cyb - cyberpunk

>>18511
In this context it isn't.
If there's people that claim they're tolerant, but dont tolerate rightwing opinions, then they're not being tolerant.
It's as simple as that.

People like that are simply circlejerks that all other circlejerks, but being tolerant to people that share most of your opinions is no tolerance, but just human nature.

>>18599
The reward for creating a successful website is that you no longer get to decide what goes on it?

>>18599
No those sites don't have the responsibility here. We, as users, have the responsibility to ensure that the sites which become popular are also those who preserve freedom of speech. That this is going very, very badly and the situation is dominated by places like facebook and twitter is unfortunate, but the only course is to stop using them and convince others to do the same.

>>18322
>>18334

>>18320 here

By "fuck off and die, liberal," I meant both to tell the offending party to fuarrrk off and die, and also to imply that by rejecting feminism you also reject leftism in any meaningful form. It is not 1920 or 1890 and there cannot be a concept of leftism that is divorced from what we now know about feminism, white supremacy, imperialism, cultural imperialism, and speciesism (this one is more controversial, but it's what I believe).

If you don't see leftism for what it truly is - a rejection of hierarchical society, and an impulse towards freedom through real equality - you're not a leftist, but a liberal: someone who follows a corrupted/watered down version of actual leftism.

>>18220

Fear makes it possible.

>>18643
Are you even serious? If you're trolling you're pretty good at it, I'll give you that.

>>18659
No asshole I'm entirely fuarrrking serious. Most of this board are anarchist fuarrrking cyberpunks, what the fuarrrk do you think that means? Go back to pol if you can't deal.

>>18681
if your not trolling then you need to relax buddy. no need to be rude

>>18643
>>18681
You can't be a leftist cyberpunk. Leftism is collectivism, cyberpunk is individualism. Individualism cannot exist in the presence of "real equality".

Cyberpunk is about surviving as an individual within the system. Leftism is about creating a system in which individuals can't survive.

>>18692
Cyberpunk is resisting technocracy with asymmetric warfare.

Cyberpunk is networking with like minded comrades over secure channels over technocracy-controlled social media.

Cyberpunk is checking your privilege, whether it's male privilege, white privilege, or augment privilege.

Cyberpunk is punk, and punk is communist. Can't escape it.

>>18692
>>18696
>cyberpunk is whatever I want it to be
Stop living in your fantasy worlds where everyone around you agrees with you. As you can see from each other, this is clearly not the case.

>>18698
I think you're missing a point that >>18696 is making. Pulling valid, conflicting interpretations out of a specific genre is trivial. We need to stop worrying about whether what we're doing is cyberpunk, it's just a label that was applied after the fact.

>>18623
why are you making this about opinions? your sexuality and gender are not a choice, but your political beliefs are. you can't use your own definition of "tolerance" and expect everyone else to conform

explain to me how "tolerance" of people who are frequent victims of violence, which is to say not perpetuate that violence, is the same thing as "tolerance" towards the perpetrators of that violence.
you can't, because it doesn't make sense.

though I would also argue that tolerance isn't the right word - tolerating someone's differences does nothing to help them. if everyone tolerated each others differences, sure, all we would have to do was tolerate each other but if there was anything 90's revisionism taught us that alone is not going to work and trying to pretend it does won't do anything to solve the problems we're having.

>>18696
>punk is communist
Bull soykaf . 70s punk has origins in 60s low-life counterculture, which was opposed to the communist hippies. The communist punks of the 80s were just crypto-hippies co-opting punk.

Anybody who calls himself a "punk" but wants to impose a new social order is just the same, a crypto-hippy co-opting punk.

>>18710
"Tolerance" is the method by which people become non-bigots.

Being intolerant of a variety of opinion is the actual definition of bigotry.

Tolerance is saying "hey maybe I'm not 100% right about absolutely everything, and I shouldn't try to impose my beliefs on everybody on earth, and persecute people who hold beliefs I don't like".

