Does My Alleged Disaffinity With OWS Help Explain a Fusionism I've Never Believed in?, and Other Pressing Questions From the Would-Be Hippie/Tea Party Divide
Classical Liberal big-thinker Will Wilkinson has a piece up at Big Think that detects within alleged libertarian disaffection for the Occupy Wall Street movement "the psychological linchpin" of conservative-libertarian "fusionism." He uses me as a prime example, so I wanted to respond below the excerpt:
[H]aving lived most of my adult life among them, experience tells me that when it comes to the explanation of poverty and wealth libertarians are close cousins to conservatives. It's my view that this shared sense of robust agency and individual responsibility for success and failure is the psychological linchpin of "fusionism"--that this commonality in disposition has made the long-time alliance between conservatives and libertarians possible, despite the fact that libertarians are almost identical to liberals in their unconcern for the conservative binding foundations. That's why controversial "social issues" like abortion and gay marriage are generally pushed to the side when libertarians and conservatives get together. As long as they stick to complaining about handouts for poor people sitting on their asses and praising rich people working hard to make civilization possible, libertarians and conservatives get along fine.
The critical response of Reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch to Salon's "New Declaration of Independence" is nicely illustrative of the libertarian's conservative-like attachment to individual responsibility. And this, I think, helps explain why self-described libertarians are more likely to identify with the Tea Party movement, which was launched by Rick Santelli's indignant rant about subsidizing "losers'" mortgages, than with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is founded on something like the assumption that individuals are caught in a web of socio-economic forces upon which only the collective action of organized class interests have any influence. [...]
I find all of this especially interesting because my own drift from right-leaning libertarian to libertarian-leaning liberal has a lot to do with issues around the conditions for robust agency and the role of broad socio-economic forces in establishing those conditions, or not. I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights. This takes me a long way toward standard liberalism. But I find that my gut nevertheless leans right on issues of personal responsibility.
I cannot speak for Wilkinson's gut, but I do have some working knowledge of the space between my (formerly hippie) ears, so let me complicate Free Will's narrative.
First and more generally, I reckon that "fusionism" had more to do with hating on commies during the Cold War, and as such has been on the wane for two decades now. As Nick Gillespie and I wrote in our magazine adaptation from The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America,
67 percent of libertarians [in a recent Pew survey] self-identify as independents, compared to 28 percent as Republicans and 5 percent as Democrats. "A growing number of Americans are choosing not to identify with either political party, and the center of the political spectrum is increasingly diverse," Pew concluded. "Rather than being moderate, many of these independents hold extremely strong ideological positions on issues such as the role of government, immigration, the environment and social issues. But they combine these views in ways that defy liberal or conservative orthodoxy."
Pew's findings track with what the Cato Institute found in its 2010 study titled "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama," which, using American National Election Series data, estimated the bloc of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" voters at 14 percent (while noting other methodologies that put the number as high as 59 percent). Authors David Boaz and David Kirby found that libertarians are detaching themselves from the GOP and becoming more of a swing vote. Their margin for Senate Republicans over Democrats dropped from 59 percentage points in 2002 to just 4 points in 2006, for example, then jumped back to 49 points in 2008. Boaz and Kirby also cite the work of UCLA's Sylvia Friedel, who found that libertarians voted Republican for president 69 percent of the time from 1972 to 1988, but just 46 percent of the time since the end of the Cold War. Young libertarians in particular skew independent, and (unlike older libertarians) preferred Obama to John McCain by a wide margin.
It's only anecdotal, but our experience these past six months talking to Students For Liberty-type kids mirrors the data from Ron Paul supporters from 2008: Only 38 percent of them voted for eventual GOP nominee John McCain, and you are way more likely to get a question about Ending the Fed than one suggesting that the GOP is more receptive to libertarian ideas.
But here's the thing that non-Republican, gay-marrying, pro-immigration, pro-choice, anti-empire potheads like me (and Will) need to grapple with if we insist on talking about the relationship between ourselves and various large political blocs: The GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas these past couple of years. Yes, it's still not much, and a lot of it is just the skin-deep opportunism of being in opposition, but I think honesty compels the observation that among the governing classes, if you find an economic libertarian he/she is more likely to be a social con than a RINO (or DINO). The Gary Johnson crossover dream is still just that. Which makes me no more likely to join Team Red, but it does suggest that certain libertarianish traditions within the broader right have staying power, at a time when the libertianish tendencies on the broader left seem to be receiving little or no expression in the governance by Team Blue. That I wished things were different doesn't change the basic facts.
As for my own psychological linchpins, they have never had anything to do with "complaining about handouts for poor people sitting on their asses and praising rich people working hard to make civilization possible." I have always been more angry at corporate welfare than food stamps, and as a libertarian squish who edits a magazine that should be euthanized for liberty, I see policy solutions like free trade, backpack school funding and drug legalization as being preferable precisely because they disproportionally help the less fortunate.
And on the underlying point of why and even whether "self-described libertarians are more likely to identify with the Tea Party movement," two final points: 1) I for one (as the main example cited) probably "identify" more with OWS, if for no other reason that I have more longtime friends who are chilling with the 99 percenters rather than drinking the tea. I've lived in pretty aggresively blue-state situations for almost all of my adult life, and have some ancient affinities with the Old New Left. But also, 2) I prefer cutting government to expanding it. That leaves me in a position of hoping to talk Tea Partiers into cutting all of government (including the military and prison-industrial complex), and hoping to persuade OWS types into rejecting all bailouts and embracing non-crony capitalism. In other words, politically homeless as usual, and not too hung up about it.
I guess what I don't understand, whether it's coming from Will Wilkinson or my OWS friends, is why this almost needy sense to get everyone on the record with a 100 percent Yay or Nay, let alone ascribe alleged motives to the alleged affinity or dislike? Since when are hippies (let alone the tricorne hat crowd) above a little needling? Can't you people satisfy your team membership (and opposition) requirements through the time-honored system of following meaningless sports? Leaderless, spontaneous political movements are complicated things, as are the individuals who respond to them. Like I said after attending my first Tea Party event, "Political rallies are no place to seek the subtle truth, nor feel particularly glowing about your countrymen"; the observation holds for Occupy D.C. as well.
I don't begrudge Wilkinson's enthusiasm for Occupy Wall Street–"[W]hy not get together with thousands of like-minded folks, scream about it, screw up traffic, get arrested, whip one another into a frenzy of self-righteous indignation, spit on some people, provoke the jackboots, and maybe even wreck some stuff? Why is that not a good idea?"–nor do I resent his dislike of the Tea Party ("What's a little populist paranoia, casual racism and hyperventilating rhetoric about the holy Founding Document?"). But I'm not sure we require psychological linchpins to explain the disparity.
Bonus for those who've made it this far: Me and Will on Bloggingheads talking about John McCain. Oh, how I miss those glasses.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
Welp, nobody's gonna beat that alt-text today.
-
"Then I read Atlas Shrugged. I began reading the libertarian canon..." ~Will Wilkinson *
Would Will deny that objectivism is a sect of the religio-economic dogma of libertarianism?
Canon? Canon!
Praise HayZeus, and thump the Rothbard!
_______________
* source:
Anatomy of a Libertard: Will Wilkinson And the Koch-Funded Nomenklatura
By Mark Ames | October 3, 2010
http://exiledonline.com/anatomy-of-a-libertard/ -
And being publicly SLUT SHAMED.
Nice going, Fundamentalists.
-
AN URGENT WARNING TO ALL VISITORS
Reading beyond this point may be hazardous to your health and your brain cells. We highly recommend you very carefully click the Back button on your browser and pretend that this thread never happened. Do not be deluded by the quantity of comments. What little productive dialogue exists on the topic above has been drowned by malicious and insurmountable idiocy and by the tortured cries of desperate regulars trying quixotically to stop it.
Just walk away, and live in bliss. We beg you.
-
+69
-
I wish this comment existed 24 hours ago.
-
Even with time travel, you never get the wasted time back.
-
It would be even better had Lord Humungus written this warning.
-
This comment should be the first comment on every thread.
EGADZ MAN. -
If you really wish to skip to the "good part", click here, and don't come back.
-
TL;DR version of Prop's warning: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
-
Jesus Tap-dancing Kristofferson!!! If you still haven't paid attention to the above disclaimers....
Welcome to the 1st Annual Arguing in Bad Faith "How Many Angels can Dance on the Head of a Pin" Memorial Dumbfuck Tournament of Champions.
-
The warnings reminding me of the beginning to a Monty Python movie.
-
When I went back into the TV room, Andy pulled me aside with a worried grin on his face.
"Dude do you realize...do you know how old that Natasha is?" he said.
"Sixteen?"
"No! No, she's fif-teen. Fif-teen." Right then my pervometer needle hit the red. I had to have her, even if she was homely.
...
It was hard to imagine that Natasha had squatted out a baby. Her cunt was as tight as a cat's ass.
_______________
*source
The Exile: sex, drugs, and libel in the new Russia
By Mark Ames, Matt Taibbi
http://books.google.com/books?.....age&q=mark ames natasha&f=false -
-
It's a sickness. Get help.
-
Abandon all hope. Beyond here, there be trolls
Seriously, dear reader. Do not read any further. I made it through the next hundred posts. I wanted to gouge my eyes out with a soup spoon. For your own sanity, do not continue reading this thread. You have been warned.
-
I'm serious.
-
Sometimes I think that the best libertarian answer to this sort of libtard (yes, liberals are libtards, dumbass. We're libertards) is simply "I don't fucking like you. Half the reason I don't like taxes is because they go to what people like you want. I do not want you to have any say over my money or my life"
-
How bad can it be? I'm going to read it; what can go wrong?
-
Well, if masochism is your thing, we can't stop you. Alas, we can still pity you.
