Fleetinglife

Yes, I basically agree with this notion for the developed capitalist world today and that it made more sense in a more industrializing and Fordist oriented disciplinary society of vertical chain of command for production in short while the global economy today is situated more in most of the developed world along post-Fordist and Toyotist with more horizontal chain of production lines dispersed globally.

Luxemburg though had more sympathy to the Bolsheviks in her time (she saw their struggle and successes in Russia connected with the struggles and duty of the German socialists to lead and to set the foundations to carry out a revolution of the German proletariat in a developed capitalist country such as Germany at that time following the one in Russia in classical Marxist sense), even though she criticized their regime heavily and advocated for the adoption of revolutionary socialist democracy in Germany (or the concept of Luxemburgian democracy in Marxism as some movements such as PCInt in Italy lead by left communist Marxist theorist Amadeo Bordiga adopted in opposition to the policies of the Soviet Union which he described as state capitalist similiar in the sense that Lenin used at the begining of the consolidation of the RSFR in Russia) and opposed the implementation of top down one party bureaucracy in Russia but was even more merciless to the German Social Democrats because of their capitulation and going along with voting on the war credits for the German government in the outset of WWI and accusation of social chauvinism for fomenting national prejudices within the German proletariat versus the proletariat in other countries: ''The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster. If the so-called leaders of German socialism lose their so-called heads in such an unusual situation as a vote in the Reichstag, and if their hearts sink into their boots and they forget all the socialism they ever learned in situation in which the simple ABC of socialism clearly pointed the way – could one expect a party caught up in a truly thorny situation, in which it would show the world new wonders, not to make mistakes? The awkward position that the Bolsheviks are in today, however, is, together with most of their mistakes, a consequence of basic insolubility of the problem posed to them by the international, above all the German, proletariat. To carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist revolution in a single country surrounded by reactionary imperialist rule and in the fury of the bloodiest world war in human history – that is squaring the circle. Any socialist party would have to fail in this task and perish – whether or not it made self-renunciation the guiding star of its policies. There is only one solution to the tragedy in which Russia in caught up: an uprising at the rear of German imperialism, the German mass rising, which can signal the international revolution to put an end to this genocide. At this fateful moment, preserving the honour of the Russian Revolution is identical with vindicating that of the German proletariat and of international socialists.'' https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/09/11.htm ''Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of "justice" but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when "freedom" becomes a special privilege. [...] But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism.'' https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm

Yugoslavia? Vietnam? Mondragon Corporation in Basque? Coop in Italy? ''A number of market socialist elements have existed in various economies. The economy of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is widely considered to have been a form of market-based socialism, based on socially-owned cooperatives, workers' self-management and market allocation of capital. Policies similar to the market socialist proposal of a social dividend and basic income scheme have been implemented on the basis of public ownership of natural resources in Alaska (Alaska Permanent Fund) and in Norway (the Government Pension Fund of Norway).''

I apologize for my attitude, passion as well, I was probably struck with my own reactiveness, lack of understanding for the perspective of the other and seeds of unprocessed personal anger, wrath and false sense of attacked fragile pride and dignity at the moment in replying to your post. In other words my own ego also got the better of me in replying to you, so I also apologize for that. As well, I can feel yours as well and therefore respect it, so sorry for the projected and judgemental words from a place of bias on my part, since it comes from the place of sincerity Yes, I am, I am having a problems with several of those. Thank you for being understanding of that and for the compassion for the offered help and suggestion. I will check it out after I finish attending an online class I now have. Thanks again for the offered help and suggestion regarding dealing with my emotional problems that I have, really appreciate it and respect it on your part!

@Raptorsin7 ''The people on this forum and the mods are not honest people, they do not speak, live the truth'' ''I have said my peace'' You made a pledge with yourself regarding this topic and issue. ''Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person'' So did I Lets both honor our pledges, be honest with and respect the words we said and the promises we made to ourselves on this topic by saying our peaces this way. Peace to you and me ? .

