General News Thread 2.0


The theories I talk about usually lack considerations like that. Most philosophers save themself by stating that if you are a human being you should be capable of all that. And if you are not this does not change your rights, because hypothetically this might be changed sometime in your life, like a fixable illness. Which I like to think being true sometime in the future.

This is why philosophers of the Enlightment are so popular still today, because their ideas work even hundrets of years after their death, and might work even better beyond our time.


Radical change does not require radical action in a ‘normal’ nationstate.

Example: The Netherlands achieved woman’s suffrage through peaceful means, ahead of many European nations.

Did America became a representative democracy through violent means? Yes. And by that process tens of thousands died a painful death or suffered for decades afterwards with disabilities. Families ruined, children turned orphans. And what for? To achieve a revolution that, even though for some it had good intentions, I myself am a great fan of the ‘Federal Papers’, wasn’t even widely supported throughout the colonies.

So the former British colonies became a new independent nation state through violent means.
“But it did become democratic.”

Yes, and so did Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Whom didn’t have violent revolutions to achieve that goal.

If you are in fact stuck in an oppressive regime, a despotic regime, where man’s fundamental rights are violated by the state, where there is no rule of law, you are morally allowed to have a regime change.

Example: Gaddafi took power over an oppressive and corrupt kingdom through a bloodless coup. That was morally justified.

He was overthrown in a violent civil war, which has split the country apart, causing suffering to millions. That was not morally justified.

You can achieve change through non-violent means. Where there is rule of law, you can take someone to court for violating your rights. You can have a peaceful protest. You can send out your ideas to the masses, certainly in this digital age where the internet is at the fingertips of billions.

You can stand for something without having to stand on others.


I would agree with you from a philosophical point of view, as I am of the mindset that free will exists and therefore one should be responsible.

However, until we do achieve that better future which you describe, we have to live with the current situation with the cards we are dealt with. Which to me means that man is born with fundamental rights that should be protected regardless of if they do or do not decide to make use of them.


Quoting Kant:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

I don’t see the contradiction here, I want that to be true in the future as well.


By its purest definition, yes it does. How can you expect change with no action? Or an action so banal and superficial that it will have no chance of succeeding? If those in power have no reason to fear it then they have no reason to take it seriously.

Besides, what would you consider to be radical action? Because you need to be careful not to equate radical action with violence. Revolution does not always have to involve weapons - It can also involve revolutionary ideas. It’s about the principles that we hold to be representative of the kind of world we want to live in. A given order may at any given time fail to represent those values, even work against those values. When that happens I believe we have a right and a responsibility to bring about that change.


You seem to be forgetting the insane number of militant groups he supported and the inciting of violent revolts in native populations of several nations including IRA.

By the end of his reign he had taken to killing people who dissented with him, with a surveillance network said to rival Hussein and the Kim dynasty, the liquidation of defectors on foreign soil.

His iron-fisted rule is reason Libya is in turmoil after the civil war. He left no electoral college, no successor or any opposing parties thus creating turmoil.

The people of Libya had the full moral right to protest violently against the Gadaffi regime since they were left with no recourse. It is now the point that anything the Libyan Greens did to improve the life of Libyans is overshadowed by Gadaffi’s inability to maintain those standards of life and his turn to despotism


As I stated in my previous response. “How can you expect change no action?” I already stated how change can occur and what action is required. I also gave examples of such actions leading to true change, for example my comment regarding woman’s suffrage.

Or just look at the work of Amnesty International if you want to see small scale results, such as, quote:“In Mexico, Sergio Sánchez was released from prison after spending almost eight years jailed for murder based on false and inconsistent evidence and following his conviction in a flawed trial. His lawyers believe that the work of Amnesty supporters, who participated in marches and demonstrations, was fundamental to achieving his release.”

Notice how he was freed by marches, demonstrations, civil action, NOT through radical action, per my definition of it.

As to your question of what I consider to be radical action, it is ANY action in which man’s fundamental rights are violated.

Am I against the concept of revolutionary ideas? No, I am not. I’m against implementing those revolutionary ideas through radical actions. People can and should be allowed to publish and discuss their ideas openly without fear of retribution. That does not entitle them to take radical action in achieving that goal.

A radical example: Breivik had radical ideas. That is fine, he is allowed to hold them though I disagree with much of his copy-paste manifesto. Then in order to spread that idea to the masses he went on a massive killing spree, murdering 77 people. He thought his actions were justified, moral.

Radical ideas can be good, radical change can be good. Radical action is dangerous, again, per my definition.

When you say: “Revolution does not always have to involve weapons - It can also involve revolutionary ideas.” I am in agreement with you.

But, as stated in my previous responses, when you say “You don’t politely ask for your liberty, you take it.”, I feel you do not renounce revolution through violent means, which, again, violates my previous statements regarding the protection of man’s innate rights.


I am not forgetting his evil deeds, I am well aware of those, such as a public show trial and hanging of a young student after said student returned from the USA and was accused of being a spy.

