Punch the guy who viciously insults your partner.

[eglove]

Episode 1 of Fuck It! We'll Do It Live! went er... live... a couple days ago. (Here's episode 0.5.) Jim says the audio sucks. Now everyone wants to build a studio. I'm skeptical of doing such a show in a studio or having a limited amount of mics, still thinking on that one.

The idea of the show is to,

...take arguments off of Facebook and bring them into the real world. A real, face-to-face discussion contains a very different tone and has a far greater quality than what you will ever find online. This potential continuing series aims to prove that, encourage others to have real world conversation more often, and take on real issues with real differing opinions.

The next topic I personally want to tackle is SFK. That is, find a non-Boston Strong character from the SFK and have a sit-down discussion. I would limit it to them, myself, and Rich Paul. Limit the numbers so there's no piling on the poor guy, Rich because he's a laid back dude and won't play games like Ian, and myself because I've been on both sides. I agree with the message of FK, but agree with many of the claims of SFK. It's a project in progress.

But I do want to see others taking up the idea. Having the real world conversations first, and allowing the internet to expand on them. Concentrating on what is said IRL rather than online makes a huge difference in how much people can learn from one another.

With that said, there are two very active threads here on the NHUnderground forums that may be a beneficial discussion in the real world, ideally on mutual ground. Sam Harris (known to Will Coley as a racist against Muslims last I checked) and Maajid Nawaz (well-known Muslim activist and scholar) came together and wrote a book on the violence of Islam (talked about here). The results were a greater understanding of both sides that lead to a laser-like focus on the real problems.

Many arguments online are a pointless back and forth of, "You don't understand me! I'll one up you/post links until we're all dead!" I don't know why either, but the real world stuff just works better. Sam Harriss won't do interviews or debates unless it's a sit-down face to face discussion with no time limits. Joe Rogan has always encouraged people to do the same. So why not break out the phone, invite your enemy over and record some bad audio? I'd love to hear, publish and share any results as, I believe, would Rich Paul.

Also, here's the table of contents from Episode 1 linked above for an onsite TL;DR:

• 00:00:35 - It begins. Introductions and things.
• 00:04:11 - Jeffrey Tucker will punch you for viciously insulting his partner.
• 00:05:43 - Jeffrey Tucker is wrong. Mouth noises are just mouth noises. Iniating force makes you 'the state'.
• 00:11:30 - Some duals are beneficial. Some are feeding the trolls.
• 00:12:50 - Is implicit consent still consent in dualing?
• 00:18:18 - Culture and fear dominate the NAP into irrelevancy.
• 00:22:12 - Don't kill chilvary, fight for your woman. ...Or fuck her feelings. Debaters debate.
• 00:25:25 - Ronda Rousey just knocked a guy out and I ain't even mad. Is it OK to root for the violent one? (Also things about property rights.)
• 00:29:00 - Explicit consent to fighting is like explicit consent to sex. Fluidity in law is a requirement in a free society.
• 00:32:05 - 20 minutes later, Rich thinks of an example of implicit consent for fighting.
• 00:34:05 - Determining approriately proportionate responses. Trading blows vs. ending the fight.
• 00:37:17 - Answering a deadly threat with deadly force is OK... unless the threat came over the internet. ...Maybe it's more nuanced than that.
• 00:38:34 - Matt drops the bear mace bomb.
• 00:39:25 - Is it OK to let an insulter in the distance control where you go and what you do? How would you react to these situations as a witness?
• 00:43:00 - Nobody wants to fight. It still happens. Do you deal with that with a universal rule? Or do you allow communities to deal with them dynamically, without restrictions on the parameters of how to do so?
• 00:44:25 - Old guys attacking kids for running remote control car on their golf game. Who's side do you take? Why?
• 00:47:24 - The implications of saying that the interruption of a service is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Determining when that's true, and when it isn't.
• 00:48:17 - Is there a difference between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong? What becomes illegal under anarchist law? How and what happens?
• 00:51:56 - Anarchy = Panarchy. Even if the NAP were a univeral ethic, it would never be universally adopted and codified.
• 00:59:26 - If the NAP can't solve all our problems, can property rights? Does property supersede all wrongs, should it be the end all, be all? Additional conversation on remaining in contact with those who disagree with you.
• 01:05:55 - Fight clubs, fight club laws, and someone says 'death sports'.
• 01:12:51 - Who funds a death sport and how do they get their money? How many people are sociopaths? (Apparently 13%) And will they go away?
• 01:19:05 - Speaking of sociopaths, what do we do with the former government employees in anarchy world?
• 01:22:20 - Maybe sociopaths just need an outlet where they can be controlled and watched while still serving.
• 01:31:15 - Rich says goodbye. "Peace, Pot and Peanut Butter".

