Since this conversation now spans multiple posts and some parts of the comments have been repeated, I'll just link to the other comments here.
I hope in the future, if you wish to dialogue with me respectfully, you won't use memes that suggest millions dying from communism is okay as the main image on a post with my name in the title.
I have a need to be respected when in dialogue with someone otherwise the conversation appears similar to a troll and someone being trolled. Trolls don't respect the people they engage with, nor do they think about how their communication will be received.
The image is about ends justifying means. It was not a gesture of disrespect to you. It is a HUGE gesture of ridicule toward the idea that a little violence is sometimes necessary for progress. Hell, Kokesh has even said "it's not always going to be pretty.." I'm sorry that bothers you, and I get the implications that could be seen behind it. I was making a point. Even a little "greater good" justification ultimately always leads to disaster.
I probably would not have been so brash had my initial arguments and counterpoint been considered without adding strangely personal elements to the conversation like:
It was a Q and A livestream. Instead of addressing my argument, you say "it sounds like you're upset because" of some other disconnected issue.
You defended Adam's calling me an "annoying and ignorant troll" without even reading my comment which yielded said reply.
You then went on to imply I was just "seeking attention." What a bunch of condescending bullshit. I was talking about principle man. C'mon. No need to make it all nursery school in here.
I don't need the patronizing, condescending veiled jabs like that man. Let's talk ideas.
I thought posting memes was alright. It wasn't directed only at you anyway. It's a meme. That's all.
If you're willing to look at these things from my angle, maybe we could find some common ground. As I said, myself and other individuals, (including one of Adam's friends and supporters!) can see eye-to-eye on this stuff about principle.
My witness vote removal was me exercising my market preference and voice. It wasn't something personal.
Graham, can I just toss a little thing in here?
I have read through most of the comments & posts between you & Luke, and have seen some clear, compassionate communication from both sides, as well as some rather value-less, aggravating communication from both sides. I've also seen you both acknowledge the foundational difference in thought process and communication style, and the issues that likely caused, which is beautiful.
One thing that I saw Luke bring up multiple times, which was clearly a big part of any emotionality in his responses, and which I saw you only really reply to in this one place:
... which doesn't really address his issue, is this:
You posted an article which was clearly focused on him (in title, if not content [and we all know WAY more people read the titles than the content]), with that meme as the thumbnail. That means that anyone who didn't read the whole post (and the one leading to it, and the comment threads) only saw:
For Anarchists, Ends Do Not Justify Means: Response to @lukestokes
Can you see why that could be seen as simply a personal attack? Especially by someone who is a witness, who is not an authoritarian socialist (what people are referring to when they say "communist"), who does not offer justification for violence or the state, etc.
About 250 people have read this post, but I would be willing to bet that well over 1,000 have seen the title & thumbnail, without any context. That would give them (especially if they don't know Luke at all) a pretty negative impression of him as a person.
I understand clickbait, and I use it myself sometimes (SOOO many people went off on rants about the title/thumbnail of my ancap/ancom/neither post without reading any of the content), but it's a little different when you are naming names in the clickbait.
I didn’t see it as clickbait, but the negative extreme of the “ends justify means” worldview.
I agree that naming Luke was confrontational. I normally don’t do these things unless I think something pretty serious is going on.
Luke and I have a history of not really getting along when it comes to discussing various important issues.
I wrote this post after Luke had already defended Kokesh’s name calling and vitriol (which was directed directly at myself, has been directed at more parties than just myself), whilst at the same time championing “open-mindedness” and non-violent communication.
Putting on a saccharine smile and pretending to be open, while being condescending and dismissive is not an acceptable way to communicate in my view.
Combine that with literally attempting to redefine very clear fundamentals of voluntaryism and I was left feeling pretty angry, to be honest.
If Luke calls himself a Voluntaryist, he should know and accept the basics. If not, I want to let other Voluntaryists know, so they can direct their market choice elsewhere.
That was the impetus for this post.