Referenda Results

JC 2K3

shay_562 wrote: »

Ever get the feeling that 90% of what goes on in the college goes over the heads of 90% of the people?

90% of what goes on in the SU anyway, and could you really blame people?

torrential

shay_562 wrote: »

Actual conversation I had today

Ever get the feeling that 90% of what goes on in the college goes over the heads of 90% of the people?

And therein lies the problem. Most people like the concept of the boycott rather than having any particular strong feeling either way on it. The thing that makes a lot of Trinity students different from those at other colleges is the fact that being a Trinity student seems to be an integral part of the person's identity.

supersheep

Denerick wrote: »

I think its because we've more sense now. Certainly protest things that need protesting, but a lot of the modern attempts by students to be 'radical' just always seems like an attempt by a student to appear radical. Pretty sad really.

Greatest example is probably all the anarchist flags at the fee's protest. I can't even begin to say how funny I found that irony! (And how funny I found their idiocy and contempt for appearing as hypocrites)

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just saw this one now. Care to explain the irony, hypocrisy, and idiocy, please?

jamesnp

supersheep wrote: »

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just saw this one now. Care to explain the irony, hypocrisy, and idiocy, please?

Surely the irony and hypocrisy are obvious? Anarchists attending an organized protest...?

-jp

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

I think it's more the fact that anarchy is supposed to advocate the complete elimination of a central government, something which can't really be reconciled with demanding a state funded education system created from tax payers money.

Epic Tissue

Randomness wrote: »

we are in college after all and we should be more rebelious before we get all sensible and grown up.

:o:o:o

Denerick

supersheep wrote: »

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just saw this one now. Care to explain the irony, hypocrisy, and idiocy, please?

I think the ZZZ person (Sorry, can never remember your name :pac:) put it well. A central government maintaining a massive state subsidy to hand out to students regardless of their personal means. Hmm...

For some reason it doesn't work well with anarchism. Which leads me to think that 95% of anarchists don't put an awful lot of thought into anarchism.

supersheep

Yeah, you might think that, until you realise that most anarchists are also socialists of some stripe, and that they're not utopian idealists but rather practical people who are as concerned with the conditions of the working class now as they are with the establishment of an anarchist society. In fact the two are intimately linked.
I can speak for every red-and-black-flag-waving anarchist on the march and say that this is an approximation of what they think.

Denerick

supersheep wrote: »

Yeah, you might think that, until you realise that most anarchists are also socialists of some stripe, and that they're not utopian idealists but rather practical people who are as concerned with the conditions of the working class now as they are with the establishment of an anarchist society. In fact the two are intimately linked.
I can speak for every red-and-black-flag-waving anarchist on the march and say that this is an approximation of what they think.

So you believe the state should play a bigger role in our education system? Regardless of how they think, that is not anarchism. If they favour a 'withering away' of the state then they are communists, or socialists on the road to communism.

Anarchists are rebel kids. I know one in my class. Such a big nerd he wouldn't be able to even make a fly recoil in fear.

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

Anarchists are rebel kids. I know one in my class. Such a big nerd he wouldn't be able to even make a fly recoil in fear.

But a "big nerd" who probably has internet access.. so you might want to be careful with what you say about people...

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

But a "big nerd" who probably has internet access.. so you might want to be careful with what you say about people...

I use it in a rather affectionate sense. Its inevitable some children adopt these crazy ideas when they go to college. Some grow out of it, others just get bored. A very few make a conscious effort to remain 'pure' and some even to grow intellectually confident in it when they begin to be able to rationalise it properly in their own minds. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But if I ever have to bump into someone again who's just discovered Bakunin's article on Wikipedia, I think I'll kill myself.

Kwekubo

So, when can we expect a Nestlé referendum?

Denerick

Kwekubo wrote: »

So, when can we expect a Nestlé referendum?

No doubt the socialist/anarchist kids are masturbating over the thought as we speak.

supersheep

Politically, I don't care about a Nestle referendum. It's not a union-called boycott, and if we're boycotting things on the basis of them not being nice, well, hey, why aren't we boycotting every single company ever? I supported the Coke boycott because of union solidarity. It'll be after I'm gone, thank ****. No more SU politicking for me, all right.

I love how non-anarchists always know more about anarchists than the anarchists. Denerick, you're obviously right! Just because I support the interests of the working class because of my class interests and because it is the only way towards a classless society, I obviously cannot be an anarchist! Because I acknowledge that the state exists, and attempt to use it for the benefit of my class while at the same time organising to spread ideals that will eventually lead to its abolition, I cannot be an anarchist!

There's 150 years of writing about this stuff. There's no contradiction or irony in anarchists calling on the government to give us, the working class, more. We did it for the eight-hour day and health and safety laws, or was that not anarchist action either? (Not saying that anarchists were the only people fighting for labour rights, of course.)

