b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 615676

I fucking hate the anti globalisation lot and the anarchists

I hope they die in a horrible, horrible manner.

And hence dont get to inherit Daddies estate in Wiltshire
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:35, archived)
Well, who wants to live anywhere near Swindon anyway?

(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:36, archived)
they'll be
trashing Edinburgh today. cunts.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:37, archived)
I dont see why you lot should be put out
Utter bastards!
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:42, archived)
there's a load of places
all boarded up to protect themselves
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:43, archived)
I suddenly have the urge for haggis

(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:47, archived)
That's how they euphemise
"hot young cock" in Oxford is it ?
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:56, archived)
Half right
it refers to the young scottish rent boys who sell their wares late at night on the Cowley Road.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:59, archived)
Serves the Scotch people right
for oppressing minorities and being capitalist pigs and stuff.

This post was brought to you be the baldmonkey patented ill-conceived political idea generator.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:44, archived)

...also known as The Conservative Party Policy Unit
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:53, archived)
I can't be bothered to make my mind up on these issues.
All I know is I am enjoying my German Salami.
If that makes me a fascist, so be it.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:38, archived)
Europeans
have quite a way with meat.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:44, archived)
I know i do

(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:45, archived)
I have nothing against anti-globalisation protestors,
but I do have to laugh at them when they talk about doing away with capitalism (face it, it's not going to happen).

I think anarchists are quite sweet, the way they cling to an ill defined and often childish* philosophy.

*Be honest, when you were 13, you'd probably have claimed that you weren't going to vote when you grew up, because you wanted to be an anarchist. Then, you grew up (and probably didn't vote because you were too lazy).
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:40, archived)
I think it comes down to a lack of thought
on the alternatives, and a gut feeling that it stands to reason that certain things "just aren't right".

Not characteristics ever shared by right-wingers, of course.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:48, archived)
Pretty much.
It's just lazy thinking.

It's slightly worse than Conservatism - rather than just offering simplistic, flawed* solutions, they offer none.

*Disclaimer: in the interests of balance, monster munch recognises that this is a simplistic and flawed description of Conservatism, born out of lazy thinking.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:53, archived)
It's better than no thought at all though.
It's fundamentally good for people to stand up for what they believe, even if they don't believe it very well or stand up for it effectively.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:55, archived)
It's probably a good idea to have some beliefs and values
and not just succumb to apathy but if you don't think things through in a well-balanced manner, there is an increased risk of extremism (amongst other things). I have been led to understand that this is A Very Bad Thing Indeedâ„¢

edit: On reflection, making (the majority of) people think things through is possible the most futile task imaginable. Thus discussing all this is probably a waste of time and energy.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:01, archived)
Yes,
this.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:03, archived)
However, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, as the saying goes.
It could be said that though the Live 8 and even the original Live Aid/Band Aid concerts raised huge sums of 'fucking money' as Geldof would say, it did nothing about the tinpot dictators who squirrelled the aid into their wives, mistresses and swimming pools, whilst leaving the people destitute.

Sadly, until someone deadheads the corrupt dictators, whatever we do, however well intentioned, will have only a superficial effect. We will watch the news, say 'how terrible', wear our bracelets, and go back to eating our dinner.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:01, archived)
I agree that fixing the dictatorships*
is the way to fix everything in the long term.
That's not much consolation to the people that will starve tomorrow though, if I'm not being too sensationalist.

* including our own
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:08, archived)
True --- it's just that a balance needs to be struck between just throwing grain and bread at the problem
...and being overly 'diplomatic' and shaking hands with Mugabe et al. And to be honest, for me, that's the sad thing --- though awareness will be raised which is no bad thing, and aid etc will fix it for a bit, people don't tend to think past the next channel change, and democracies, especially our own, don't think past the next 5-year term in office. They may put their change somewhere different, without the consideration that a change in the way we think is what is required.

/something about the worst form of government with the exception of everything that has gone before....
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:20, archived)
You forgot
the enjoyment of picking a few vague concepts to hate, and shouting inflammatorily at anything that seems a bit like them.

As hippies do, of course.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:54, archived)
Meh
Sometimes lost causes are worth fighting for.
edit: /not an anarchist
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:48, archived)
Anarchists are funny.
All the anarchists I know are anti-establishment and thinks that makes it OK to go around generally being a prick and calling very nice policeman "pigs" for no reason. And their logo is funny.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:49, archived)
In summary:
Anarchists - awww, bless!

However, are we not in danger of just being patronising and complacent?

'Ning all.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:52, archived)
And ning to you.
What's up?
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:53, archived)
Having lurked for a bit, my inital response would be
"general levels of cynicism on the board"
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:54, archived)
I'm feeling quite a lot less cynical than usual.
If Bob Geldoff were here, I'd... actually, no, I'd push him into a bath of boiling Dettol. But in a good-willed way.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:00, archived)
People like that are stupid.
True anarchists are lovely people, because their philosophy is based on the belief that people are too nice to need a constitutional law.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:01, archived)
By "lovely,"
you mean "hopelessly deluded," don't you?
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:04, archived)
"Punk lives, you facker!"

*swigs from bottle of 20/20*
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:05, archived)
When I was 13
I wanted to vote. I like democracy, even if it really is pseudodemocracy.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:53, archived)
Pseudodemocracy how?

(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:59, archived)
It's good to be different.
I like democracy too, but only as much as Winston Churchill did (something about it being "the least worst option").
Still, as a youngster, I'd either claim that no party could represent my views, or that I would vote for the BNP.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 11:00, archived)
Anarchism is a nice idea, and do is communism,
but neither are suitable for running something as big as a country.

Communism is a fine way to run a household, though. From each according to ability, to each according to need.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:50, archived)
Communsim would be fine,
if it didn't have to involve any people.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:55, archived)
Or maybe even a commune?
The problem with household-level communism is that the bourgeoisie still control the means of production, or if you will, the pocket money.
(, Mon 4 Jul 2005, 10:55, archived)