• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

☮ Social ☮ PD Social Talk Thread: Somatic Swirly Sepia Summer Sausage Stage Set Suppository

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah... as I said, a complex issue. I think our militarization of the police is a terrifying step in the wrong direction. As far as drug arrests and wars for oil, those are unrelated to whether we should be able to have military-grade weapons for civilians, but really disgusting and important issues all the same.
 
Yeah... as I said, a complex issue. I think our militarization of the police is a terrifying step in the wrong direction. As far as drug arrests and wars for oil, those are unrelated to whether we should be able to have military-grade weapons for civilians, but really disgusting and important issues all the same.

It is not really complex. The gov. works for rich bankers, zionist, and saudi royal family. They want us as slaves. They fake mass shootings for decades until we give up weapons. Then we are fucked. Pretty simple.

Meh, they are both fucked things I do not agree with that emply the use of high power weapons. Fairness says we have our own weapons to show how much we dissagre one day perhaps.

Id much rather just live an awesome peaceful life. As that seems less and less likely to happen, Id rather go out swinging than with a black bag over my head. Basically insuring said bagging one day, but meh.
 

LOL, I never wonder around the other bluelight forums, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.





This whole situation kind of makes me sad for this world. Regardless of what's to blame for what happened in orlando, I has turned into a circumstance for all kind of bigoted and intolerant opinions to show up, from evey side of the discussion. Makes me think that peaceful coexistence of cultures is an impossible dream.
 
img9^4 said:
As a Foreigner it looks crazy to me that one can have such easy acces to fire-weapons in the states, but maybe someone here can tell me if there is any use for them that is not founded in violence ?

Their usefulness for violence is why we have them. The day to day arguments over gun control revolve around whether ease of access is more conducive to law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves from armed criminals or is more conducive to the proliferation of violent criminal acts. As for the availability of the specific kinds of weapons used in these sorts of attacks, the heart of the issue is the reason why many feel we are allowed to have guns in the first place:
NSFW:
Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So, while from the standpoint of our everyday life things like assault weapons and high capacity magazines have no legitimate use, their availability does make sense if you think that their purpose is to aid in the overthrowing of the government, if need be.


Anyhow, maybe I should have gone with the cute girl from the bus to that NA meeting she invited me to...I mean, I loath that program shit, but since both the people I hung out with moved away in April, I am kinda friendless at the moment.
 
Last edited:
This problem, like all others, has a simple solution: workers of the world just need to seize the means of production and the tools of state terror, then form a dictatorship of the proletariat to purge the reactionary elements from society. Get on that, folks.

This interim phase in Chicago is weird. I feel depressed, almost... But without the usual self-negativity/generally sadsack mood. I'm just annoyed that I can't seem to motivate myself or enjoy doing things. My life in Chicago is over, but it'll be a couple weeks before I can move back home and get my life in Austin started. All my close friends have moved out of town for the summer, I'm not staying here long enough to want to go through the effort and anxiety involved with making new ones, and I'm too broke to really go out on the town and do cool Chicago stuff while I'm still here. Maybe I'll try exploring some of the public parks... At least I can be consumed with boredom and ennui in a nicer setting than my shithole apartment. Still beats the manic anxiety of lawl school, but I wish I could find a way to actually enjoy my last couple weeks in this town.
 
tsoli said:
This problem, like all others, has a simple solution: workers of the world just need to seize the means of production and the tools of state terror, then form a dictatorship of the proletariat to purge the reactionary elements from society. Get on that, folks.

<3

So long as we are on that subject, since in the face of intense research and reading these last months, I have returned to my Trotskyist roots, I must ask about your previously identifying yourself as a Marxist-Leninist, 'cause that sounds like something a Stalinist would say.
 
This problem, like all others, has a simple solution: workers of the world just need to seize the means of production and the tools of state terror, then form a dictatorship of the proletariat to purge the reactionary elements from society. Get on that, folks.

I don't know what that means. Elaborate?
 
TAC, Marxism is something it takes a lot of reading and thinking to understand (versus all the ideas you've been taught about society, whether it be from the conservative religious or progressive secular factions of bourgeois democracy, or the many petty bourgeois idealist alternative trends that have been presented to you before now.). In any case, our pamphlet is a good start.
 
^ Thank you. :)

I mean ideally I wish guns didn't even exist

It's an intriguing thought experiment. What would the world be like if all the armies of the world were limited to katanas, and maybe trebuchets? We would all be on a rather level playing field, most likely.

