Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Derric Atzrott
Hacktivist, Bitcoin Advocate, Pacifist, Feminist
Hacktivist, Bitcoin Advocate, Pacifist, Feminist

Derric's posts

Post has shared content
Reposting this for the benefit of any who may have missed it in the community itself.
{Consensus can be slow and messy, but the mod panel has come to consensus on this statement:}

The moderators of Anarchist Memes wish to contribute that we intend for this space to primarily for the enjoyment of those with an anarchist perspective. It is not the intention of this space for only the anarchist perspective to be respected or tolerated but rather that an anarchist perspective would not require defense or justification in this space. To that end, we offer that Anarchist Memes is not an appropriate space to challenge anarchists about the elements of anarchism, however people may voice their disagreement or ask questions.

(For purposes of clarity, Anarchist Memes may be described as anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, anti-homophobic, anti-racist, anti-misogynist, anti-war, anti-oppression;  pro-(libertarian)socialism, pro-(libertarian)communism, pro-equality, pro-autonomy, pro-solidarity, et al..

These would be examples of appropriate questions that could be contributed in this space: "How does an anarchist perspective on property norms work?", or "What do anarchists see as the means for accomplishing social change?", or "What are the reasons anarchists are so strongly against capitalism?" (honest questions attempting to understand are appropriate)

These would be some examples of inappropriate questions for this space, "How are you going to force me to abolish private property?" or, "Why do you not support voluntary institutions like wage labour?", "Can you prove that anarchism is better than my ideology?" (loaded or rhetorical questions are not appropriate)

It is also appropriate to contribute, "I do not share agreement with this. Capitalism does not seem all that bad to me." (Voicing non-agreement is appropriate; challenging or denying anarchist perspectives is not appropriate: "I do not agree" is appropriate, while "anarchists are wrong." is not appropriate.)

"Would you be willing to discuss this vigorously outside this community?" Is an appropriate request.

The primary concern is that an anarchist perspective not require a defense or justification in this space. This is not an appropriate space to challenge anarchists about the elements of anarchism, or to engage in argument about the merits of elements of anarchism. However this is an appropriate space to ask questions and to give voice to disagreement and dissent. ("I don't agree that wage labour is necessarily problematic." is an appropriate expression of dissent; "Wage labour is entirely voluntary and consensual." is inappropriate for reasons of being unnecessarily argumentative.)

We are comfortable with persons of different vision expressing their vision but we are not comfortable with this space becoming a space where anarchists feel the need to defend or justify themselves. This space is primarily intended as a space for anarchists to feel safe and respected.

Post has attachment
I have heard a lot of folk talking about this lately actually.  I thought that this video was informative and works well to debunk the myth.

Post has shared content
" 'When you say patriarchy' a man complained from the rear of the audience, 'I know what you really mean - me!' A lot of people hear 'men' when someone says 'patriarchy,' so that criticism of gender oppression is taken to mean that all men, each and every one of them - are oppressive people. Not surprisingly, many men take it personally if someone merely mentions patriarchy or the oppression of women, bristling at what they often see as a way to make them feel guilty. And some women feel free to blame individual men for patriarchy simply because they're men. Some of the time, men feel defensive because they identify with patriarchy and its values and don't want to face the consequences these produce or the prospect of giving up male privilege. But defensiveness more often reflects a common confusion about the difference between patriarchy as a kind of society and the people who participate in it. If we're ever going to work toward real change, it's a confusion we'll have to clear up.

"To do this, we have to realize that we're stuck in a model of social life that views everything as beginning and ending with individuals. Looking at things in this way, we tend to think that if evil exists in the world, it's only because there are evil people who have entered into an evil conspiracy. Racism exists, for example, simply because white people are racist bigots who hate members of racial and ethnic minorities and want to do them harm. There is gender oppression because men want and like to dominate women and act out hostility toward them. There is poverty and class oppression because people in the upper classes are greed, heartless, and cruel. The flip side of this individualistic model of guilt and blame is that race, gender, and class oppression are not actually oppression at all, but merely the sum of individual failings on the part of blacks, women, and the poor, who lack the right stuff to compete successfully with whites, men and others who know how to make something of themselves.

"What this kind of thinking ignores is that we are all participating in something larger that ourselves or any collection of us. On some level, most people are familiar with the idea that social life involves us in something larger than ourselves, but few seem to know what to do with that idea. When Sam Keen laments that 'THE SYSTEM is running us all,' he strikes a deep chord in many people. But he also touches on a basic misunderstanding of social life, because having blamed 'the system' (presumably society for our problems, he doesn't take the next step to understand what that might mean. What exactly is a system, for example, and how could it run us? Do we have anything to do with shaping it, and if so, how? How, for example, do we participate in patriarchy, and how does that link us to the consequences it produces? How is what we think of as 'normal' life related to male dominance, women's oppression, and the hierarchical, control-obsessed world in which they, and our lives, are embedded?

"...If we see patriarchy as nothing more than men's and women's individual personalities, motivations, and behavior, for example, then it probably won't even occur to us to ask about larger contexts - such as institutions like the family, religion, and the economy - and how people's lives are shaped in relation to them. From this kind of individualistic perspective, we might ask why a particular man raped, harassed, or beat a woman. We wouldn't ask, however, what kind of society would promote persistent patterns of such behaviors in everyday life, from wife-beating jokes to the routine inclusion of sexual coercion and violence in mainstream movies. We are quick to explain rape and battery as the acts of sick or angry men; but we rarely take seriously the question of what kind of society would produce so much male anger and pathology or direct it toward sexual violence rather than something else. We rarely ask how gender violence serve other more 'normalized" ends such as male control and domination.