Did Rittenhouse know in advance their past mental health records and criminal records when he pulled the trigger? Did he know who the people were that he was shooting apart from them being of group protestors who went ahead and destroyed and looted private property in an act of civil rebellion? (I wont use the simplistic emotionally loaded fearmongering and demonization term exploited by the Right - rioter and looter - since it obfuscates the wider issue - ''It has been argued that, while both civil disobedience and civil rebellion are justified by appeal to constitutional defects, rebellion is much more destructive; therefore, the defects justifying rebellion must be much more serious than those justifying disobedience, and if one cannot justify civil rebellion, then one cannot justify a civil disobedient's use of force and violence and refusal to submit to arrest. Civil disobedients' refraining from violence is also said to help preserve society's tolerance of civil disobedience.. M.L.King regarded civil disobedience to be a display and practice of reverence for law: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law." ''In his best-selling Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order, Howard Zinn takes a similar position; Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally non-violent, ''in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change'' Zinn rejects any "easy and righteous dismissal of violence", noting that Thoreau, the popularizer of the term civil disobedience, approved of the armed insurrection of John Brown. He also notes that some major civil disobedience campaigns which have been classified as non-violent, such as the Birmingham campaign, have actually included elements of violence.) Did he make an assumption that they were all rioters and looters by default fed by the media he consumed, and not part of civil disobedince protests for racial justice, police reform and judical reform that swept the country, and therefore they shouldn't be maimed and but shoot by default treated as violent criminals who automatically deserve the death sentence? You don't see the problem with this kind of reasoning of divorcing these people from the wider protests that swept the country over police brutality, extrajudicial killing of a member of an already discriminated racial group in terms of policing and the criminal justcie system and branding them as criminals where vigilante justice is thus justified against them in any measure or response deemed appropriate to the Second Amendment right holder? Why does the Second Amendement right: ''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' trump the First Amendment right to protest and why should an act of civil disobedience or rebellion earn the death sentence from guy abusing his Second Amendment rights in order not to get criminally charged or proven guilty on any verdict? Why? Why just not maim him, why kill him? Its a human being and his life no matter how dellusional or in affect in the moment he might seem. Kyle was supposedly a trained marksman at the shooting range. Why assume instinctively that he is criminal lunatic that is going to kill you and you not trying to maim him at least if he attempts to disarm you. Why respond fearfully and reactively reciprocating more fear and reaction? If somebody shouts shoot me nigga at you, you don't assume he is frieghtened of you being a threat to him with you being a stranger openly carrying and pointing a gun at him, not part of any law enforcement agency but an unmarked vigilante militia rando, and you shoot him to kill him and don't instead point the gun down or get out of there or make any attempt to descalate if you percieve he is in affect or crazy. He acted in a way that he didn't want to show fear and submission to random self-appointed gun touting militia kid to police him in the guise of Second Amendmen rights that was pointing a gun at him and didn't want to back off the protestors when he was told to. That's an act of a highly desperate person who thought he was being coerced through fear of intimidation and lethality by an arm carrying vigilante kid to scare him and the other protesters out of there to abandon their right to protest and to organize over systemic reform of the policing and criminal justice system. Interesting causation following. Yes I agree possibly that that dynamic socio-psychologically played out in that way in SD terms in regards to some among the protestors but it cannot be said of all them . But you make this assumption that all the protestors there were mentally deranged or wanted to cause chaos (during the nation wide protests where civil rebellion, rioting and looting in the night was widespread in all states in protest of extra-judicial murder by the police of a minority group member) in for staying there based on the later revealed fact, not during the protests, that some of those people among them had a prior criminal or mental health record and therefore are legitimate targets in the eyes of vigilantes. You are showing me in an end sentence pattern of phrasing your conclusions in a language excusing random vigilante or Second Amendment gun touting violence and actions against them and to anyone they deem a threat. Call me biased or not, that's what I am noticing. 1. BLM is stage Green in essence encompassing all the deemed oppressed and marginalized minorities unjustly discriminated by the policing and criminal justice system in society, and yes some of them will be stage Red, that's how that works of accepting all of them and the marginalized and oppressed in society, you will also have stage Red people lending support who had encounters with the police and criminal justice system in society, justifiable or not, because the movement is about the reform about those said systems, but it doesnt mean that they are stage Red anymore at that moment or what you percieve to be and judged to be stage Red and not toxic Orange. 2. The mental health record was later uncovered and I don't how he was looking for violence from a random stranger kid that showed up there and didn't want to stop policing them and leave and stop pointing his gun at them 3. You decided in your mind at that moment there is no equivalency in your mind between their humanities. You erased one of them from an actor in this situation. 4. Even though they shouldn't be shielded by the law everytime to have an opportunity to have an excuse to kill in self-defense in a widespread national crisis situation and legally contested situation like a protest, civil disobedience and civil rebellion situation in the country whenever they feel like they can get away with it just because they are carrying an unconcelead weapon. That's the problem and the current prescedent this case set with the verdict and that's why people are up in arms and outraged by it of what this might justify in the future. 5. What is the character and agression of Kyle Rittenhouse in this situation. Is he justified by being perceivedly a higher stage in SD terms than the person in question in this situation to kill him without trying to or to attempt to maim him first? 6. Rittenhouse responded in fear and like a proud, wrathful and egocentric cowardly mentally undeveloped kid would who bit more than he can chew by putting himself delibaretly in this situation clutching to his lethal weapon to the persons he percieved as criminals and shooting a person lethally after he deliberately put himself in a dangerous situation and didn't heed the warnings of any of the protestors to leave, which was showed and revealed by his breakdown and crocodile tears display in court in order to garner public support of him being an innocent white minor who can't possibly be sentenced for such a long time in prison and for him to avoid any shred of guilt or responsibilty for his actions. 7. You know I cannot but be reminded and not see some parallels with how this case turned out and aftermath reaction of some people towards Rittenhouse with the way the Horst Wessel case in Weimar Germany turned out in the 1930's. Communist militant Albert ''Ali" Hohler, and also a part of the political labor organization Red Front League, with a criminal record kills a Nazi brownshirt 19-year old paramilitary Horst Wessel that together with his unit attacked and terrorized communist activists, their political headquarters and their labor organizations. The Nazis arrange to assasinate Hohler in reciprocation. They turn Wessel into a martyr, Germans deeply crave for the restoration of law and order and economic stability in the country after the economic depression, almost constant chaos, violence and street clashes in Weimar Germany in the 1930's, the Nazis shove their way in as the only Party that will do just that and he becomes Germany's national hero while they are in power, who was petty thug and criminal also before that. I see it also now in the developmental level of people's response to the Rittenhouse case and to Rittenhouse himself, some people on the SD level of the American Right have turned him almost into a national martyr and hero and are not seeing the similiarties and striking parallels in the way how they are treating and seeing Rittenhouse in the same way Nazis and some Germans saw Horst Wessel in the 1930's and in regards to their percieved threat from the communists and the communist movement in Germany, who were seen and branded by most of them as violent criminals, degenerates and rioters.