One possible advantage (I suppose) of technologically advanced weaponry is that the wealthier nations have a significant advantage over poorer nations, which is why ISIS thankfully don't have nuclear weapons yet, but the more culturally enlightened Western nations do.

I can't help but think that the world would surely be a better place if we silly apes didn't have access to such means of self-annihilation. But then again... everything's on Track, as I like to say.

But sometimes I think maybe it would be a good idea to have one... I mean you never know. Some crazy breaks into my house, maybe I would wish I had one. Or, one time a bear almost broke into my house, a big ass bear who smelled the food i was cooking (he pushed on the door but decided against it... but it's a glass door, he easily could have come in). If that had happened, I wouldn't have had anything to defend myself but a knife, and I don't fancy taking on a bear with a knife.

Haha... I laugh, but that must have been quite scary at the time! I can see the potential benefits of owning a gun, but the idea still frightens me. I don't like devices that have insta-death buttons. 8o
 
My most recent attempt to apply a formal label to my politics ended with "Leninish." I'm with Stalin over Trotsky on the strategic question of socialism in one state vs. world revolution, in the particular historical context of the 1920s, but beyond that I try to avoid taking sides on all those little left-sectarian points of ideological contention. Aside from a heavy psychoanalytic influence, I'm largely an orthodox Marxist - our job is to build a workers' revolutionary movement and help them seize control, and they're supposed to figure out the best ways to run society based on the material conditions they find themselves in as the revolutionary state comes into existence. Anyone who wants to get us closer to there is my comrade; the decisions to come after are matters of tactics that we can debate when we're in a position for it to matter. I guess I'm a bit of a Leninist in my views on how to accomplish that, though: democratic centralism. Rigorous internal debate, followed by absolute unity once a decision has been made. Internal dissent and debate is good and prevents one autocrat from killing the revolution by sticking to an objectively ineffective ideological approach, but any revolutionary state has its work cut out for it simply surviving the early days, as its enemies will be numerous and powerful, so maintaining a unified front is essential.

So yeah, I'm a bit of a tankie, but I'm a nice tankie :)
 
Aside from a heavy psychoanalytic influence, I'm largely an orthodox Marxist -


You like Zizek, then ? Have you read Ernest Laclau's work? I don't really have political compromise nowadays, but I think post-marxism offers an explanation of the world I can relate to. And since we are in the PD social thread I should add that Lacanian socialism is a damn trippy perspective on society.

What I can't get over with Orthodox Marxism is it's foundation on Hegelianism, which basically entraps it in thinking history is one, lienar unified narrative. It is not. It wouldn't make sense to me to give up from understanding history as a chaotic multidimensional and infinite stream of events with no particular protagonist just to make it an easier subject of analysis. But to each their own, mate. What's important is that things surely need to change.
 
You like Zizek, then ? Have you read Ernest Laclau's work? I don't really have political compromise nowadays, but I think post-marxism offers an explanation of the world I can relate to. And since we are in the PD social thread I should add that Lacanian socialism is a damn trippy perspective on society.

What I can't get over with Orthodox Marxism is it's foundation on Hegelianism, which basically entraps it in thinking history is one, lienar unified narrative. It is not. It wouldn't make sense to me to give up from understanding history as a chaotic multidimensional and infinite stream of events with no particular protagonist just to make it an easier subject of analysis. But to each their own, mate. What's important is that things surely need to change.

Marx basically just ignores that part of Hegel, though. To Marx, history is a dynamic process - the never ending (until communism) process of class struggle. Marx gets a bad name for being deterministic/teleological about the inevitable progress of history toward communism, but saying that communism is the final stage of human society is simply true by definition according to Marx's historical materialist understanding of class and class conflict. Communism is the name for a society with only one class, so Marx is just saying that class conflict is inevitable as long as there are competing classes.

Anyway, I lean toward the Zizek/Lacan side of things heavily for more traditional/apolitical (pre-political?) questions, like the nature of reality and subjectivity. It is indeed a trippy social theory ;)

At a Starbucks while my apt has an open house. Good times. Feeling a bit more motivated today - to do what, I still don't know, but at least I feel capable of being a functioning human being today. So I guess I'm saying I have only one important question to answer: What is to be Done?