-
If Matt wrote a book, this would be a great time to mention it.
-
Click here to skip the bullshit troll argument and get to the actual discussion.
-
Holy fucking Satan, Rather. I predict eugenics will shortly be in vogue again, thanks entirely to your perfect examples of complete mental debasement. You are the Josef Mengele of internet trolling, inflicting as much senseless pain as possible every time you submit your repulsive flatulence on this blog. Calling you dumber than a bag of sticks would still be insulting to the bag of sticks to be in your proximity.
-
Cool story.
-
Remember that if you feel the urge, grab a number 2 jar and lid, let loose and cap that sucker off. Now you have an instant source of energy, a huff for later or whatver you have a need for. Fart in a jar - energy on demand.
-
I think Matt just unilaterally added to the drinking game.
-
Spoiler Alert: From this point on there is about 2 hours of childish, repetitive bullshit.
-
Keeping in mind of course, that I have never added a fucking thing worth reading to this forum, and wouldn't be missed if I ate a shotgun.
-
Keeping in mind of course, that I have never added a fucking thing worth reading to this forum,
Doesn't mean he's wrong. What's your signal to noise ratio anonopussy?
-
"anonopussy?"
"Coeus"
Pot, kettle, you're an anonopussy (lol what? 3rd grade ftl) etc...
-
Not worried too about it. And I always post my name as email when joke spoofing. And use one handle. I always considered "anonopussy" to mean that the person purposely had no identity established in ordered to avoid being consistent in their arguments. Hence the "pussy" part. I will cop to the "anon", however.
-
You are too generous in your wording.
-
Agreed Suki, "never added a fucking thing worth reading to this forum, and wouldn't be missed if I ate a shotgun." is a gross understatement.
-
Monster thread!
-
I find all of this especially interesting because my own drift from right-leaning libertarian to libertarian-leaning liberal has a lot to do with issues around the conditions for robust agency and the role of broad socio-economic forces in establishing those conditions, or not. I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights. This takes me a long way toward standard liberalism. But I find that my gut nevertheless leans right on issues of personal responsibility.
Funny how the no 'I' in team types never stop talking about themselves.
-
Coach in high school: THERE IS NO I IN TEAM!
Me: No, but there's a "me"...
-
teame?
-
T E A M
M+E=ME
Note to self, heller is exceedingly stupid.
-
You are of course correct, mea culpa.
-
MISS RECTAL WHY YOU GO AROUND PRETENDIN TO BE OTHER PEOPLE?
-
Why do you go around pretending there isn't an m and an e in team?
-
When did I say there is no e or m in team?
-
The word "me" is not in the word "team" just because you can rearrange letters.
-
Unfortunately for you, yes it is.
Cry about being wrong more now.
-
Words in TEAM: tea, am, a
-
"Words in team if you do not rearrange the letters tea, am, a"
Your claim is conditional as well, so once again, you're wrong.
-
HEY MISS RECTAL, WHY ARE YOU BEING SO ORNERY AND DIS...DIS...DISAGREEABLE? MY MOMMA SAID THAT IT'S NOT NICE FOR COOTER TO BE THAT WAY, SO YOU SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THAT EITHER. YOU'RE USUALLY SO SWEET AND NICE, SO I'M JUST CONFUSED.
-
See, this is why I don't think Rather and White Indian are the same person. Rather is dumber than a dead retard. White Indian is a disingenuous concern troll. Their styles are so different.
-
Yeah, but 'tea' and 'am' are in there. Never though of that, did you smart gai?
-
Is the word "me" in team?
Yes, if you rearrange the letters, as you admit. Therefore, the claim that 'The word 'me' is not in the word 'team'" is clearly false.
There is a condition, you must rearrange the letters, but the word is still there.
So, you're wrong heller.
-
If you rearrange the letters, then you don't have the word team anymore. You just have the letters a, e, m, and t Therefore 'me' is not in 'team'
-
If you rearrange the letters, then you don't have the word team anymore.
Nowhere do I see the claim made that the word team must be preserved in order for "me" to be present. Once again, you are crafting conditions from whole cloth because you realize you're wrong.
So, you're still wrong.
And honestly, that you try so hard to defend your obviously indefensible point is ridiculous.
-
heller: Hey everyone! MY unstated conditions count and make me right!!!
YES HUH!
-
Wow, I never knew you can win an argument by simply repeating "you're wrong" over and over again. Thanks for illustrating that for me.
Seriously though, if you had said the word me could be found in the letters t, e, a, and m that would be fine. But the word team is different from a collection of letters that happen to spell team. The sequence of letters are still the same sequence of letters no matter how much you rearrange them. The word team is not the word team if you rearrange letters. So it would accurate to say the word "me" is in "meat" but not in "team"
-
Seriously though, if you had said the word me could be found in the letters t, e, a, and m that would be fine.
That is functionally what was said.
But the word team is different from a collection of letters that happen to spell team. The sequence of letters are still the same sequence of letters no matter how much you rearrange them. The word team is not the word team if you rearrange letters. So it would accurate to say the word "me" is in "meat" but not in "team"
At the risk of repeating myself, nowhere do I see the claim made that the word team must be preserved in order for "me" to be present. Once again, you are crafting conditions from whole cloth because you realize you're wrong
-
Actually you're the one claiming that the statement "the word me can be found in the word team" is equivalent to "the word me can be found in the letters t, e, a, and m." For this to be true, the sequence of letters would have to be equivalent to the word. We know this is not true because a sequence of letters and a word are different, since a word depends on a specific order of letters, while the sequence of letters containing me does not have to be in any order to contain me. Therefore the two statements are not equivalent. There are no crafted conditions.
-
Actually you're the one claiming that the statement "the word me can be found in the word team" is equivalent to "the word me can be found in the letters t, e, a, and m."
No, you're the one claiming I'm claiming that because you know you're wrong.
-
For this to be true, the sequence of letters would have to be equivalent to the word.
Nothing in the statement "No, but there's a "me"...requires that.
You're wrong again.
-
There are no crafted conditions.
Ecespt the one you impose stating that "the sequence of letters would have to be equivalent to the word." and that the letters cannot be rearranged.
THAT is how far you go to avoid admitting you're wrong. You must be a treat in real life.
-
What? You already stated that they are equivalent:
Editor|11.4.11 @ 8:23PM|#|show direct|ignore
Seriously though, if you had said the word me could be found in the letters t, e, a, and m that would be fine.
That is functionally what was said.Come now, this is stupid.
-
What? You already stated that they are equivalent
"That is functionally what was said."
No, I did not.
Again, nothing in the statement "No, but there's a "me"...requires that.
You're wrong again.
-
Yes, I just quoted you doing it. You said that the first statement was what was said, which means that it is equivalent to the second statement (which is the original statement).
there's a "me" [in "team"]
is the second statement.
-
Yes, I just quoted you doing it.
No, you did not, and the fact that you continue to argue in bad faith says a lot about you.
-
You said that the first statement was what was said, which means that it is equivalent to the second statement
Again, incorrect. Please try to read what I actually wrote.
-
I just read it. I just quoted it. It's right there. Here I'll do it again:
Editor|11.4.11 @ 8:23PM|#|show direct|ignore
Seriously though, if you had said the word me could be found in the letters t, e, a, and m that would be fine.
That is functionally what was said. -
PLease explain so you prove you know, what the difference between "equivalent" and "funtionally what was said" is.
If you intend to claim I've said something, an actual quote would help.
In addition, you'll notice heller has descended into arguing minutiae in order to avoid the point that conditions must be present in order for him to be correct.
It's a classic troll tactic.
-
Just point to the claim that was made in the original post that the letters cannot be rearranged.
-
The word "team" was used in the original post. Since the word team is not equivalent to the sequence of letters that can spell team, my statement is proven. I don't need to do anything more complex than that.
-
Not hard guy, just point to the claim that was made in the original post that the letters cannot be rearranged.
-
Since the word team is not equivalent to the sequence of letters that can spell team
By what law other than "heller must not admit error ever"?
THAT is a condition, something you claimed was not necessary.
-
It's not a fucking condition. I just explained why. If you rearrange the letters in a word is it still the same word? No. If you rearrange a sequence of certain letters is it still a sequence of those letters? Yes. Therefore the word and the sequence are not the same thing.
If you disagree with this, prove it's wrong.
-
It's not a fucking condition. I just explained why.
And I explained why you were wrong.
Therefore the word and the sequence are not the same thing.
And no part of the original claim requires that they are. Unless you add conditions, as you have.
If you disagree with this, prove it's wrong.
You're the one claiming error, the onus is on you.
And you've failed.
-
Come now, this is stupid.
Agreed, you are arguing in bad faith based on pre-set conditions that the letters cannot be rearranged. That was never stated nor implied anywhere, and is the only way your claims can be remotely accurate.
In short, you are wrong and can't do anything but troll your way out of it.
-
Just point to the claim that was made in the original post that the letters cannot be rearranged.
Nothing in the statement " 'No, but there's a 'me'" requires that, it is not stated, nor implied.
You added the condition when you realized you were wrong.
-
First of all no "conditions" are needed. The statement literally uses the word team, not t-e-a-m. You're the one arguing that they are equivalent. I am saying they are not.
-
First of all no "conditions" are needed.
In order for you to be correct, the letters cannot be rearranged. That is a condition.
The statement literally uses the word team, not t-e-a-m. You're the one arguing that they are equivalent. I am saying they are not.
Again, you read poorly, I have never claimed they are equivalent, you have just insisted I have. Your quote proves I have not.
-
You're denying what is right there. In reply to statement 2, you said "that is functionally what was said." If statement 2 is functionally what was said, then statement 2 and statement 1 are equivalent.
