Can we please stop referring to genocide supporters and people who oppress their own countrypeople as "patriots"?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
(posted in The Troll Lounge for being off-topic but otherwise a very serious post)
I would appreciate if people would stop referring to e.g. Hitler as a "nationalist" when what he did was genocide his country's own people and privatize government institutions. It is rightly said that nazis ("""national-socialists""") weren't socialist but people neglect to mention that they weren't nationalists either else they wouldn't have done such atrocities to their country. Calling them "nationalists" feeds into their propaganda. Another example is Mussolini, who pretended to be a nationalist yet made his country an extremely oppressive nazi German puppet.
Bad Wikipedia take (proxy):
https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/Fructuoso_Rivera?lang=en
> Uruguayan general and patriot
> He made a controversial decision to almost completely eliminate the native Charrúa during the 1831 Massacre of Salsipuedes.
"controversial decision"? Is that the euphemism you use for such a catastrophic event? Now, I'm not Uruguayan and critical-thinking people rightly distrust Wikipedia, so it could be that Wikipedia is lying (Wikipedia loves to lie under pretense of NPOV ("Neutral Point of View"), but if according to themselves if there really was a genocide how do they have the audacity to call such a man a patriot, someone who ordered mass murder of his own people and who I find no signs in the article of showing any regret later on in his life. I hate your submission to evil, Wikipedia. I wish you didn't pretend to be "neutral" but rather actually sided on the side of the people and other sentient beings.
Genocide is always wrong for sure. I certainly doubt the "itachi dilemma happens"
Where in order to prevent a war you have to slay all your kin who are planning a ku.
That sounds unlikely in this world. (Thank God)
Both nationalist socialists like Hitler and internationalist socialists like Stalin have participated in the ideas that have generated the greatest massacres in history. And before them the totalitarians (power concentrated in one) have participated in the greatest empires recorded in history.
There is no war started by stateless individuals, all wars are started by the politicians of a state. And that makes it quite clear to me that both collectivist and patriotic ideas are just a mask to justify the violence of a state.
Stone Age wars possibly made less victims only because there was less humans and smaller stones.
Fast forward, do you have any numbers indicating that the Lacedaemonian wars between the self-governed cities of Sparta and Athens were less bloody than the wars against the original barbarians™ that was the Achemenid empire?
> There is no war started by stateless individuals, all wars are started by the politicians of a state. And that makes it quite clear to me that both collectivist and patriotic ideas are just a mask to justify the violence of a state.
This implies that the "anarchist" brutal "experiments" of the 20th century weren't truly anarchist as they engaged in violence and other forms of hierarchy that would lead to the restoration of the State. Sadly many so-called "anarchists" fall victim of supporting these brutal "experiments". These "anarchists" think that violence is necessary to abolish the State, but paradoxically that also means that they believe in hiearchy and State action as a means of "defending" the "revolution", which makes them closer to Marxists than actual anarchists.
E.g.
* "Free Territory of Ukraine" - Territory during the Russian Civil War, was nominally anarchist but had an army and other institutions of violent hierarchy (allegedly the army had voluntary conscription, but voluntary violence is not voluntary against those it is used against so it's still antianarchist)
* "Revolutionary Catalonia" - Existed during the Spanish Civil War and initially collaborated with the "Republicans" against the fascist uprising that would eventually destroy the so-called Republic and put Franco in charge of a fascist dictatorship. "Revolutionary Catalonia" was known to be extremely violent.
Something telling is that both of these two governments existed during *civil wars*, they tried to achieve anarchism by imitating the violence of the State despite the fact imitating such violence is by itself an argument against anarchism because true anarchism is the belief that hierarchy cannot be abolished through hierarchy
> This implies that the "anarchist" brutal "experiments" of the 20th century weren't truly anarchist
Of course, I'm not implying that ALL attempts at anarchism were violent and antianarchist, but people seem to conveniently not mention the non-violent attempts as much as the violent ones (these people are often very bloodthirsty and fantasize about machine-gunning "reactionaries"[1], so the belief that anarchism could be achieved through anarchist non-violent means would probably hurt their homicidal fantasy)
[1]. From the song that these "anarchists" love!
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=QFLC7GRXmM0
from the lyrics: "The only thing that makes me happy is the dead one"
For your information, I'm not exactly an anarchist, even though I used to heavily identify with anarchopacifism. But even as someone who's no longer has full faith in anarchism as an ideology, I can still tell that these "anarchists" have even less faith in anarchism than I do due to their actions completely contradicting anarchism due to using extremely brutal forms of hierarchy such as violence.
I don't consider myself to be exactly anti-authority, but the authority must come from a place of democracy, i.e. the Free Software Foundation as a guiding light and authority has been very helpful, but in practice its authority is not exactly oppressive since it's based on the concept of software freedom which is inherently democratic. Copyleft might be antianarchist since it uses the hierarchy of law to destroy hierarchy. Does this mean copyleft is automatically bad because, as Stallman says, it "[fights] fire with fire", using authority to destroy a more tyrannical authority? Enforcing democracy (through copyleft) is a form of authority, but I don't see it as a bad one
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html
> To copyleft or not to copyleft? That is one of the major controversies in the free software community. The idea of copyleft is that we should fight fire with fire—that we should use copyright to make sure our code stays free. The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is one example of a copyleft license.
