Hi there,
I go by Pyotr, I've lived in Keene/Boston my whole life and watched FSP become what it is today.
I'm not a supporter by any means, but I feel it is my duty to come in here and help you guys understand the public's interpretation of you in an appropriate manner and also to point out when your logic is wrongly directed.
I hope you will allow that, as it is one of the core elements in your ideology, if not, then it's only damaging to you and I see no reason why you should continue to claim to be better than any other governmental establishment.
Thanks,
Pyotr
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg39734#msg39734 date=1279941375]
Hi there,
I go by Pyotr, I've lived in Keene/Boston my whole life and watched FSP become what it is today.[/quote]
First point: Free Keene is not the FSP, and the FSP is not Free Keene. There is some overlap, but many of the activists, including some who have been arrested, aren't freestaters at all: they're NH natives.
[quote]I'm not a supporter by any means, but I feel it is my duty to come in here and help you guys understand the public's interpretation of you in an appropriate manner and also to point out when your logic is wrongly directed.[/quote]
Feedback about perception is always welcome. Will you equally welcome feedback when your perception is wrongly directed? For example, wrongly conflating Free Keene with FSP?
[quote]I hope you will allow that, as it is one of the core elements in your ideology, if not, then it's only damaging to you and I see no reason why you should continue to claim to be better than any other governmental establishment.[/quote]
Please remember that forum.freekeene.com is private property. It can't be compared to "any other governmental establishment", because it's not governmental at all.
[quote]Thanks,
Pyotr
[/quote]
Welcome. Proceed with your feedback.
Hello. I'm also not a Free Keene supporter by any means, although I do post on here from time to time. I do support the FSP, though. As you likely know now, therey are different things, though. Stick around. As far as I'm concerned, the more level-headed feedback, the better.
Welcome. It's about time someone came over here for some real conversation. You can't talk about anything on that damn newspaper forum, as every article disappears behind a paywall after seven days. You will not be censored unless you spam or advocate violence, as per the forum rules.
I'd love to hear what the (non-fsp) natives have to say about Free-staters in general, and Free Keene participants in particular. As someone who is strongly considering moving to your fine town, I'd love a pre-view of what I can expect to hear when I plant my flag, as it were. Welcome to the conversation.
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg39734#msg39734 date=1279941375]
Hi there,
I go by Pyotr, I've lived in Keene/Boston my whole life and watched FSP become what it is today.
I'm not a supporter by any means, but I feel it is my duty to come in here and help you guys understand the public's interpretation of you in an appropriate manner and also to point out when your logic is wrongly directed.
I hope you will allow that, as it is one of the core elements in your ideology, if not, then it's only damaging to you and I see no reason why you should continue to claim to be better than any other governmental establishment.
Thanks,
Pyotr
[/quote]
Thank you so very much for being willing to discuss this with us.
Your opinion is greatly valued here!
[quote author=KBCraig link=topic=3617.msg39738#msg39738 date=1279943514]
First point: Free Keene is not the FSP, and the FSP is not Free Keene. There is some overlap, but many of the activists, including some who have been arrested, aren't freestaters at all: they're NH natives.
[/quote]
I should've restated, I know the two are different. However, from my personal viewpoint both are along the same lines.
[quote author=KBCraig link=topic=3617.msg39738#msg39738 date=1279943514]
Please remember that forum.freekeene.com is private property. It can't be compared to "any other governmental establishment", because it's not governmental at all.[/quote]
I'm well aware that it's private property, but what [I think] you're asking for is intellectual discussion based around the topic of freedom and demonstrations to support/grant it. I was simply pointing out that it would go against that philosophy to censor someone.
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg39772#msg39772 date=1279986869]
I was simply pointing out that it would go against that philosophy to censor someone.
[/quote]
I don't see how private censorship and liberty are at odds. Liberty seems to be at odds with government censorship, though. If anything, liberty and private censorship go hand and hand. Censorship in general certainly isn't a bad thing.
Hi Pyotr. Welcome to the forum.
Hello PyotrByali,
I've also lived in Keene my whole life. Maybe we've met.
I also wasn't born with the views I have today. Thanks for taking time to join the forums.
[quote author=WhereAndWhen link=topic=3617.msg39775#msg39775 date=1279989663]
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg39772#msg39772 date=1279986869]
I was simply pointing out that it would go against that philosophy to censor someone.
[/quote]
I don't see how private censorship and liberty are at odds. Liberty seems to be at odds with government censorship, though. If anything, liberty and private censorship go hand and hand. Censorship in general certainly isn't a bad thing.