Interesting hypothetical. If he would have gotten away with the same non-guilty verdict as Kyle if he would have shot him first (but I doubt there was any intent of that since that is part of the constrained narrative of the self-defense verdict to justify him of any accusation of reckless homicide or recklessly endangering safety by viewing through that paranoic prism that it was the who pulls the trigger first Wild West revolver duel situation through attempted physical threats to remove him from there and later threats of forced disarmament and Kyle therefore had to respond to that percieved lethal threat to him by shooting and killing first). So no, I think in this hypothetical, that guy would have been sentenced unlike Kyle for reckless homicide at least or more likely first degree intentional homicide because he lunged for Rittenhouse's gun in attempt to disarm him and killed him in the process with what is not his own gun. That's the double standard of those federal laws of what is or isn't considered self-defense in certain situations where there is gun carrying involved and the excessive manipulation and perverse justifaction of Second Amendment rights to suit the situation to get free of a criminal charge or guilty verdict.

Btw I found this interesting definiton of the differences and evolving relationship between sin and vice according to the teaching of the Christian mystic Evagrius Ponticus as accordingly explained and summarized briefly by Hamza Yusuf, that i thought I share with you if you find it interesting from a spiritual perspective: ''What's the difference between sins and vice?'' ''Vice would be in my theological understanding of it. Vice is the habitus, it would be the state of being and Sin, is actually, so it would be more like the difference between the universal and the particular. Sin would be the actual action that emanates from the negative habitus of vice. One is more literally a state of being, or literally if you look at Evagrius where we got these deadly ‘thoughts’ from, because he was the first to identify eight. Evagrius identified these eight ‘thoughts’ and then he has a process, the first one was a kind of triggering event, and the triggering, went to a kind of coupling, which was like an internal dialogue, and that led to an ascent, you ascent to the thought, and then there was what he called a captivity, and then he said whether you struggled with it and overcame it, would depend whether you actually acted on it. So the act would be the sin, where the vice would be the process that led you to it.''

