Isn't environmental activism, the factions that don't endorse initiating force, based on the expression of the right to say no, the personal boycott? And isn't it also based on providing a maximum of accurate information to people so they can make a decision based on informed consent?
Oh, I know the quote is a bigger thing than any one issue, I was just disputing GORdon's notion that it seems to somehow contradict the idea of environmental activism, when I think in some sense it actually supports some of their actions. It's continuing the discussion from an earlier quote that I don't think you can legitimately infer actual political stances of Ditko from his philosophical points.
i'm inclined to agree with the last post -- that a quote like this is too decontextualized to get much out of it.
but hey, bob -- i wasn't saying that this quote refutes environmental activism -- i was referring to how such activists are now widely being branded as "terrorists" by the government -- so they are NOT free to say no.
but see, there again, that is the flaw in ditko's thinking. i **interpreted** "saying no" as *doing* something -- as protest. because, obviously, if someone is trying to force you to do something or even to tacitly accept something, simply *saying* no is not enough.
and this is the essence of my critique of steve -- that there are no absolutes. steve says it's always possible to see what is truly right and wrong, but his definitions always align with state power, with the establishment. and i have already refuted the argument about how steve has indicted corrupt members of the establishment -- the fact is, it is the establishment itself that is wrong.
that link that was posted here a few days ago is great -- that bit a few minutes in shows how we are in fact living in a fascist state, and that actually fighting back looks like the sane option.
but don't tell that to steve -- he like so many others **do not perceive it in that way** -- the fact is that **everything is a matter of opinion** and that whatever you do in the world, you are impinging on someone else's freedom. you could argue that extreme environmental activism impinges on people's freedom, just as well as you could argue that those people are simply fighting against the threats to their freedom -- and everyone else's as well.
one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
Well, if they engage in terrorism, why shouldn't they be called terrorists? You aren't say environmental activists who don't engage in terrorism are being called terrorists, are you?
And "walking away" as the purist form of "saying no" is a staple of Ditko's work (in its most abstract form in the "Either/Or" "Mutual Consent vs. Force" formulation. His characters generally argue self-defence as the justification for force, which at the core environmental "freedom fighters" do as well, so as long as you accept their premise, you could argue they fit the same mold.
Now, I don't know if you're out there fighting the power every day, but if it follows from your premise, as long as it doesn't affect me, have at it, but don't expect me to accept your premise as described.
exactly bob -- you don't accept my premise (although what you are defining as my premise, i am not sure).
in any case, that you do not accept my premise is what renders "force for self-defense" null and void, because one's premise for self-defense is subjective.
this is why we have wars. violence only begets violence. how does the great sex-pistols song go? "be a man, be someone, kill someone, be a man -- kill yourself!"
here, i'll continue the debate. i'm the point man for this now, right?
ReplyDelete"yeah, tell that to environmental activists."
Isn't environmental activism, the factions that don't endorse initiating force, based on the expression of the right to say no, the personal boycott? And isn't it also based on providing a maximum of accurate information to people so they can make a decision based on informed consent?
ReplyDeleteas ditko has so often asked, when is the use of force justified?
ReplyDeleteplease ponder this, starting at 5 minutes in:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wQj4mb1e3uc
This is about more than just boycotting or environmental activism--this is about opting out of any unwanted product or service.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know the quote is a bigger thing than any one issue, I was just disputing GORdon's notion that it seems to somehow contradict the idea of environmental activism, when I think in some sense it actually supports some of their actions. It's continuing the discussion from an earlier quote that I don't think you can legitimately infer actual political stances of Ditko from his philosophical points.
ReplyDelete"I don't think you can legitimately infer actual political stances of Ditko from his philosophical points."
ReplyDeleteI think you can, but with quotes like this, you clearly can't be too specific about it.
i'm inclined to agree with the last post -- that a quote like this is too decontextualized to get much out of it.
ReplyDeletebut hey, bob -- i wasn't saying that this quote refutes environmental activism -- i was referring to how such activists are now widely being branded as "terrorists" by the government -- so they are NOT free to say no.
but see, there again, that is the flaw in ditko's thinking. i **interpreted** "saying no" as *doing* something -- as protest. because, obviously, if someone is trying to force you to do something or even to tacitly accept something, simply *saying* no is not enough.
and this is the essence of my critique of steve -- that there are no absolutes. steve says it's always possible to see what is truly right and wrong, but his definitions always align with state power, with the establishment. and i have already refuted the argument about how steve has indicted corrupt members of the establishment -- the fact is, it is the establishment itself that is wrong.
that link that was posted here a few days ago is great -- that bit a few minutes in shows how we are in fact living in a fascist state, and that actually fighting back looks like the sane option.
but don't tell that to steve -- he like so many others **do not perceive it in that way** -- the fact is that **everything is a matter of opinion** and that whatever you do in the world, you are impinging on someone else's freedom. you could argue that extreme environmental activism impinges on people's freedom, just as well as you could argue that those people are simply fighting against the threats to their freedom -- and everyone else's as well.
one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
so go fuck yourself, mister A-hole.
Well, if they engage in terrorism, why shouldn't they be called terrorists? You aren't say environmental activists who don't engage in terrorism are being called terrorists, are you?
ReplyDeleteAnd "walking away" as the purist form of "saying no" is a staple of Ditko's work (in its most abstract form in the "Either/Or" "Mutual Consent vs. Force" formulation. His characters generally argue self-defence as the justification for force, which at the core environmental "freedom fighters" do as well, so as long as you accept their premise, you could argue they fit the same mold.
Now, I don't know if you're out there fighting the power every day, but if it follows from your premise, as long as it doesn't affect me, have at it, but don't expect me to accept your premise as described.
exactly bob -- you don't accept my premise (although what you are defining as my premise, i am not sure).
ReplyDeletein any case, that you do not accept my premise is what renders "force for self-defense" null and void, because one's premise for self-defense is subjective.
this is why we have wars. violence only begets violence. how does the great sex-pistols song go? "be a man, be someone, kill someone, be a man -- kill yourself!"
go be a man, mister A.