Hey All -
I couldn't figure out where the best place to leave this comment was but I just wanted to let you all know that your site is loading fonts from Google's fonts.googleapis.com resource. They log every IP that hits that server, which could compromise the safety/security of folks using this site.
Otherwise just download the fonts and host them on anarchistnews.org
thecollective
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 12:10
thank you so much!
our webperson is aware of the problem and is working on it (the solution is a bit more complicated than you suggest, apparently).
regardless, it's very nice to get helpful feedback.
Anonymous (not verified)
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 13:14
Pretty sad this wasn't announced as soon as it was known...
Same person as above (not verified)
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 05:42
They should be able to just replace references to the "Oxygen" font in the CSS with another sans-serif font like "Verdana" and then remove that line as a temporary solution that is perhaps easier to implement than loading the font file locally.
Anonymous (not verified)
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 21:47
hm interesting. yeah might as well download the css & serve it from the main server in a bundled css file. any ideas for an anarchist / activist website? i could make one.
Best security is to use Tor for anything risky-every tine
Google is certainly an unacceptable risk. I don't enable googleapis in NoScript and they are not showing up in Disconnect, but I will have to retest with Wireshark running to see if the fonts are still loading. I don't know enough about browsers to know if css alone can load a 3ed party font with JS disabled and not show up in Disconnect. I block everything Google I can by default and do not appreciate any kind of surprise leakage. More testing to come here.
I keep referrer headers disabled on Firefox, so on my setup if this leaks Google won't know what page called them unless Mozilla is faking disabling the referrer-or someone is able to get exact timestamps on when comments are posted and compare to Google logs. BTW, if you are a Twitter addict you will have to either turn referrers on temporarily to use that site while logged in, or preferably kick the Twitter habit and abandon your account.
OK, shit like those arson communiques probably get to this site over Tor, it would be suicidal to use anything else for that due to ISP surveillance alone. Still, if Google has logs of say, half the comments posted underneath those communiques that exposes a lot of people to future harassment.
OK, just loaded this exact page with Wireshark running, JS enabled, got only connections to this site, my own machine, and my DNS provider on the direct load from a saved link text file. Using NoScript with everyone else's js disabled in this test, 0 "requests" showing in Disconnect, Canvasblocker showing no sign of an attempt at canvas tracking.
Then I loaded the front page and got blocked JS and packets from what appear to be a fairly long list of other radical servers. Site admins will know what they are. No matter how good their content, the question is how good are their hackers and their own security policies? Didn't see anything from Google in either case, but like I said I go out of my way to block them. Maybe this was quickly changed, or maybe my blocking is working, no idea which. Still no disconnect "requests" or Canvas tracking attempts. There is an anarchistnews cookie, that could be an issue if someone has one saved to an unencrypted hard drive and gets raided. I don't know if an emptied cookie database leaves behind recoverable "orphan" files on disk or a previous copy of itself deleted but still in existance. If ever written to a SSD (flash storage) it is sure to leave behind old copies.
People posting stories and comments need to be able to reach the posting pages without passing through a page that loads 3ed party content of any kind, not just Google. Radical sites should keep linking to oneanother but only embed 3ed party content in places posters with hot stories need not go to and know not to go to.
Now that I got your attention, there appears to be a large number of weird reactionaries on this site. They appear to of taken over just about any dialog that occurs here and attempt to steer it toward reinforcing their ideological agenda on this site.
From what I can tell, these "anarchs", as they often call themselves, consider contemporary anarchists of all stripes leftist enemies and they are using this sight as a platform to manipulate and undermine anarchists while promoting their ideology at the same time.
They don't respond to logic or reason while claiming a position based on such. They know they don't belong here, yet they now post at a rate that surpasses any anarchist on this site.
Because you've failed to do anything about this problem, myself and several others have focused our attention on ridding the site from this scum. It is apparent this will remain a never ending battle, stuck on a stalemate, until you intervene or this site ends being called "anarchist" news.
I will leave, should the site shift from being an anarchist site and you can have peace with yourself and the resident self-described anarchs.
I've been here for years. There's only like, 4 or 5 of them at most and they dominate the site because it's otherwise in major decline as "being of interest to anarchists". The anarch windbags are only a small part of why people hate this place, more like a symptom of the problem with open online discourse actually, rather than the cause. But whatever, soldier on cyber warrior. Me, I'd rather this place was a festering sewer than a sterile non-discussion from heavy moderation.
The number varies around 4 or 5 (or 1-3 + sockpuppets), this is true, however this site is not in decline. On the contrary, those moments when the anarchs aren't posting, a cacophony of anarchist voices chirp through the comments section and it suddenly seems more like an interesting anarchist site, what you'd expect. Then these jackasses start harping in and then its all about them and their dumb opinions not backed up by anything other than empty philosophic verbiage.
I am not at all proposing anything other than to treat these fools as the authoritarians they are and remove them as you would a naziboi or liberal that attempted to coopt the site.
By remove them, I mean remove their comments when identified as anarch and those comments from user names that are identified as from the anarchs. By identify, I mean use the same arbitration one uses to remove potty mouth posts and short comments.
That seems reasonable and I mostly agree with you but it's always a slippery slope. For instance, you apparently take issue with colourful language whereas I feel that to be a weak and rather old fashioned, bourgeois sentiment. Why the hell wouldn't anarchism be crass? If a bit of profanity bothers you, what happens during a real conflict?
As for the cacophony, I'm pretty sure you're referring to increased traffic around widely recognized calendar events like may day. Arguably has nothing to do with the anarch troll douchebags, they just get briefly drowned out by the rising waters but keep lurking til the waters recede. Remember, I say all this as someone who's been arguing with them and calling them out as shitheads for years.
It exists because thecollective (whoever that is), as anarchists, think it makes sense for anarchy. In some broad sense.
