Anarchist Society

Timmins

What is it ? I was looking on TCD's Society list and clicked on their website but it proved to be less than useful to say the least ;P

jingx3

It sounds interesting. Anarchy is cool, I dont like DRM! :pac:

PurpleFistMixer

Very inactive from my experience. They did like, 2 events last year? If that...

Captain Flaps

Spot the philosophy/politics student :P

andrew

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Very inactive from my experience. They did like, 2 events last year? If that...

SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD USE A BIT OF LEADERSHIP, LOL.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Why would anyone want to join the Anarchist Society? You're going to college, leave all your pathetic teen angst behind you thanks.

Timmins

Well, its more than likely not a society for robbing cars and smashing windows, if its listed on the TCD website! I agree with you there, though

JC 2K3

Timmins wrote: »

What is it ?

An oxymoron.

mathew

they campaign for free fees from the government..

boblong

jingx3 wrote: »

I dont like DRM! :pac:

Down with DRM!

fiveone

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Why would anyone want to join the Anarchist Society? You're going to college, leave all your pathetic teen angst behind you thanks.

Two words: Noam Chomsky.

Smartass

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

Two words: Noam Chomsky.

I found neither in the dictionary

And lol at "Noam Chomsky" being the reply to "leave all your pathetic teen angst behind you."

fiveone

You don't respect Noam Chomsky?

It's not my responsibility to educate you, but a dictionary is a good start I suppose.

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

You don't respect Noam Chomsky?

I respect all white men. Except you.

I don't agree with the sort of view that espouses the freedom of man and simultaneously complains that rich people aren't willing to pay enough tax. Or the sort of people who think profit is the exploitation of human labour and simultaneously think that higher taxation is ethically permissible.

It's not my responsibility to educate you, but a dictionary is a good start I suppose.

Yes, that's it, assume you know more than me on the issue. Perhaps sprinkle with some more condescension. That ought to do it. No need to quote Nozick or Buchanan or Sen or even Mill or Hobbes, it is only an internet forum.

PurpleFistMixer

I wouldn't have thought Hobbes would have an awful lot of good to say about an Anarchist Society...

jclare56

but how can you have an anarchists society... surely thats defeating the point somewhat.. do they all meet regularly as a society to talk about how they dont approve of society... do they have rules for the society? so they can talk about how society shouldnt have rules??

thats puzzled me for a while now....

Time Magazine

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought Hobbes would have an awful lot of good to say about an Anarchist Society...

Nor would Sen. Antitheses are useful in debate.

jclare56 wrote: »

but how can you have an anarchists society... surely thats defeating the point somewhat.. do they all meet regularly as a society to talk about how they dont approve of society... do they have rules for the society? so they can talk about how society shouldnt have rules??

thats puzzled me for a while now....

You don't understand anarchism. Loosely speaking, people are free to do whatever they want. If they wish to meet every Tuesday at 11am at top of House 6 that's fine.

PurpleFistMixer

jclare56 wrote: »

but how can you have an anarchists society... surely thats defeating the point somewhat.. do they all meet regularly as a society to talk about how they dont approve of society... do they have rules for the society? so they can talk about how society shouldnt have rules??

thats puzzled me for a while now....

Anarchists are against the state, not society. Subtle but important difference that everyone seems to miss.

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

I respect all white men. Except you.

I don't agree with the sort of view that espouses the freedom of man and simultaneously complains that rich people aren't willing to pay enough tax. Or the sort of people who think profit is the exploitation of human labour and simultaneously think that higher taxation is ethically permissible.

Don't worry, I know better than to associate with dogmatists such as yourself. Racist too? Pretty disgusting.

The Economist wrote: »

Yes, that's it, assume you know more than me on the issue. Perhaps sprinkle with some more condescension. That ought to do it. No need to quote Nozick or Buchanan or Sen or even Mill or Hobbes, it is only an internet forum.

Oh you want a serious debate? No thanks, I know better than to even attempt that on this forum.

Tricity Bendix

lydonst wrote: »

Oh you want a serious debate? No thanks, I know better than to even attempt that on this forum.

Chicken.

jingx3

If this subject is a little too personal and evocative for you to discuss maturely perhaps you should reconsider contributing.

jclare56

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Anarchists are against the state, not society. Subtle but important difference that everyone seems to miss.

well that makes more sense - i shall remove the look of puzzlment from my face when i walk past their stand in freshers week so:D

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

dogmatists such as yourself.

Pics or GTFO tbh.

On the basis of your "contributions" to the TCD/Gmail debates, I'll confidently wager 50p that your views are more dogmatic than mine.

Racist too? Pretty disgusting.

I'm not racist. I respect all white men. I respect all black men, too. I just didn't mention that bit.

Its exclusion was intentional on two grounds. Firstly, to see if you were to the sort to conclude that me saying "I like A" implies I dislike B (I tend not to enjoy debates with people who make such logical errors); secondly, to confirm my suspicion that angsty socialist Arts student types have no sense of humour whatsoever.