[Free libertarian]

I would add milk to the peace, pot and peanut butter thing, lest the peanut butter stick to the roof of the mouth, which would confound things while trying to consume the pot.

However I do understand milk does not start with the letter "p" and sort of fouls up the alliteration.   

[Tom Sawyer]

Mouth noises are just mouth noises.

Ridiculous. Words have meanings.

"I'm going to kill you." For example.

Yelling, "Fire!" In a crowded theatre. For another example.

[Jim Johnson]

That discussion went off its rails on line 4.



Words are meaningless without action. 

Your response to words says a lot about you, your ability respond rationally, and your violent nature.

[Tom Sawyer]

Academic nonsense. 

Lie, bully, threaten... everything is to be tolerated. An example why I don't have much faith in the talkers of the movement. Words are meaningless. An endless exercise in mental masturbation.  Reminds me of the Keeniac response to deplorable behavior in the public space as "Tragedy of the commons." No, it's bad manners and why folks feel they need all the laws. To keep people from taking a dump on the sidewalk and then proudly proclaiming "Tragedy of the commons."   

Catch a guy in the bedroom of your daughter licking his lips, fondling himself and telling her what he is going to do to her. All you can do is say, "Sir, you must leave my property!"

Or a less vulgar example... Yelling, "Fire!" In a crowded theatre. Stampede kills 12 people.

The social boundaries of behavior are so people don't inadvertently bump into the limits and experience violence.

Of course some would suggest that the whole of a thousand years of customs and laws could be replaced with one rule, the NAP.  Good luck convincing people of that being a better way to live. It has proven a failure even within the core group.

Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.

[Jim Johnson]

Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.

I agree.

[Jay]

Discarding obvious things like "yelling fire in a crowded...", the "words mean nothing" argument means...nothing to the majority of the population. Who observably make decisions based more on how it makes them feel at the time.

[MaineShark]

Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.

Credibly threatening violence is a violent act.  Responding to that attack is self-defense, not an initiation of force.  NAP works perfectly, there.

[eglove]

That discussion went off its rails on line 4.

It didn't actually, it just expanded into one major point. It is not the NAP that determines what we know to be right and wrong, it is culture and social feedback. As we all know, a shitty society under anarchy is a shitty society. It is the people who make a place livable, not law, not principle, just human action.

Determining whether everything is right or wrong based on the NAP is naive. So when someone says, "Punching someone for an insult is wrong." They don't actually know, it's only an imagination of an ideal society, or based on what they've been taught. That judgement is not made on the context of the situation. If it were it would be, "There was a moment there where he had a chance to walk away, but he dug deeper and made the argument worse. That's why it was wrong." Even then it is only an opinion of a witness, considerable, but not definitive.

Someone who says, "He ought to have done X," without being there, without having any sense of empathy for what went down, is someone I don't listen to.

[eglove]

Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.

Credibly threatening violence is a violent act.  Responding to that attack is self-defense, not an initiation of force.  NAP works perfectly, there.

But the fact that you have to preface your sentence with the word "credibly" shows how subjective the thinking is. A threat is still just mouth noises and not an actual encroachment on life, liberty, or property. But we still know the guy who responds accordingly to be in the right. We think that way because it's been subjectively determined to be the right thing by an aged culture, not because of principle.

[eglove]

That discussion went off its rails on line 4.



Words are meaningless without action. 

Your response to words says a lot about you, your ability respond rationally, and your violent nature.

In every situation I've been in where I could have but didn't end up in a fight, and I've seen this many times with others, what actually happens is this. The person who is being insulted or bothered does nothing until the insulter gets bored. I would like to imagine I could walk away or talk the guy down, but it doesn't happen. I've ignored being pushed, but did not dare to turn my back, and eventually things ended. No fight, no initiation of force on my behalf, but completely unjust. (This example is NOT limited to a push, focusing on that misses the point.)