Anarchy is not doing work. And, like, what you're proposing is probably a lot of work. You either have open comments or you don't. If you go with open, assholes gonna post. You can delete some comments, but actually READING all of them is tricky, time-consuming, boring (which is why I don't read lots of comments, I humbly suggest you try this wacky technique as well). And it's easy, when you get deletehappy, to misunderstand things and delete Quality Content.
I understand the frustration with people who suck. I spend a stupid amount of time engaging with them here. But it's a website. If you're here, hopefully it's because you get something out of it. Finding all the content to be Quality is unlikely. You'll always be sifting.
This argument keeps being used when it isn't true. Already fascists and statists are removed. Already potty mouth comments are removed. Already spam is removed. The slippery slope does not exist and is an imagined threat. Anarchs are the enemies of anarchists and like other enemies, they have no home here.
Then I guess you have no voice but to wage righteous, anarchist jihad against the scourge of the anarchs! Godspeed sir! May you crush your enemies … maybe you could collect their fedoras and neckbeards as trophies?
I'm actually glad to see the term anarch take off in these parts somewhat even if some of the people using it are fucking idiots. My idea for the term is to simply make Stirnerian orientation definitionally distinct from the founding anarchist big 3(Pierre, Mike and Peter) as well as create a term that is post hyphenated and succinct along with being a good definitional way of continuing what post left anarchism(Black Mcquinn) and post anarchism(Wilson and the pomos) started. If that is a reason to see the likes of me as enemies...fine I guess. On my end, this tool does not even warrant my dislike as far as valuation goes.
Take off as a term of derision. What you say is untrue. You have repeatedly attempted to associate yourself with fascism, pedophilia, rape, white supremacy, ableism and on and on. When challenged you dodge around, thinking perhaps that when someone stops replying to your comments that you've won a conversation? No, you have obfuscated your point of view and failed to offer clarity, especially when that clarity would expose your cultural authoritarianism, contempt for those you perceive as weaker than you and your general posing and lying. What about Bob Black are you influenced by? Hakim Bey? Once anyone digs into your thought it becomes obvious that the cherry picking you are doing is just taking small parts of their ideas and spinning them in your stupid head until it comes up dumb. There isn't any claim to association between you and even these anarchists. They are just your way to hit a particular type of fringe anarchist, the anti-sjw mras that also somehow think anarchy is reading philosophy and being afraid of women. I'm sorry your failure to compromise your values left you hated by women, never realizing all you have to do is find some common ground and then you might get to take a nice lady out on a date. Of course by nice lady you probably are thinking of 12 year olds again. No. I'm talking about full adult women that are close to your 40+ years on this Earth.
But you're making a lot of assumptions about Ziggy here. It makes you look dumb, and not worth taking seriously.
My take is that, for better or worse, his ideas are mostly influenced by people that come, broadly speaking, out of the anarchist tradition. And then George Carlin or something. This is... unfortunate. It would be nice to think the "fascist camp" or whatever produced the guy, but it seems that ain't so.
To Add: The thing that is even more disconcerting is the anarch references to Stirner may be regular, but it isn't a consistent value. I've challenged them on it numerous times, typically there is a lean towards the right on every deviation, a nod towards bigotry and a show that the "anarch" is something that is for masters, oppressors and exploiters, not rebels, to engage in.
A couple of things I get from SirE is that the uni/multi-verse is amoral, thus all ethical outlooks are contextual/local/historical and anarchists should consider the implications of this. I also get that he would like a new libertarian current or orientation, to take hold, that begins with Stirner, rather than Kropotkin or Proudhon. Nothing wrong with either of those proposals/opinions.
Many folks here are reacting primarily to two things with him: a) they dislike his constant insults that invariably have to do with the mental abilities of his detractors and b) they don't understand what he is proposing or what informs his outlook so extrapolate all sorts of nonsense from his posts.
SirE references plenty of anarchists as examples of people he thinks have something in common with him: Jason Mcquinn, Seaweed, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, etc. These are pretty disparate people. What they have in common is they are people who have tried to keep anarchism fresh, to break with the left and its morality, politics, activism and schemes. I haven't noticed him mentioning Wolfi Landsteicher which is odd considering he is advocating for an egoist outlook. If you read this SirE, why is that?
I wish people wouldn't be so shrill and hyperbolic when critiquing him. He does post often, but so do many others. I bet you that if many of the anons used a 'handle', they would sound repetitive too. And while I dislike his 'leftard' and similar insults, which turn me off considerably, I think that his idea of a new anarchic orientation beginning with Stirner is worth exploring.
What I find repugnant about this piece of shit is his obvious racism, clearly demonstrated during the Ferguson uprising. Racists aren't worth listening to, full stop. Do you look to national anarchists for ideas also? Fuck that asshole and his enablers on this website. Y'all are quickly on your way to Infoshop irrelevancy, ironically for the opposite reason.
same commenter here. If you are referring to his characterization of Michael Brown as a 'thug', well, ya, that was a low blow and lines up disturbingly well with dominant narratives.
But who isn't racist? I mean are you claiming that you haven't internalized any racist assumptions or caricatures? It seems that personal behavior is being conflated with ideas. Are Temporary Autonomous Zones not worth exploring because Hakim Bey wrote a poem about man/young man attraction? The reverse is often true for leftists: Che Guevara's homophobia and general authoritarianism is fine because he was a brown skinned fighter for example.
Anyway, i don't want to get caught up defending behavior and opinions I personally disagree with, but I think that most of SirE's most vocal opponents here are exaggerating his most negative traits and opinions and ignoring what valuable stuff he might have to offer for consideration. If we knew the private lives of the anons at anews, I'm sure that the vast majority have traits, behaviors, histories and roles that are, as you describe SirE, "repugnant".
most of what ziggy says is not remotely racist, it is only seen that way by identity politicians and those who refuse to actually engage and try to understand his perspective. just as lawrence j was called a racist for his comments on ALL churches being burned - even black churches, that is pathetically shallow and uncritical. only single-issue (and uncritical thinking) folks could possibly mistake that kind of comment for racist, especially when coming from an anarchist.
ziggy can be a serious asshole, for sure. but by far, his critics here come across as high school dingbats without a critical thought.