Tolerance is perspective and humility and anti-zealotry.

>>18728
Dude... Have you been to a punk show lately?

>>18736
Stop listening to libtard punk bands and maybe you'll find people with differing opinions.

>>18736
Anybody going to a punk show after 1990 is a fuarrrking poseur.

>>18737
can't believe I'm invoking wikipedia for another "what is punk" debate but you're wrong as heck
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_subculture
sure they're not all leftist but whatever way you wanna cut it punk culture is and has been pretty damn leftist

>>18729
>actual definition of bigotry
tell me when being gay, black or female was an ideology. unless you mean to say that you've been using liberalism as a code word for minorities in your countless online diatribes against "leftists"

"accepting all beliefs" is a hopelessly narrowminded perspective that only people who haven't been harmed by certain beliefs have the opportunity to pretend they believe in. believe it or not, people take actions based on what they are thinking and ideologies tend to be thought by people a lot, if not be an essential part of their thought process

>>18692
What? This is too simplistic. It's not about being "individualist" or "collectivist". Cyberpunk and all movements associated with it have been leftist to different degrees. Leftism is anti-capitalism and anti-authoritarianism at its core, it collectivizes the means of production to maximize individual freedom (means of production != you). Cyberpunk is anti-authoritarian, and no way in hell it's right-wing. You're basically spouting the common American propaganda that that capitalism and economic freedom are individual freedom while socialism is authoritarianism or other nonsense. Please research more on the subject. For example George Orwell, the writer of 1984, was a socialist.

>>18728
>70s punk has origins in 60s low-life counterculture, which was opposed to the communist hippies.

Hippies weren't communists. They were the first liberals, and radical leftists have always hated liberals.
Punk has always been radical, and they hated hippies for being liberals. Punk is, historically, as left-wing you can get.

>>18758
Collectivizing the means of production does not gel with "anti-authoritarian". Anarcho-socialism is a dysfunctional utopian fantasy. Inevitably, some clique will take control of the mechanisms of society and turn it into authoritarian state socialism. Any alternative is impossible.

Orwell was a socialist, but he understood that socialism taken to the extreme inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, which is what Animal Farm and 1984 describe. The pigs and the inner party are the leaders of a socialist revolution who become aristocrats. Thus he was a mealy mouthed democratic socialist, an insufficiently radical liberal, like this other douche is complaining about.

Capitalism taken to the extreme also inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, by the way. That's the point.

>>18760
>hippies were the first liberals
jesus

>>18771
>Collectivizing the means of production does not gel with "anti-authoritarian"
How so? Collectivizing the means of production means that all workers control them and have voice in the workplace, rather than a single boss. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. Such collectivization makes it so that ultimately a state becomes unnecessary. See also anarcho-syndicalism.

>Anarcho-socialism is a dysfunctional utopian fantasy. Inevitably, some clique will take control of the mechanisms of society and turn it into authoritarian state socialism. Any alternative is impossible.
In the few anarcho-socialist revolutions this has never occurred so we don't know. And the exact same thing was said centuries ago about democracy and the abolition of slavery. But now that we actually live in a (representative) democracy, it's unthinkable to go back to absolute monarchies, and any monarchs don't have the power anymore to establish a monarchy again. Anarchism in general proposes different ways of organization, including markets and decentralized federations, which after they spread they can't be taken control of, just like a BitTorrent swarm can't be taken down by a single entity.

But if it's "impossible" or not is irrelevant here so please don't bring that argument here; I'm replying to you saying that socialism and leftism isn't anti-authoritarian.

>Orwell was a socialist, but he understood that socialism taken to the extreme inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, which is what Animal Farm and 1984 describe.
No, this has nothing to do about being "extreme", his Animal Farm book was a criticism of the USSR, not of socialism or "socialism taken to the extreme". He was against Marxist-Leninism and what Stalin did to the USSR, but he was in favor of anarcho-communism. He sympathized with the Spanish anarchists (which is as radical left as you can get) and even wrote a book about it, Homage to Catalonia. You're not criticizing socialism but Marxism-Leninism, Stalin and the USSR.

