Conversation
Notices
-
!Newgroup !capitalist for capitalists on !identica. !Capitalism was locked into !anticapitalism for @teddks' personal agenda. !freemarket
Tuesday, 09-Feb-10 04:00:48 UTC from web-
@xidram Actually, it was my political agenda, not my personal agenda. There's a difference.
-
@teddks Ah, my apologies. For a moment there, I actually thought your political views were your personal ones.
-
@xidram they are my personal political views, but a personal agenda would be something apolitical.
-
@teddks So it's not an agenda of your person? You personally do not try to carry out this agenda? Why does "personal" == "apolitical"?
-
@xidram Think of liking/disliking someone for personal reasons, compared to political reasons.
-
@teddks Ah, right, your agenda is not about pushing what you like over what you dislike. Forgot that you believe it's universally righteous.
-
@xidram your argument is semantically true, but that's not how the words are used most typically.
-
@teddks And I mean that in the personal and political sense since you can personally take political matters into your hands.
-
@teddks But it's still valid use, no? Isn't it still correct albeit not your preference? Usage popularity does not make something correct.
-
@xidram No, "personally do/personally believe" is a different usage than "personally dislike/personal agenda", like free as in beer/speech.
-
@teddks The beer/speech analogy only demonstrates homophones. What I'm asking is if calling your agenda personal was actually _incorrect_.
-
@xidram Likewise, "personal politics" and "personal agenda" have the homophone "personal". Two different meanings exist. You were incorrect.
-
@teddks So I again ask how "agenda" is inherently apolitical if it is personal. Your argument seems to be usage popularity.
-
@teddks By definition, a personal agenda is a plan concerning a person. You said I was semantically correct. Definitions are semantic.
-
@teddks Man, 140 characters cut down the definition. Agenda = temporally organised plan for a matter; personal = concerning a person.
-
@teddks No, I understand what you mean by difference between related to one's person and one doing something. I originally meant the latter.
-
Danny Piccirillo
Anarchism in the dictionary isn't anarchism the philosophy
, Anarchism
, sofias. pink
, Ted Smith
@xidram @teddks, well apparently @sofias is a capitalist and controls the !anarchy and !anarchism groups for that agenda...?
Danny Piccirillo likes this. -
Danny Piccirillo likes this.
-
Danny Piccirillo
Anarchism in the dictionary isn't anarchism the philosophy
, Anarchism
, Anti-Capitalism
, sofias. pink
@sofias but !capitalism is not !anarchism http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html !anarchy
Danny Piccirillo likes this. -
@sofias Yet the only form of !anarchism which recognizes !capitalism as one of them, are the capitalists themselves...
Danny Piccirillo likes this. -
@sofias Well, i guess it isn't worth debating, and my intention was not to start a flame war. I'd like to IM you about working together =]
Danny Piccirillo likes this. -
@dpic is trying to merge !anarchy and !anarchism, @idlerevolutionary can you admin him?
-
@sofias Mutualism is anti !capitalist. !anarchism without adjectives doesn't imply capitalist. All anarchism is !anticapitalist. No masters.
Danny Piccirillo likes this. -
@sofias Market anarchism is still !anticapitalist. Tucker, Carson, Proudhon were all against !capitalism. !anarchism means no bosses.
Danny Piccirillo likes this. -
@tedks but doesn't the market require a means of exchange, i.e. money, and doesn't that produce #capitalist relations? http://bit.ly/gnA3MS
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the