I was trying to think of a word to describe a person who holds opinions or who might hold opinions but who does not speak of them. I could not think of the word but that is the topic I am thinking about right now.

You know some years ago I got into Bill Hicks and for the most part I love Bill Hicks. I think we agreed on most things as far as politics go. Maybe he had a little bit of homophobia but apart from that he was fairly left wing down the line and I agreed with him on pretty much everything I heard. Getting into him got me ordering from Sacred Cow and that got me ordering a vhs tape of "the best of Alex Jones". Watching that was fairly interesting. I thought it was good stuff that he was standing up for. Being older now and seeing more of Alex Jones I saw that he had some prejudice against people on the left or people from across the border etc. The more I saw of him the more I saw things that I didn`t like.

This is not just about Alex Jones though. That was just an example. People like Icke and Jones etc etc usually come from some sort of angle. Some "conspiracy" people are all about the bible or being nazi`s or "libertarian" etc. The problem I have is that so many of these guys don`t wear their hearts on their sleeves.

In music it is the same thing. Some people write music about topics but they never really reveal their true selves. I really can`t stand that. It is not that I can`t agree with people on some issues if I don`t agree with them on all issues. I just wish people were more transparent and open about how they feel. Obviously people in media might do that to make more money but I always have more respect for somebody who says "yeah I am this or that" then somebody who is but denies it.

Thoughts?

I'm happy to play cricket with anyone plays with a straight bat.
Those that don't usually end up making me feel like this

The problem is that you can not always tell if their bat is straight because they use optical illusions.

Absolutley. In a way this could tie in to the recent discussion here of energy vampires. It seems to betray an insecurity that some choose to hide their true thoughts/intentions/motivations behind a perhaps more acceptable face.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a certain self declared National Socialist a while back. That person was happy to declare himself such on an internet forum.
I asked him if he declares it in the "real" world. Did he have the courage of his convictions and would he wear a swastika armband or tee shirt?
His reply was no he wouldn't do that because he would get abused..........
IIrc my reply was us Anarchists aren't exactly popular either but I'd certainly be happy to wear an Anarchy symbol and walk anywhere.
I think he insulted me at that point

interesting post ty

personally i too prefer to know what 'angle' someone is coming from - its a 'truth' thing - how can you possibly make an informed response without being.. well... fully informed.

unless i have experienced something first hand with my own eyes then i have to rely on others to impart their version of events - if i am not made aware of any bias or preconceived notions they may have then i will not take that into account when attempting to understand their pov or information

when i read the daily mail i know that stories have a certain bias same for the guardian - that does not mean i will dismiss the story it just means that i will take the bias into account. much like when doing an experiment - in order to get the most accurate results you need to be able to eliminate variables that could give skewed results and in order to recognise confirmation bias.

there are many who will not own their own views as those views are seen as negative by others that do not share similar views. an example being racist - not many people will admit it as being racist is not something that is viewed in a positive light - however i have much more respect for someone who will 'own' their views and admit that they are racist then those who say absurdly racist things and yet claim that they are not.


some like me lean towards a certain perspective but also agree with elements from other perspectives which makes it difficult to really pin down where i stand.

i also think that there is the whole 'label' thing - once you have taken a label whether intentionally or had it foisted upon you due to the way you express yourself it is very difficult to remove that label.

there are quite a few opinions i will choose whether or not to share and where and how i will share them mainly out of respect for those on the receiving end of said opinions - but i hope that i am honest enough in my interactions for people to gauge my inherent bias and foibles.

thoreau wrote:
A very interesting point that you bring up regarding labels. Of course it sounds like I want everybody to walk around with a label. I guess that is kind of insane. There is a problem of course because The Guardian for example is perhaps considered a left wing broadsheet but that label does not always tally with it`s content. Perhaps the same can be said of people. I consider myself personally as a militant left wing Anarchist stuck in a right wing capitalist world but if I say that then perhaps I close doors to some people and maybe even misrepresent who I really am. As a white male I am often around people who I suspect are racist and they do not treat me in a negative way because on the surface I am just like them. Of course they sometimes reveal themselves for the same reason. They assume I feel the same because of my white skin.

