Would you conform?

[AFR1776]

https://theconversation.com/would-you-stand-up-to-an-oppressive-regime-or-would-you-conform-heres-the-science-124469?fbclid=IwAR0XJdn-Tqqbf1TWVQ5iVrhwuIUDI0XGdagAVcbSuDVaeawkecPyG1aJFp0

[BadQuaker]

"What drives forward fights against an oppressive society is a rival vision – a vision of equality, liberty and justice, and a sense that these should be defended, whatever the consequences."

Good read.

[Anarchon]

"What drives forward fights against an oppressive society is a rival vision – a vision of equality, liberty and justice, and a sense that these should be defended, whatever the consequences."

Good read.

Egalitarianism is a horrible idea, besides being a tool of the state.  So is the concept of justice, in most cases.  Liberty is great, though.

[BadQuaker]

The concept of justice is a horrible idea and a tool of the state (with a small s).
Wow.
Layers of dumb.

[aConsensualist]

Sorry, on a quick read the article looked like a total mishmosh of concepts; I couldn't keep them straight.  I may even agree with the gist of it; I can't tell.

should be defended, whatever the consequences.

Good example.  I understand what's meant here and basically I agree, but it's sure not for any serious technical consideration.  Why?  Because it's oxymoronic, that's why.  "Should" means "considering the consequences".  What else could it mean?  If the claim is that there's something any person should do without any considering of any consequences...that's so absurd that it doesn't even deserve a moment's thought IMO.

[Redoubt]

This old coot sees FedGov as my "authoritarian regime of Gilead". I think virtually everyone including professing anarchists conforms to FedGov to an extent myself included. Do you pay income taxes? Do you received compensation from the government? Yes that includes anyone directly or indirectly supporting the U.S. military. Holy Batman, what did he say?

Bonhoeffers and Irwin Schiffs of this world are rare indeed. Ultimately virtually every man has his price. A gun held to the head of a loved one will open any gun safe.

[aConsensualist]

>>>Irwin Schiffs of this world are rare indeed.

Good thing too IMO...who the hell would willingly choose to die in prison over a principle?  Everything you wrote looks true to me, but I still think choosing to die (slowly, in prison) to demonstrate some intellectual truth--to people who will never hear it anyway--is downright crazy.  I mean it's okay with me if it turns them on, but I think it's a piss-poor way to get anything done.  The evidence seems to confirm...he's dead and not a damn thing was accomplished.

[Bill]

I am a moral coward and I conform because I have a family. If I were a single man...I would ride with the devil.

The brick and mortar of the state is fear and obedience [I don't know which comes first] and all begins with mind control, programming and punishing critical thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0asSaCVDzw

[Anarchon]

If your goal is self defense, and you die doing it, you've failed in the most egregious way possible.  I don't think refraining from charging at the behemoth of the state with a bayonet constitutes moral cowardice.  It makes you intelligent.

[Bill]

Bo, I had a conversation with the bride just this morning that marriage to her sainted holiness has kept me alive otherwise I'd would have been an SF officer corpse moldering in a shallow grave in a neo-imperialist backwater or equally dead here at home in CONUS on some fool's errand...

[aConsensualist]

>>>I am a moral coward and I conform because I have a family.

Oh look...another oxymoron!  No moral cowards have any real family.  I think probably you're saying the same thing I was saying about Irwin Schiff.  Kinda silly to want to die needlessly in the achievement of nothing.

Quite separately, IMO humility is vastly overrated.  Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump would strongly agree; Pope Francis would strongly disagree.  I'm no fan of appealing to the opinions of others, but here maybe that's enough.

[Redoubt]

>>>Irwin Schiffs of this world are rare indeed.
he's (Schiff) dead and not a damn thing was accomplished.

To die for a principle is a martyr. Bonhoeffer and Irwin Schiff were martyrs. They and others in history have made a significant impact on me and what I believe in today.

