Topic: "Anarchists" rioting in London - page 5. (Read 21460 times)

+1.  Yes, I've found "Voluntaryist" to be a much more palatable for introducing our ideas to most people.  At least you can have a reasonable discussion.  Just be sure to avoid mentioning the "A" word, and if it does come about, you can distance yourself from it.

+10^∞

So tell them you are a voluntarist.
Them - "I've never heard that word before, what does it mean"
You - /Explain Anarchy 
Them - "Sounds reasonable"

Certainly some of them, probably even the majority.  But they are the pawns in the game.  The useful idiots.  Those who have an ideological goal are predominately some variation of marxist/socialist/collectivist. 

edit.

Agreed. Turning off the idiot box is really the best solution.

Which is a problem, because I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news.

Nevermind...

I have a better advice:  just don't watch corporate mainstream news.  Especially TV.

Pictures are most often selected, edited, sometimes scenarized.  They are misleading.

Also: now when something happens at 10,000 miles away, you know it immediately, as if such an event had direct implication in your life.  Usually it doesn't.  The result is that you get anxious for no reason.  Just turn your TV of, dump it or sell it, whatever.  Just take care of your own life first.

Anyways, back on topic. Most of the Anarchists you see breaking stuff and the like are probably police provocateurs. Police officers were caught red handed dressed in 'anarchist' attire and doing destructive things like setting things on fire at the Toronto G20 protest. They were outted when protesters started noticing they were wearing the same police issued combat boots as the riot police. When protesters surrounded them they jumped behind police lines. It was later admitted in a press conference they were indeed undercover cops. This is a VERY common tactic used to make a protests seem illegitimate. Same thing happened in London with the Muslim protests, the ones where 'muslims' were holding up signs saying things like 'kill people who say islam is evil'. But if you look closely, you'll notice every violent and offensive sign was written in the exact same hand writing(meaning ONE PERSON made them all), and everyone holding one has their face covered. You can google image search 'london muslim protests' and see for yourself. Governor Walker also floated the idea during the Wisconsin Union protests to use provocateurs to make the protests seem illegitimate, he was caught saying this on a recorded phone call. 

In conclusion: Don't believe everything you see on the Corporate Mainstream News.

This is a private internet and we are only guests.

Could someone describe said picture in a non-offensive way (for those of us like me that missed it)?

This is a private forum and we are only guests.

I'm totally ok with mini states.  The more, the better.

Moreover, on internet when you're not happy with the rules on some website, it is easy and painless to leave and to go somewhere else.  Things are different IRL.

by moderating your own forum, you just fracture statism into mini states.

No, you don't.  Unless you are a gay gerontophile.

You might consider using text-mode browser.

Problem is that you see pictures only if you click on them, and then you see them fullscreen, which is worse, in a sense

images.encyclopediadramatica.com. Ad-blocked that one a long time ago

Do I even want to know?

To be honest, I am current at home, sitting in my chair working with my kids running around, my younger son saw this. I am pissed, because I did not expect this. Now, I must explain to him why there are Idiots in the world.

I must leave for awhile, until this is corrected. He succeeded in censoring my speech.

You are correct, my house is private. But what if it was a public space. Someone "owns" this forum, I am curious as to what the "Owner" will do.

Curious though, what if this guy was holding up this picture in a public place. How does one handle it?  I think we will group together into a system of morals and decide. I have a feeling, the decision has been made, just not enforced yet.

Point Being, Not all censorship from public places is bad. Certain things should remain in private places.