Hmmm seems very interesting and profound. Thank you for sharing, this seems very useful and helpful to whom is studying and going more deeply into the matter of all the deadly 'sins' and vices for that matter ! I will be sure to check out her and Almaas's work online as well!

Hamza Yusuf: ‘'It’s a misnomer to call them deadly sins, because they are not really sins, they are states of being.’’ Chris Hedges: ‘’Well, Evagrius never called them ‘sins’ . Yusuf: He called them ‘thoughts’. Interesting and very helpful summation series I found via Chris Hedges covering all of the seven of the seven deadly 'sins' or 'thoughts' (there were actually originally eight according to the early Christian theologian, monk, mystic Evagrius - which included the Deadly Thought of 'Melancholy' or 'Self-Pity' or 'Self-Loathing' as the eighth one but later more mainstream church theologians like Saint Gregory excluded that one out) and their origins, theological, metaphyiscal, moral and ethical significance and their presence and manifestations in modern societies across the globe in an one hour interviews with each guest with theological expertise on the topic. ''Renovatio editor-in-chief Hamza Yusuf—conversing with scholars, leaders, and writers—explores one of religion’s most enduring conceptual frameworks, the Seven Deadly Sins. These conversations, filmed to capture their warmth and intimacy, shed light on how the sins manifest themselves within us, illustrate their devastating consequences on our culture, and elucidate their corresponding virtues for all of us who struggle with sin.'' I watched and compiled notes/transcript one the first one I watched which was the sixth one about Wrath which featured Chris Hedges as a guest and notes which I took from that episode on Wrath will post here in a Word Document and I will also post the link to the site where all the episodes of interviews on each of the seven sins are and will post subsequent notes I take and compile in my Word files of the other episodes that cover the remaining sins which are of relevance of me or I see as personal priority to contemplate on in my own life: On the Sixth Deadly 'Sin' or 'Thought' (as Evagrius calls them): WRATH. https://zaytuna.edu/renovatio/7-deadly-sins The Seven Deadly Sins WRATH - Hamza Yusuf.docx

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young pastor in Germany in the 1930s, argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on death ears. Bonhoeffer's famous text, which we slightly edited for this video, serves any free society as a warning of what can happen when certain people gain too much power. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc In prison, Bonhoeffer began to reflect on how his country of thinkers and poets had turned into a collective of cowards, crooks and criminals. Eventually he concluded that the root of the problem was not malice, but stupidity. In his famous letters from prison, Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy to good than malice, because while ''one may protest against evil; it can be exposed and prevented by the use of force, against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protestes nor use of force accomplish anything here. Reason falls on deaf ears.'' Facts that contradict a stupid person's prejudgement simply need not be believed and when they are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, incidental. In all this the stupid person is self-satisfied, and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous, by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually yet stupid, and yet others who are intellectualy dull but anything but stupid. The impression one gains is that stupidity is not so much a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them. People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of political or religious nature, infects a large part of humanity with stupidity. Almost as if this is a sociological-psychological law, where the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up on the autonomous position. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn, must not blind us from the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possesion of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil - incapable of seeing that it is evil. Only an act of liberation, not instruction can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then, we must abandon all atempts to convince the stupid person. ''Action springs not from thought, but from readiness for responsibility. The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.'' - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, After Ten Years

Just want to drop this here of what I posted earlier in this subforum. Food for thought for people forming and holding onto their biases, prejudgements, opinions and stances on this situation: ''If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually yet stupid, and yet others who are intellectualy dull but anything but stupid. The impression one gains is that stupidity is not so much a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them. People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of political or religious nature, infects a large part of humanity with stupidity. Almost as if this is a sociological-psychological law, where the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up on the autonomous position. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn, must not blind us from the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possesion of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil - incapable of seeing that it is evil. Only an act of liberation, not instruction can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until hen, we must abandon all atempts to convince the stupid person.'' - Dietrich Bonhoffer's Theory of Stupidity