Edit: and I haven't read much Laclau, just skimmed paragraphs cut out of context in policy debate... Contingency, Hegemony, Universality is next up on my reading list, though (it's a compilation of essays from Zizek, Laclau, and Butler - great stuff for fans of lack theory and radical-left politics).

Edit 2: a comrade on Facebook posted a very a propos Marx quote about the dynamics of history re: revolutionary agency:

History does nothing.
It possesses no immense wealth.
It wages no battles.
It's PEOPLE who do that--real, living people.
We are the ones who possess, and fight.
History is not, as it were, a person apart,
using us to achieve its own aims.
History is the activity of us pursuing our aims.

~adapted from Karl Marx, The Holy Family
 
Last edited:
Ill be okay with citizens giveing up AK's when the cops stip getting surplus military vehickes and weapons. When they capitulate in their war in my person (WOD and everything having to do with patriot act). When Department of Homeland security arrest more terrorist than drug importers, when we stip fighting wars for oil blah blah blah and so on.

This is why I want to own a gun. I strongly believe that if my government ever for any reason decides to infringe upon my liberties, or attempts to jail me for a long period of time, I should be able to blow away as many of those fascist pigs as possible before getting killed. Life in prison is not life. People wonder why the drug trade is inherently violent... the answer is right in front of us. If some swat team came busting your door down to try and lock you up for life, wouldn't you want to take as many of those fuckers down as possible? By criminalizing the drug trade, it forces dealers to become criminals when they would otherwise be peaceful. If it's go to prison for life, or drag some of those pigs down to hell where they belong on your way out, I think we know which one anyone would pick.

In the argument for assault weapons - I would most definitely want stuff like high capacity mags and armor piercing rounds; if the militarized police are coming for you, god knows you'll need those assault capabilities just to stand a ghost of a chance to kill any of them. You would have to head shot every single one if you just had a .22 caliber pistol or something.

My girlfriend's father and brother own probably 20 guns, ranging from AR-15's to .44 magnum revolvers, to Glocks and beyond. I really feel fine with that. They're good people and they won't ever use those guns against human beings. Her dad does joke to her sometimes when I'm coming over that, "Oh, should I polish my guns?" and I don't really find that amusing -_- but that's her dad's weird sense of humor.

I agree that background checks and the like should be a standard. I went to a gun show here once and people were buying and selling all sorts of arms without any checks - ARs, WWII remnants like Lugers (they're a pretty fucking penny I tell you what), antique guns, etc. Idk why they aren't forced to do checks for every single gun.

But! What if they decided that anyone who had had psychological counseling even was mentally unfit to own a fire arm? I've tried to hurt myself before when I was a teenager and was hospitalized for two weeks... but I'm perfectly healthy now, at least to the point of never again hurting myself, and I'd certainly never hurt others. If that made me unqualified to own a gun, I'd be livid. I would find a black market arms dealer and get me a gun anyways, because it's my god given right.

Anyways, I agree with those who have already stated that it's a societal illness that causes these mass shootings. I think that there are just too many people now. It used to be that society was rural enough and spread out enough that conflicting ideologies rarely came into contact. Now all of a sudden we live in cramped spaces where we can't get away from the people who we 'hate' and disagree with. I don't think this is right or moral by any means, but people are inherently hateful towards that which they do not understand. Humans will never be able to conquer that inherent hatred and will eternally be in violent conflict with one another over this. Globalization and the advent of mass communication has made it so we hear about EVERYTHING that happens EVERY DAY. Those jihadists in Iraq just 50 years ago couldn't even know about how 'evil and amoral' the West is because they lived in a society without mass communication. Now they can get on their smart phones and watch videos of dudes kissing and girls in bikinis running amok and it disturbs them, they don't understand it so they lash out against it. It's very wrong... but it's simply their human nature. We're all animals and we cannot transcend our most basic instincts.

Just my 2C.
 
Last edited:
semiparadoxically, guns would be needed in order to enforce a gun ban... so anyone that supports a full gun ban isn't for a ban on owning guns.... they're for a ban on CITIZENS owning guns.

dunno if that changes anything for anyone, bu i think in that light it sounds like a much worse idea...
 
This is why I want to own a gun. I strongly believe that if my government ever for any reason decides to infringe upon my liberties, or attempts to jail me for a long period of time, I should be able to blow away as many of those fascist pigs as possible before getting killed. Life in prison is not life. People wonder why the drug trade is inherently violent... the answer is right in front of us. If some swat team came busting your door down to try and lock you up for life, wouldn't you want to take as many of those fuckers down as possible? By criminalizing the drug trade, it forces dealers to become criminals when they would otherwise be peaceful. If it's go to prison for life, or drag some of those pigs down to hell where they belong on your way out, I think we know which one anyone would pick.