^ See. Typical anarch response. Anyone that doesn't agree is an identity politician, use of a post left anarchist to make a point, which isn't about Sir Einzige or any anarch and doesn't demonstration how the two are associated, since Lawrence J is too leftist for anarchs, when it comes down to it. Seriously, ask them about his ideas in comparison to theirs. You will find they will cherry pick a great deal, but then find most of it "leftist". This is a tiresome exercise that is more and more exposing the failure in "post left" being a signifier of critical thought. Rather, it is becoming a deadend cesspool flooding with shit, AIDS and cancer.
This is not science or statistics, you take what you like and drop what you don't. It's also not about LJ or others being too leftist or anarchist as much as it is about a new line of thinking which is not found in old lines of thought.
As for what and who represents a 'cesspool flooding with shit, AIDS and cancer'....
It is disingenuous to draw conclusions of association when your ideas, words and values are not necessarily those of who you reference as an influence on you. This is another disingenuous attempt to soften and obfuscate this very Trot-like move by these reactionaries.
When I first heard about Stirnerr, it was in a short one-off zine about different trends of anarchism and doesn't flatter him much. Because translation work is never one-to-one in accuracy, most people immediately write off 'ego' as narcissism and 'property' (as in 'The Ego and His Property' as a translation or the more interesting alternative 'The Unique One and His Prerogative') to be pro-capitalism and private property. I wrote off this individualist trend as well until years later when I met someone who would defend Stirner's ideas and gave me a copy of 'Novatore'.
I like what you have to say about taking the parts that work from other writers/thinkers, such as Hekim Bey. For example, I think Bob Black's critiques of work are really on-it, but his personal reaction to getting punched in the face and trying to bring in police seemingly without other courses of action being desired or sought out leave me, well, feeling like I might not care to be in the same room as him. In the same vein, I think Crimethinc's efforts to go out and meet people are pretty neat, but I feel that platform-Anarchism is outdated. *shrug*
Cuz he sucks. I would not sit with him in the cafeteria.
But I don't like your commandment: "Racists aren't worth listening to, full stop." Like, first off, anarchism begins with a bunch of Jew haters and sexists, and I wouldn't tell people to not read Proudhon or Bakunin cuz of that. And it's not like you can find the non-racist person to listen to. And besides, I don't even agree with this in principle. If I get something out of a person's thought, then okay, I get something. So people seem to be saying about Ziggy.
I would prefer this commandment: "Racists"--- Wait, scratch that... Let's do this: "Pieces of shit aren't worth being nice to, or rhetorically defending, full stop."
Anyway, it's not a matter of enabling him. For most of us, it's not a matter of anything - unless you think we should lobby thecollective more or something (no thanks). For thecollective, it's a matter of not considering it him worthwhile to try to ban him. I can understand why they wouldn't do that, considering that it probably wouldn't be enforceable (how do you stop him making new accounts, using Tor, blah blah, without killing the open and anon-friendly system?) and it would probably irritate other people who use the site (who, again, aren't at the place of Ziggy-sucks-there's-no-need-to-feel-bad-about-this). And to what end? To satisfy people who feel entitled to dictate at them what their site should be?
Anyway, just so you know, his comments get deleted sometimes. He responded to my comment earlier in this thread, said some dumb shit I forget now, and I guess thecollective considered it non-worthwhile. Do I mourn? No. Do I celebrate? No. I don't care that it's gone, but I would equally not care if it was there. (To be sure, it wasn't one of his doozies where he demonstrates to the world his knowledge of slurs.)
He just doesn't do it for me. While I don't entirely dislike him, I should like him a lot more then I do because he is arguably more 'Stirnerian' in influence then Black or Wilson. However, overall I think he lacks their acumen and his take on how to use Stirner and egoism I find questionable and lacking. I actually find Dupont preferable(even though he comes from communist continuum-the last acceptable thinker from that discourse for a post-left palette).
Landstreicher is still into things like revolution and class struggle albeit with an egoist anti civ bent. I think the take home from a thorough reading of Stirner is that revolution and class struggle are a waste of time as opposed to insurrection which I don't really see a constituted antagonism. Class is born from status which isn't something to struggle against but to stop believing in and in turn undermining the overall belief that stems from sublimation. Revolution always involves power(Wolfi and Renzo before him seem to forget this) Stirner made the distinction between insurrection and revolution pretty clear in his writings. Landstreicher muddies the waters making insurrection and revolution a seemingly obvious match. Again this goes back to Novatore who I am also critical of on that point(regrettable considering how brilliant he was in other areas).
All in all he tries to individualize and inject egoism into traditional anarchist antagonisms and struggles in ways that I find unconvincing. At the end of the day he tries to marry Stirner to anarchism. It simply doesn't work due to the fact that Stirner had a different approach from the anarchist founding figureheads. I mentioned Dupont, to me he is closer to the mark of what you should do in the face of totalizing powers. Basically it's the idea of relaxing constraints as opposed to refusal which is what Landstreicher seems to be all about. I actually haven't read him in fine detail but from what I've read on the library, this seems to be the message I get from his writings.
ziggy, you clearly either do not get wolfi, or your readings are limited to way long ago. wolfi is not at all into "revolution" or "class struggle", at least not in any commonly used sense of those terms.
^^^ absolutely correct. ziggy is way off on his interpretation of wolfi. revolution and class struggle are areas wolfi critiques quite openly and clearly.
I go here a lot on my tablet, which has a limited resolution. Often, comments are squished over to the left and I have to scroll down more than I think I should if the layout was adjusted for smaller screens. This also makes it difficult to figure out whose comments are replying to who since the format breaks and everything is crushed together.
As a side, and this may nit be on-topic at all, but I think having a website layout that w
looked like a newspaper or magazine, but in a web format - where whole articles take up the full size of the page - would make the website more aesthetically pleasing.