I personally think from my experiences that you really shouldn't be afraid or too anxious over your future social life in University. I also had an awkward social life and a relatively lonely existence in highschool before in went to Uni. But since I wanted to enroll in the study group that I got a liking to in highschool, in my case sociology, I really started socializing with people and now have some friends from Uni on that basis, namely only on the fact that we have studied and learned the same things, even though I didn't meet a girlfriend that way alone (though I fail to see why one shouldn't meet ones future partner on the basis of studying and preparing exams together with that person), I made friends with plenty of girl freinds, on only that basis that we have studied and learned the same things in Uni and even met people from similiar study groups just because we study similiar and intertwining subjects like psychology and sociology in order to get a degree and for our future profession. I am 23, and even though I now weigh the options now of living my study group and faculty at Uni behind, since I have a lot of procrastinated and accumulated unpassed exams from past years, and to enroll in the near future this summer in a private college for social work, where some of my passed exams from sociology are recognized, I still have retained some friends and acquantinces from university on the basis that we have studied the same stuff, helped each other over passing exams and that we share similiar interests in life since we enrolled in the same study group and scientific discipline, and was often invited by them to their private organized parties, birthdays and events like karaoke night, where I also met their friends and other people etc. So I personally think, from my similiar background in highschool and subsequent experinces in Uni, that you really shouldn't be anxious or fearful over not screwing up your future social life on Uni, because from my experiences if you focus mentally and plan on studying, learning and passing exams people that are on Uni with the same goal - to study, learn, have knowledge on your study subject, pass exams, plan on and get that degree after four years for their future life profession and career that will ensure them a decent future life - will naturally flock with each other to help each other out and you will make new friends on that basis, that you can later go during your free time to parties and events with to meet other people and by that extent girls. So I think that you shouldn't be too anxious over your socia life on Uni but to focus on and plan on how you will approach studying and completing your four years and getting that degree tht will give you opportunties in life and help your future career what everyone else goal is and the main reason they enrolled in the first place - which will again allow you to meet more like minded people and partners that share the same intersets later in life -, since I fell behind on that most fundamental goal of Uni, but still haven't lost most of the friends I acquired and that I made in Uni, that reamin in contact with via social media or when we plan events together. I even almost met a potential girlfriend at Uni, again on the same basis on helping each other out in our studies and preparing exams together, but things didn't work out on my part though unfortunately even though she was intersted in me because at that time I had some mental problems and hardships in studying and passing exams and I didn't reciprocate and even paused that year and fell off with studying and socializing, but later we became friends and acquintances. But this is my personal view from my experiences and mistakes at Uni and advice to you as two year older collegue on what should be your plan, strategy and priority at Uni and that these other social aspects you have anxiety over will naturally flow from taking care and being consitent on these since that is what binds people and is their share goal for enrolling in Uni at the first place. I wish you good luck and no fear and no anxiety over these seemingly big but not actually that big of a deal and important things you are catastrophizing over once you experience them for yourself you will see how naturally they flow and occur from your effort in investing your time, mental energy in studying and completing your main goals at Uni!

