I could ask what is, but there's no point in answering if you think I'm a bad faith actor. The conversation is basically over anyway, since you've withdrawn your effort.
The only reason I "glowed" is because the alternative is to perform the very dull back-and-forth that I can find on 4/pol/. It creates an unsubtle argument vacuum, with many baits like "why doesn't anything happen" and "no one will do anything" (designed to make lurkers consider violence while being too afraid to speak of it). I have no intention of allowing this space to fall into such a mire.
Did anything come of that New Zealand shooter that had his accelerationist stance on the society, or did a gun law get passed
Did you read his manifesto? That was one of the things he wanted, because it suited his accelerationism. He completed his goals. They just weren't good goals.
But don't sit there and advocate for anything that would get me killed or imprisoned
I actually would recommend peaceful solutions if at all possible. I have heard nothing to suggest how possible it may be over there. It's in the best interest of most governing bodies to keep its citizenry feeling like they have some method by which their problems can be resolved without violence. Especially a government which wishes to hold a monopoly on violence.
I do want the best for others, and for them all to decide what that entails. I suppose I'm being a bit of a stereotypical american by suggesting violence, considering how our independence came about.
But you are not here in Australia, and you do not know the social structure and just how compliant the people are.
I'd welcome any insight you have for this. I've heard another aussie poster here mention it, but he was a bit too mopey to strike at the heart of the matter.
I'll even be explicit and ask: are there peaceful options remaining for your country?
Take your walk backs
I have no idea what this means, is it an aussie curse?
Take a look at the protests from 21/8, and then look at the responses from officials. Notice how they didn't back down or even consider anything
Well, yeah. If you're a power-mad tyrant, you would never admit to a mistake or surrender power. You'd double down at every turn. Why should you care about some filthy peasants? Who has the authority to deny anything you declare?
We see this type of insanity often around here (as it fuels new topics of discussion for us), but we have no real means of correction. Luckily, most of the looneys don't achieve power over lives. From what I can tell, the expectation is that they'll eventually be eaten by their allies because all of their allies are power-hungry just like them. Terrible mess, though, and a real pity to behold.
He believed that law would spark change, but in his ignorance to social structures of the nation he was in, it did nothing.
I remember him desiring a multinational domino effect. Obviously he was wrong about how that would come about. I don't remember the wording well enough to say whether that was a proper goal for him; he seemed to have no doubts about causation, so he only needed the one simple goal of pushing legislators.
I don't think either of us will change our view on that. You're focused on it being proof of lone actors being futile. I'm focused on it being proof that stupid plans are futile.
Never heard of "walking something back"?
It has actually been more than 10 years since I've heard the expression, but I do still hear variations of it (my locale changes the verb). I've never heard your variation before - you completely dropped the "something" so it looked like you wanted me to walk myself back to some place. You also said back in plural, so I couldn't be sure it wasn't some foreign saying.
But, sure, it might look like I abandoned my original point. I accomplished my goal and then (implicitly) stated what the goal was. Then I started talking for fun. I thought it'd be a lot weirder to stop talking immediately.
I think I've done the opposite of a motte and bailey. I brought forward the naughty part first and now I'm entertaining the politically correct part. I'm also not trying to convince you of anything (I'd need to explain liberty to do that). This is a type of negotiation tactic, so I can understand you being on guard.
I could ask what is, but there's no point in answering if you think I'm a bad faith actor. The conversation is basically over anyway, since you've withdrawn your effort.
The only reason I "glowed" is because the alternative is to perform the very dull back-and-forth that I can find on 4/pol/. It creates an unsubtle argument vacuum, with many baits like "why doesn't anything happen" and "no one will do anything" (designed to make lurkers consider violence while being too afraid to speak of it). I have no intention of allowing this space to fall into such a mire.
Did you read his manifesto? That was one of the things he wanted, because it suited his accelerationism. He completed his goals. They just weren't good goals.
I actually would recommend peaceful solutions if at all possible. I have heard nothing to suggest how possible it may be over there. It's in the best interest of most governing bodies to keep its citizenry feeling like they have some method by which their problems can be resolved without violence. Especially a government which wishes to hold a monopoly on violence.
I do want the best for others, and for them all to decide what that entails. I suppose I'm being a bit of a stereotypical american by suggesting violence, considering how our independence came about.
I'd welcome any insight you have for this. I've heard another aussie poster here mention it, but he was a bit too mopey to strike at the heart of the matter.
I'll even be explicit and ask: are there peaceful options remaining for your country?
I have no idea what this means, is it an aussie curse?
Well, yeah. If you're a power-mad tyrant, you would never admit to a mistake or surrender power. You'd double down at every turn. Why should you care about some filthy peasants? Who has the authority to deny anything you declare?
We see this type of insanity often around here (as it fuels new topics of discussion for us), but we have no real means of correction. Luckily, most of the looneys don't achieve power over lives. From what I can tell, the expectation is that they'll eventually be eaten by their allies because all of their allies are power-hungry just like them. Terrible mess, though, and a real pity to behold.
I remember him desiring a multinational domino effect. Obviously he was wrong about how that would come about. I don't remember the wording well enough to say whether that was a proper goal for him; he seemed to have no doubts about causation, so he only needed the one simple goal of pushing legislators.
I don't think either of us will change our view on that. You're focused on it being proof of lone actors being futile. I'm focused on it being proof that stupid plans are futile.
It has actually been more than 10 years since I've heard the expression, but I do still hear variations of it (my locale changes the verb). I've never heard your variation before - you completely dropped the "something" so it looked like you wanted me to walk myself back to some place. You also said back in plural, so I couldn't be sure it wasn't some foreign saying.
But, sure, it might look like I abandoned my original point. I accomplished my goal and then (implicitly) stated what the goal was. Then I started talking for fun. I thought it'd be a lot weirder to stop talking immediately.
I think I've done the opposite of a motte and bailey. I brought forward the naughty part first and now I'm entertaining the politically correct part. I'm also not trying to convince you of anything (I'd need to explain liberty to do that). This is a type of negotiation tactic, so I can understand you being on guard.