Oh you want a serious debate? No thanks, I know better than to even attempt that on this forum.

I figured as much. As I said, sprinkle your posts with some condescension and that ought to do just fine.

It's the Chomskian way.

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

Pics or GTFO tbh.

On the basis of your "contributions" to the TCD/Gmail debates, I'll confidently wager 50p that your views are more dogmatic than mine.

50p? Yeh, didn't think you were too confident.

What exactly do you mean by pics?

The Economist wrote: »

I'm not racist. I respect all white men. I respect all black men, too. I just didn't mention that bit.

Its exclusion was intentional on two grounds. Firstly, to see if you were to the sort to conclude that me saying "I like A" implies I dislike B (I tend not to enjoy debates with people who make such logical errors); secondly, to confirm my suspicion that angsty socialist Arts student types have no sense of humour whatsoever.

This is a purely rhetorical trope and has no positive value in terms of knowledge. But all you wanted to do was confirm your existing prejudices anyway, so have fun.

You can question my past contributions if you like, the point is that in every case the arguments descended into misunderstanding and cheap misquotation: and not on my part. Arguing on this forum can be fun as a purely formal excercise, but I'd rather do something productive.

Tricity Bendix

buck buck buck


or however you write chicken noises

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

50p? Yeh, didn't think you were too confident.

I am glad to see the sense of humour bug still hasn't caught.

What exactly do you mean by pics?

You called me a dogmatist. (I didn't have to look that one up in the dictionary.) You said this without any particular reference. "Pics or GTFO" is a humorous phrase implying you should provide appropriate evidence or cease and desist.

This is a purely rhetorical trope and has no positive value in terms of knowledge. But all you wanted to do was confirm your existing prejudices anyway, so have fun.

Not at all. Neither of those last two statements were true. They were there, again, in jest. I said the "I respect all white men" thing in jest and, when you feigned disgust, I jested again. Your failure to grasp this has provided plenty of positive knowledge, though.

You can question my past contributions if you like

Aw, thanks!

the point is that in every case the arguments descended into misunderstanding and cheap misquotation: and not on my part.

Misunderstanding, and not by you?

lydonst wrote:

You don't respect Noam Chomsky?

lydonst wrote:

Racist too? Pretty disgusting.

lydonst wrote:

50p? Yeh, didn't think you were too confident.

lydonst wrote:

What exactly do you mean by pics?

lydonst wrote:

But all you wanted to do was confirm your existing prejudices anyway, so have fun.

Okay.

Arguing on this forum can be fun as a purely formal excercise, but I'd rather do something productive.

Okie doke. Good luck with that English degree.

Timmins

Look what i've started :P

Anyways, I found out what I needed to know, no need for the 'aul arguments

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

I am glad to see the sense of humour bug still hasn't caught.

You called me a dogmatist. (I didn't have to look that one up in the dictionary.) You said this without any particular reference. "Pics or GTFO" is a humorous phrase implying you should provide appropriate evidence or cease and desist.

Not at all. Neither of those last two statements were true. They were there, again, in jest. I said the "I respect all white men" thing in jest and, when you feigned disgust, I jested again. Your failure to grasp this has provided plenty of positive knowledge, though.

Aw, thanks!

Misunderstanding, and not by you?






Okay.


Okie doke. Good luck with that English degree.

Aw, I think somebody's upset.

You needn't worry about my degree, I'm getting on just fine. Stick to boards, chump.

jingx3

Someone please ban these trolls.

ApeXaviour

guys chill out, keep on topic please if you're posting in this thread

Boston

Hugs The Economist. Welcome back, don't leave me with these CS students again I may have to follow you to the other place.

jingx3

I don't get this "CS student" meme.

monellia

Some gross misconceptions about the nature of anarchism in this thread...

An oxymoron.

but how can you have an anarchists society... surely thats defeating the point somewhat.. do they all meet regularly as a society to talk about how they dont approve of society... do they have rules for the society? so they can talk about how society shouldnt have rules??

Anarchists are not opposed to the idea of social organisation, as long as it is achieved through voluntary association. The state, which operates on coercion and death threats, is what anarchism aims to deconstruct.


Anyway, I was wondering the same thing as the OP. I’m a free market anarchist who goes to *ducks* UCD, but I’d like to attend some events if possible? I get the feeling this society is more orientated towards syndicalists and other such forms of collective anarchism, but I would like to meet some fellow anti-statists nonetheless

Jim_Are_Great

Time Magazine wrote: »

"Pics or GTFO" is a humorous phrase...

Really?

Unregistered.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

buck buck buck


or however you write chicken noises

bawk bawk bawk?

gearoidof

I've been told that the anarchist society was a lot of a fun a good few years ago.

Back then, they'd have meetings, but that would be just where they'd get together and chat, if someone tried to call the meeting to order, someone else would shout that he was trying to take control of the society, a 3rd guy might then say that Mr. else was trying to take over! The meeting went on like that til it ended. Sounds awesome

Time Magazine

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

Really?

Yes.