Just want to note this to some people here who wrote whole paragraphs and theses justifying the motives and trying to high-mindedly rationalize and philosophize the mental processes and thought patterns of a 17 -18 year old adolescent kid that went behind his idea that was given support and greenlighted by his seniors and enviroment to LARP as CoD medic, as some people wrote as his motives, and assault weapon fire support for one of the most well protected, shielded and funded public service organizations in the country and vigilante for someone elses private property in a another federal state from protests that sparked as a result of extra-judicial killing of a discriminated minority in plain sight and that circulated the entire globe and world media by the very same official members of a public institution tasked with a simple, straight forward task and principle to 'Serve and Protect' all its law abiding citizens and all their rights, including the one to life, and not to kill them in plain sight for the whole public to see and to be abhorred and shocked by what they are seeing is being allowed to transpire and happen to one of their fellow members of their community, citizens and human beings without batting an eye in their country and for which some and many members of that public org were allowed before hand to get away with doing almost scott free in other cases to other members and humans of that socially discriminated group. The subsequent rioting and looting erupted because of the explosion of emotions, anger and pain from these year long tragic extra judicial shooting and killing cases and injustices in policing against the members of this highly discriminated group being systematically unadressed and scurred away by the legal system in favor of those who shot them in all instances, justified or unjustified, and finally culminated in the blatant one now where the unequal power dynamic, violation of a humans basic rights, sadism, oppression and discrimination was so visible and carried out so much in the open for the whole world to see that it reached a boiling point that it if there is any dignity and empathy towards fellow humans left to protect in society it had to be acted upon and the system that was allowing this to reach up to this point under the guise of legality for a another human being to be able and allowed to do this to another human under any legal, social or moral pretext or excuse publicly had to be protested against and attacked since it enter the domain of inhumane attrocity at that point. And this snot nosed mentally undeveloped minor with no experience or wider knowledge of how society that he lives in works or the way the world works was allowed and greenlighted to parachute across states to LARP as frontline medic and fire support for this very same shielded, socially and legaly privelleged organization and institution and to act as self appointed vigilante for strangers properties with no legal reprecussions went ahead and was allowed to be put in situation where he can carry in an assault rifle amongst a group of strangers and in the ball of desperate human anger, wrath and fury that were these protests over these contiuned systemic injustices and callousness of instituions and people who don't bat an eye at these perptrated inhumanities in their country and against their fellow citizens and humans and that continued to live their lives as if nothing happened - their radicalization was followed precisely because of no inkling of an outrage or radicalization of acting, lifting a finger or doing something, at least letting your voice of protest and outrage be herd, over these attrocities and inhumanties being allowed to be commited and to continue against their fellow humans and citizens - and was ultimately allowed after he felt threatend of the protestors and people there being threatend of seeing a stranger adolescent kid carry in the open an assault rifle and approach them in the night, in a country where news cycles are filled with a culture of fear of a mentally unstable lone shooter commiting either a massacre in school or somewhere else over any given reason because he was allowed to take his assualt rifle there, to in his probably dellusional larpy video game mode and probably seeing protestors through his lense of fear and panic and sudden insecurity over his personal safety and life at that moment of putting himself delibareltly in this highly precarious and dangerous situation that he was not mentally prepared for by carrying a lethal weapon in a group of unknown angry and impassioned strangers of actually being some kind of non-human beast like entities to him and started shooting when they threatend him to leave and refused to disarm after they chased him and beg for mercy and forgiveness for opening fire in a group of strangers he just inflitrated and instead kill two of them in panic without warning that he was going to shot them if they don't stop the chase. And some are choosing to identify with this inexperienced 17 - 18 year old snot nosed mentally not yet developd insecure minor and his right to be allowed to carry an assault rifle into a crowd of people he doesn't know and start shooting at the slightest threat of him being personally insecure after being allowed to put himself in a unnecesarry dangerous situation by his mentally undeveloped LARP in which a group of angry strangers feel threatend by a pressence of adolescent unknown kid carrying in an assault rifle in their midst without any warning or explanation and acting like he is going to self-enforce some vigilantism and policing to them and when they feel threatend by him and threathen him to leave he shoots and when they want to disarm this kid, that for all they know could be a mentally unstable active shooter wanting to intimidate, attack and shot other protestors at this point, he kills two of them in his insecure pearl clutching of his assault rifle and then goes and weeps crocodile tears in court to avoid any punishment and reprecussions for his actions - this reeks of personal insecurity as well in your lives when it comes to question of acting in and extending energy and solidarity to wider social problems and ills to your fellow humans.

Thanks for the offer but can I explain briefly here as well in an open format if its no trouble? Just thats its late here now, 1:35 AM where I live since its the CEST time zone and I am feeling a bit tired to write out everything now I planned to share so if I can do it tommorow when I catch a little sleep and rest and collect my thoughts and feelings if its not a problem to adjust time zones that way with you? Thanks again so much in advance for the willingness, patience, kindness and energy to hear out my problems and negativity, I promise I will try my best to not be to bothersome or longwinded in my personal life summary and explanation of troubles.

New Self Defense Anthem Just Dropped!

'What are your thoughts?' The Guardian video showing tape of the live broadcasted not guilty verdict smacks together when coupled with the Horst Wessel Lied anthem playing in the background at the same time in a macabre way!

