Reading about some fag contributor to the Tor project

>Reading about some fag contributor to the Tor project

Ohohoho. You literally can't make this shit up.

so what's the difference between queer, tranny, and faggot? cuz i think everyone that's not heterosexual should just be classified as faggot

Think what you want about his ideology, but the dude's a great speaker and has real accomplishments (unlike you).

>2017
>people still trust in (((Onion)))

Got chased out of the project anyway

a queer is someone who's homosexual
a tranny may not necessarily be homosexual
faggots are homosexual and particularly annoying

kind of like the difference between black people and niggers

>faggot
"I want to fuck people of my own sex".
>tranny
"I want to be the other sex".
>queer
LGBT oddity otherwise not specified.

Queer = Not straight
Tranny = Dressed in women's clothing
Faggot = Insufferable flamboyancy and lameness

>so what's the difference between queer, tranny, and faggot

Queer = They get the gas chamber, as Commander Rockwell said
Tranny = They get the rope
Faggot = They get the shock therapy until reformed

I don't really get anarchist, desu. Would they be enforcing no collective or would they be fine with an ultra nationalist tribe dominating all the individuals?

I don't think 'fag' is the correct term for thus degenerate, he most certainly fucked more women then most people here.

The whole fiasco leading to him leaving Tor was basically a succesful smear campaign against him, most likely with the goal of sabotaging Tor.

Although there obviously is no evidence for their involvement, I'd wager someone at the NSA got themselves a raise for this 'job'.

Anarchism degenerates into hierarchy by nature.
Having a leader vastly improves the success of a group of humans. It's written in our brains from birth.

Most anarchism today is in the context of a highly advanced future where the ability to share and receive information and host services for others is essentially universal and costless.

It would be essential in the future for the net of things to be decentralized and very controllable by users, with permission structures designed by the users.

Any other path leads you to Ye Olde Cyberpunk Dystopia, y'hear!

I don't know his exact political views, but I think the anarchism is linked to his 'ebin hacker neo-hippy parties', with enough drugs and sex for everyone. I think he just wants others to let him do whatever he wants (to them, at times).

>homosexual
The textbook same sex attraction
>queer
Where a person feels homosexual is too formal but other words have too much of a stigma so they drop back to a word that only older people have an association with, associations range from demeaning to politically correct.
>tranny
Trying to make yourself out to be a different sex, more invasive than dressing across gender lines.
>faggot
Mainly used as a general insult. Also negative connotation on male gay.
>gay
Ranging from politically correct to general derogatory term. Probably should be the default right now. But it has gotten a lot of flamboyant association. See queer.

In my experience they fall into two categories, evil and stupid.

The evil anarchists generally believe there is something innately "right" about a return to primitivism, often they think that being closer to nature or being in the species "default state" is the ultimate goal. They accept that people will be brutally murdered by crusading warlords but think it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

The stupid anarchists think that society is like a set of training wheels, and that if you train people properly (sometimes this bit is omitted) you can remove the training wheels and very few people with revert back to being assholes and the world will continue on working much the way it currently does, but with people doing things voluntarily instead of "on pain of imprisonment". They generally picture the world turning into tons of small loosely self governing communes that trade with each other and work together to do things like "fix the road between us".

Anarchists come in many forms but yes it's rather radical theory.

It all comes down to the idea that humans are more civilised than societies normally pretend.
That's certainly a side of some of these people. But I'd say they're the odd ones among the ones identifying as anarchists.

If you're in Europe presume anarchist means revolutionary communist.
In the US it means someone who wish the federal government would cease to exist (generally that's all they care about).

Aren't they all edgelords?

Who's that girl who works on Tor who's an edgelord too?

What do you mean? My impression is that they're a group that's very concerned with privacy. Some in the more trivial situations like the US and some in the more dire situations like the middle east or China.

Imagine being so pathetic you judge poeple based on labels alone.

Anarchists don't want to remove leaders, but hierarchies. If you need to build a bridge and you have a civil engineer in the group, of course he will be listened to and take charge of the project. He just won't be given any extra privileges based on his position. Also, people will have a choice whether to work on the bridge or not.

When people view anarchy as some sort of childish fantasy where everyone does what they want, eat ice cream for breakfast and burn cars it shows the immaturity and ignorance of that person. Anarchism is a fleshed out ideology that has been around for a while and was successfully implemented in several cases, namely Catalonia and the Paris Commune.

Catalonia failed because after the anarchists successfully defended themselves against the fascists they were betrayed by their communist 'allies' and disarmed. Anarchists didn't stand a chance because the communists had support from Europe and the USSR. Capitalists will always side with communists rather than anarchists because they would rather see a half-baked revolution that they can subvert than a fully realised revolution freeing the people. A free people will not go meekly back into their chains.

This person is speaking from the perspective of left wing anarchism.
Given how he speaks he's probably actually a believer.

>enjoying comfort of civilized world
>wanting anarchy

>He just won't be given any extra privileges based on his position. Also, people will have a choice whether to work on the bridge or not.
How is that different from capitalism?

Anarchism is another one of those garbage ideas that thankfully only killed a few thousand innocents.
It's like crystal healing, there are books, reams and reams of pages showing that it works, ignoring the primary reality: It does not.

>murderer, thief, catamite, pedophile and communist are just labels bro

Probably the best explanation for common proles
In a capitalist system, some guy would own the bridge and workers building it. If this was ancom, the engineer and workers would simply build the bridge because it was deemed necessary.
"Yeah, one of those silly ideas things that people have and shouldn't have because there were times in history where literal opposing ideologies strong armed them into submission."
stop talking about things you have no room to talk about

Tor got subverted by identity politics ages ago.

How do we keep Sup Forumstards in Sup Forums?

you can't, Sup Forums.com is an American website where we believe in freedom of speech. if you're getting triggered and need a safe space where you won't get bullied for being a gay jewish atheist commie faggot there are plenty of other message boards for that.

>opposing ideologies strong armed them into submission
And you haven't learned anything from that? Like, for example, the fact that real life implementations oof your pipe dream always get trumped by communities with enforced power hierarchy and this means that luring people into anarchism is unethical since there is 100% probability they are either going to waste their time dreaming about a perfect society or get their ass abused or murdered by a better organized, opressive, society?

By shitting on their ideas.

Hang yourself.

>By shitting on their ideas.
>...
>Hang yourself.
Holy shit Sup Forumstards BTFO!

>By shitting on their ideas.
This usually only encourages them. Report, hide, ignore seems the most reasonable action, as always.

by slithering back into your plebbit hugbox with all the other autistic special snowflakes of failed abortions like the cumgargling catamite that you are, faggot!

>falling for the GNUmale/SJWux Tor maymay

Can't really win, ignore them and they feel amongst friends. Engage and you make them fling some more shit.

Sup Forums belongs to Sup Forums now that we memed Literally Hitler and his sidekick Mike "Faggot Medicine from Thomas Edison" Pence into the white house. all SJW cucks retreat back to Ieddit or be relentlessly bullied.

So basically you feel as though your opinions don't hold up under scrutiny.

Sup Forums's "opinions" don't count as actual opinions or free speech, it's RACISM and SEXISM so it must be silenced!!!

What would incentivize engineers and workers to build the bridge? Who gets to deem what is necessary or not?

OP stop being a Sup Forums fag this man has done way more in his life then you will ever do

>Who gets to deem what is necessary or not?

It doesn't matter, gravity is a social construct.