That is what you just argued. And I showed that they are not equivalent.
-
If statement 2 is functionally what was said, then statement 2 and statement 1 are equivalent.
No, they are not, if thew word "equivalent" were meant to be used, it wouidl have been.
That you rely on misquoting me and hammering minutiae says a lot about you.
-
However you define "functionally what was said" it is still wrong. Statement 2 is not functionally what was said because statement 2 means something different from statement 1. Why? Because they are not equivalent.
-
However you define "functionally what was said" it is still wrong
First, no, it isn't.
With that in mind, I want to reiterate, that rather than addressing what I ACTUALLY said, you pigheadedly hammered a straw man for 20 minutes before you admitted you didn't actually know what I meant.
Bad faith, you just admitted it.
-
I did address what you actually said, because however you specifically define what you wrote, the fact that the two statements are not equivalent is disproves what you actually said. This is in fact the opposite of bad faith. Instead of defining what you said in a specific way to make you seem wrong, I came up with an argument that proved your statement wrong no matter how you want it defined.
-
I did address what you actually said
No, you did not. You kept saying "equivalent" and I never claimed that. That you think what I said MEANS equivalent, and treating it as such, is not "addressing what I actually said".
Again, bad faith.
-
Instead of defining what you said in a specific way to make you seem wrong
You did do thatheller|11.4.11 @ 8:30PM|#
Actually you're the one claiming that the statement "the word me can be found in the word team" is equivalentAgain, you argue in bad faith.
-
Ah but I was using equivalent in the same way you used "functionally what was said." Here, I will humor you:
The word is not functionally the sequence because a word cannot be rearranged and stay functionally the same, while a sequence can be rearranged and stay functionally the same.
-
The word is not functionally the sequence because a word cannot be rearranged and stay functionally the same
Taem is functionally Team, and would be read that way, despite being "misspelled" or "out of sequence".
I have irrefutably proven your claim wrong.
-
Ah but I was using equivalent in the same way you used "functionally what was said."
So I should have claimed you said something else and then used my misinterpretation to bolster a shitty argument like you did?
We're trading places now?
-
So I should have claimed you said something else and then used my misinterpretation to bolster a shitty argument like you did?
We're trading places now?What did I misinterpret? What I said applies to what you said whether the word equivalent or functionally is used. Your accusation of bad faith is baseless.
-
What did I misinterpret?
We're really gonna waste more time rehashing your obvious desire to put words in people's mouths?
You KNOW what you misinterpreted. You admitted you misinterprteed it when you admitted you weren't sure how I was using it when you said "However you define 'functionally what was said'"
-
By the way, don't you love how heller claimed he didn't do something, then admitted to it in the next post?
Instead of defining what you said in a specific way to make you seem wrong
Ah but I was using equivalent...
You should change your handle to bad faith.
-
I used equivalent to mean the same thing as what you said. I did not use your words to mean what I'm saying. Again, this is the complete opposite of bad faith.
-
I used equivalent to mean the same thing as what you said.
OF COURSE you did, bad faithy.
-
Now please explain how 'statement 2 is functionally statement 1' does not rest on the idea that the word is functionally the sequence, which I already showed is wrong.
-
which I already showed is wrong.
No, you haven't.
-
Again, you're ignoring what I already wrote.
-
Because you're ignoring what I wrote.
-
No I did not. For the last time:
The word team is not functionally the word team when rearranged. The sequence of letters t, e, a ,m when rearranged is functionally the same as the arranged sequence. Therefore the word team is not functionally the sequence of letter in the word team.
-
The word team is not functionally the word team when rearranged.
No part of the OP requires that.
The sequence of letters t, e, a ,m when rearranged is functionally the same as the arranged sequence. Therefore the word team is not functionally the sequence of letter in the word team.
No part of the OP requires that.
Restating conditions that you insist are necessary does not make them necessary.
-
"No I did not. For the last time:
The word team is not functionally the word team when rearranged. The sequence of letters t, e, a ,m when rearranged is functionally the same as the arranged sequence. Therefore the word team is not functionally the sequence of letter in the word team."
Question, is the word "me" in the word "team"?
Yes (if you rearrange the letters), I don't really get why heller thinks otherwise...
-
It's hilarious to me that heller has apparently decided to troll the forum and waste 2 hours of his life because he didn't get the joke.
-
I'm not arguing in bad faith. The original statement uses the word "team." If you think what I said was wrong you would have to prove that the word is equivalent to the sequence, which I have shown it is not. I didn't assume he used the word, it is right there.
-
If you think what I said was wrong you would have to prove that the word is equivalent to the sequence
No, actually, YOU claimed an error, so the onus is on YOU to present the law that proves " the word is NOT equivalent to the sequence" which you have completely failed at.
which I have shown it is not
Repeatedly insisting is not the same as "shown".
-
No, actually, YOU claimed an error, so the onus is on YOU to present the law that proves " the word is NOT equivalent to the sequence" which you have completely failed at.
It isn't a law, it is a logical conclusion, which I showed:
I just explained why. If you rearrange the letters in a word is it still the same word? No. If you rearrange a sequence of certain letters is it still a sequence of those letters? Yes. Therefore the word and the sequence are not the same thing.
Now that you are claiming that this is false, you must show that it is false, instead of ignoring what I said.
-
If you rearrange the letters in a word is it still the same word? No.
AA. Rearrange the letters and you get AA. It is still the same, so your "proof" is worthless. Team, spelled Taem, is still the same word, just misspelled.
So, your claim of "no" is demonstrably wrong.
Now that you are claiming that this is false, you must show that it is false
That would require YOU to prove it correct first, which you have not done.
-
AA. Rearrange the letters and you get AA. It is still the same, so your "proof" is worthless. Team, spelled Taem, is still the same word, just misspelled.
Fine, it does not apply to AA. But it still applies to the word we are talking about: TEAM. So it is not worthless.
Mispelling have nothing to do with what we are talking about. "taem" is not the same word as "team" just because you mispelled.
-
Mispelling have nothing to do with what we are talking about. "taem" is not the same word as "team" just because you mispelled.
So a misspelled word is not the word? Is it "functionally" the word?
Yeah, and now you know why misquoting people pisses them off.
Again, you wrong, your assertion, disproven, you grasping at straws.
-
taem is not the same word as team. I don't think I can explain in any simpler terms than that, nor can I see what you could possibly think is wrong with this statement. You're becoming quite vague and incoherent.
-
taem is not the same word as team.
Is it "functionally" the word? You avoided that because you know it is, and hate it because it proves that point of yours wrong too.
You're becoming quite vague and incoherent.
Ah, it begins! You tried misquoting me, you tried asserting your argument was true despite proof otherwise, and now you begin personal attacks.
Being wrong pisses you off a lot doesn't it?
-
Mispelling have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
YOU are the one insisting on rigid arrangements, and how important they are. Funny that your new assertions require you to ignore that claim right now...
-
Fine, it does not apply to AA
No. The correct thing to say when you say "If you rearrange the letters in a word is it still the same word? No." and are proven wrong is to admit you're wrong, or that you got caught lying.
You have so little tact you did neither.
-
I just did say I was wrong. You can now amend the statement to "If you rearrange the letters in any word but AA, is it still the same word? No."
-
I just did say I was wrong
No, you said "Fine, it does not apply to AA". You'll notice the words I was wrong are absent.
More to the point, you adhere to your claim despite, apparently, admitting you were wrong about it.
-
Also, being wrong is not the same thing as lying. If I had known of any exceptions and stated it, then I would be lying. But I did not know of any exceptions, I was simply wrong.
But my statement still applies what we are talking about, the word TEAM, so this little diversion has done nothing to help your argument in general.
-
Also, being wrong is not the same thing as lying.
Depends on intent, and yours is not good.
-
This is the stupidest argument like ever
-
heller is involved, and was wrong, we all knew it'd be a trainwreck when it started
-
No arguments from me.
-
" But the word team is different from a collection of letters that happen to spell team. "
Hey everyone there's no wiring in my house! No, really, heller said so when he was trying to avoid admitting he was an idiot.
-
I just have to step in and ask, heller, did you really just say "If you rearrange the letters, then you don't have the word team anymore" in response to your retarded attempt at refuting rectal?
Really?
-
That wasn't me, heller. Rectal is super weak spoofing again. Such cowardice.
-
Damnit! The original one was me, Heller, but then rectal came and spoofed me saying it was a spoof.
It's rectals all the way down.
-
I'm not rectal but you sure are a grade A assface. Now why don't you go munch on some penis while the adults talk.
-
HI RECTAL IT"S COOTER
-
That wasn't me, heller. Rectal is super weak spoofing again. Such cowardice.
I know. Wow, so many people are coming to rectal's defense "Episiarch" and "Joe" and "Editor." I must be wrong since so many "people" disagree with me.
-
Only one "person" disagrees with you, but her many personalities all agree with her. It's a subtle difference.
-
Are you sure Episiarch? Because all these different people seem so real. I never considered that they might be pathetic rectal sockpuppets. Never.
-
No need for the harsh tone, you fucking asshole.
-
You're obviously mistaken, and are relying on unstated conditions in a weak attempt to support what you know is a failed argument.
-
Heller, if I'm nice enough to you, will you visit me in Washington? Gaybutsecks is completely acceptable to the mostly liberal population here.
-
MISS RECTAL WHY YOU TALKIN' LIKE THAT?
-
Yes I will come visit you epi, but you have to promise to let the santorum drip into my mouth.
-
"If you rearrange the letters, then you don't have the word team anymore. You just have the letters a, e, m, and t Therefore 'me' is not in 'team'"
BY this retarded logic, theres is no gas in your car once it enters your tank, and theres no wiring in your house once it's built.
heller, you're a fucking idiot.