'The Nazi Party in 1930 found its primary martyr in the 19-year-old Brownshirt Horst Wessel, who led a branch of the Nazi paramilitaries that attacked Communists, especially those who made up the rival Communist militia called the Red Front-Fighters' League (RFB). Wessel was shot dead by Albrecht "Ali" Höhler, a Communist militant and petty criminal — later assassinated by the Nazis — after a complaint was made to the party about Wessel by his Communist landlady. Wessel instantly became a "martyr for the Third Reich." The "Horst Wessel Song" became the official anthem of the Nazi Party.' https://www.salon.com/2020/09/10/american-bloodlands-in-a-deeply-polarized-nation-mass-violence-is-not-far-away/

Yeah you could use something more accurate though like opportunists, vandals etc. degenerates has a strong negative judgemental connotation of someone somehow being behind average humans in terms of moral or mental development, immoral, evil etc It conjures a slew of negative images and connotations or of someone being behind or backward from the rest of humans in society. It is an emotionally loaded term, is what I am trying to say, that impies strong negative feelings and biases of the one that is using it against someone else to uplift himself as being on a higher plane of development and existence than the ones he is deriding and distancing himself from and that is also used more often than not to demonize someone as being lesser or inferior to others or to a standard in society on several value levels - from cognitive, moral to social. But I get where you are coming from with using it in the context you explained as those people degenarating from the goals and aims that BLM has and using it for cover for something else, but I wouldn't apply it personally to those Rittenhouse shot since it would seem that I am distancing myself from them in terms of their humanity and in the possibilty of me in the social circumstances I deemed as demanding some kind of protest or action commiting the same mistake of acting overly foolish, agressive or in an reactive way triggered by the collective intoxication of the self-assurance of power in numbers, mob justice and emotionally charged perceived threat from actors who are seen as unwittng agents of the status quo in defense of a continued injustice and systemic opression and violence in society. I think people that have died by Rittenhouses hand also believed in what BLM at the time advocated but they interpreted it in an emotionally charged selfish, revanshistic and low conscious way as serving as an excuse for doing other things and maybe even persecuting percieved politcal enemies and died tragically as result of being possesed by that affect, overly charged passion and hate. The problem is in someone seeing the need of assisting the job of local cops and national guard troopers with a gun as a vigilante in the first place - the sheer quantity of gun ownership in the country serves as an excuse for some people to LARP as civilian vigilantes, especially gun touting preadolscent gamer kids to be allowed and encouraged to get an idea to do such a thing in the first place by their enviroment and parents - it reeks of ignorance of the vast capability and resources of the American state and its appartuses put in place exactly for the purpose to deal with such scenarios. .There is greater fool and stupidity in every equation that ends in such a tragedy, they can't be easily equated as the same in their foolishness in my opinion since doing so would just sound like a bothsideism distancing and moral and epistemic non-investment argument of the truth and who was more ethical, moral and right in the given situation, it namely it falls on the one that has the greater responsibility of openly and visibly carrying a lethal firearm into a group of a strangers that stokes fear and uncertainty in his motives and intentions to be more cool headed, convincing and rational, as the actor who visibly has more lethal power in the given sitaution, and less prone to react agressively, fearfully, trigger happy and stupidly as he is the one who first brought the threat of visible danger of harm, injury and lethality into the equation by openly carrying a firearm on full display so the greater responsibilty falls on him to ensure the people around him that he is not a physical or lethal threat to them and to be more convincing in his motives. Arson, property damage should not be a warrant for a death sentence, without at least an attempt for incapacitating, first and careful consideration for human life and humanity of the other should be more valuable than mindlessly and reactively in affect defending property and preventing property damage at any cost of even anothers life when its not life threatening - a person should not die for the sin of damaging anothers property whatever the reason or intent behind it.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young pastor in Germany in the 1930s, argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on death ears. Bonhoeffer's famous text, which we slightly edited for this video, serves any free society as a warning of what can happen when certain people gain too much power. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc In prison, Bonhoeffer began to reflect on how his country of thinkers and poets had turned into a collective of cowards, crooks and criminals. Eventually he concluded that the root of the problem was not malice, but stupidity. In his famous letters from prison, Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy to good than malice, because while ''one may protest against evil; it can be exposed and prevented by the use of force, against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protestes nor use of force accomplish anything here. Reason falls on deaf ears.'' Facts that contradict a stupid person's prejudgement simply need not be believed and when they are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, incidental. In all this the stupid person is self-satisfied, and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous, by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually yet stupid, and yet others who are intellectualy dull but anything but stupid. The impression one gains is that stupidity is not so much a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them. People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of political or religious nature, infects a large part of humanity with stupidity. Almost as if this is a sociological-psychological law, where the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up on the autonomous position. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn, must not blind us from the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possesion of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil - incapable of seeing that it is evil. Only an act of liberation, not instruction can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until hen, we must abandon all atempts to convince the stupid person. ''Action springs not from thought, but from readiness for responsibility. The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.'' - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, After Ten Years