>democratic socialist, an insufficiently radical liberal
Democratic socialist isn't the same as social democrat. While it's true he wasn't completely radical, he was a socialist. Liberals on the other hand aren't socialists as they seek a mixed economy (capitalism + welfare basically).

The rest of your post is also just a criticism of the USSR vanguard party and temporary state, which are not requisites to achieving communism, and several other radical communist currents oppose this, too; therefore it's irrelevant.

>Capitalism taken to the extreme also inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, by the way. That's the point.
No, even though I'm anti-capitalist, capitalism as an economic system doesn't create aristocracy; extreme capitalism can (and should) work as an unregulated free market without a state.

Social structures and economic systems affect each other but they aren't the same thing. That's why it's called "anarcho-socialism", it's a mix of a social theory (anarchism) and an economic system (socialism), and just like anarchism as a social theory doesn't dictate an economic system, socialism as an economic system doesn't dictate a social order either.

>jesus
Hippies popularized social democracy and pacifism in the US, no matter how you look at it they weren't communists.

>>18780
>Collectivizing the means of production means that all workers control them and have voice in the workplace
What does "control them and have a voice" actually mean? If you mean evenly distributing control through direct democracy, that's mob rule. Equality for the majority. As somebody who is often in the minority of thought, this doesn't seem like a good deal for me.

>And the exact same thing was said centuries ago about democracy and the abolition of slavery. But now that we actually live in a (representative) democracy, it's unthinkable to go back to absolute monarchies
Our representative democracy is ruled by cliques who abuse the mechanisms of society for their own advantage. "Democracy" legitimizes the current state of affairs in the same way "divine right" legitimized the ancien regime. Individuals are not empowered by democracy, they're diluted by it.

>Anarchism in general proposes different ways of organization, including markets and decentralized federations, which after they spread they can't be taken control of, just like a BitTorrent swarm can't be taken down by a single entity.
I can propose we invent a magic machine that creates infinite food and electricity, and design a society around that. I don't go around calling myself a magicist and trying to achieve that society, because regardless of the theoretical quality of such a society, there's no reason to think it can exist.

>But if it's "impossible" or not is irrelevant here so please don't bring that argument here; I'm replying to you saying that socialism and leftism isn't anti-authoritarian.
It's absolutely relevant. It doesn't matter that you are anti-authoritarian in theory if the only possible practical expression of your ideas is an authoritarian society. What is possible and impossible is always relevant unless you are operating exclusively philosophically.

>You're not criticizing socialism but Marxism-Leninism, Stalin and the USSR.
Since true equality of power is impossible, effort to establish such a circumstance will inevitably result in the next closest thing. The next closest thing is either direct democratic mob rule, or rule by a small upper class over a majority of equal slaves.

>extreme capitalism can (and should) work as an unregulated free market without a state.
It CAN'T work as an unregulated free market without a state. At some point, some group will accrue enough power to dominate as a de facto state. Where there is balance, it will be unbalanced. Where there is a vacuum, it will be filled. Where everyone is small, some will eat others and grow larger. No equilibrium can last.

>Social structures and economic systems affect each other but they aren't the same thing.
They aren't the same thing IN THEORY. In messy reality, they are the same thing.

The problem with you, the problem with all anarchists, is that you are more concerned with the theoretical, philosophical, platonic dream of society than you are with the human animal's waking world.

>>18421

You sound like the fuarrrking unabomber. Without mercantilism, capitalism, and free trade, you'd still be someones serf.

>>18897
>Without mercantilism, capitalism, and free trade, you'd still be someones serf.

I'm surprised you believe this

The capitalist system will inevitable fail and after it falls we will transition to a more free, less state controlled, less capitalist, and more prosperous society called anarchism. It's a matter of the inherent self-destruction of capitalism and anarchism being the logical conclusion of democracy. You can think of it like a high/low pressure system.