You want to know why I began distancing myself from the identity of anarchist? Well, my first memory of doing this was when I was talking with one of my friends, who identifies as an "anarchopacifist communist" and is a "free speech absolutist", I was telling him how awesome the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines are for forbidding endorsed distros from promoting proprietary software, he then opened https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html and he was shocked reading it while I kept talking about how awesome it was, he told me that FSDG is literally censorship for forbidding recommendations of non-free-software, so eventually I was like: "Thanks, you are right, guess I don't support free speech then, thank you for making me finally aware of this". He also told me in another conversation that I am slightly fascist (though he said it was a not-significant level of fascism) for supporting an organization like the FSF with censorship powers. He says that GNU is "leaning towards dystopian, Wikipedia-style thought control" due to the GNU FSDG. This made me realize that the absolute "anti-authority" mindset of anarchism was making people defenseless, the FSF is one of the few entities truly loyal to the cause of software freedom and yet my friend thinks it's bad for the FSF to use its authority to demand that a few distros be fully free-software, it genuinely feels like the world would be a much, much more terrible place without the FSDG, and in fact this "anti-authority" mindset against the FSDG would in practice lead to another much more tyrannical form of authority in which free distros would be basically non-existant due to no authority like the FSF being able to enforce software freedom. I realized that more democratic forms of authority (such as the FSF) could be used to suppress more tyrannical forms of authority such as proprietary software. In this way, an absolutist "all forced authority is bad" anarchist stance stopped making so much sense
I could have lied to myself and pretended to still be an anarchist even after what my friend said, but then this would make me an heavily contradictory evil hypocrite, instead of this I faced my contradictions and shifted my ideology accordingly to something more cohesive.
You weren't being fascist, your friend clearly doesn't know what fascism is.
People don't have to accept every social norm to be fascist nor do they have to reject every social norm to be fascist.
I don't think he knows what anarchy is either to be honest.
People sometimes have warped senses of what freedom is.
Windows XP and up especially are vectors of anti-freedom.
Though all windows were vectors of tyranny in general.
> Windows XP and up especially are vectors of anti-freedom.
>
> Though all windows were vectors of tyranny in general.
Thank you so much for speaking out against even earlier versions :) , people have the romanticized and ignorant view that Losedows used to be amazing at version 7 and that it only got abusive later, but the wonderful people at the Free Software Foundation already knew at the time that Losedows was always abusive; a site from one of the FSF's campaign's:
https://en.windows7sins.org/
Even the predecessor to Losedows, so-called "MS-DOS", wasn't immune from criticism. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html :
> I referred to Microsoft's first operating system as “MS-Dog.”
the term "MS-DOG" (and other variants) was used to refer to such operating system in Emacs' early documentation, you can still find the system being referenced to as "MS-DOG" in old documentation still included in Emacs. (no, I'm not old (not that being old is a bad thing), I'm literally only 19, I just have a lot of affinity with Emacs and GNU and political history to study a lot of historical facts
Early versions of Losedows only differ from the latter versions in the way that early-stage cancer differs from advanced-stage cancer. (this idea of a cancer analogy wasn't invented by me, I've just had the idea of applying it to Losedows). Greed-driven proprietary operating systems typically start by pretending to be good (like how an unethical drug dealer gives the first soul-crushing drug gratis so as to get the person addicted) and then evolve into something resembling advanced-stage tyranny such as Losedows 10/11.
My dad tells me about the early days of these operating systems in Brazil, he says that during the early times (of e.g. M$-DOS) MacroSuck (my mocking term for such entity, not his) didn't properly enforce its proprietary software license and so people had the illusion that people had freedom when "using" (being used by) and happily installing illegal copies of these systems in companies. This quickly changed after MacroSuck achieved dominance in Brazil and quickly eradicated any illusion of software freedom through brutal enforcement of the license.
Yeah, all windows is bad no getting around that. This being said, there were milestones where it got worse,
Vista was the first I know of, I suspect 95 could have had its own, but i know little about it, so I am saying vista.
Then 10 and beyond
Each of these versions ad
Vista added some remote backdoors to disable hardware from what i remember
8 might have worsened it, but again I don't know specifically so i am avoiding that.
And then the worst major first milestone of all:
10
Forced upgrades!
That is just so stupid, treating users like they are children under 7.
Not to mention the spyware on steroids. Of all the windows versions, 10 and up are 1000 times worse than anything before.
It's just a fact.
11 deprecated hardware under tenth gen which leads to environmental waste. That to me is hellishly evil.
Like WTF are they trying to do? Destroy the planet for their children?
SMH...
So I guess to conclude, while the old versions were bad, they are lightweight on evil compared to the ones that came after especially specific ones like 10 the worst *FIRST* major milestone of all.
re 'I don't think he knows what anarchy is either to be honest.'
I'm not sure I do, looking online I get
"a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems
Example: the country has been plunged into a state of anarchy"
or
"the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism"
The first sounds like ugly times, the second would be great if us people were willing, peaceful and always true to our word.
As to our title here, "Can we please stop referring to genocide supporters and people who oppress their own country people as "patriots"?" I never started! Well, I have to admit that at times I haven't had much respect for Native Americans. Today, I would like to see them prosper. I would like to share some of their culture and see them share in some of mine.
In the USA I have come to distrust/dislike the word "Patriot." It has become a code word for a movement that may not turn out to be what it claims to be, in my humble opinion. That being said, I admire Abraham Lincoln and he in turn admired America's Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. At least on paper they look pretty good, not pure anarchism but a far cry from Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism. It's unfortunate that it supported slavery by giving plantation owners extra voting power. That was based on how many slaves they owned. But we can grow towards a more equitable society, I mean the constitution makes room for that, for change.
Does anyone think proprietary software would be less odious if the copyright/patent expired after maybe 5 years?
> Does anyone think proprietary software would be less odious if the copyright/patent expired after maybe 5 years?
There's an article about this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
> Today, I would like to see [Native Americans] prosper. I would like to share some of their culture and see them share in some of mine.
That's the spirit, thank you so much :)
re There's an article about this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
I appreciate Stallman's input.