"...If the goal is to change the world, this won't help us. We need to see and deal with the social roots that generate and nurture the social problems that are reflected in the behavior of individuals. We can't do this without realizing that we all participate in something larger than ourselves, something we didn't create but that we have the power to affect though the choices we make about how we participate.

"That something larger is patriarchy, which is more than a collection of the individuals (such as 'men'). It is a system, which means it can't be reduced to the people who participate in it. If you go to work for a corporation, for example, you know the minute you walk in the door that you've entered 'something' that shapes your experience and behavior, something that isn't just you and other people you work with. You can feel yourself stepping into a set of relationship and shared understandings about who's who and what 's supposed to happen and why, and all of this limits you in many ways. And when you leave at the end of day you can feel yourself released from the constraints imposed by your participation in that system; you can feel the expectations drop away and your focus shift to other systems such as family or a neighborhood bar that shape your experience in different ways. To understand a system like a corporation, we have to look at more than people like you, because all of you aren't the corporation, even though you make it run. If the corporation were just a collection of people, then whatever happened to the corporation would by definition also happen to them, and vice versa; but this clearly isn't so. A corporation can go bankrupt, for example, or cease to exist altogether without any of the people who work there going bankrupt or disappearing. Conversely, everyone who works at the corporation could quit, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the end of the corporation, only the arrival of a new set of participants. We can't understand a corporation, then, just by looking at the people who participate in it, for there is something larger and has to be understood as such.

"So, too, with patriarchy, a kind of society that is more than a collection of women and men and can't be understood simply by understanding them. We are not patriarchy, no more than people who believe in Allah are Islam or Canadians are Canada. patriarchy is a kind of society organized around certain kinds of social relationship, and ideas. As individuals, we participate in it. Paradoxically, our participation both shapes our lives and gives us the opportunity to be part of changing or perpetuating it. But we are not it, which means that patriarchy can exist without men having 'oppressive personalities' or actively conspiring with one another to defend male privilege. To demonstrate that gender oppression exists, we don't have to show that men are villains, that, women are good-hearted victims, that women don't participate in their own oppression or that men never oppose it. If a society is oppressive, than people who grow up and live in it will tend to accept, identify with, and participate in it as 'normal' and unremarkable life. That the path of least resistance in any system. Its hard not to follow it, given how we depend on society and its rewards and punishments that hinge on going along with the status quo. When oppression is woven into the fabric of everyday life, we don't need to go out of our way to be overly oppressive in order for an oppressive system to produce oppressive consequences. As the saying goes, what evil requires is simply that ordinary people do nothing."

- Allan G. Johnson ("Patriarchy, the System").

Post has attachment
This is the document that had the Catholic church officially forgive the Jewish people for the death of Christ.  Interestingly in it though it calls for tolerance of all sorts by Catholics everywhere.

From the Wikipedia article:
"The fifth part states that all men are created in God's image, and that it is contrary to the teaching of the Church to discriminate against, show hatred towards or harass any person or people on the basis of colour, race, religion, condition of life and so on."

While I have not read the actual document itself, this, to me, would imply a call for tolerance and loving of all people regardless of the circumstances.  Perhaps an interesting document for Catholics, those who know Catholics, and those interested in religions in general to read.

"I demand the independence of woman, her right to support herself; to live for herself; to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she pleases. I demand freedom for both sexes, freedom of action, freedom in love and freedom in motherhood." -- Emma Goldman

"Freedom is never the objective. It is the fight itself." -- The Invisible Committee Returns with "Fuck off Google" from 31c3


"In the recent times, I have seen a lot of people who were impressed by their phone 'AppStore' and other variants of this software distribution model. I was really amazed, as I have a hard time seeing how different it is from what Debian have since 1998 with APT.

Since 2005, it is even better: software in Debian repositories is signed using cryptographic signatures. So when retrieving an application from our store, there is a really good chance that the Debian community has verified that it does not contain spyware.

The Free Software community is huge, the Debian community is quite big as well. But I still do prefer to put have some level of trust on 1000 people than to have no level of trust at all.

That's what I keep telling to the folks I help installing Debian. Together with 'you should not install random stuff downloaded from a random web site'. 'Why?' they answer, and my reply, skipping the details, boils down to 'you don't need to, everything is already in Debian'.

And I am talking about Debian stable here. Users that do not want to spend much time dealing with how their computers work. Only about the work they want to do with their computers. Having a major system upgrade every two years is more often enough in their eyes."

--Jérémy Bobbio

Post has shared content
Kathy Sierra leaves Twitter.

This month is the 10-year anniversary of my first online threat. I thought it was a one-off, then. Just one angry guy. And it wasn’t really THAT bad. But looking back, it was the canary in the coal mine… the first hint that if I kept on this path, it would not end well. And what was that path? We’ll get to that in a minute.

Later I learned that the first threat had nothing to do with what I actually made or said in my books, blog posts, articles, and conference presentations. The real problem — as my first harasser described — was that others were beginning to pay attention to me. He wrote as if mere exposure to my work was harming his world.


I now believe the most dangerous time for a woman with online visibility is the point at which others are seen to be listening, “following”, “liking”, “favoriting”, retweeting. In other words, the point at which her readers have (in the troll’s mind) “drunk the Koolaid”. Apparently, that just can’t be allowed. ❞

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Just noticed my old PGP key expired.  Posting up my new one for everyone.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

Wait while more posts are being loaded