As for the rebel kids thing, I know a few anarchists old enough to be grandparents, and even more old enough to be parents. In fact, of the anarchists I know, barely a handful are under the age of 25.

Denerick

supersheep wrote: »

Politically, I don't care about a Nestle referendum. It's not a union-called boycott, and if we're boycotting things on the basis of them not being nice, well, hey, why aren't we boycotting every single company ever? I supported the Coke boycott because of union solidarity. It'll be after I'm gone, thank ****. No more SU politicking for me, all right.

I love how non-anarchists always know more about anarchists than the anarchists. Denerick, you're obviously right! Just because I support the interests of the working class because of my class interests and because it is the only way towards a classless society, I obviously cannot be an anarchist! Because I acknowledge that the state exists, and attempt to use it for the benefit of my class while at the same time organising to spread ideals that will eventually lead to its abolition, I cannot be an anarchist!

There's 150 years of writing about this stuff. There's no contradiction or irony in anarchists calling on the government to give us, the working class, more. We did it for the eight-hour day and health and safety laws, or was that not anarchist action either? (Not saying that anarchists were the only people fighting for labour rights, of course.)

As for the rebel kids thing, I know a few anarchists old enough to be grandparents, and even more old enough to be parents. In fact, of the anarchists I know, barely a handful are under the age of 25.

Come back to me when your 30 years old.

supersheep

With what? That's not much of an argument. It's not much of a point. It's not even much of a put-down. It also has nothing to do with your factually wrong definition of anarchism.

Sure, maybe by thirty I won't be an anarchist, if that's your point. Maybe in a decade's time you'll be an anarchist. Maybe lots of things. I doubt it though. I've identified as left-wing for longer than I've identified as atheist. I might not be active, but I very much doubt I won't believe more or less exactly what I believe now.

Denerick

supersheep wrote: »

With what? That's not much of an argument. It's not much of a point. It's not even much of a put-down. It also has nothing to do with your factually wrong definition of anarchism.

Sure, maybe by thirty I won't be an anarchist, if that's your point. Maybe in a decade's time you'll be an anarchist. Maybe lots of things. I doubt it though. I've identified as left-wing for longer than I've identified as atheist. I might not be active, but I very much doubt I won't believe more or less exactly what I believe now.

What age are you? Your perspectives will change with time. Usually the older kind of socialist/anarchist/whatever are interesting malcontents. I have a lot of respect for them. But when I see someone say... under 30 claim to be an anarchist/socialist/communist/whatever I automatically see a mass convergence of ignorance and attempts to appear 'radical' to shock your decidedly middle class parents.

My definition of anarchism was correct. Your belief that you are an anarchist is not however.

supersheep

Early 20s. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that my opinions will change. It's not some teenage attempt to shock my parents though. They don't care that I have radical political beliefs. We disagree. That's it.

On the definition of anarchism. Do you believe that organisations agitating for better labour laws is not anarchist?

tolosenc

supersheep wrote: »

Yeah, you might think that, until you realise that most anarchists are also socialists of some stripe

That's retarded.

The state should be nothing, but until we get there, the state should be everything.

I mean, come on!

I've no problem with someone being an anarchist. I will think that they're a fool, but at the end of the day, it's their perogative. What I have a problem with is people blantantly not understanding what they consider their own political beliefs. It's as idiotic as converting to Islam because you hate America.

supersheep

I understand my political beliefs very well, thanks. I understand that I am an anarchist-communist. My aim is to abolish class society and replace it with a free federation of communes. I'm also practical. The state exists. Capital exists. I have to work within these constraints. I will take action that I hope will both push the state to make the life of the working class better and show people that anarchist methods of activity are effective.

If you think this is incompatible with anarchist beliefs, then you obviously have very little knowledge of the historical anarchist movement. If you think I don't understand my own political beliefs, then go off and read the Platform and the position papers of the WSM then come back to me.

tolosenc

So you're a communist. Thanks, problem solved. Sorta.

supersheep

Yup. And an anarchist. They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

rjt

Denerick wrote: »

But if I ever have to bump into someone again who's just discovered Bakunin's article on Wikipedia, I think I'll kill myself.

I just discovered Bakunin's article on Wikipedia.

Jonathan

rjt wrote: »

I just discovered Bakunin's article on Wikipedia.

I wonder is Denerick a man of his word?

5318008!

Denerick wrote: »

No doubt the socialist/anarchist kids are masturbating over the thought as we speak.

fap fap fap :pac:!

Denerick

Jonathan wrote: »

I wonder is Denerick a man of his word?

I guess in this case you would like me to be a man of my word!

I'm a man of my hyperbole. At least on the internet.