I can understand and empathize with those feelings, and I realize this is an unpopular opinion on Bluelight, but I don't feel that it's right to use derogatory terms like "pig", or point any hatred otherwise, much less the barrel of a gun, toward law enforcement officers for what they do.

Believe it or not, a lot of people genuinely believe that drug law is doing good for society. It's hard for us to imagine, but yes, good community-loving people can support drug laws in good conscience. And I realize there are a lot of deeply flawed individuals in the law enforcement industry, but that's another issue altogether. Many, if not most, of these people are simply unfortunate victims of their culture, and faithfully exercise the law in an attempt to serve their community. They're not the spawn of Satan... they're just uneducated people.

How do you help to educate people? With ad-hominems and violence? I don't think so. That just serves to fester hostility, and deepen the trench between their camp and our camp. We need to BRIDGE cultures for the open exchange of information, not BURN bridges!
 
240sxl said:
if some swat team came busting your door down to try and lock you up for life, wouldn't you want to take as many of those fuckers down as possible?

No. I'm with TAC on this.

2:40 said:
But! What if they decided that anyone who had had psychological counseling even was mentally unfit to own a fire arm? I've tried to hurt myself before when I was a teenager and was hospitalized for two weeks... but I'm perfectly healthy now, at least to the point of never again hurting myself, and I'd certainly never hurt others. If that made me unqualified to own a gun, I'd be livid. I would find a black market arms dealer and get me a gun anyways, because it's my god given right.

In the state of California, your second ammendment rights are suspended for 5 years after an involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital, though you can contest this in court. Probably why I'm still alive right now.

tsoli said:
I'm with Stalin over Trotsky on the strategic question of socialism in one state vs. world revolution, in the particular historical context of the 1920s, but beyond that I try to avoid taking sides on all those little left-sectarian points of ideological contention.

And you are aware of the orthodox Trotskyist critique of such things. But we [Troskyists] are undoubtedly the most factious group of people on the planet, the amount of effort I've had to put into deciding which group I would like to eventually join is testament to that, but I'm a believer that these fine points of theory and tactics are key, if not to the movement as a whole, then to whichever organization will come to the fore as the class struggle intensifies and we eventually enter a prerevolutionary situation (at which point the various tendencies should begin to come together. As the particular forms and avenues that the mass movement is taking become clear, many of the contradictions which divide us will be resolved),
 
Well, I knew that my opinions on the subject would differ from many in here, but I stand by them. I apologize if the terms I used came across as hateful TAC. It's not like I've never met a nice cop. One actually saved my ass from jail when I got in a bad car accident while speeding, and the State Trooper on the scene wanted to arrest me. One of my best friends from school is a law enforcement officer as well.

I'm not saying that I would ever be a drug dealer and need reason to kill LEOs; however, I strongly feel that if I were a drug dealer, and the cops did indeed come for me with felony charges that would send me away for good, I'd try to fight back. The fact is, those officers, while in 'good' conscience, are fully aware that when they come to arrest someone for something as harmless as dealing, they're essentially ruining that person's life. They might as well kill them and sometimes they do kill them, and I refuse to believe they are unaware of their impact on many non-violent offenders lives.

I'd also like to point out that members of the National Socialist Party truly believed that they were doing good things for the world by ridding society of certain 'undesirables'. Would you say that it was okay for them to commit genocide because they did it in 'good conscience'?

Anyways, I'm not really one for debates as it's generally a bunch of entrenched view points, I'm ready to move on 8)

By the way, I got my scores back for my certification exam yesterday, I passed by a wide margin! Woohoooo!!! I'm now qualified to teach any social studies subject to grades 7-12 in my state - economics, state history, U.S. history, world history, geography, and government. Can't say I'd actually be any good at teaching economics, but the other subjects I do in fact know well, and I'm excited to finally be making progress towards an eventual career that can pay the rent and send me down a path to eventually being able to support my girlfriend and I as we work towards our goals in life :)
 
Last edited:
hello PD fellows!

everything is tldr right now, but I wanted to post anyway... :)

I am studying a whole lot of organic chemistry right now while metabolizing some acetaldehyde.... my head hurts ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top