LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

In what world must you idolize the terrorist John Brown to hate slavery?

I don't think Proct's views are inconsistent, I think some people are just desperately reaching.

[Kowani]

Games?

You know damn well what I mean.

A worldview must be internally consistent. Yours is not. I do suspect that you don’t like that fact overmuch.

Nah, I'm just sick of the cheap "dig for hypocrisy" tactic, and I'm trying to avoid using it myself.

Also, as ND said, the two things are not morally equivalent, nor are their actions.

True. After all, Brown killed people.

[Torrocca]

Nah, I don't need to get a grip. You've made your position on supporting state-sponsored tyranny abundantly clear. It was more than evident when you couldn't even formulate a proper opinion on John fucking Brown, a guy who openly rebelled against the state to free slaves.

But, like I said, thanks for taking your mask off and showing us how true your "libertarian" beliefs actually are.

I believe Proct is trying to elaborate on the nuance of the situation. A peaceful resolution to the border crisis is far preferable to a violent one.

Proct's really not, though. If he was, he'd've made it clear a good deal back rather than go through the effort of defending his underlying support for state-sanctioned tyranny.

In what world must you idolize the terrorist John Brown to hate slavery?

I don't think Proct's views are inconsistent, I think some people are just desperately reaching.

John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

[Torrocca]

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Either he's refusing to say anything because he knows it'd be entirely inconsistent to venerate Brown but villainize Spronson, or he's not calling John Brown good because he supports state-sanctioned tyranny, like, say, the shit at the border which he's currently supporting by calling a man who tried to free people from one of the corporate-run concentration camps a "terrorist".

It's really interesting, either way, that this is Proct's hill to die on.

Says the person demanding that people support terrorism.
I refused to comment on Brown because it was an attempt to try and dig for hypocrisy and, well, I know that trick. In another context I would've easily given my stance on him, but here it's just a cheap trick.

You're not making it look like you don't support state-sponsored tyranny when you continue to lambast a guy who objectively rebelled against such tyranny, y'know.

Nah, I don't need to get a grip. You've made your position on supporting state-sponsored tyranny abundantly clear. It was more than evident when you couldn't even formulate a proper opinion on John fucking Brown, a guy who openly rebelled against the state to free slaves.

But, like I said, thanks for taking your mask off and showing us how true your "libertarian" beliefs actually are.

You're digging for shit that isn't here, Stalinist. See above as to why I didn't comment on Brown, and why I will continue to refuse for the duration of this conversation. It is a riot to compare him to this lunatic though, as Brown was stable enough to bring the boys along for the ride.

There's no need to dig for anything when you've made your position here abundantly clear.

Also, it's really hilarious how you choose to devolve to namecalling and insinuating that I believe in supporting state-sponsored tyranny when you're openly supporting state tyranny. :^3

It's also a riot to continue to insist that it is a dichotomy between "terrorism" and "tyranny" when there's clearly other possible options.

What's really a riot is that you see an act of resistance to state-sponsored tyranny as nothing more than terrorism.

[Great Minarchistan]

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Yes, any problem with that?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

Nonsense. He was a terrorist, in that his raid was doomed from the start and was nothing but a violent publicity stunt which saw a bunch of people killed for no good reason. Helping slaves escape into the North was noble, killing people to create fear, not really.

[Kowani]

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Yes, any problem with that?

See, this is why Libertarianism is rightfully mocked.

[Luminesa]

And he goes to dodge…and it doesn’t work!

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Either he's refusing to say anything because he knows it'd be entirely inconsistent to venerate Brown but villainize Spronson, or he's not calling John Brown good because he supports state-sanctioned tyranny, like, say, the shit at the border which he's currently supporting by calling a man who tried to free people from one of the corporate-run concentration camps a "terrorist".

It's really interesting, either way, that this is Proct's hill to die on.

This Spronson fellow attempted to blow-up a building with innocent people inside. AFTER a peaceful protest. Which nobody is going to remember now, because this man decided to attempt to kill the people inside. It’s funny how a man firebombing an abortion clinic is a criminal but a man firebombing an ICE building is not. Both of them hurt and could possibly kill innocent people, whether they be the babies they want to save or the immigrants they want to save. It wouldn’t hurt to be a bit consistent, but then again, that would require dropping all the tough talk about being someone who stands for liberty. How are you going to talk about liberty if these immigrants would have died in this man’s attack? What if he killed civilians? I don’t know if you would have the will or the determination to take their blood on your hands.

[Great Minarchistan]

Intellectual take of the day: you can rape children, set houses on fire, pillage communities and murder people, but if you do free at least a few slaves within your lifetime then you deserve to be called a good man

[Torrocca]

John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

Nonsense. He was a terrorist, in that his raid was doomed from the start and was nothing but a violent publicity stunt which saw a bunch of people killed for no good reason. Helping slaves escape into the North was noble, killing people to create fear, not really.