[/quote]
I think private censorship is a permissible thing… but a silly one, when you're trying to engage people in debate about the morality of the violent government apparatus.
Much speech is important, but this is not a free speech zone. I recently deleted posts and banned a frequent FK forum poster for advocating violence. I suppose that is considered censorship… But it is all subject to the wishes and approval of the owner of this online community.
Private property is a wonderful thing as the endless arguments about what should be allowed are not subjected to a vote. It is what it is.
[quote author=Highline link=topic=3617.msg39784#msg39784 date=1279992055]
[quote author=WhereAndWhen link=topic=3617.msg39775#msg39775 date=1279989663]
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg39772#msg39772 date=1279986869]
I was simply pointing out that it would go against that philosophy to censor someone.
[/quote]
I don't see how private censorship and liberty are at odds. Liberty seems to be at odds with government censorship, though. If anything, liberty and private censorship go hand and hand. Censorship in general certainly isn't a bad thing.
[/quote]
I think private censorship is a permissible thing… but a silly one, when you're trying to engage people in debate about the morality of the violent government apparatus.
Much speech is important, but this is not a free speech zone. I recently deleted posts and banned a frequent FK forum poster for advocating violence. I suppose that is considered censorship… But it is all subject to the wishes and approval of the owner of this online community.
Private property is a wonderful thing as the endless arguments about what should be allowed are not subjected to a vote. It is what it is.
[/quote]
Exactly, it's not very smart to try to have an honest debate with people and then censor them. Violence in a non-theoretical way would be one to expect though, from a standard viewpoint.
I don't think private property is a great thing.
Firstly, thanks for posting here! Even if we disagree, I'm really glad to be able to discuss/share ideas. I'm a Keene native too, though I'm currently stranded in CA (hopefully will leave soon).
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg40008#msg40008 date=1280268184]
Exactly, it's not very smart to try to have an honest debate with people and then censor them. Violence in a non-theoretical way would be one to expect though, from a standard viewpoint.
[/quote]
I agree, I think ideas should be communicated freely. Although I recognize the right of people to set rules for their property, I'm glad this forum has a very loose moderation policy. It's part of the reason I go here.
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg40008#msg40008 date=1280268184]
I don't think private property is a great thing.
[/quote]
Why's that? For example, suppose I work hard and build a house. Don't you think I'd have the right to use the house as I choose, or sell it (i.e. it would be my private property)?
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg40008#msg40008 date=1280268184]
[quote author=Highline link=topic=3617.msg39784#msg39784 date=1279992055]
[quote author=WhereAndWhen link=topic=3617.msg39775#msg39775 date=1279989663]
[quote author=PyotrByali link=topic=3617.msg39772#msg39772 date=1279986869]
I was simply pointing out that it would go against that philosophy to censor someone.
[/quote]
I don't see how private censorship and liberty are at odds. Liberty seems to be at odds with government censorship, though. If anything, liberty and private censorship go hand and hand. Censorship in general certainly isn't a bad thing.
[/quote]
I think private censorship is a permissible thing… but a silly one, when you're trying to engage people in debate about the morality of the violent government apparatus.
Much speech is important, but this is not a free speech zone. I recently deleted posts and banned a frequent FK forum poster for advocating violence. I suppose that is considered censorship… But it is all subject to the wishes and approval of the owner of this online community.
Private property is a wonderful thing as the endless arguments about what should be allowed are not subjected to a vote. It is what it is.
[/quote]
Exactly, it's not very smart to try to have an honest debate with people and then censor them. Violence in a non-theoretical way would be one to expect though, from a standard viewpoint.
[/quote]
If someone wanted to DEBATE the philosophy of using violence against the state I personally cannot see how that would run afoul of the "no advocating violence" rule here. If someone was to make a thread titled "Why is violence an ineffective tool to use against the violent monopoly" and discuss accordingly I think that would be a geared in a philosophical conversational manner.
It is quite a bit different from advocating, hinting, suggesting, or daydreaming about really using violence.
Oh, were you saying avocation of violence against government should be allowed here, PyotrByali? I disagree with that. I don't want to be associated in any way with anyone advocating violence against the state as a political solution, and I'm glad the owner of the site has prohibited it.
I wouldn't worry about it, you don't sound like quite a reasonable person, not a violent revolutionary ;).
[quote author=tremendoustie link=topic=3617.msg40014#msg40014 date=1280271957]
Oh, were you saying avocation of violence against government should be allowed here, PyotrByali? I disagree with that. I don't want to be associated in any way with anyone advocating violence against the state as a political solution, and I'm glad the owner of the site has prohibited it.
