 18 2005, 03:56 PM) The fact that he hasn&#39;t bothered to reply to my post to claim otherwise seems to have escaped your attention. [/b]
This was his response. There&#39;s no point in repeating yourself, is there?


redstar2000
Question Authorities

...which in your ideal society (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) will get me a bullet in the head. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m glad to see that you&#39;ve begun reading my stuff, Moneybags.

Now, the next step is called reading with comprehension...for example, showing where I advocate that anyone in communist society who questions "authority" will receive "a bullet in the head".

This is a very important step in what we communists call rational argument...producing evidence to support one&#39;s assertions concerning the views of another.

I am dubious as to your capabilities in this regard; but I encourage you to make an honest effort anyway. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[/b][/quote]

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18 2005, 04:21 PM
This was his response. There&#39;s no point in repeating yourself, is there?
It was cop-out.

[KC]

I think he wants you to show where he says this. So maybe you should do that.

EDIT: I just read through that, and I didn&#39;t find anything about restar saying we should shoot people. What I found was this:


That doesn&#39;t mean we have to "shoot them" or even "put them in jail"...it just means we have to deny them an internet connection.


Which is directly in contradiction to what moneybags says.

[Ownthink]

Which is directly in contradiction to what moneybags says
Gee, what a surprise :o

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:55 AM
I think he wants you to show where he says this. So maybe you should do that.

EDIT: I just read through that, and I didn&#39;t find anything about restar saying we should shoot people. What I found was this:


That doesn&#39;t mean we have to "shoot them" or even "put them in jail"...it just means we have to deny them an internet connection.

Yeah, that&#39;s what they all say.

Histroically, censorship, property siezure and firing squads have always been colloraries. How else do you intend to carry out a revolution ?


Gee, what a surprise :o

And who are you ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 18 2005, 09:20 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 18 2005, 09:20 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18 2005, 04:21 PM
This was his response. There&#39;s no point in repeating yourself, is there?
It was cop-out. [/b]
Professor of what?

You made a claim which wasn&#39;t true. How can someone respond to something that you made up? redstar never said that anyone who questions authority should be killed.