[*BCM*] anarchist summit needs 5min cm presentation

[contraelolvido at riseup.net]

> I've read plenty about anarchism because I was interested in it.  I
> understand it, but realized that we do not yet possess the technology to
> make it happen.  People will disagree with me here, this is not my
> point.  My point is, if you're going to use terms, use them correctly or
> your going to get someone like me who thinks that you don't know what
> you're talking about.  What was said is that you wanted to be empowered,
> felt empowered, etc, whatever.  To me, that means you are taking it upon
> yourself to make decions for me, to speak for me.  So you tell me if I
> don't understand it.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe anarchy is all about thinking
> I'm free instead of being it.

What you're implying as that you would only actually be free if you could
rule over other people. That's a very odd defenition of freedom. To me, I
would be free if I had the ability to make all decisions about myself.
Thus I choose to ride a certain way in the critical mass. I've never
forced, coerced, nor even tried to persuade anyone to follow me. You see,
my individual freedom is directly dependant upon the freedom of others.

> Third of all:
> My arguemnts were abstract and I applied situations to generalized
> structures to make a general point.  That is how it's done.  It's call
> philosophy by some people.  I provided counter examples to where people
> were stating beliefs for facts.  It's called rhetoric.

Still abstract, you have yet to provide a counter argument to a belief.
Stop maintaining that you have and actual present one.

> Fourth, and most importantly, the arguement was started when I called
> someone an asshat for thinking that he was somehow above the law.  We made
> it though the parade crap, we made it through the law breaking crap, and
> now we're debating something else entirely, if at all.  Look at how angry
> and empassioned you are at someone who disagrees with you.  This is the
> attitude that comes out during the mass.  This is the self-reinforcing
> procedure that I'm talking about.  I've explained it in previous emails,
> and I'm giving you a concrete example right now of the phenomenon.  I can
> continue making some of you angry.  This is the anger you feel when you
> are cut off, and yet you maintain that you are allowed to cut people
> off?  I'm sorry, where do you get off thinking that?

I'm not mad at you at all, I don't know you. Stop projecting.

And reciprocity has nothing to do with it. I believe I have a ontological
moral obligation to act in ways that match my ethics. Thus if someone
beats their partner, I step in. According to your philosophy I would just
sit back and watch. Anger against the wrongs and injustices in this world,
when channeled into productive and concrete action is a very positive
thing.

> Why can't you people suck it up and do something good for the cause
> instead of hurting it?

Are you asking me why I disagree with you? There is neither political nor
tactical unity between us, and that's totally fine with me. You seem to
think though that I owe you something, and that I have some reason to
agree with you or at least act I as do.

Finally, as you still clearly understand nothing about anarchism, since
you seem to assume that freedom is the ability to rule over others, I have
no interest in what you assume the anarchistic thing to do would be. Go
play pundit elsewhere.