Notices by RD (rd4anarchy@kolektiva.social), page 2

@thetechtutor @aral

Meanwhile you're doing a very good job of establishing your reputation as a Zionist troll and genocide apologist.

@thetechtutor @aral

You clearly do support the murder of innocents and children when you defend the state of Israel's genocidal actions. Your objection that these actions are not intentionally genocidal is absurd as so many of Israel's ruling elite have spoken plainly about those intentions, and the tactics being used by Israel are obviously genocidal both in intent and results.

You have to hide behind spurious accusations rather than face the truth of what Israel is doing. You leave yourself in the ridiculous position of having to believe that anyone who thinks genocide is occurring in Gaza is anti-Semitic and a supporter of jihad. You probably don't even buy this lie yourself but you still feel compelled to use it because you really have nothing else to support your genocide denial.

@nicholas_saunders @thetechtutor @aral

>>...you don't specify what military action would've been legal following the #AlAqsaFlood operation.<<

My criticisms of Israel are not based on rule of law.

Focusing specifically on a hypothetical response to that particular event alone ignores the long history of Israel's occupation, oppression, apartheid, and its part in creating Hamas in the first place.

As someone who is not a military planner I'm not sure what the point would be of my speculation. But I do insist that Israel should not be killing children and other innocent people.

I may not have all the military-grade answers on how to defend against terrorists without killing kids but I'm pretty sure that dropping 2,000 lb dumb bombs in crowded civilian neighborhoods (for example) does not show genuine intent to limit civilian casualties. I've also watched videos of Palestinians with white flags, even following IDF instructions, being shot down in cold blood for no legitimate reason. I might suggest that's another thing that should stop.

@nicholas_saunders @thetechtutor @aral

My moral standards do not recognize the right of the state of Israel - or any other state - to exist in the first place.

@nicholas_saunders @thetechtutor @aral

Are you seriously arguing that the al aqsa flood occurred in a vacuum, arising out of nowhere, completely random and arbitrary?

The fact that Hamas reacted to conditions that the state of Israel created or enabled does not mean Hamas has no culpability for the decisions made about how to react.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your caricature of logic.

@nicholas_saunders @thetechtutor @aral

I did not say Israel dictated the form taken by those actions.

You desperation to defend the murder of children is driving you to absurd conclusions and very bad faith silliness. I'm going out in the world now, catch you later maybe.

@aral

"...for we are the People of the Book."

That's some scary shit right there. Not something I'd be proud of.

@0v1 @aral

"There is such thing as ethical capitalism."

No, there is not. Just as there is no ethical version of slavery.

#capitalism stands on multiple violations of human freedom and self-determination. It is built on a foundation of violence, oppression, racism, theft, exclusion, colonialism, extraction, coercion, exploitation.

There is *no baby* in the putrid bathwater of capitalism. Throw it out!

@0v1 @aral

You think that being forced to engage in production of things for exchange on the market (to enrich someone else) in order not to starve is a good thing?

@ChrisMayLA6 @AdrianRiskin @aral

That's cool, I get it, you have just enough time to post the occasional pro-capitalism toot, careful to hashtag it, but we should not expect you to back them up with anything or respond to any counterpoints, and reader be warned that you may not be up to date on developments that have bearing on these issues. Alright. See you later.

@AdrianRiskin @aral

Do I need a different word then? You both seem to be using the word technology specifically to mean the material artifacts produced whereas I was using the word in a more abstract sense of the human ability to produce such artifacts.

Either way, are you saying technology is a bad thing that should be eliminated? It doesn't seem like it, I think you're both still just making the same point I was making: that technology (in the abstract sense, not talking about already existing artifacts) can be good or bad depending on how it is implemented. I do not think the same is true of #capitalism, which is the only point I was making, as a counterpoint to the suggestion that capitalism is just a tool that has to be managed properly.

@AdrianRiskin @aral

"By technology you mean the human ability or propensity to create tools rather than the tools themselves?"

Yes. The word can be used either way, to mean the abstract ability or the material results (and I would include your examples of assembly lines, software and legislatures as "material results"). I meant the former.

This wasn't meant to be about technology, I just wanted to contrast this human process with #capitalism in response to @ChrisMayLA6 saying:

..."I think I'm going to disagree... much like Leiws Mumford argues technology can only be understood when linked to its use, producing broadly either authoritarian or democratic 'technics', I think #capitalism can be shaped & 'tamed' by democracy... the problems we have are because a dysfunctional democracy (as you say corrupted by money) is not regulating capitalism to our general benefit..."

The point I was trying to make is that capitalism is not a neutral thing; it cannot be reformed or "tamed". I used technology (in the abstract sense) because I believe it could be used in benevolent ways if it were not corrupted by capitalism, unlike capitalism which I believe is basically corruption itself; it corrupts everything it touches because that is it's very nature.

Like I said: we *could* have technology (in either sense of the word) without capitalism, and both of you seemed to affirm that it could be benevolent in that context. But you can't have capitalism without coercion. Capitalism is intrinsically malevolent, not merely as a result of the context it's in.

@ChrisMayLA6 @AdrianRiskin @aral

We absolutely part ways in our analysis unless you can explain your justifications for private property and Enclosure, at a bare minimum. You'll have to convince me that human beings must be managed by force and coercion from a small ruling class.

Normally I would just think you have a childish definition of capitalism ("it's just vOlUnTaRy ExChAnGe") but I don't think that's the case here, is it?

You have a lot of 'splainin' to do to rehabilitate capitalism.

@ChrisMayLA6 @AdrianRiskin @aral

I don't know much about Hegel other than a sense I've picked up from reading people mentioning him.

As for Locke, we already part ways there. As far as I'm concerned Locke and many others were just rationalizing their existing privilege as white male property owners and excusing unimaginable atrocities with their convenient philosophies.

You must be familiar with the books from Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall? Those are some of my influences and arguments I haven't seen successfully countered.

@aral @ChrisMayLA6 @RichardJMurphy

I would say tech is politized, not inherently political itself.

I still think technology itself is neutral, as you said it takes on the character of the world views of those wielding it. So yes, artifacts of technology are tainted by #capitalism but I don't see this as intrinsic to technology itself.

I guess I'm talking about the general concept and you're talking about the physical stuff that exists?

@aral @ChrisMayLA6 @RichardJMurphy

I think you're talking about the results of technology driven by #capitalism. We could have technology without capitalism though. It's not technology's fault it is used as a tool of capitalism.

But you can't have capitalism without coercion (thru violence and denial of resources). It's built in, not a bug, not even just a feature but the very framework of it.

Can we tame cancer? Why would we?

@ChrisMayLA6 @aral @RichardJMurphy

During those 20 years Enclosure continued to imprison people in a coercive system of enforced inequality and artificial scarcity while ravaging the biosphere, #capitalism continued based on violence and coercion thru denial of resources, billions suffered under the demands of Capital. But wow, no banks failed 🙄

#capitalism is not a neutral tool like technology, it is a description of an oppressive, unjust system based on and inseparable from Enclosure, violence, theft, genocide, exploitation, manipulation and control.

The very concept of Capital itself is not some innocent neutral thing, it is a toxic religious idea that is destroying the biosphere as it poisons our minds.

Capital represents power over other people, in opposition to principles of democracy. The only way democracy could ever "tame" capital would be by destroying the very concept. If we could realize true democracy we would discover that the idea of capital would simply have no use any more and would be seen for the insanity that it is.