I wouldn't worry about it, you don't sound like quite a reasonable person, not a violent revolutionary ;).
[/quote]
If history proves anything, it is that the government loves to join peaceful movements they disagree with and attempt to make them sound violent.
That is impossible here for two reasons:
1) We're simply not the violent ones (the government is); and
2) We don't tolerate that shit 
What I was suggesting is that violence is an important part of any theoretical change and must be examined as a possibility, from one or both sides. Complete censorship of violence as an idea is simply a bad idea, is what I was saying.
I for one, see a lot of advantages [and disadvantages] to violent protest. In fact, I think the best protests the world have seen have been the violent ones.
[quote]Why's that? For example, suppose I work hard and build a house. Don't you think I'd have the right to use the house as I choose, or sell it (i.e. it would be my private property)?[/quote]
Private property is a way of controlling things. Through the private property system, some people will own vastly more than others, and will be able to control them in any which way that they want so long as they are on, using, or somehow damaging/influencing the land that they own.
In other words, one could say it's just another means of control and power that further divide [or control/disempower] citizenry.
[quote author=Highline link=topic=3617.msg40016#msg40016 date=1280272946]
That is impossible here for two reasons:
1) We're simply not the violent ones (the government is); and
2) We don't tolerate that shit
[/quote]
I'm very reluctant to imply that it's impossible. I think it's something we need to be ever vigilant to be on the watch for. It's absolutely possible if we let our guard down. The entire culture of Free Keene can be gradually shifted by the slow infiltration of folks who want that or who just want us to be perceived as violent because they oppose our goals.
And I would also disagree about having even just theoretical discussions about the practicality of violence. Making a case for why violence could be useful is too much like encouraging it, e.g. "Hey, I'm not endorsing it, just pointing out that it's really effective!"
I'm all for people have such a discussion and vetting the ideas; just not here. There are plenty of places on the Net for it where it won't be censored. It's hard for people to understand the motivation for censorship here, but understand that this is a place for action. That's unusual for a message forum. We're doing a lot of planning for actual action that we intend to take, and it's just not the safe place to have that discussion. We've rejected any and all non-peaceful tactics here. If you want that to change, talk to Ian (the owner) in another medium, like calling into FTL or on the FTL forum. There's plenty of opportunity for you to persuade him other than on Free Keene (though I highly doubt you will have any success).
It seems to me that the latest message is already trying to dance around the forum policy to essentially endorse violent tactics. I don't use my moderator privileges to ban people anymore, but that post ought to be looked at and taken into consideration for at least a warning, IMHO.
I agree with Dale. PyotrByali, any discussion of violence as a solution to anything is off-limits here. This website is dedicated to peaceful change.
You are welcome to question and opine as you like, excepting that topic.
[quote author=Dalebert link=topic=3617.msg40058#msg40058 date=1280342147]
[quote author=Highline link=topic=3617.msg40016#msg40016 date=1280272946]
That is impossible here for two reasons:
1) We're simply not the violent ones (the government is); and
2) We don't tolerate that shit
[/quote]
I'm very reluctant to imply that it's impossible. I think it's something we need to be ever vigilant to be on the watch for. It's absolutely possible if we let our guard down. The entire culture of Free Keene can be gradually shifted by the slow infiltration of folks who want that or who just want us to be perceived as violent because they oppose our goals.
And I would also disagree about having even just theoretical discussions about the practicality of violence. Making a case for why violence could be useful is too much like encouraging it, e.g. "Hey, I'm not endorsing it, just pointing out that it's really effective!"
I'm all for people have such a discussion and vetting the ideas; just not here. There are plenty of places on the Net for it where it won't be censored. It's hard for people to understand the motivation for censorship here, but understand that this is a place for action. That's unusual for a message forum. We're doing a lot of planning for actual action that we intend to take, and it's just not the safe place to have that discussion. We've rejected any and all non-peaceful tactics here. If you want that to change, talk to Ian (the owner) in another medium, like calling into FTL or on the FTL forum. There's plenty of opportunity for you to persuade him other than on Free Keene (though I highly doubt you will have any success).
It seems to me that the latest message is already trying to dance around the forum policy to essentially endorse violent tactics. I don't use my moderator privileges to ban people anymore, but that post ought to be looked at and taken into consideration for at least a warning, IMHO.
[/quote]
Very good points dale. Especially about my point.
There may be people who honestly have questions about the philosophy of non-violence. I suppose I am conflicted about how to educate people. Perhaps privately?