-
This "retarded logic" is how we know that "meat" is not the same word as "team." And your examples don't follow from what I said at all.
-
"And your examples don't follow from what I said at all."
Incorrect. Wiring is an integral part of the house, and is "in" the house. The condition of the wiring, the gauge, and it's combinations when installed are irrelevant, it is present, whether the house is intact or blown to bits. The arrangment of the wring doesn't change it's presence.
You are arguing it does.
-
MISS RECTAL, YOU AREN'T MAKIN' MUCH SENSE RIGHT NOW. COOTER WAS LIKE THAT ONE TIME WHEN I BANGED MY HEAD ON THE FILLIN' STATION'S BATHROOM STALL DOOR, THAT TIME WHEN I WAS CRAWLIN' UNDER IT. YOU OK?
-
Again, what you are saying does not make sense. If you are saying the wiring is the word 'me' and the house is the word 'team,' What does the "arrangement of the wiring" have to do with what we are talking about? Further, they are not analogous because wiring remains wiring if you split it up, rearrange the parts, and connect them again. The same cannot be said for a word. So your analogy has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
-
"What does the "arrangement of the wiring" have to do with what we are talking about?"
You're the one claiming the arrangement is important, instead of admitting that letters are just pieces of a word like wiring is a piece of a house.
I understand that you don't get it, you're stupid, it's not your fault.
-
You're the one claiming the arrangement is important, instead of admitting that letters are just pieces of a word like wiring is a piece of a house.
A house is still a house if you change the wiring. It is not the same house though. A word is still a word if you switch around the letters, it is not the same word though. So what is your point?
-
"So what is your point?"
Above your head apparently, even though it was written clearly.
You're the one claiming the arrangement is important, instead of admitting that letters are just pieces of a word like wiring is a piece of a house.
-
Please give it to me in the mouth!
-
there's no I and there's no "we", either. At least that is what we are led to believe. If I am on the team, of course, there is an I in team. And, if several others are also on the team, then technically, they are on the team with me, which collectively becomes a we. So, it appears team can have whatever the hell you want. Grog all around!!!!
-
in TEAM, but there is EAT.
-
Can you guys get a fucking room and shut the fuck up? Pretty please?
-
Seriously? Is it really that important to determine whether or not there is a "me" in "team"? Are you all reading what you write? I want each of you to scroll up and admire your accomplishments, and then ask yourself, if you were right, what difference does it make. Then ask yourself, what changes if you're wrong?
NOTHING!
Thank you, that is all.
-
YOU SURE ARE A GOOD SPELLER, MISS RECTAL! COOTER NEVER WAS TOO GOOD AT SPELLIN'!
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
-
GOLLY MISS RECTAL I MEAN THERE YOU ARE OBVIOUS AS THE DAY IS LONG YET YOU KEEP SAYIN' IT AIN'T YOU! WHY ARE YOU LYIN' TO COOTER?
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
HEY MISS RECTAL, COOTER AIN'T THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED BUT COOTER KNOWS WHO'S TALKIN' TO HIM! WHY YOU BEIN' SO MEAN TO COOTER, MISS RECTAL?
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
"BUT COOTER KNOWS WHO'S TALKIN' TO HIM!"
No, apparently he doesn't.
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
WHY YOU SO COLD TO COOTER, MISS RECTAL?
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING, MISS RECTAL, BUT COOTER DON'T UNDERSTAND! WHAT DID COOTER DO?
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
MISS RECTAL, I'M WORRIED! YOU HAVIN' A SEIZURE? MY COUSIN USED TO HAVE SEIZURES!
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
I'M CALLIN' AN AMBULANCE MISS RECTAL!
-
Um, not rectal guy, get your detector checked and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
And in all seriousness, I wasn't talking to you, or discussing this with you, or relating to you in any way.
Then you spammed all over me. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
-
I have to wonder what mental defect a person possesses that would cause them to arrogantly take over a thread because they think they own, as you clearly have done Epi.
-
What do you I think I own? Are you referring to the extensive research on income distribution in this country that I own?
-
"What do you I think I own?"
That was my question to you. You clearly behave as if you have a right to clutter the thread because of your vendetta.
You do not, yet you continue to behave that way, again, as though you own Reason.
Grow up.
-
This coming from a guy who will get into an endless argument loop with John all the time.
Your unbelievable self-unawareness is fucking hysterical. Tell me about how much you make, dude! Tell me!
-
Jeez dude, all he's asking you to do is to turn down the volume a bit. How hard is that?
-
So wait, you hate it when he does it, then you do it and claim superiority? Wat?
"This coming from a guy who will get into an endless argument loop with John all the time."
Episiarch: Hey everyone I'm going to spam the thread and behave like an idiot, but if MNG calls me on it, I'll give him the "BUT YOU DID IT TOO!" as though two asshole make a right!
-
HI RECTAL
-
Your standard approach for dealing with someone who points out you're acting badly is to accuse them of being rectal, we get it.
-
HI RECTAL IT'S COOTER!
-
Your standard approach for dealing with someone who points out you're acting badly is to accuse them of being rectal, we get it.
-
HOLY FUCK
Please people.... just fucking stop.
Or no... spend another 50+ posts arguing about anagrams or something.
I think the terrorists are winning here.
-
Is this the biggest train wreck in H&R history? My post was first, so am I culpable for damages?
-
"Is this the biggest train wreck in H&R history"
You're new here I see...
-
You're new here I see...
Not as all. I come, I go a lot. There have been much longer threads, but never one with a hundred plus post devoted to a mother fuckin' trivial anagram.
-
Apologies to the peeps. Didn't realize I was responding to another of the tumor's name changes.
-
Yes, this is a contender for the most idiotic thread I've ever seen in my fucking life. On Reason or elsewhere. Rather's bringing you all down to her realm of dumbfuckery.
-
that's it Epi, run and hide because you know you are an asshole
-
There may be no "me" in team, but there is an "I" in win.
-
dear god what have you done?
-
Coach in high school: THERE IS NO I IN TEAM!
Me: No, but there's a "me"...
Or what got me kicked off the baseball team way back when: There's also no "U."
What can I say? He was sensitive.
-
I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights.
Really? And despite well documented "racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty" being copiously executed in the various OWS protests, (not to mention the strident anti-capitalist, anti-freedom undercurrent) that isn't enough to leave a bad enough taste in your mouth to put some distance between you and OWS? What's that? Oh, they mean well. That's different, then.
You have to wonder just how "libertarian" Wilkinson was to begin with if all it took was SWPL and white guilt to send him lurching back onto the beaten path.
Admit it, Will, it was just youthful experimentation and indiscretion, nothing serious.
-
Hey Beavis, these people are dumber than we are.
-
heh-heh heh-heh, dumbasses
-
-
Talk about a "holy founding document" exposes the speaker as a goddamned statist who has no interest in anything except how to beggar his neighbor for some entitlement or other, who ultimately doesn't give a damn about and is in fact contemptuous of the rule of law.
Fuck, I hate this shit.
-
I thought our foundation documents were by Mary Rothschild, or Marty Rothbaird, or somebody?
-
Christ almighty. Somebody shoot me!
-
Rothbard provides a good analysis of where libertarianism should be situated on the modern political spectrum here: http://mises.org/daily/910
-
What's a little populist paranoia, casual antisemitism, and hyperventilating rhetoric about the holy and utterly unachieveable concept of Economic Justice?
-
I tend to quite like W.W.'s stuff, and I generally agree with him more than the average libertarian. I'm a fan of the label "neoliberal", defined broadly. It's a phrase that sounds nice, has a good history (since it essentially means "new classical liberalism"), and I really really like the idea of co-opting and adopting slurs.
That being said, I have absolutely no goddamn idea why anyone anywhere ever that supports free markets would also support the OWS movement. The best I can come up with:
1. OWS is a movement for young people, libertarians skew young.
2. OWS is a movement for the "cultural elite" (just cringed writing that, but I think it fits). Certain parts of the libertarian movement, and most certainly Mr. Wilkinson, are part of the "cultural elite".But really now. It's an utterly anti-capitalist movement. How many communist speakers, communist signs, black flag anarchists, and communal events in "Marxism 101" do you have to see before you recognize this simple and obvious fact? How many Communist Party, Nazi Party, and North Korean endorsements do you have to have?
Even ignoring ideological differences (which again, again, again, again... should be simply insurmountable to anyone that ostensibly supports economic freedom), why would anyone support this movement? How many instances of rape, vandalism, and sexual assault do you have to see? How much public defecation, urination and public drug use does there have to be?
They are NOT your friends. They will NEVER be your friends. It's basically one big WTO protest. It's a public outcry by the squarely anti-market elements of the left. That's all there is to it.
-
Or to put it more simply: Libertarians agree with about half of the modern American progressive agenda and about half of the modern American conservative agenda.
The Tea Party consists of the half of conservatism that libertarians agree with (free markets).
OWS consists of the half of progressivism that libertarians disagree with (not-free markets).
It is not more complicated than that.
-
Libertarians agree with about half of the modern American progressive agenda and about half of the modern American conservative agenda.
Which is precisely why both sides hate us. We're impure.
-
Among other things, Wilkinson mistakenly believes that the reason libertarians can't get along with progressives/socialists is because they confuse libertarians with conservatives. What he fails or prefers not to realize, is that progressives/socialists actually hate conservatives most because they confuse them with libertarians.
Setting aside hatred derived from short-term partisanship, progressives/socialists can get along with and adopt conservative ideas such as, for example, imposing personal values, nationalism, war, and imperialism. In many cases, they're even likely to top their enthusiasm.
In fact, it is their (exaggerated) view that modern conservatives stand for unadulterated free-markets and individual autonomy that brings out the fiercest hate from them. Which is fairly obvious to explain, since free-markets and freedom from government coercion are the true holy water to every one of social engineering schemes.