The problem is also that some people do their best to say that they do not fall into this or that label. Icke is not anything because he tells you that he is above all that. He is a vibration. Of course he might think that but he also has some sort of bias or angle. We all need to acknowledge that I think.

Additionally In defense of Alex Jones I recall times when people have dismissed a story because it came from Infowars.com in the same way that people dismiss most "conspiracy" sites as sources. As if the source were any less biased than say CNN or The Guardian. As stated above at least if you know it comes from Infowars you know the bias. Sometimes it is less obvious. At least Infowars is blatant about it`s stance(sort of).

i-baster wrote:
Dis-ingenuousness?

i-baster wrote:

must all truth forums go this way

i-baster wrote:
Interesting question OP.

Answ: Wise / Enlightened / Scheming bastard

Why do I sometimes chew my tongue off?
Maybe just good manners?
Maybe knowing that people are entitled to their opinion so what makes me so great to challenge that?
Nah, I know it'll get me nowhere so why bother, why open the can of worms
Sometimes it's better to let some people just swim in their own shit & see how far it gets them

andyh wrote:
what happen?

mikey mikey wrote:
which way?

in a way that you describe but I was referring to a few recent "developements" elsewhere

perhaps I should have posted there

cheers i-baster

[quote="i-baster" post=47757 I consider myself personally as a militant left wing Anarchist[/quote]

Ummm,no. If you're identifying yourself as either left or right,you are NOT an anarchist

I share my opinions if I feel like it. But generally I won't defend them to anybody.

myshoono wrote:
Well firstly I was talking about how I see myself personally so YOU do not get a say in that and secondly there is nothing as far as I am concerned about Anarchy that says you can not be "left wing" it is after all simply another label to easily identify certain views that I hold. Anarchism is to me a very left wing ideology. If you disagree I would be interested to hear your take on it though.

the label thing intrigues me as well - once you have a label you are expected to act in certain ways or to think in certain ways - but as with nearly everything absolutes are very rare.

even by saying i am female a million different labels will go through someones head as to what that means to them. some of those labels will accurately describe aspects of me but not all will apply - but the person will perceive me in the way in which they view 'female' as a label until more information is forthcoming. If i were to use 5 labels for myself - the 5 things i believe describe me most accurately they will not even come close to describing one smidgeon of who i am as a person - for every one of those 5 things i would have to also give another 5 labels that personify those original 5 labels and so on and so on - and then we would disagree as to what certain things actually mean.

your description of yourself as a mil­i­tant left wing Anar­chist - conjures up images of 'swampy' crossed with sid vicious - which shows my dreadful stereotyping off nicely haha - but there is a lot more to who you are then just your political views.

i love animals and have been quite the sab in my time - but i am also grateful that my mother has the medicine she needs to stay alive at the cost of animals lives. i loathe organised religion but i envy those with faith. i admire icke but i think he talks a lot of shit on some subjects. I loathe the origins of marriage and what it stood for but am planning my wedding,

in short I am a walking contradiction that not even i can work out i am schrodingers cat neither dead nor alive until someone chooses to have a look and make that call.

apologies for todays lack of capitals my keyboard needs a good old clean - i think there may be some jam under the shift key haha!!

mikey mikey wrote:
I was just confused that`s all. thank you for clearing that up.

Well, I'm neither left nor right and my opinions evolve over time. I don't like conflict or arguing and I also don't like to get too preachy, either. I mean, if someone forces an issue I feel strongly about, I will defend my point of view. But I don't feel like everyone I meet needs to know what my views are and, honestly, I don't think most people care. It really just depends on the situation.

i-baster wrote:
Anarchy is about the absence of all political inference,and government. Any left/right stuff is fundamentally an instrument of politics.