>>18911
>we will transition to a more free, less state controlled, less capitalist, and more prosperous society

Did you find that out with a crystal ball or something?

>>18792
you pose as a moderate but your politics are entirely reactionary
>mob rule
as soon as democracy is mentioned you revert to "mob rule", as if organized labor wouldn't have the structures to mitigate this.
>individuals are not empowered by democracy because our society is undemocratic and posing as a democracy
which says nothing about democracy and rather about our current state of affairs
>scarcity is always present
look at the reckless overconsumption of the first world and tell me again there isn't enough for everybody
>In messy reality, they are the same thing.
in messy reality these systems don't actually exist. they're abstractions any way you cut it

>>18911
governments today are no different from the gangs and groups that would form out of anarchism. they form, they fight against each other for territory, and eventually one comes out on top. the only difference from the tribes and groups then and now is the amount of power.


when capitalism fails expect the same fuarrrking people to be in power, especially in america. americans are so deluded these days that no matter what cause they are fighting for its still someone in the governments agenda, if its a popular cause even more so.

if we started again from a blank slate, lets picture whatever dream society you have in mind forms a group and they come out on top. they have the most power, you take over a large space of land, you stay established for hundreds of years. The rules for the land were those that the large majority of people decided on. Well then a hundred years later values change and some guy is crying out that he doesnt feel safe, he wants more rules and restrictions. that its inevitable this society you created will collapse.

no one is controlling you right now, you can go out and do whatever you want. there is an entity, that is your government wherever you happen to be, and if you dont play by their rules will imprison or kill you. like an alpha wolf in a pack, they have been around longer than you and know more than you and are stronger than you. the same natural forces are keeping these groups in power, but instead of individual people or wolves fighting its now entire groups which take time to grow, often longer than our own lives. Thus we are left feeling "controlled" because individual power means nearly nothing anymore.

Most if not every argument here against anarchism are based on a capitalist mentality. The idea of people wanting to steal and abuse anarchism is based on the idea that people are fueled by a capitalistic greed.

Sure, a fast transition into anarchism would probably lead to the dysfunctional society alot of people here exemplify. But all these bad things are rooted in capitalism.

If we instead were to make a slow transition into anarchism then we could probably leave the capitalistic greed behind us, in the distance.

This will to consume, this insatiable hunger for things is not natural. It is actually something we ourselves have constructed, that means we can destroy it.

Look at the Mayans for example, they didn't exactly stab eachother for the latest Xbox like some Americans do on black friday.

>>18946
Anarchism assumes that all people are benevolent and have an unfaltering sense of community/social responsibility. It also assumes that it's possible for a power vacuum to remain a vacuum indefinitely. This is naivety at its finest and totally misunderstands human nature.

>>18911
If only this were true, lainon

>>18947
Anarchism is just a distributed system version of our current master/slave social networks. You don't need to assume individual servers are honest. This is well studied. fuarrrk off and read more.

>>18946
Mayan society collapsed because of resource depletion...

>>18229
And what if the person making the threat is brandishing a (legal) weapon?

Ok, so make the act of brandishing illegal.

Now imagine a 6'8" muscular dude threatening a petite woman. He can tear her apart with his bare hands.

You can't ban sick gains!


re: the OP--I think there'd be a lot of vigilante violence. The kid who makes prank calls every afternoon and stands outside your window calling you a cunt will just up and disappear one day, or wind up in the hospital with a broken jaw.

The guy who makes nuisance calls to 911 and hides behind free speech finds his tires slashed, and when he calls an ambulance because he's having a heart attack, they'll drive over at 10mph, stopping at every red light along the route.

>>18956
>You don't need to assume individual servers are honest.