Its hard to track conversations. Please if you can implement system like on tumblr, where there are lines that you can trace to figure out who is replying to who. Reddit also does this. Sorry to make demands, I appreciate your efforts, I just think this will help the site be more useable.
Does anyone on this comment area have kids? Just curious because I have two kids and nobody seems to understand what I'm saying about these pedophiles and why I'm so angry about it. My kids are adults, I'm in a wheelchair and I just dumped my colostomy bag onto the ground. I'm ready for a fight. Who wants some? Fuck you pedophile scum.
I fault no one for having emotions about it. But he's also not actually child molesting - or if he is (who's to say?), being allowed to post pro-pedophilia views on this site is not enabling that activity. It's the opposite if anything. Posting pro-pedophilia views, even as an anon on this website, is a means of calling attention to yourself - since there are a lot of people who don't like that shit, and are extremely motivated to prevent such behaviour. (You yourself probably exhibit some of the same motivation.)
So thecollective isn't enabling anything. They're just not waging war on this person - though apparently they are waging war on you? (Deleting comments hardly equals "waging war", but whatevs.) I imagine that is aggravating - but perhaps you should try to see it from their perspective, as much as you can.
I don't know what their perspective is, but I will communicate mine: whoever you are, wherever you are, you are certainly not too far away from real situations of abuse - perhaps of children, but even more likely of animals, and perhaps also of trafficked individuals, the elderly, and the handicapped. Apart from abuse, there are probably also situation of serious neglect, and also hybrid situations. Yet, instead of doing something about any of that, you're spending your time trying to pick a fight... on the internet... with a body of people who (quite obviously) don't want to engage with conversation with you, nor have to. Because they're enablers... of what? People being able to say their (sometimes dumb as fuck, sometimes pro-pedophilia) opinions - which is ultimately just going to happen in a space of open conversation. Frustrating, I know.
But their opinions are, at least, conversational - which is the point of this site. What you are contributing is just demands and insults. I would probably delete your comments too.
Oh, and "your perspective"? Who the fuck do you think you are, Jerry Springer? Are you telling me to be a real rebel and roll my crippled ass into a war with my children about them not getting me a nurse? Listen kid, let me give you advice: Don't get in my way.
paranoid schizophrenia is fuelling the buzz over paedophilia
there is a kind of paranoid schizophrenia associated with paedophilia, rape, anarchism and terrorism. these events derive from community relations [“It takes a whole community to raise a ___”] but many people believe that humans are ‘independent beings’ so that there is denial on the part of many individuals that they are contributors to the things that enrage them, as must be the case in a relational world. we know that the colonizers treatment of the colonized has induced ‘terrorism’ but the colonizers denial is a sort of communitarian schizophrenia [“we didn’t do anything to contribute to these acts of terrorism”], ... which becomes paranoid because the offenders can come from anywhere, and they don’t wear enemy military uniforms.
the same applies to paedophilia, rape and anarchism; i.e. many people do not see the source of these behaviours as deriving from the relational social matrix, but see them instead as deriving fully and solely from the smoking gun-holding individuals through which these relational tensions are venting.
this brings on the paranoid schizophrenia.
authoritarian oppression inductively actualizes anarchist behaviours, and the media categorizes anarchists as ‘abnormals’ and the bulk of the community members as ‘normals’ and since the popular view of the human individual is the he is an independent being with full and sole responsibility for his behaviour, those through whom anarchist behaviours manifest are seen as the full and sole authors of the anarchist behaviours. when the relational social tensions are oppressive for some, the authoring source of anarchist behaviours is the full community [tensions are relative; i.e. it takes a whole community to tension up to the point that anarchist behaviours are actualized]. those who deny that the community is the source and view those with anarchist behaviours as the full and sole authors of such behaviours, are effectively manifesting schizophrenia because their behaviour co-authors the violent behaviour directed against them, yet they are splitting themselves off from that aspect of themselves. furthermore, it is paranoid schizophrenia because the relationships between who is building the tensions and who is venting the tensions is laundered out by Mach’s principle;
“the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” – Mach’s principle
this paranoid schizophrenia is on the rise in sexual assault, paedophilia, anarchism, terrorism because people are more educated and education brings in the scientific belief in ‘independent being’. indigenous aboriginal peoples employ ‘restorative justice’ which assumes that the source of the tensions that are venting through individuals is the ‘whole community’; i.e. the relational social dynamic. as a result, there is in that case no denial and no schizophrenia and no paranoia.
emile is a Daoist!! He is at one with nature. He eats gorilla pituitary glands to increase his cognitive powers. There's rumor he is dabbling in rhino horn! The prospects are staggering!!
I've seen shadow around for years and they're insightful in my humble opinion, I agree with them about how it's probably a huge pain to try and campaign against certain people. However, as the volunteer mods come and go, you can definitely see that some of them are just lazily targeting posts with any hostility in them. Some hostility is valid and anarchist discourse should reflect and appreciate that.
each collective member has somewhat different criteria
as you would presumably expect, if you know any anarchists.
i usually check for a balance of content and name calling, and i tend to err A BIT towards being more generous with named posters, since they are at least being recognizable, unlike the vast majority of shit-talking anons who blur together in a cacophony of entitled complaints.
shadowsmoke is not a mod, although sounds like they'd be a good one afaic.
i really wish the people who have complaints against emile and SE would make better arguments... since emile and SE are their obsessions.
and i certainly agree that anarchist hostility is appropriate. it's nice that you have a high level of tolerance, commenter 61
I think you need to fix the threading and fonts security. Thank you for doing as I request because they seem to have some sort of problem.
Even a small tweak that would show how many indentations there are would help. People seem to get lost. Like a . for each one?
Hey All -
I couldn't figure out where the best place to leave this comment was but I just wanted to let you all know that your site is loading fonts from Google's fonts.googleapis.com resource. They log every IP that hits that server, which could compromise the safety/security of folks using this site.
It seems the fonts are loaded in the file:
http://anarchistnews.org/sites/default/files/css/css_9WFJO_SXUfdMTRQLV5W...