-
I think it's a lot simpler than that. Both sides hate the other (and anyone they can broad brush in with them) because:
A) Predictable ignorance about what the other side really stands for, other than the exaggerated caricatures living inside their heads.
B) We wear a green scarf. They wear a purple scarf.To be fair,
proregressives are usually much worse about it and fairly intolerable with their gag-reflex pantomime. -
Personally, I think they hate us because we embody the free market argument without the baggage of social conservatism, and hence force them to actually confront the free market argument when they deal with us.
They have such an easy time going after conservatives on religion, gays, racism, and war, that they get all flustered and upset when those arguments don't work against libertarians. What are they supposed to do? Go read Nozick? Why would they do that when they can just make jokes about religion instead? It's not fair!
-
MIR's got it right.
Ultimately, liberals have greater contempt for libertarians than they have for conservatives, which is why Wilkinson's enterprise so risible.
Conservatives cave to (or actively support) statist policies all the time. Can any liberal find an example of government cutting that occurred during the Bush presidency? And it's not like Boehner's theatrics have done anything to stall the liberal agenda for more than a few months.The true enemies of the modern liberal are those who try to convince people that the government should play a less significant part in their lives.
-
Can any liberal find an example of government cutting that occurred during the Bush presidency
But TEH DEREGULASHUNS of TEH CORPERASHUNS!!! and BOOSCH!
-
The modern American conservative agenda is almost entirely the economic part, so I'd say libertarians agree with far more than half of it. The only social issues left that sociocons have any hope of imposing their views on are gay marriage, which doesn't even involve coercion, and the drug war, where most liberals heartily agree with them. School prayer, abortion, bans on cohabitation, etc are dead issues.
And on the other hand, the left's agenda is also almost entirely the economic part, which means we disagree with them more than half the time. They don't give two shits about civil rights anymore except as a rhetorical means to expropriate more money.
-
Really? With what just happened in Mississippi, you're declaring abortion a dead issue?
-
I'm a pro-lifer and I think Mississippi is pissing into the wind. Even if it passes (and it might not, didn't one of the Dakotas vote on this?) it will change absolutely nothing. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned any pro life legislation or statement by a politician is pure political bullshit. You are better off going out and trying to convince people not to get an abortion, and there are many prolifers who are doing just that. I would add encouraging people to use contraception (including the morning after pill) and being responsible with their sex lives but obviously many of the religious prolifers have other bones to pick besides just abortion.
-
There's a difference in pro-lifers* and these fuckheads in Mississippi.
While pro-lifers want to protect the life of the unborn, these assholes want to control everyones life fromthe cradlefertilization to the grave.*I am strongly pro-life.
-
Is that why you so adamantly work to spread the gift of life into twenty-something uteri?
-
As a proud Southerner, I must admit we are not the most life-affirming culture out there.
-
I'm also pro-life, and would support re-criminalizing abortion, but at the legal level I recognize it ain't gonna happen. As Apatheist said that law is never going to be successfully enforced.
-
You have too much Black Swan faith in the social zeitgeist being tomorrow what it is today. Why, I don't know. It's foundation is quite flimsy. Did anyone in '59 see the hippie culture showing up a mere 7 years later?
-
If the social zeitgeist changes in a way that favors socially conservative positions, they won't need our support anyway.
-
True that.
Reminds me of the Niven/Pournelle novel with a premise where the Big One shook California into repenting its devil loving liberal ways.
-
"As Apatheist said that law is never going to be successfully enforced."
There was a time when lynching wasn't prosecuted either in some states. It was a crime, but lynchers were from the ruling class, and after all they were defending the Honor of the White Race.
Then there was a cultural shift, and finally lynching *was* prosecuted.
But to the best of my knowledge, nobody sought to legalize lynching even when it was popular. Nobody said, "well, they're going to lynch anyway, let's legalize it because the enforcement issues are just too difficult!"
-
They would have if they were paying attention to the Beats...
-
I think the Beats did.
-
That's how long ago I opened this thread?! And i skipped most of that weirdness. Crap, what a clusterfuck.
-
The "hippie culture" you think was so totally "new" was preceded by the "beatnicks" of the 1950"s, etc. etc. Rebellious youth, nothing new to see here, or under the sun...
-
Even granting that, most conservatives are not anywhere close to being pro-free market enough. So I would say it is LESS than 50%.
-
I like this statement.
I'm usually a little more comfortable with Team Red because the worst parts of their agenda are doomed. Gay Marriage will be legal; writing's on the wall. Ditto marijuana legalization, though it will doubtless take longer than it should, or than any of us want.
Team Blue, on the other hand, has a very good chance of getting the ugly, statist parts of their agenda enacted, because vast swaths of the American people just love, love, love horseshit populist economics. Eat the rich!
-
I'd say more like a a third each. Take gays for example. Progressives want to punish homophobes, conservatives want to write homophobia into law. We want freedom for both.
-
99% of the progressive agenda is complete state control of all your decision making. The other 1% is creating a "married" legal status for gays so they can give them special tax breaks and subsidies.
-
Good luck if you can coöpt the "neoliberal" slurs. Whenever I hear it used, it's always with a tone of righteous indignation. "They're 'neoliberal'! That proves how icky they are and how right I am!"
We really need the word "neosocialist". Sure, it's not exactly accurate since there's nothing "neo" about it. But it still makes a nice counterpoint.
-
I actually like being a neoliberal just to be a badass...
-
I like black flag anarchists. I don't like black/red flag anarchists.
-
They are NOT your friends. They will NEVER be your friends.
Au contraire.
The thing that you are missing is that Will Wilkinson is not a creature of free markets. By which I mean that he has never had to make his daily bread by offering something for sale to his fellow man, and having to deal with rejection, in the form non sales, on a daily basis.
Instead he is a paid propagandist, the modern equivalent of a court jester, that performs for the amusement of his patron, who in turn hopes that his stooge's performance will influence the patron's friends.
He is as much a parasite as the beggar holding a bowl at the castle gates.As is common in any dependency relationship, the clown comes to resent the patron and imagine that he is of equal or greater importance. And like any host the patron eventually tires of his parasite and expels it. The Wilkonson then moves onto a a new patron, changing his act as necessary.
-
They are NOT your friends. They will NEVER be your friends.
Au contraire.
The thing that you are missing is that Will Wilkinson is not a creature of free markets. By which I mean that he has never had to make his daily bread by offering something for sale to his fellow man, and having to deal with rejection, in the form non sales, on a daily basis.
Instead he is a paid propagandist, the modern equivalent of a court jester, that performs for the amusement of his patron, who in turn hopes that his stooge's performance will influence the patron's friends.
He is as much a parasite as the beggar holding a bowl at the castle gates.As is common in any dependency relationship, the clown comes to resent the patron and imagine that he is of equal or greater importance. And like any host the patron eventually tires of his parasite and expels it. The Wilkonson then moves onto a a new patron, changing his act as necessary.
-
I said "somebody shoot me"!!! What is the matter with you people!!!
-
Seriously, Reason editors and squirrels, can't you do something to get rid of this shit? It is out of control and taking much of the joy out of your otherwise excellent blog.
-
How about a 500 character limit?
-
There are essential truths at the hearts of both OWS and the Tea Party. There are also Galactus-sized truths that each movement by and large refuses to acknowledge.
And while it is heartening to see people eschewing party-centric political action for more direct public protest, the obtusity of the core and the freakazoids on the fringe of both OWS and the Tea Party are reason enough to cast aspersions on anyone who strongly identifies with either one.
-
The other problem is that the essential truths at the core are completely overshadowed by total bullshit that has nothing to do with those truths.
"The government spends too much! Not one dime slashed from defense or the terrorists win!"
"The bailouts gave a bunch of Wall Street shitheads who screwed up a ton of our money and they didn't even have to pay for their fuckup! Bail out my student loans!"
-
Consistency is what defines libertarianism for me.
-
LOL, consistency!
That's one thing the libertarians have in about as much quantities as their butt-buddies who also can't decide if they like or love the state, the MARXISTS.
-
YOU SURE DO ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS MISS RECTAL. HOW COME YOU GO AND GET SO FLUSTERED WHEN COOTER KEEPS ASKIN' ALL THEM QUESTIONS 'BOUT GIRLS AND THEIR PARTS? DO'NCH YOU GOT 'EM?
-
"The bailouts gave a bunch of Wall Street shitheads who screwed up a ton of our money and they didn't even have to pay for their fuckup! Bail out my student loans!"
It's worse than that.
"The bailouts gave a bunch of Wall Street Shithead who screwed up a ton of our money and they didn't even have to pay for the fuckup! I support TARP!"
-
I wouldn't join any protest movement that would have me as a member.
-
OWS doesn't even have a heart for there to be a truth at. It's just a bunch of people who are pissed at the way things are going looking for someone to blame.
Say what you will about
National Socialismthe Tea Party, at least it's an ethos. -
I dunno, I'd say that the OWS ethos is government: Bigger, longer and uncut.
-
To be fair, demanding that govt DO SOMETHING about stuff they don't like is the response of nearly the entire political spectrum. It's not unique to OWS or even the left.
-
Considering that the gummint is the one doing "it," it's kinda silly to ask something else to do something.
Which brings us to the idiocy of OWS.
-
Which brings us to the idiocy of OWS.
--------------------------
that point was reached long ago. -
That was a pretty impassioned speech.
Almost made me forget about the Rangers losing for a few minutes.
Instead of being told we have to identify with one or the other, can't we just ignore all of these assholes?
-
Well, I for one have never felt pressure from my fellow lefty-commie-OWS peeps to disavow reading the Welch-helmed Reason. Our common Nexus/HST/baseball/band geekiness goes a long way with me, and I tell them so.