Sorry, I have interpreted the question in the wrong way and have interpreted the usage of that term in this context in an incorrect way (you could say that it was a hypothetical question). Sorry, I get now where you were coming from with that question mb

Seems pretty accurate for the U.S. context and perhaps the universality of the hierarchy for the global capitalist system context. Nice short and useful list assembling Hmm thinking what else you can perhaps add if the isn't already enough of a general point list overview that you don't need to use other criteria for ranking on a hierarchical scale certain professions or statuses in society in terms of the quantity of the power and wealth that they hold in society and in terms of social relations that is one of the main indicator of status and rank in modern capitalist society.

Tbh this sounds as a whataboutism - how many liberal kids have a vigilante impulse in them to go out and take their supposed guns that they own with them in order to protect the democratic institutions of the state to protect them from the rightists. No, this a right-wing culture thingin the U.S. to form groups, orgs. and take matters in your own hands on the basis that you can't trust or rely on the government and it's employees to do it themselves, liberals were raised mostly in a culture and enviroment where there is no such impulse or need to do such a thing since their belief system doesn't revolve around anti-government paranoia and distrust but trusting in the public institutions to have plenty enough manpower and resources to handle it themselves. But if we take this hypothetical as possible of occuring in some scenario, it would be different in the sense that in the case of those protestors that they violently wanted to storm and take over the capital to cancel certifying the election outcome thus they directly engaged in an attack on a shared public institution but nevertheless the hypothetical liberal kid has no business being there, taking the matter in his own hands and trying to do the job of federal employees, the principle of non-interference remains the same. He should get almost the same sentence, apart from the sentence mitigatory circumstances that he was enganging in the defense of a public institution that he has a constituional right to as an American citizen, if he killed someone as a vigilante because he has no bussiness being there and taking the enforcing of the law in his own hands. The principle should be simple and the line should be clearly drawn - you have no right to LARP as a vigilante taking the matter of enforcing the law in exclusively in your own hands as you see fit and trying to get away scott free of any responsibilty if things go awry in your interpretation of the actions that you can take that you see as legal and jusitfiable in your own narrow, uneducated or unenlightened view of what enforcing the law lets you get away with and allows you to do if the federal, state, county or local employess are already doing that job - vigilante help shoudln't be needed, they should get that out of the federal law.

I hope you were searching for a different term for description but couldn't find a applicable one that you liked. This kind of way of describing them has very negative connotations implied for the person using it and those he is desribing in a judgemental ableist way or a far-right way of describing leftist politics and liberal culture.

I have a jist of an idea of where they are coming from but I still see it, in the early phase of how it looks and what pictures are those that have an inflated value as a 1. extreme symptom of financilization and speculation in our current economy with no tangible value as of yet (that one that either uplifts people culturally, socially or mentally or satiates the physic or material needs that they have) and 2. as a hobby of the rich and those well off in enough to get the motivation in the first place to invest in acquiring such a thing as 'proof of digital ownership'. Crypto Punks series just seems not so well drawn to me tbh - their style looks like a copy of Gorillaz characters and album cover - and it seems that people who are interested in owning the NFTs in the series are a niche of crypto currency speculators and the ownership of these thing being their internal cultural thing and status symbol to others in terms of how well they are doing financially and in the crypto market. To closest thing that I can relate to that impulse and desire is me floating the idea in my mind of wanting to buy easily reproducable ultra rare digital Yu Gi Oh cards in an online multiplayer competitve PvP Yu Gi Oh game I played so I can use them in it and include them and build around my F2P deck around them so I can enjoy the game more in having a chance of beating other players in the game more easily in PvP - but as with it, its a highly addictive and competitive escapist entertainment crutch from life for a period of time that doesnt even require much mental effort and intellect like other always available gmaes like chess and also at the same time, as it is with these things a, hobby of the relatively more privilleged and well off in society who would even consider spending money on such a thing, digital cards exclusive for a game and not even real physical ones mind you.