However, my point was merely if the means justified the goal. In Gaddafi’s coup, he overthrew an evil government through peaceful means. Again, by the previously established moral standard that was justified.

Any actions of him afterwards do not negate the point since you cannot accurately predict which actions will be taken post-revolution. Castro presented himself as pro American and pro capitalist before his revolution, touring the U.S., and we know how that turned out.

The immorality of post-revolutionary action does not discredit the morality of the revolution itself.

Meanwhilst, we have the revolution that overthrew him. Resulting in over 30,000 people killed according to the National Transitional Council, though numbers vary due to the difficulties of getting accurate information in the current chaos. Over 30,000 (+/-), and tens of thousands more permanent injuries, such as a lost leg, eye, hand, mental scars, youths with PTSD. A nation traumatized. Water supplies bombed.

That, to me, was not moral. They decided upon radical action for radical change, and people suffered because of it, people’s rights were ignored for the sake of a violent revolution.
A violent revolution that wasn’t necessary. Jordan, as was Libya, was one of many nations taken by the Arab Spring, and she had major constitutional- and governmental changes, with “only” 2 dead. Which to me is still too many, but they attacked a police stations and were thus resorting to radical action.

You state “they were left with no recourse”, but this is simply not true. My previous point already proves that there were peaceful ways to achieve positive change. The government in the first days already had people resigning, a 20 billion dollar fund for housing development was set up, but then race riots happened, as well as marchers destroying cars, throwing Molotov cocktails in public squares, attack police armed with tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons. Did these revolutionaries want peaceful change? No, they pursuit armed rebellion, radical action, and one can still see the result of that today.

EDIT: 'Said ‘Afterwards’ twice in a row in the same sentence.


You really think Gaddafi was going to give up power willingly? That is honestly hard to believe



“You really think Gaddafi was going to give up power willingly? That is honestly hard to believe.”
What did the people protest for? It was for better housing projects, less political corruption. Many of their goals were already achieved. Many more could have been achieved if a peaceful path had been maintained. Gaddafi was already nearing his 70th birthday, his son could have taken over to reflect a new generation.

Instead, a war broke out between different factions, including M. Magariaf, Gaddafi’s ambassador to India in the 70s, who already in the 80s had vowed to overthrow the entire government with violence, and who already attempted and failed to do so in ’84.

Again, positive change, meaning a better life for the citizens of Libya was possible through peaceful means. Others decided that just positive change wasn’t enough, they wanted the power – and wealth that came with it – for themselves, and started a violent war. They pursuit radical action to get radical change, and got massive suffering as a result.

Just wanting to oust Gaddafi is no reason to ignore the rights of millions.


The thing is, Gaddafi was already ignoring the rights of millions of his own people. And I highly doubt Gaddafi’s son would have been much different than him. Gaddafi was ousted violently. Deal with it. There’s no changing it.


I know he was ousted violenty. I know there is no changing it. That is not my original point to begin with. The question merely was about the morality of types of change, and Gaddafi, due to having been in two different revolutions, one being bloodless and one being extremely violent, was a fantastic example of moral and immoral action in the persuit of radical change.

EDIT: Mentioned


Change aquires it’s own dynamics, it is hard to control it.
Although I suspect alot of bringing down Gadaffi was coming from the US and their interests.


Oh certainly. At the time you had multiple news sources and politicians, including:

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo: “We have information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government. Apparently he (Colonel Gaddafi) used it to punish people."

Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising, says that "we have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped".


“Rebels have repeatedly charged that mercenary troops from Central and West Africa have been used against them. The Amnesty investigation found there was no evidence for this. "Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released," says Ms Rovera. "Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents."

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said she was “deeply concerned” that Gaddafi’s troops were participating in widespread rape in Libya. “Rape, physical intimidation, sexual harassment, and even so-called ‘virginity tests’ have taken place in countries throughout the region,”.

Then Amnesty International investigated it, failed to find evidence for those human rights violations, and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

Then of course his convoy was bombed by NATO ( the bombings on Libya had already cost the UK over 260 million pounds at that point in time, according to Defense Secretary Liam Fox) and, this is just speculation, you’re not going to throw away hundreds of millions, it’s an investment.

The rebels got his location, and the rest is history.


EDIT: Tagged user since I forgot to quote him



What sort of witches, are we talking about: neo-pagans, wiccans, satanists, voodoo houngans, magic hobbyists, insane Harry Potter fans or Las Vegas stage magicians


I think Los Vegas stage Magicians, and street magicians.


Dakota Bracciale, co-owner of Catland Books and one of the organisers of the event, said they would not share details or specifics of “the spells”, but told the BBC the hex was “aimed at exposing Brett Kavanaugh for what he truly is, to cause him harm and see him undone”.


Oh I forgot about street magicians and Christians. I mean invoking a chaotic powerful deity and manipulating a nebulous force of fate by spoken word and ritual gestures sounds a lot like witchcraft