-
@Rob: Holy founding document, Batman!
-
And on the underlying point of why and even whether "self-described libertarians are more likely to identify with the Tea Party movement," two final points:
And then Mr. Welch goes on to state two somewhat contradictory sentiments. The glue that holds the OWS movement together seems to be an expansion of state influence. It may be in increased regulation on business or in forgiveness of student loans or it may be some other government magic, but it's there.
Many of us like to relive our youth now and then, but you won't return to being the Goldilocks version of Matt Welch by identifying with the clueless hippie element of Occupy Wherever. They reason differently than you do.
-
As a youth (just turned 25 maybe not anymore?) who as few as 3 months ago had hair past my shoulders and bushy beard I can't identify with them either. I have friends who are liberals/progressives but just because I'll share a joint with them doesn't mean I buy any of their bullshit.
-
It's more that "identifying with" and "agreeing with" are two wholly separate thing. Or at least they should be.
And I'll bring Goldilocks back if I get skinny enough....
-
Is it shallow of me to think your entire identification with OWS is cultural, and that this affinity is clouding your analysis?
I'll also state for the record that maybe it's my own intense hatred of my own generation of filthy white hipsters that leads me to dislike OWS even more than I should, intellectually-speaking.
-
Everybody is an individual with their own biases. No one has exactly the same positions or justifications for those positions. Another writer used him personally as an example and Welch rebutted him. If that's not one of the perks of being an Editor-In-Chief I don't know that is.
-
I can identify with that identification. I have a lot of liberal friends who are deep in this thing, and have pretty mixed feelings about it. The anti-capitalism stuff is horrible, but I can't just shit all over it without pissing off a lot of people.
-
Much of what they're advocating is so counter to the cause of liberty that it's difficult for me to suffer them gladly. But, yeah, our friends don't always share common politics, Gaia love 'em.
-
I use to keep with mostly Team Blue types in my youth, but after several attempts at stabbing me in the back, I now generally view left ideology as a character flaw.
-
But, what you're saying is that you're allowing your "friends" to dictate your views regardless of the merits of their case. Where does that particular continuum end? When they start seizing property? When they start attacking "class enemies?
No one is saying declare war on your friends. But, what would your reaction be to someone who lived in the Jim Crow South making the same claim with regard to racists? -
Totally valid points, all. The only thing working in our favor is that their ideology is a miserable failure, and tends to self-destruct in all phases.
-
"I'll also state for the record that maybe it's my own intense hatred of my own generation of filthy white hipsters that leads me to dislike OWS even more than I should, intellectually-speaking."
The purpose of libertarianism isn't to maintain a pure aesthetic, free of whatever cultural artifacts you personally don't like.
There are two parties all about making cultural identity the definition the very definition of what they think...
Jesus Christ, if you can't agree with people on issues because you don't like their aesthetics, then why think of yourself as libertarian?
There is no libertarian cultural identity. No libertarian aesthetic. If you're looking for that, join a church or somethin'.
-
Also, in that linked Walter Block article, he sounds just like a liberal when he stamps his feet and says (regarding KMW's treatment of RP), "She was just so totally unfair to the man who is now promoting liberty..." (emphasis his).
Unfair unfair unfair!
Jeez, he needs to get over his man-crush on RP. As we saw in Bruno, the good doctor simply isn't into it.
-
What are you doing in that last photo? Talking on an imaginary phone?
-
Who the hell knows? The more disturbing question is what am I *drinking*?
-
For real....
I'm going to guess it was a single sized serving of beer... in the Czech Republic. Which is a half-gallon.
I'm aghast thinking your fashion sense has in fact *declined* since then...
-
I'm aghast thinking your fashion sense has in fact *declined* since then...
Well, we're not going to rag him about the tie he has in that photo.
-
BakedPenguin|11.4.11 @ 9:36PM|#
...Well, we're not going to rag him about the tie he has in that photo.
Fair enough.
But don't think he doesn't deserve every bit of it.
-
Looks like malt liquor to me.
-
Wait that's Matt?
I have prosopagnosia, so I never get those "old pictures of Reasoners" gags...
-
Seriously? That's pretty rare.
-
I didn't recognize the woman who's now my wife when we passed on the sidewalk for the first 3 months I lived with her.
-
What the fuck?
-
Seriously. Fuck that PC bullshit.
-
I deal a lot with English documents coming out of non-English-speaking countries like Finland, Spain and Germany and there's an infuriating tendency for non-English speakers to use the PC pronouns (Nokians are particularly consistently shitty about this).
I'm not sure if it's a European thing or a "plural pronouns for singular objects are incorrect" thing but it makes me crazy.
-
Finland doesn't have gendered pronouns. Hän means either "he" or "she". I'm told that in colloquial speach, Finns use se, instead, which means "it".
Oh, and those pronouns also decline for about a dozen cases. :-)
-
"Their" would be wrong. "She" is uncommon but correct. Get over it.
-
Except usage is changing so that using "their" IS becoming correct.
Language evolves. Get over it.
-
I think that libertarians (and many Tea Partiers) agree with the Over-privileged White Socialists that the crony capitalist system in the U.S. right now is broken and has to be reformed.
It's just that the former think the problem is the cronyism and the latter thinks the problem is the capitalism.
-
"First and more generally, I reckon that "fusionism" had more to do with hating on commies during the Cold War, and as such has been on the wane for two decades now."
I think it started back with opposition to the New Deal.
Opposition to communism went hand in hand with that, and it limped along with the Goldwater campaign, the Reagan Revolution...
The quirky question is about how conservatives came to care so much about cultural issues, and I think a lot of that has to do with the reaction to the counter-culture of the sixties, and, in the South, the end of segregation.
The cons should be ashamed of themselves--oh, if only the South would go back to being a Democrat bloc again!
-
Reagan did a lot in my mind to kill the notion that conservative politicians do anything more than pay lip service to limited government.
-
Will Wilkonsin: Libertarianism's David Frum.
-
He's a "libertarian-leaning liberal" now, i.e. more liberal than libertarian.
-
Wilkinson has always been a lefty douchebag.
-
Were you agreeing?
-
Wilkerson's defense of the OWS turds is as unconvincing as the left's charges of racism against the Tea Party.
What you're seeing here in his "thinking" represents the roots of fascism. There is no subtlety. There are only camps. There are only pure motives and cynical motives.
Wilkerson will come down on the side of OWS if New York burns. And the collapse of the economy, once ushered in, will be his complete victory, because he already "knows" who caused it. -
Sorry, "Wilkinson." Those German names are so easy to screw up.
-
If by German you mean English then yes:
http://surnames.behindthename.com/name/wilkinson -
If by "English" you mean "English is Germanic, and thus, this is German" then yes.
-
You obviously didn't read the link. Wilkinson (Son of Wilkin) is a Medieval English name, well past the time English stopped being German and was it's own language. It is derived from William which was derived from the German name Willahelm. So Wilkinson the surname is derived from an English first name which was derived from an English first name which was derived from a Germanic first name. I find that to be sufficiently English as a opposed to German but whatever.
Of course English itself is a bastardization of many language including Latin and Romance languages and not only Germanic ones.
Following your logic every word in any language is Human because if you go back far enough all languages reach the same trunk of the language tree.
-
"well past the time English stopped being German and was it's own language"
GERMANIC, not GERMAN.
It never stopped being Germanic, so it's still Germanic and thus is German.
"Following your logic every word in any language is Human because if you go back far enough all languages reach the same trunk of the language tree."
Incorrect, grossly so. MANY languages developed in isolation, after non-lingual humans spread out, and are unrelated.
If you're going to discuss this, at least try to educate yourself to the point that you don't make fundamental, basic errors like claiming "all languages reach the same trunk of the language tree."
-
Seriously, what you just claimed is like saying 2+2 equals 5, it's not only wrong, it's such a well known and fundamental fact that not knowing it disqualifies you from further commentary on the subject.
-
Human beings communicated before they spread out, all languages developed from there.
GERMANIC, not GERMAN.
But you said:
English is Germanic, and thus, this is German"
So you were saying it was German, not Germanic.
The original poster said:
Those German names are so easy to screw up.
German, not Germanic.
He also was talking about spelling. The spelling is English not German as it was a word whose spelling was changed to an English derivative of a German word that had an entirely different spelling. Color is American spelling as opposed to Colour which is an English spelling. This word was even more distinguished as it was part of a separate language as opposed to regional variation of a language.
You are taking this whole thing far to seriously, I think behindthename is one of the coolest sites on the web and I thought he might be interested. I will not be discussing it with you any further.
-
"Human beings communicated before they spread out, all languages developed from there."
So? That in no way makes your idiotic claim that "all languages reach the same trunk of the language tree." true.
They may reach the same tree in regards to humanity, but if two non lingual humans spread out, and their languages developed independently, as has happened, then they will NEVER EVER "reach the same trunk of the language tree."
Why is it the first think you wailing assholes do when you're proven wrong is to pathetically try to find a way to avoid admitting it?
You were wrong, the rest of your stupid fucking post ids wrong, and nothing you said there changes the fact that you idiotically claimed the linguistic equivalent of 2+2=5.
I will not be discussing it with you any further.
If you weren't so fucking dumb, you wouldn't have started discussing it in the first place and made an idiot of yourself.
Shut the fuck up now.
-
derp
-
GOLLY MISS RECTAL YOU ARE SURE BUSY TONIGHT AND QUITE UPSET. IS THERE A BEE IN YOUR BONNET? I LIKE BEES THEY MAKE FUNNY SOUNDS MAYBE I CAN CATCH ONE FOR YOU.