It's in the first line of the CSS so you could probably just remove the spot where it imports:
http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Oxygen:400,300,700
Otherwise just download the fonts and host them on anarchistnews.org
thecollective
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 12:10
thank you so much!
our webperson is aware of the problem and is working on it (the solution is a bit more complicated than you suggest, apparently).
regardless, it's very nice to get helpful feedback.
Anonymous (not verified)
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 13:14
Pretty sad this wasn't announced as soon as it was known...
Same person as above (not verified)
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 05:42
They should be able to just replace references to the "Oxygen" font in the CSS with another sans-serif font like "Verdana" and then remove that line as a temporary solution that is perhaps easier to implement than loading the font file locally.
Anonymous (not verified)
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 21:47
hm interesting. yeah might as well download the css & serve it from the main server in a bundled css file. any ideas for an anarchist / activist website? i could make one.
Google is certainly an unacceptable risk. I don't enable googleapis in NoScript and they are not showing up in Disconnect, but I will have to retest with Wireshark running to see if the fonts are still loading. I don't know enough about browsers to know if css alone can load a 3ed party font with JS disabled and not show up in Disconnect. I block everything Google I can by default and do not appreciate any kind of surprise leakage. More testing to come here.
I keep referrer headers disabled on Firefox, so on my setup if this leaks Google won't know what page called them unless Mozilla is faking disabling the referrer-or someone is able to get exact timestamps on when comments are posted and compare to Google logs. BTW, if you are a Twitter addict you will have to either turn referrers on temporarily to use that site while logged in, or preferably kick the Twitter habit and abandon your account.
OK, shit like those arson communiques probably get to this site over Tor, it would be suicidal to use anything else for that due to ISP surveillance alone. Still, if Google has logs of say, half the comments posted underneath those communiques that exposes a lot of people to future harassment.
OK, just loaded this exact page with Wireshark running, JS enabled, got only connections to this site, my own machine, and my DNS provider on the direct load from a saved link text file. Using NoScript with everyone else's js disabled in this test, 0 "requests" showing in Disconnect, Canvasblocker showing no sign of an attempt at canvas tracking.
Then I loaded the front page and got blocked JS and packets from what appear to be a fairly long list of other radical servers. Site admins will know what they are. No matter how good their content, the question is how good are their hackers and their own security policies? Didn't see anything from Google in either case, but like I said I go out of my way to block them. Maybe this was quickly changed, or maybe my blocking is working, no idea which. Still no disconnect "requests" or Canvas tracking attempts. There is an anarchistnews cookie, that could be an issue if someone has one saved to an unencrypted hard drive and gets raided. I don't know if an emptied cookie database leaves behind recoverable "orphan" files on disk or a previous copy of itself deleted but still in existance. If ever written to a SSD (flash storage) it is sure to leave behind old copies.
People posting stories and comments need to be able to reach the posting pages without passing through a page that loads 3ed party content of any kind, not just Google. Radical sites should keep linking to oneanother but only embed 3ed party content in places posters with hot stories need not go to and know not to go to.
Why do forum posts have such an overwhelmingly long ass delay before they become published? Also I think you are a fascist.
it uses a different module than the site's main content threads depend on
Thanks for answering!
Now that I got your attention, there appears to be a large number of weird reactionaries on this site. They appear to of taken over just about any dialog that occurs here and attempt to steer it toward reinforcing their ideological agenda on this site.
From what I can tell, these "anarchs", as they often call themselves, consider contemporary anarchists of all stripes leftist enemies and they are using this sight as a platform to manipulate and undermine anarchists while promoting their ideology at the same time.
They don't respond to logic or reason while claiming a position based on such. They know they don't belong here, yet they now post at a rate that surpasses any anarchist on this site.
Because you've failed to do anything about this problem, myself and several others have focused our attention on ridding the site from this scum. It is apparent this will remain a never ending battle, stuck on a stalemate, until you intervene or this site ends being called "anarchist" news.
I will leave, should the site shift from being an anarchist site and you can have peace with yourself and the resident self-described anarchs.
I've been here for years. There's only like, 4 or 5 of them at most and they dominate the site because it's otherwise in major decline as "being of interest to anarchists". The anarch windbags are only a small part of why people hate this place, more like a symptom of the problem with open online discourse actually, rather than the cause. But whatever, soldier on cyber warrior. Me, I'd rather this place was a festering sewer than a sterile non-discussion from heavy moderation.
The number varies around 4 or 5 (or 1-3 + sockpuppets), this is true, however this site is not in decline. On the contrary, those moments when the anarchs aren't posting, a cacophony of anarchist voices chirp through the comments section and it suddenly seems more like an interesting anarchist site, what you'd expect. Then these jackasses start harping in and then its all about them and their dumb opinions not backed up by anything other than empty philosophic verbiage.
I am not at all proposing anything other than to treat these fools as the authoritarians they are and remove them as you would a naziboi or liberal that attempted to coopt the site.
By remove them, I mean remove their comments when identified as anarch and those comments from user names that are identified as from the anarchs. By identify, I mean use the same arbitration one uses to remove potty mouth posts and short comments.
That seems reasonable and I mostly agree with you but it's always a slippery slope. For instance, you apparently take issue with colourful language whereas I feel that to be a weak and rather old fashioned, bourgeois sentiment. Why the hell wouldn't anarchism be crass? If a bit of profanity bothers you, what happens during a real conflict?
As for the cacophony, I'm pretty sure you're referring to increased traffic around widely recognized calendar events like may day. Arguably has nothing to do with the anarch troll douchebags, they just get briefly drowned out by the rising waters but keep lurking til the waters recede. Remember, I say all this as someone who's been arguing with them and calling them out as shitheads for years.
It exists because thecollective (whoever that is), as anarchists, think it makes sense for anarchy. In some broad sense.