If you suggest that's right, or that it's always right to walk away, you're allowing some people to develop dominate bullying behavior. I grew up with that, until I got socked in the nose one too many times. Is it wrong to throw the first punch? In some sense no. In other senses yes. It depends on what happens. How long it has been happening and an infinite amount of other factors.

I won't judge somebody on the fact that they got in a fight. Rich Paul says in the video he pinned someone against a wall for insulting someone else. Does that mean he lacks the ability to "respond rationally" or has "violent nature?" Of course not. I'd be an asshole to suggest such a thing. You might still suggest it based on that one sentence "pinned someone against the wall for insulting someone," obviously wrong! But it's not so obvious when you're confronted with the story and talking to him face to face. Judge not what you do not know, and do not claim to know what's "right" based on your own internal, ideal standards.

[eglove]

The intelligent SFK leaders use their brains to intentionally manufacture propaganda that gets the less intelligent riled up enough emotionally to incite violence.

This is what you're dealing with. Good luck.

I've been told that if I want to talk to someone from SFK I must get permission from Andrea Whitcomb or Joshua Erickson. The problem is, if both of those people are just trolls, they'll shut the idea down and not let anyone know I'm trying to get into contact. Everything with them is private and you really do have to go through the admins.

In the thread that inspired the above conversation, there was a troll who got obnoxious and said, "I can't wait to have this discussion in real life!" after a series of comments that downgraded the conversation. Obviously, he didn't show and stopped responding when the thread became about meetup times.

Trolls are afraid to talk in real life because they can't pretend to be so dominate in the conversation and Google doesn't have their back. So their arguments become shaky at best. Another advantage to the real world stuff is that you mostly filter those people out, even when you invite them. I don't believe that all of SFK is trolls, there has to be some people in there that just don't like the FSP. If not, I can always looks for someone with the same beliefs, but not in the group.

[MaineShark]

It didn't actually, it just expanded into one major point. It is not the NAP that determines what we know to be right and wrong, it is culture and social feedback. As we all know, a shitty society under anarchy is a shitty society. It is the people who make a place livable, not law, not principle, just human action.

Determining whether everything is right or wrong based on the NAP is naive.

The NAP does not determine what is right right and wrong.  The NAP only determines what is wrong.  It does not say how you should act - only how you should not act.

So when someone says, "Punching someone for an insult is wrong." They don't actually know, it's only an imagination of an ideal society, or based on what they've been taught. That judgement is not made on the context of the situation. If it were it would be, "There was a moment there where he had a chance to walk away, but he dug deeper and made the argument worse. That's why it was wrong." Even then it is only an opinion of a witness, considerable, but not definitive.

No, it is wrong, because it is a violation of the self-ownership of the individual who was violently attacked.  The insult did not do any such thing, but the punch did.  Ergo, the puncher is wrong.

Someone voicing a threat, if a reasonable person could believe the threat could be carried out is enough. You don't have to wait until he levels the gun and pulls the trigger.

Credibly threatening violence is a violent act.  Responding to that attack is self-defense, not an initiation of force.  NAP works perfectly, there.

But the fact that you have to preface your sentence with the word "credibly" shows how subjective the thinking is. A threat is still just mouth noises and not an actual encroachment on life, liberty, or property. But we still know the guy who responds accordingly to be in the right. We think that way because it's been subjectively determined to be the right thing by an aged culture, not because of principle.

No, a threat is not "just mouth noises."  It is violent.

If someone throws a rock at your head, the throwing is the act of violence, even though the rock has not yet struck.  If you see the rock coming and duck, it does not make his act non-violent.  You were forced to act in a way contrary to how you would otherwise have acted, in order to avoid the impact of the rock.

If someone makes a credible threat, it forces you to deal with that threat, rather than acting as you otherwise might have acted.  Credibility is not significantly subjective; if you could ignore what was said, and nothing would happen to you as a result, then it is not a credible threat; if you were to fail to avoid the threatened harm, and the threatened harm would actually take place, then it is a credible threat.  It's a judgement call, but so is ducking to avoid the thrown rock: maybe it would have missed you if you did not duck, but since it was clearly aimed for your head, it's only reasonable to assume that the thrower is competent and to duck.