Then the system is not only as bad as our current system, but far worse. Imagine if there were no rules and laws at all governing megacorps, except those that they themselves create. Our current system maybe corrupt and flawed to hell, but that doesn't mean it should be replaced with something that foregoes even an attempt at protecting the interests of the <2%. Government is a necessary evil, that will always need to exist so long as massive inequality exists in society.

If rats and other pests keep getting into your home through cracks and holes in the walls, you don't declare the wall a useless concept and tear it down. That sort of thinking is highly irrational.

>>18220
I think a society like that would be too busy travelling through rainbow portals, and the tremendous amount of fun would ensure no one has any time to send death threats in email. Also, the rainbow optics cables they would use could eat the death threats while they are halfway between sender and receiver, so from one's perspective it was sent, and from the other's it never arrived. Such rainbow physics are necessary in any theoretical world where 100% free speech exists.

>>18990
You don't understand the analogy and should gtfo lainchan. Maybe come back after reading about byzantine fault tolerance.

>>19007
>I'm going to use vague terminology and fail to make any concrete arguments to support my ideology, then insult people who disagree with me, ignore their rational arguments, and tell them they just don't understand.


Come to think of it, I've never actually met an anarchist who could defend their ideas in an actual debate. You guys are very similar to religious zealots and social justice warriors in that way. There's a place for people like you. It's called tumblr

>>19010
One time I was arguing with my ancap friend who browses /pol/ and when I countered cornered the argument so he couldn't change the subject or argue something insane he just said it would work if their were only white people in the world.

Was finally confident I won.

>>18946
if it were a slow transition you still aren't accounting for the fact that people are dicks. They see how doing something would obviously benefit them in the short term, and they take it. That is why people cheat in relationships, they instinctually think about themselves.

Maybe if everyone in the world were a thoughtful, empathetic, and well adjusted individual anarchy would work, but some people are dicks and would seek control over others or just to make others lives miserable.

>>19010
Consider that you are the common factor between all your conversations with anarchists.

>>19013
I'm not, smartass. That includes debates that I have merely observed, which is the majority.

>>19011
The thing about idealogues is that they rarely actually understand their ideology at a fundamental level, simply by virtue of not having come up with any of the ideas through their own critical thinking process. They are merely followers, and consumers of dogma; they throw around smart sounding words and shallow bumper-sticker slogans that appeal to idiots who don't know any better, but they rarely have the intellectual power to defend against criticism and logical deconstruction of their ideals. Thus when they are actually confronted with the pragmatic problems and logical inconsistencies found within their ideology, they have no idea what to do and fall back to ad hominems, shaming tactics, character assassinations etc.

Feminists, SJW's, Communists, Anarchists, Nazis, religious fundamentalists - they all have this same thing in common.

Consider yourself lucky to have a friend who is at least intellectually honest when confronted in this way.

>>19016
Yea but now he won't stop talking about inverse earth

>>18926
I never "posed" as anything.

>as soon as democracy is mentioned you revert to "mob rule", as if organized labor wouldn't have the structures to mitigate this.
The fact that democracy has to be "mitigated" is evidence that democracy is bad. In a democracy, everything important, whether it be a necessary maintainance of infrastructure, defense against foreign threats, or the rights of citizens, has to be placed outside of the influence of democracy. The alternative of "mitigated"(ie fake) democracy is mob rule. Ben Franklin knew that.

I never said anything about scarcity.

>in messy reality these systems don't actually exist. they're abstractions any way you cut it
There's no difference between saying "in reality it's all the same", and "in reality, they don't exist". If two things don't exist, they are the same.

So thanks for agreeing with me.

>>19017
What the fuarrrk is inverse earth? Is it what I think it is?

>>19007
don't argue if you can't make a clear point or actually even make a point at all. So far all you've done is told him to read other peoples works or look up X which I can only assume means you yourself don't know them enough to explain.

We would see a resurrection of ideology; people who get ass enragement from the idea of lies/slander being peddled are really just afraid of the media losing control of information. When there is a diversity of opinion, it's easier to identify which "truths" are false.