Anarchy is not doing work. And, like, what you're proposing is probably a lot of work. You either have open comments or you don't. If you go with open, assholes gonna post. You can delete some comments, but actually READING all of them is tricky, time-consuming, boring (which is why I don't read lots of comments, I humbly suggest you try this wacky technique as well). And it's easy, when you get deletehappy, to misunderstand things and delete Quality Content.
I understand the frustration with people who suck. I spend a stupid amount of time engaging with them here. But it's a website. If you're here, hopefully it's because you get something out of it. Finding all the content to be Quality is unlikely. You'll always be sifting.
This argument keeps being used when it isn't true. Already fascists and statists are removed. Already potty mouth comments are removed. Already spam is removed. The slippery slope does not exist and is an imagined threat. Anarchs are the enemies of anarchists and like other enemies, they have no home here.
Then I guess you have no voice but to wage righteous, anarchist jihad against the scourge of the anarchs! Godspeed sir! May you crush your enemies … maybe you could collect their fedoras and neckbeards as trophies?
^choice, not voice. Ha!
I'm actually glad to see the term anarch take off in these parts somewhat even if some of the people using it are fucking idiots. My idea for the term is to simply make Stirnerian orientation definitionally distinct from the founding anarchist big 3(Pierre, Mike and Peter) as well as create a term that is post hyphenated and succinct along with being a good definitional way of continuing what post left anarchism(Black Mcquinn) and post anarchism(Wilson and the pomos) started. If that is a reason to see the likes of me as enemies...fine I guess. On my end, this tool does not even warrant my dislike as far as valuation goes.
Take off as a term of derision. What you say is untrue. You have repeatedly attempted to associate yourself with fascism, pedophilia, rape, white supremacy, ableism and on and on. When challenged you dodge around, thinking perhaps that when someone stops replying to your comments that you've won a conversation? No, you have obfuscated your point of view and failed to offer clarity, especially when that clarity would expose your cultural authoritarianism, contempt for those you perceive as weaker than you and your general posing and lying. What about Bob Black are you influenced by? Hakim Bey? Once anyone digs into your thought it becomes obvious that the cherry picking you are doing is just taking small parts of their ideas and spinning them in your stupid head until it comes up dumb. There isn't any claim to association between you and even these anarchists. They are just your way to hit a particular type of fringe anarchist, the anti-sjw mras that also somehow think anarchy is reading philosophy and being afraid of women. I'm sorry your failure to compromise your values left you hated by women, never realizing all you have to do is find some common ground and then you might get to take a nice lady out on a date. Of course by nice lady you probably are thinking of 12 year olds again. No. I'm talking about full adult women that are close to your 40+ years on this Earth.
But you're making a lot of assumptions about Ziggy here. It makes you look dumb, and not worth taking seriously.
My take is that, for better or worse, his ideas are mostly influenced by people that come, broadly speaking, out of the anarchist tradition. And then George Carlin or something. This is... unfortunate. It would be nice to think the "fascist camp" or whatever produced the guy, but it seems that ain't so.
To Add: The thing that is even more disconcerting is the anarch references to Stirner may be regular, but it isn't a consistent value. I've challenged them on it numerous times, typically there is a lean towards the right on every deviation, a nod towards bigotry and a show that the "anarch" is something that is for masters, oppressors and exploiters, not rebels, to engage in.
A couple of things I get from SirE is that the uni/multi-verse is amoral, thus all ethical outlooks are contextual/local/historical and anarchists should consider the implications of this. I also get that he would like a new libertarian current or orientation, to take hold, that begins with Stirner, rather than Kropotkin or Proudhon. Nothing wrong with either of those proposals/opinions.
Many folks here are reacting primarily to two things with him: a) they dislike his constant insults that invariably have to do with the mental abilities of his detractors and b) they don't understand what he is proposing or what informs his outlook so extrapolate all sorts of nonsense from his posts.
SirE references plenty of anarchists as examples of people he thinks have something in common with him: Jason Mcquinn, Seaweed, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, etc. These are pretty disparate people. What they have in common is they are people who have tried to keep anarchism fresh, to break with the left and its morality, politics, activism and schemes. I haven't noticed him mentioning Wolfi Landsteicher which is odd considering he is advocating for an egoist outlook. If you read this SirE, why is that?
I wish people wouldn't be so shrill and hyperbolic when critiquing him. He does post often, but so do many others. I bet you that if many of the anons used a 'handle', they would sound repetitive too. And while I dislike his 'leftard' and similar insults, which turn me off considerably, I think that his idea of a new anarchic orientation beginning with Stirner is worth exploring.
What I find repugnant about this piece of shit is his obvious racism, clearly demonstrated during the Ferguson uprising. Racists aren't worth listening to, full stop. Do you look to national anarchists for ideas also? Fuck that asshole and his enablers on this website. Y'all are quickly on your way to Infoshop irrelevancy, ironically for the opposite reason.
same commenter here. If you are referring to his characterization of Michael Brown as a 'thug', well, ya, that was a low blow and lines up disturbingly well with dominant narratives.
But who isn't racist? I mean are you claiming that you haven't internalized any racist assumptions or caricatures? It seems that personal behavior is being conflated with ideas. Are Temporary Autonomous Zones not worth exploring because Hakim Bey wrote a poem about man/young man attraction? The reverse is often true for leftists: Che Guevara's homophobia and general authoritarianism is fine because he was a brown skinned fighter for example.
Anyway, i don't want to get caught up defending behavior and opinions I personally disagree with, but I think that most of SirE's most vocal opponents here are exaggerating his most negative traits and opinions and ignoring what valuable stuff he might have to offer for consideration. If we knew the private lives of the anons at anews, I'm sure that the vast majority have traits, behaviors, histories and roles that are, as you describe SirE, "repugnant".
Im honest, so at the Repugnant Olympics, I usually medal.
most of what ziggy says is not remotely racist, it is only seen that way by identity politicians and those who refuse to actually engage and try to understand his perspective. just as lawrence j was called a racist for his comments on ALL churches being burned - even black churches, that is pathetically shallow and uncritical. only single-issue (and uncritical thinking) folks could possibly mistake that kind of comment for racist, especially when coming from an anarchist.
ziggy can be a serious asshole, for sure. but by far, his critics here come across as high school dingbats without a critical thought.