[eglove]

No, it is wrong, because it is a violation of the self-ownership of the individual who was violently attacked.  The insult did not do any such thing, but the punch did.  Ergo, the puncher is wrong.

Wishful nonsense and a refusal to accept reality as is. Drawing a line between two things does not make it universally true. "Wrong," is not and should not be defined by one sentence. It is determined by context, surrounding culture, who is involved, emotion (yes emotion, it matters, get over it), and, as I said, and infinite amount of other factors. Determining what is right and wrong in every situation morally is like trying to the same thing economically. You simply can not centrally plan morality and its rules. Won't work. You can be insistent all you want on the internet but chances are if you actually tried, you'd know that you've witnessed more than one event where violence was initiated and you knew it was the right thing.

No, a threat is not "just mouth noises."  It is violent.

If someone throws a rock at your head, the throwing is the act of violence, even though the rock has not yet struck.  If you see the rock coming and duck, it does not make his act non-violent.  You were forced to act in a way contrary to how you would otherwise have acted, in order to avoid the impact of the rock.

If someone makes a credible threat, it forces you to deal with that threat, rather than acting as you otherwise might have acted.  Credibility is not significantly subjective; if you could ignore what was said, and nothing would happen to you as a result, then it is not a credible threat; if you were to fail to avoid the threatened harm, and the threatened harm would actually take place, then it is a credible threat.  It's a judgement call, but so is ducking to avoid the thrown rock: maybe it would have missed you if you did not duck, but since it was clearly aimed for your head, it's only reasonable to assume that the thrower is competent and to duck.

If someone is running on a track and you're walking on the inside lane, and they yell "Track!" it's generally recognized that faster people get the inside lane and you should move when you hear that. But there is no actual rule that says so on most tracks. Your refusal to move, whether ignorant or knowledgeable of this unwritten rule, does not make their running at you violence. If they are at full sprint on a curve and can't move or slow down, it's not violence on your behalf because they had no choice but to run into you. Potentially, but not necessarily a dick move. There are too many factors to consider that you could pull apart all  day, but that's exactly why you're wrong.

We can play the "if" game all day, but one-half decent example on my side proves you wrong. You're the one trying to prove a universal and it's already clear you can't.

...and also a thrown rock is a physical threat. A verbal threat is not a physical threat nor does it force you to act. A life threat over the internet is generally dismissed entirely and not taken with seriousness. I'd suggest listening to the video starting from 37:17 to see how many additional rules to "threat" a few people HAD to add in order to try and make themselves right in saying it is always OK to answer a deadly threat with deadly force. Spoiler: No universals were found. If Chris Cantwell threatened to kill me, I'd laugh, if he threatened to kill Ghraham Colson, he'd be afraid. Neither one of us is incorrect. This is subjectivity. The level of threat is determined by the fear of the individual by the individual, not principle. (18:18) It seems most people would not take Ghraham Colson's fear seriously and thus their subjectivity would bar any action from being taken. The results of crying wolf I suppose, but it's subjectivity interfering with subjectivity.

[Jay]

I don't believe that all of SFK is trolls, there has to be some people in there that just don't like the FSP.

I think there are at least 4 classes of people in SFK:

The people who run it who do it for the constant stream of community peer validation in their lives that they wouldn't otherwise get. They are completely willing to "sell their souls" by doing unethical things to keep it going.

People who's livelihoods depend on government as it now exists. Meaning those business and real estate owners who profit off the ever expanding Keene State College gravy train. And the people who work for the city/county government and school district, which includes an unusual number of those working for "charities" and mental health services which are supported by State funding.

The "proles" with room temperature IQ's who will follow anything that appears to be popular in their peer group to fit in, and who's opinions are molded by the above two groups.

The normal intelligent people who either lurk and never post, or are shut down by the others (banned too, sometimes) when they post something that tries to inject a little reason into the conversation.

Of course, your only likelihood of getting a sit down conversation is probably with the last group. But they don't hate us, they just think some of the shit "we" do is stupid.