This old coot remembers growing up in a small town in the early 50s. An older spinster took on the mighty heavy-handed IRS over discrimination against single Americans. This is the same IRS that literally destroyed my Father. She raised holy hell. I was in awe of her courage. She did not die for her principle but she paid a heavy price. Folks called her a wacko. But I knew Miss Vivian Kellems and she was well grounded. One never knows the profound impact they had on others.

[aConsensualist]

That's cool, Redoubt.  Martyrdom is very popular and IMO it's another part of the scam.

I may be misleading a bit.  If Irwin Schiff wants to be a martyr, then he can go for it and by no means do I object.  Plus, I do agree with the principles that he was defending, and I'm glad to hear you, and probably a few others, gained from it.  I was just trying to say that as a general principle, dying on principle with absolutely no change, isn't totally rational.

Besides, you've already proven that I'm wrong about "absolutely no change," because he had some effect on you.  Maybe in some other context, I too would give my life for you or maybe even your principles.  But I'll tell you up front, they'd have to be some monster principles.  But in Schiff's case, he didn't do it to affect your mind; he did it to affect taxation.  In that regard, I believe dying for such a thing--one that doesn't happen and can be known not to happen ex ante--is a very foolish move.  That's all.  Take it as a suggestion---try to achieve your principles by living and not dying.

>>> Folks called her a wacko.

I can identify!  Mighty big distinction between that and dying, at least in my mind.

[J]

That's cool, Redoubt.  Martyrdom is very popular and IMO it's another part of the scam.

I may be misleading a bit.  If Irwin Schiff wants to be a martyr, then he can go for it and by no means do I object.  Plus, I do agree with the principles that he was defending, and I'm glad to hear you, and probably a few others, gained from it.  I was just trying to say that as a general principle, dying on principle with absolutely no change, isn't totally rational.

Besides, you've already proven that I'm wrong about "absolutely no change," because he had some effect on you.  Maybe in some other context, I too would give my life for you or maybe even your principles.  But I'll tell you up front, they'd have to be some monster principles.  But in Schiff's case, he didn't do it to affect your mind; he did it to affect taxation.  In that regard, I believe dying for such a thing--one that doesn't happen and can be known not to happen ex ante--is a very foolish move.  That's all.  Take it as a suggestion---try to achieve your principles by living and not dying.

>>> Folks called her a wacko.

I can identify!  Mighty big distinction between that and dying, at least in my mind.

Well, I feel I'm going to derail this topic, but this is an opportunity to write something else on my mind.

How do we think and communicate?

Something I've known about myself is that I do not think in words. I think in images, emotion, and concepts that words cannot do justice. I have always found it very frustrating talking with other people with words, especially on the internet, as there are no additional attributions that can be used to paint a picture or explain a concept.

When I used to teach, I relied heavily on illustrating concepts on a white board or a piece of paper to drive home a point.

Why am I bringing this up now? Because the word martyrdom, as used here, is considered part of the scam in one sentence, but by it's definition with all the nuances it has acquired through history, literature, and even music, has taken a different shape in my mind than is in used in this context.

In my mind, it is the courage to stand for a conviction in such a manner that one is willing to obstinately take a stand against any odds, up to and including one's own demise, and it can also be done in a manner that is simply refusal to comply. It is to draw a line in the sand and say it won't be crossed. If to stand up for your convictions is part of the scam, then what is the scam? To not do that? Can it be popular when most people I know give in and don't stand up for their values, therefore making the opposite more popular?

I believe one of our largest hurdles is that we all communicate and understand things in a different manner.

[aConsensualist]

"If to stand up for your convictions is part of the scam, then what is the scam?"

Whoa, who said that?  I didn't look closely, plus I can be senile, but I did find this...

"Martyrdom is very popular and IMO it's another part of the scam."

If you'd like to ask about something I did write, including that, please ask (or ask again if I wrote that).  Thanks.