^ See. Typical anarch response. Anyone that doesn't agree is an identity politician, use of a post left anarchist to make a point, which isn't about Sir Einzige or any anarch and doesn't demonstration how the two are associated, since Lawrence J is too leftist for anarchs, when it comes down to it. Seriously, ask them about his ideas in comparison to theirs. You will find they will cherry pick a great deal, but then find most of it "leftist". This is a tiresome exercise that is more and more exposing the failure in "post left" being a signifier of critical thought. Rather, it is becoming a deadend cesspool flooding with shit, AIDS and cancer.
This is not science or statistics, you take what you like and drop what you don't. It's also not about LJ or others being too leftist or anarchist as much as it is about a new line of thinking which is not found in old lines of thought.
As for what and who represents a 'cesspool flooding with shit, AIDS and cancer'....
It is disingenuous to draw conclusions of association when your ideas, words and values are not necessarily those of who you reference as an influence on you. This is another disingenuous attempt to soften and obfuscate this very Trot-like move by these reactionaries.
When I first heard about Stirnerr, it was in a short one-off zine about different trends of anarchism and doesn't flatter him much. Because translation work is never one-to-one in accuracy, most people immediately write off 'ego' as narcissism and 'property' (as in 'The Ego and His Property' as a translation or the more interesting alternative 'The Unique One and His Prerogative') to be pro-capitalism and private property. I wrote off this individualist trend as well until years later when I met someone who would defend Stirner's ideas and gave me a copy of 'Novatore'.
I like what you have to say about taking the parts that work from other writers/thinkers, such as Hekim Bey. For example, I think Bob Black's critiques of work are really on-it, but his personal reaction to getting punched in the face and trying to bring in police seemingly without other courses of action being desired or sought out leave me, well, feeling like I might not care to be in the same room as him. In the same vein, I think Crimethinc's efforts to go out and meet people are pretty neat, but I feel that platform-Anarchism is outdated. *shrug*
Cuz he sucks. I would not sit with him in the cafeteria.
But I don't like your commandment: "Racists aren't worth listening to, full stop." Like, first off, anarchism begins with a bunch of Jew haters and sexists, and I wouldn't tell people to not read Proudhon or Bakunin cuz of that. And it's not like you can find the non-racist person to listen to. And besides, I don't even agree with this in principle. If I get something out of a person's thought, then okay, I get something. So people seem to be saying about Ziggy.
I would prefer this commandment: "Racists"--- Wait, scratch that... Let's do this: "Pieces of shit aren't worth being nice to, or rhetorically defending, full stop."
Anyway, it's not a matter of enabling him. For most of us, it's not a matter of anything - unless you think we should lobby thecollective more or something (no thanks). For thecollective, it's a matter of not considering it him worthwhile to try to ban him. I can understand why they wouldn't do that, considering that it probably wouldn't be enforceable (how do you stop him making new accounts, using Tor, blah blah, without killing the open and anon-friendly system?) and it would probably irritate other people who use the site (who, again, aren't at the place of Ziggy-sucks-there's-no-need-to-feel-bad-about-this). And to what end? To satisfy people who feel entitled to dictate at them what their site should be?
Anyway, just so you know, his comments get deleted sometimes. He responded to my comment earlier in this thread, said some dumb shit I forget now, and I guess thecollective considered it non-worthwhile. Do I mourn? No. Do I celebrate? No. I don't care that it's gone, but I would equally not care if it was there. (To be sure, it wasn't one of his doozies where he demonstrates to the world his knowledge of slurs.)
b) they don't understand what he is proposing or what informs his outlook so extrapolate all sorts of nonsense from his posts.
There's rarely a lack of understanding, usually it's because he's a shithead and conducts himself as such but I still agree with shadow.
He just doesn't do it for me. While I don't entirely dislike him, I should like him a lot more then I do because he is arguably more 'Stirnerian' in influence then Black or Wilson. However, overall I think he lacks their acumen and his take on how to use Stirner and egoism I find questionable and lacking. I actually find Dupont preferable(even though he comes from communist continuum-the last acceptable thinker from that discourse for a post-left palette).
Landstreicher is still into things like revolution and class struggle albeit with an egoist anti civ bent. I think the take home from a thorough reading of Stirner is that revolution and class struggle are a waste of time as opposed to insurrection which I don't really see a constituted antagonism. Class is born from status which isn't something to struggle against but to stop believing in and in turn undermining the overall belief that stems from sublimation. Revolution always involves power(Wolfi and Renzo before him seem to forget this) Stirner made the distinction between insurrection and revolution pretty clear in his writings. Landstreicher muddies the waters making insurrection and revolution a seemingly obvious match. Again this goes back to Novatore who I am also critical of on that point(regrettable considering how brilliant he was in other areas).
All in all he tries to individualize and inject egoism into traditional anarchist antagonisms and struggles in ways that I find unconvincing. At the end of the day he tries to marry Stirner to anarchism. It simply doesn't work due to the fact that Stirner had a different approach from the anarchist founding figureheads. I mentioned Dupont, to me he is closer to the mark of what you should do in the face of totalizing powers. Basically it's the idea of relaxing constraints as opposed to refusal which is what Landstreicher seems to be all about. I actually haven't read him in fine detail but from what I've read on the library, this seems to be the message I get from his writings.
ziggy, you clearly either do not get wolfi, or your readings are limited to way long ago. wolfi is not at all into "revolution" or "class struggle", at least not in any commonly used sense of those terms.
^^^ absolutely correct. ziggy is way off on his interpretation of wolfi. revolution and class struggle are areas wolfi critiques quite openly and clearly.
I go here a lot on my tablet, which has a limited resolution. Often, comments are squished over to the left and I have to scroll down more than I think I should if the layout was adjusted for smaller screens. This also makes it difficult to figure out whose comments are replying to who since the format breaks and everything is crushed together.