Let's be fair here: we're talking about an America that was at a point where there was no non-violent solution available to ending slavery. What was John Brown supposed to do? Yes, helping slaves escape is noble but it doesn't address the inherent, systemic problem. Inciting a slave revolt, like Brown intended, would've actually addressed the problem inherent had it been successful. John Brown did nothing wrong in trying to break the chains and free the enslaved from the yoke of tyranny.

[Kowani]

Intellectual take of the day: you can rape children, set houses on fire, pillage communities and murder people, but if you do free at least a few slaves within your lifetime then you deserve to be called a good man

I’m gonna need a citation for that child rape bit.

[Great Minarchistan]

Let's be fair here: we're talking about an America that was at a point where there was no non-violent solution available to ending slavery. What was John Brown supposed to do? Yes, helping slaves escape is noble but it doesn't address the inherent, systemic problem. Inciting a slave revolt, like Brown intended, would've actually addressed the problem inherent had it been successful. John Brown did nothing wrong in trying to break the chains and free the enslaved from the yoke of tyranny.

And here, lads, we see an """"anti-oppression anarchist"""" promoting whatever it takes, explicitly including violent means, to free people from slavery.

Why aren't you laughing?

[Cekoviu]

Intellectual take of the day: you can rape children, set houses on fire, pillage communities and murder people, but if you do free at least a few slaves within your lifetime then you deserve to be called a good man

You're a regular right-libertarian Poe!

[Great Minarchistan]

Intellectual take of the day: you can rape children, set houses on fire, pillage communities and murder people, but if you do free at least a few slaves within your lifetime then you deserve to be called a good man

I’m gonna need a citation for that child rape bit.

I didn't refer to anyone?

[Luminesa]

I believe Proct is trying to elaborate on the nuance of the situation. A peaceful resolution to the border crisis is far preferable to a violent one.

Proct's really not, though. If he was, he'd've made it clear a good deal back rather than go through the effort of defending his underlying support for state-sanctioned tyranny.

In what world must you idolize the terrorist John Brown to hate slavery?

I don't think Proct's views are inconsistent, I think some people are just desperately reaching.

John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

The common person would generally not go out on the plains of Kansas and get into gunfights with people, nor are they expected to. Women’s groups, orators like Douglass and Sojourner Truth, poets like Whitman and Henry David Thoreau were writing and acting against slavery. Brown is an odd duck in history, one who DID fight people who were not innocent, but who also made questionable decisions (such as attacking Harper’s Ferry and promptly being captured). Brown is not comparable to Sporson, who attacked not only the police but innocent people, knowing very well he could kill them in the crossfire.

[Kowani]

I’m gonna need a citation for that child rape bit.

I didn't refer to anyone?

I thought you were referring to John Brown.

Proct's really not, though. If he was, he'd've made it clear a good deal back rather than go through the effort of defending his underlying support for state-sanctioned tyranny.



John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

The common person would generally not go out on the plains of Kansas and get into gunfights with people, nor are they expected to. Women’s groups, orators like Douglass and Sojourner Truth, poets like Whitman and Henry David Thoreau we’re writing and acting against slavery. Brown is an odd duck in history, one who DID fight people who were not innocent, but who also made questionable decisions (such as attacking Harper’s Ferry and promptly being captured). Brown is not comparable to Sporson, who attacked not only the police but innocent people, knowing very well he could kill them in the crossfire.

See, if that had been Proct’s response, it would’ve been fine. But it wasn’t.

[Great Minarchistan]

I thought you were referring to John Brown.

Not really, it was a hypothetical -- surprised that he did literally everything else though lmao

[Torrocca]

Proct's really not, though. If he was, he'd've made it clear a good deal back rather than go through the effort of defending his underlying support for state-sanctioned tyranny.



John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

The common person would generally not go out on the plains of Kansas and get into gunfights with people, nor are they expected to. Women’s groups, orators like Douglass and Sojourner Truth, poets like Whitman and Henry David Thoreau were writing and acting against slavery. Brown is an odd duck in history, one who DID fight people who were not innocent, but who also made questionable decisions (such as attacking Harper’s Ferry and promptly being captured).

You can't necessarily blame Brown for fighting during Bleeding Kansas when it was the pro-slavers who began the violence. It's not like he was the only one fighting there, in any case; it pretty much was the common person's fight during that time.

Brown is not comparable to Sporson, who attacked not only the police but innocent people, knowing very well he could kill them in the crossfire.

I doubt any of Spronson's actions were aimed toward harming innocent people, most particularly the people he was openly attempting to save.

[Kowani]

I thought you were referring to John Brown.