-
Good god. What is wrong with this fucking thread? I thought this might be an interesting topic, yet its turning out to be the inverse of the Salty Ham Tears thread. First 100 posts about fucking anagrams. Now bickering over the linguistic origins of the name Wilkinson.
Rather, fuck you very much.
-
If I misunderstood correcting a typo as that then I apologize to you, and to you if you took my post as an attack.
-
In retrospect I failed at communicating my feeling that all languages evolved from the same place. I was wrong there. My background is in evolutionary biology and the law. Therefore I view things from the perspectives that all human behaviors derive from a common source (language is an advanced form of communication) and that words can be bent to suit your own meaning (Wilkinson can be English, German or Germanic). From those perspectives I find the distinction between the word being English, German, Germanic, Indo-European or Human to be based on a subjective definition of how much time it takes for a word to enter that category. I expressed this inarticulately: "I find that to be sufficiently English as a opposed to German but whatever." I understand that from the perspective of Linguistic Studies this may be incorrect. If you have a book for laymen to recommend I will read it.
Yes Coeus, I changed my mind.
-
"All human behaviors" is too strong but certainly advanced communication developed before Humans left Africa.
-
Ooo, I know a book:
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-.....0553807870 -
MANY languages developed in isolation, after non-lingual humans spread out, and are unrelated.
This really hasn't been proven, you know.
And it really can't be.
The information we have about the different language groups simply doesn't go back far enough.
Some language groups appear from their fundamental grammar to have developed in isolation. That's true.
But it's also true that the number of phonemes in each language increases as you get closer to Ethiopia. That implies an African origin for language.
-
What do you do with a Wilkinson? A fast punch in the face sounds appealing, but just take a look at the guy - it'd feel like stomping on a bunny rabbit. Maybe just feed him a carrot and ignore him?
-
Relax Slappy, it's not like he's a darkie or anything.
-
Slappy's just getting his Internet Tuff Gai on.
-
Must be pent up. My guess is he hasn't been to a proper lynching in years.
-
So, you commented on something, he wrote a commentary on your commentary, and now you're writing a commentary on his commentary of your commentary?
Did I get that right?
Are you a 14 both 14 year old girls?
-
HOWDY MISS RECTAL DID YOU HEAR THE GOSSIP FROM MS MCREADY? SHE HEARD THAT BILLY SUE ROGERS KISSED BOBBY JOE THOMPSON BEHIND THE SCHOOL!
-
Um, this isn't "rectal", you need to get your detector working and stop spamming the thread like an asshole.
-
Apologies, my trigger finger is itchy.
-
WELL GOLLY MISS RECTAL YOU SURE LOOK AND SOUND LIKE MISS RECTAL! KINDA UNCANNY!
-
Is MS MCREADY the widow of the helicopter pilot from The Thing?
-
Yes.
-
maybe Billie Sue kissed Bobbi Jo, which really got Bobby's attention.
-
That is what bloogers do. Have you never read any before?
-
I don't give a fuck what Will Wilkinson thinks about you, and I certainly don't give a fuck about a wall of text dissecting it.
-
Lucky in love, unlucky in philosophical consistency.
-
I never understood the torch you carry for that particular writer. But to each his own.
-
You weren't here back during the Weigal Era, obviously. She was the semiofficial forum stroke object.
-
I wandered in on the tail end of "Ratfuck" Weigal's screeds. Slightly before joe p. boyle high-tailed it out of here.
-
...the non-political ones that just wanna get a buzz going and have a good time. Raise a little cash by selling some weed. Ok with that. Pass that cold brewski, dude.
-
Fuck you rectal.
-
swing and a miss, ming
-
Fuck yourself Mr. Nice Guy
That wasn't me asshole -
OK Matt, we get it, you're not conservative. Did you really need a wall of text to say that?
-
The real question is, how can you be so fucking dumb that you don't realize M an E are in team.
-
When did I state the contrary?
-
When did I claim you stated it?
You clearly implied it. You were wrong.
-
When did I imply it?
Obviously I'm assuming you have enough intelligence to understand the implications behind what someone says, which it appears you do not.
-
SHUT. THE FUCK. UP.
PLEASE GOD. STOP THE DUMB
-
Jesus fucking Christ. Banhammer. Please? Please?
-
MISS RECTAL WHY YOU USIN BAD WORDS AGAIN THEY HURT COOTER'S EARS!
-
"Words in team if you do not rearrange the letters tea, am, a"
Your claim is conditional as well, so once again, you're wrong.
-
WI, I don't give a shit what you think.
Actually that's not true; if you say something that is evidence that the contrary is true.
-
I made it to the end. As a mostly liberal who reads Reason mainly for the coverage of police state overreach, but tries to stomach Tim Cavanaugh in the interest of exposing myself to alternative viewpoints, I gotta say that for the most part your audience seems indistinguishable from that of the smarter Republican blogs. This is actually the only blog I ever comment on, because I feel like though I may disagree with the person I'm arguing with, at least he probably accepts evolution, and thinks Obama was born in America. These days that's all the common ground you can hope for.
-
Why do you think that Kenyan Ayatollah is 'merican?
-
I may disagree with the person I'm arguing with, at least he probably accepts evolution, and thinks Obama was born in America.
And we're housebroken, so you don't have to worry about us shitting in your rug.
We're also the Penultimate Evil™, or so we're told. Don't forget the evil.
-
What, then, is the ultimate evil?
-
Unitarians.
-
+1
-
Collectivists
-
Collectivism
-
You can always kill collectivists but collectivism lives on so it is the greater evil.
-
I thought time was money?
-
White Indian.
-
In your heart, you know it's true.
-
Steve Smith's and Warty's Love Child.
-
...for the most part your audience seems indistinguishable from that of the smarter Republican blogs.
Smarter Republicans believe in ending the drug war, ending the real wars, cutting defense spending, ending crony capitalism, and increasing transparency?
Huh. Never knew that.
-
Well, duh.
-
All we need is more government, and that will solve income inequality! . Frum is such a genius!
-
You thought you could tempt me to read that shit? I am disappoint.
-
Can't you people
This seems vaguely racist... anyone else?
-
Banana
-
only the collective action of organized class interests have
My dipshit overload popped at this point. Was there any coherent thought after this point that I missed?
-
I made it down further to "casual racism [of the tea party]". I should have stopped earlier. I don't think you missed a coherent thought. Seems to be mostly Welch trying to reassure his left leaning acquaintances that, no, he really doesn't like those conservatives or tea partiers and he really is ok to associate with. I don't understand how a self-identified libertarian (no true scottsman, etc) could feel affinity with either OWS or the modern American Democratic party, but to each his own. I can ID a very small handful of Team Red and/or Tea Party identified politicians I might be able to vote for (if I were the voting type), but I can't for the life of me find think of a Democrat or OWS sympathetic politician I could consider. Even if you are wont to divide liberty into economic and personal spheres (which I'm not), I don't see anything in either movement or specific individual to appeal to a libertarian.
-K -
The "casual racism" bit was from Wilkinson, not Welch.
-
I know. So was the "collective action of organized class" bit that tipped juris's meter. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.
-K -
I could think of a few, but yes, not many. If there was no LP or tolerable independent, in many cases, I just won't vote in that particular race. But if it's a standard Democrat and a raving social conservative like Santorum, I'll go with the former. But otherwise, because the social issues are pretty much dead, and the Dems generally (with the exception of a few like Kucinich) offer no comparative advantage on issues like the Drug War or military spending, the GOP is marginally better, particularly the Tea Party types. That said, I'd probably still feel nauseated for days after voting for the GOP person. Oddly, I typically feel better if the GOP person is a sacrificial lamb running against a safe Dem, because then I can consider more a protest vote. Plus, those GOP candidates tend to be socially liberal compared to the rest of the party. I might feel differently if I had been living in Red areas, but I've been living in solidly Blue areas pretty consistently since high school, for better or worse.
-
Welch's response to Double W is proof of Reason's non-libertarian left leaning agenda. Somehow I doubt old Prof. Block will be getting such a lengthy, gentle, meta point by point response in the pages of Hit N Run. And Dr. Block is a real libertarian, he defends the undefendable, he writes at LewRockwell, he teaches in Louisiana...
-
And yet, none of that demonstrates a left leaning agenda.
So, wtf are you on about.
-
If Mr. Block would stop complaining like a little bitch about RP and KMW, he might deserve a point by point rebuttal.
-
he defends the undefendable
So what?
he writes at LewRockwell
So what?
he teaches in Louisiana
How is that relevant?
-
Dog whistles. It is all about the dog whistles.
-
Bonus for those who've made it this far: Me and Will on Bloggingheads talking about John McCain. Oh, how I miss those glasses.
Matt, I'll always go all the way with you.
-
Or against Cavanaugh 'cept when he starts to defend whacked-out policies of Jerry Brown ("Let's raise the Prison Guards' salaries" "Let's not require warrants for cell-phone data searches"). I believe in the missing link. and Obama was born in America just like George W Bush was (there is that rumor that Wbya was born in Durango, Mexico). So don't bogart that joint, my friend.
-
...sorry, to be fair to Cavanaugh, I don't accuse him of defending those particular policies...he does like Jerry, anyway.
-
"I don't begrudge Wilkinson's enthusiasm for Occupy Wall Street–"[W]hy not get together with thousands of like-minded folks, scream about it, screw up traffic, get arrested, whip one another into a frenzy of self-righteous indignation, spit on some people, provoke the jackboots, and maybe even wreck some stuff? Why is that not a good idea?"–nor do I resent his dislike of the Tea Party ("What's a little populist paranoia, casual racism and hyperventilating rhetoric about the holy Founding Document?")."
If you wished to show sense, you would begrudge it. Granted, you've got a hell of a lot more than Wilkinson.