As a side, and this may nit be on-topic at all, but I think having a website layout that w
looked like a newspaper or magazine, but in a web format - where whole articles take up the full size of the page - would make the website more aesthetically pleasing.
Its hard to track conversations. Please if you can implement system like on tumblr, where there are lines that you can trace to figure out who is replying to who. Reddit also does this. Sorry to make demands, I appreciate your efforts, I just think this will help the site be more useable.
that's what "threading" refers to in the original post of this thread. we know it's a problem. thanks for the civil (and on point) post.
Does anyone on this comment area have kids? Just curious because I have two kids and nobody seems to understand what I'm saying about these pedophiles and why I'm so angry about it. My kids are adults, I'm in a wheelchair and I just dumped my colostomy bag onto the ground. I'm ready for a fight. Who wants some? Fuck you pedophile scum.
I fault no one for having emotions about it. But he's also not actually child molesting - or if he is (who's to say?), being allowed to post pro-pedophilia views on this site is not enabling that activity. It's the opposite if anything. Posting pro-pedophilia views, even as an anon on this website, is a means of calling attention to yourself - since there are a lot of people who don't like that shit, and are extremely motivated to prevent such behaviour. (You yourself probably exhibit some of the same motivation.)
So thecollective isn't enabling anything. They're just not waging war on this person - though apparently they are waging war on you? (Deleting comments hardly equals "waging war", but whatevs.) I imagine that is aggravating - but perhaps you should try to see it from their perspective, as much as you can.
I don't know what their perspective is, but I will communicate mine: whoever you are, wherever you are, you are certainly not too far away from real situations of abuse - perhaps of children, but even more likely of animals, and perhaps also of trafficked individuals, the elderly, and the handicapped. Apart from abuse, there are probably also situation of serious neglect, and also hybrid situations. Yet, instead of doing something about any of that, you're spending your time trying to pick a fight... on the internet... with a body of people who (quite obviously) don't want to engage with conversation with you, nor have to. Because they're enablers... of what? People being able to say their (sometimes dumb as fuck, sometimes pro-pedophilia) opinions - which is ultimately just going to happen in a space of open conversation. Frustrating, I know.
But their opinions are, at least, conversational - which is the point of this site. What you are contributing is just demands and insults. I would probably delete your comments too.
Oh, and "your perspective"? Who the fuck do you think you are, Jerry Springer? Are you telling me to be a real rebel and roll my crippled ass into a war with my children about them not getting me a nurse? Listen kid, let me give you advice: Don't get in my way.
there is a kind of paranoid schizophrenia associated with paedophilia, rape, anarchism and terrorism. these events derive from community relations [“It takes a whole community to raise a ___”] but many people believe that humans are ‘independent beings’ so that there is denial on the part of many individuals that they are contributors to the things that enrage them, as must be the case in a relational world. we know that the colonizers treatment of the colonized has induced ‘terrorism’ but the colonizers denial is a sort of communitarian schizophrenia [“we didn’t do anything to contribute to these acts of terrorism”], ... which becomes paranoid because the offenders can come from anywhere, and they don’t wear enemy military uniforms.
the same applies to paedophilia, rape and anarchism; i.e. many people do not see the source of these behaviours as deriving from the relational social matrix, but see them instead as deriving fully and solely from the smoking gun-holding individuals through which these relational tensions are venting.
this brings on the paranoid schizophrenia.
authoritarian oppression inductively actualizes anarchist behaviours, and the media categorizes anarchists as ‘abnormals’ and the bulk of the community members as ‘normals’ and since the popular view of the human individual is the he is an independent being with full and sole responsibility for his behaviour, those through whom anarchist behaviours manifest are seen as the full and sole authors of the anarchist behaviours. when the relational social tensions are oppressive for some, the authoring source of anarchist behaviours is the full community [tensions are relative; i.e. it takes a whole community to tension up to the point that anarchist behaviours are actualized]. those who deny that the community is the source and view those with anarchist behaviours as the full and sole authors of such behaviours, are effectively manifesting schizophrenia because their behaviour co-authors the violent behaviour directed against them, yet they are splitting themselves off from that aspect of themselves. furthermore, it is paranoid schizophrenia because the relationships between who is building the tensions and who is venting the tensions is laundered out by Mach’s principle;
“the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” – Mach’s principle
this paranoid schizophrenia is on the rise in sexual assault, paedophilia, anarchism, terrorism because people are more educated and education brings in the scientific belief in ‘independent being’. indigenous aboriginal peoples employ ‘restorative justice’ which assumes that the source of the tensions that are venting through individuals is the ‘whole community’; i.e. the relational social dynamic. as a result, there is in that case no denial and no schizophrenia and no paranoia.
emile, I like your imagination. It is so fucking weird. Someone needs to make a movie about your life so I can laugh at you.
emile is a Daoist!! He is at one with nature. He eats gorilla pituitary glands to increase his cognitive powers. There's rumor he is dabbling in rhino horn! The prospects are staggering!!
Pretty lame collective … are we just hiding any "mean" comments now? You really don't have any fixed criteria at all, huh?
I've seen shadow around for years and they're insightful in my humble opinion, I agree with them about how it's probably a huge pain to try and campaign against certain people. However, as the volunteer mods come and go, you can definitely see that some of them are just lazily targeting posts with any hostility in them. Some hostility is valid and anarchist discourse should reflect and appreciate that.
as you would presumably expect, if you know any anarchists.
i usually check for a balance of content and name calling, and i tend to err A BIT towards being more generous with named posters, since they are at least being recognizable, unlike the vast majority of shit-talking anons who blur together in a cacophony of entitled complaints.
shadowsmoke is not a mod, although sounds like they'd be a good one afaic.
i really wish the people who have complaints against emile and SE would make better arguments... since emile and SE are their obsessions.
and i certainly agree that anarchist hostility is appropriate. it's nice that you have a high level of tolerance, commenter 61
thanks to all for playing.
Pages