Not really, it was a hypothetical -- surprised that he did literally everything else though lmao

Have you heard of Bleeding Kansas? It was a war zone.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Let's be fair here: we're talking about an America that was at a point where there was no non-violent solution available to ending slavery. What was John Brown supposed to do? Yes, helping slaves escape is noble but it doesn't address the inherent, systemic problem. Inciting a slave revolt, like Brown intended, would've actually addressed the problem inherent had it been successful. John Brown did nothing wrong in trying to break the chains and free the enslaved from the yoke of tyranny.

John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry, took some hostages, killed some civilians (including a free Black) and repeatedly refused to surrender to the authorities even when further resistance was completely futile. I refuse to believe that Brown genuinely believed he could end slavery by this petty act of terrorism because Frederick Douglass straight up told him it was suicide. Either Brown knew it was a publicity stunt, or he was mad. Either way, not someone I'd hold up as a hero.

[Nova Cyberia]

Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

Ah, yes, the one who tried to """""""""save"""""""""" children by burning down the facility holding them.

[Torrocca]

Let's be fair here: we're talking about an America that was at a point where there was no non-violent solution available to ending slavery. What was John Brown supposed to do? Yes, helping slaves escape is noble but it doesn't address the inherent, systemic problem. Inciting a slave revolt, like Brown intended, would've actually addressed the problem inherent had it been successful. John Brown did nothing wrong in trying to break the chains and free the enslaved from the yoke of tyranny.

John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry, took some hostages, killed some civilians (including a free Black) and repeatedly refused to surrender to the authorities even when further resistance was completely futile. I refuse to believe that Brown genuinely believed he could end slavery by this petty act of terrorism because Frederick Douglass straight up told him it was suicide. Either Brown knew it was a publicity stunt, or he was mad. Either way, not someone I'd hold up as a hero.

John Brown, as far as I'm aware, had no belief that Harper's Ferry was going to end slavery; his intent there was to seize the armory and arm slaves to cause a rebellion. In any case, I can understand why he wouldn't surrender to the authorities, but the fact that he killed civilians is ultimately utterly condemnable, even if he otherwise fought for a just cause.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

John Brown, as far as I'm aware, had no belief that Harper's Ferry was going to end slavery; his intent there was to seize the armory and arm slaves to cause a rebellion. In any case, I can understand why he wouldn't surrender to the authorities, but the fact that he killed civilians is ultimately utterly condemnable, even if he otherwise fought for a just cause.

That's a roundabout way of saying he believed Harper's Ferry would end slavery, that being the very purpose of a slave rebellion (since his plan was to rampage through the South drawing up slaves from plantations and fighting only in "self-defence").

I don't understand your insistence at supporting him while condemning civilian casualties. He attacked a town, what do you expect? His whole plan was to terrorise slaveholders, terrorism having an unfortunate tendency to attract collateral damage.

[Luminesa]

The common person would generally not go out on the plains of Kansas and get into gunfights with people, nor are they expected to. Women’s groups, orators like Douglass and Sojourner Truth, poets like Whitman and Henry David Thoreau were writing and acting against slavery. Brown is an odd duck in history, one who DID fight people who were not innocent, but who also made questionable decisions (such as attacking Harper’s Ferry and promptly being captured).

You can't necessarily blame Brown for fighting during Bleeding Kansas when it was the pro-slavers who began the violence. It's not like he was the only one fighting there, in any case; it pretty much was the common person's fight during that time.

Brown is not comparable to Sporson, who attacked not only the police but innocent people, knowing very well he could kill them in the crossfire.

I doubt any of Spronson's actions were aimed toward harming innocent people, most particularly the people he was openly attempting to save.

Bleeding Kansas as a whole was a big part of what caused the Civil War in the first place. Frontier violence was no joke. But anyway, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, as they say. There were other ways he could have handled the issue.

[Torrocca]

John Brown, as far as I'm aware, had no belief that Harper's Ferry was going to end slavery; his intent there was to seize the armory and arm slaves to cause a rebellion. In any case, I can understand why he wouldn't surrender to the authorities, but the fact that he killed civilians is ultimately utterly condemnable, even if he otherwise fought for a just cause.

That's a roundabout way of saying he believed Harper's Ferry would end slavery, that being the very purpose of a slave rebellion (since his plan was to rampage through the South drawing up slaves from plantations and fighting only in "self-defence").

Eh, I disagree. It's more like he saw it as the opening event to a greater movement that'd end slavery.

I don't understand your insistence at supporting him while condemning civilian casualties. He attacked a town, what do you expect? His whole plan was to terrorise slaveholders, terrorism having an unfortunate tendency to attract collateral damage.

Because I ultimately don't support the killings of unarmed and defenseless people, civilian or otherwise and innocent or otherwise. John Brown fought for a just cause (in this case, liberating slaves), but it doesn't make every act he committed in pursuing that cause as something to venerate and love.