Yeah, let's go burn stuff and fuck with people alongside a bunch of socialists. And wait, did I forget to mention that those relatively peaceful teabaggers are a fucking frenzied raacccciiiiiisssstttttsss?
What an intellectual baby.
-
Meh, I read that paragraph by Mr Welch as a passive-aggressive put-down.
-
If so, I apologize. I may have missed such subtlety.
-
Yes, I think he was quoting the most objectionable tripe for emphasis.
-
It seemed awfully British to me too. So, same thing?
-
-
+1
-
Weaksauce, Willie. If you go crawling back to the liberals, it's either because you've been browbeaten about racism/sexism being The Most Fucking Important Issues Facing America Today by some fucking morons who know nothing about economics, and you yourself are a fucking moron and know nothing about economics, or you're just posturing.
I'm sick of this apparent obligation to act like liberals sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALA about their wrong, discredited economic theories (and they're not even theories, really, just vague imaginings that reality should be different than it is, with the exact same theft and graft you get in practice from both sides) are somehow not being embarrassingly stupid.
-
Come on Dagny, don't you know it's cocktail party season?
-
YOU are a fucking moron. YOUR economic "theories" are just vague imaginings. YOU are embarrassingly stupid.
See? I am good at arguing too.
-
Growth rates of Communist China vs. Hong Kong 1955-1990 or East vs. West Germany, same dates. Argue with that.
Obama is not a communist, but his economic policies amount to a group of "experts" sitting in a room stating that some economic activity is going to happen because they think it's good. That was the process of two of the countries listed above. Guess which two.
-
I think the model is Scandanavian social democracy, mixed economies, not hard line socialism.
-
The main difference is in the scope of government control of the economy. If you have a 5-year plan committee, a democratically socialist industrial board or a "green energy jobs super panel", the biggest difference is that the second is limited to to industry and the super panel is limited to the energy sector of the economy. They're all still small groups of TOP MEN sitting around and deciding how things are going to be for millions of people.
-
Sweden doesn't have a command and control economy.
-
I'm going to see if I can get my wife to read that back to me later tonight, Dagny. That was TOTALY sexy.
-
Dagny is a dude, dude.
-
So? My wife isn't.
-
I read Sugarfree's stuff to her all the time t get her hot. Yeah, it turns me off too, but my babe is whack freaky.
-
Argument clinic is in Room 12A.
-
...with a single words.
GAMBOL.
Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plain?
Libertarians love Gambol Lockdown, just as much as any Leninist or Liberal.
-
Rectal,you deserve to be treated as the nigger of the world.
-
Then Karma truly exists...
-
Fuck off that wasn't me you racist asshole-glad to know what you are though
-
White Primitard loves being in Gambol Lockdown, because he couldn't survive otherwise.
-
White Libertard loves being in city-STATIST Gambol Lockdown, because he couldn't survive otherwise.
-
Whenever I hear someone whining about robust agency or socioeconomic conditions, I reach for my taser. WTF.
I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights.
Depends on how you define "liberty". The common definition doesn't match what he's talking about; he's taking it to mean "ability to do something" rather than "being allowed to do something".
I too accept that those factors can make people's lives and pursuit of happiness unfairly difficult, but the reality is that any forcible attempt to remedy that injustice is going to cause more problems than it solves. You can be a libertarian and be concerned for the poor and for disadvantaged minorities. Look at the work that the libertarian Institute for Justice does.
-
any forcible attempt to remedy that injustice is going to cause more problems than it solves.
Everything rests on this assumption, which is probably wrong. You're effectively saying people should be denied the tool of acting through their government for their own interests. It almost smells authoritarian. Bad enough in principle, but in fact is the denial of redress for the most vulnerable and lavishing on the least vulnerable.
-
You're effectively saying people should be denied the tool of acting through their government for their own interests. It almost smells authoritarian
It's authoritarian to deny people the ability to oppress others.
Dr. Orwell, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
-
Orwellian like saying the most vulnerable people in society are the oppressors of the least vulnerable, and believing such a perfect contradiction?
-
He didn't say that. And the govt is oppressing the most vulnerable people in society pretty thoroughly in its own right.
Stealing poor people's property and handing it over to sports owners and wealthy universities? Check.
Handing over nearly a trillion dollars of middle-class tax money to big banks? Check.
Giving one of the largest corporations in the world tax breaks to wipe out its tax liability? Check.
-
The problem is equating those actions with safety net policies. Government doesn't need to protect the least vulnerable. It needs to put a floor beneath the least vulnerable. They aren't the same thing. One results in oppression, the other alleviates it.
-
second least = most
-
The people who promote safety net policies promote those activities too, and have for decades.
The right people are never going to be in charge, assuming they exist in the first place.
-
The right people can be in charge if we stopped having a bribery-based political system. You know, that thing libertarian thought has recklessly enabled?
-
If govt wasn't picking winners and losers bribery/influence peddling wouldn't be such a lucrative endeavor.
But it's good that you finally recognize that Obama isn't the right person in charge.
-
If govt wasn't picking winners and losers
A question Jon Stewart posed the other day in response to this platitude: what do we do with the losers? I didn't say it should pick winners and losers, I said it should provide a floor for individual people. But it's gonna have some substantial influence in the economy going about its daily business. The economy shouldn't care who's doing the buying, and nowadays it should be grateful for the activity.
-
Thanks, but I don't require buying as much as I require PRODUCING.
What you do with the losers? It's called bankruptcy bitches.
-
"the other alleviates it"
Really.
-
Ah, so government bailout.
You can produce roads and bridges.
-
Either corporations are evil, and therefore undeserving... or they need to be bailed out.
-
This shit is so fucking stupid. Roads and bridges are impossible without government? Pure weapons grade stupid.
-
Tony, we have a bribery based political system because our government makes available mountains of free cash to politically connected hucksters who pinkie promise to create green jobs... To name just one of a billion examples.
Libertarians have the only reasonable solutions to eliminating these bribery magnets, but progressives seem stubbornly uninterested in changing the system.
-
That same bribery-based system bribes poor people with promises of "economic justice", resulting in more votes for Team Blue.
Quite pathetic, how easily-led people of both Teams can be, but there you go.
-
More weapons grade stupid from Tony. Thnks Tony, we all need the reminder now and then how idiotic you are.
-
You might. I only have to see his name for it all to come flooding back.
-
Government doesn't need to protect the least vulnerable.
Then said government loses all credibility among the least vulnerable and they aren't only justified, but morally obligated to undermine, manipulate and debase said government. Congratulations, Tony, you've just justified corporatocracy. -
When are are liberals like Tony going to ever realize that the state is fundamentally a reactionary institution. It's the poor and weak's greatest enemy.
The true liberal position is to oppose it.
-
Orwellian like saying the most vulnerable people in society are the oppressors of the least vulnerable, and believing such a perfect contradiction?
No disingenuous one.
The Orwellian part is
It almost smells authoritarian.
=
people should be denied the tool of acting through their government for their own interests.
By your rationale it would be authoritarian to deny white Southerners the freedom to democratically enact Jim Crow, since it is there interests to do so.
-
You're effectively saying people should be denied the tool of acting through their government for their own interests.
Yes, I am, and explicitly, not just effectively. Just like I think people should be denied the tool of acting through knives, guns, and clubs for their own interest.
-
Except when that interest is self-defense?
I guess that's only real weapons, not the metaphorical kind.
-
I have no problem with people "using the tool of government" for self-defense, either. That's why I support the existence of police and fire departments.
You ain't talking about self-defense.
-
People should be allowed to have laws to protect them from the flaws of capitalism just like any other threat to their well-being.
-
"Officer, help! there's a flaw of capitalism hiding in my back yard!"
Hmm, doesn't seem to work.
-
What if it's tainted drinking water?
-
What is your thieving, festering, diseased taint doing in the drinking water supply?
-
+1 to Tulpa
-
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!
-
All your gambol are belong to us.
Somebody set us up the State.
-
You're effectively saying people should be denied the tool of acting through their government for their own interests.
If they're acting through their government to violate the rights of their fellow citizens, then absolutely, the government should be forbidden that. Unless you believe slavery is okay, given a majority vote. -
Will Wilkinson: politically variable, consistently douchey.
-
I prefer to think of him as a cunt-leaning cunt, with cuntish tendencies.
-
From the second I read the words "alleged disaffinity" and "fusionism", I thought this article would be the most pretentious meandering BS I had ever seen on Reason. I read it and I wasn't wrong.
Too bad, usually you guys are better at making a point. -
Though it's not a boingboing link, this post really needs a
WHITE POWER
and I can't allow my allegiance to LOL SHOUTY CAPS LOCK to conceal, as it maybe too often does, that that's a capital-w White.
The worst thing about the Occupancy, at least as it pertains to "libertarianism," is that it's making these Whitey-safe-word-exchange posts happen way the hell too often.
Don't be so insecure, guys. We've all seen your glasses.
-
You wouldn't happen to be oblig, would you?
If so, you know what I'm talking about. If not, no worries.
-
Tebow > Quadruple-u
-
But I find that my gut nevertheless leans right on issues of personal responsibility.
Guts tend to do that. A lot of "blame the poor" platitudes sound halfway reasonable in normal conversation. Doesn't mean it's productive thinking. Blame the poor to what end? Punishing them for being bad?
-
The nice thing about foolishness is that it usually punishes itself (have you ever heard the saying about fools and their money?). All you have to do is get out of the way.
-
I can't get out of the way. My political philosophy is violently opposed to it.
-
And you think the role of the government is to allow people to punish themselves for being foolish?
-
And, for an encore of stupid^2 from shithead, we have:
"And you think the role of the government is to allow people to punish themselves for being foolish?" -
Those who absolutely can NOT do for themselves... need some kind of help.
Able-bodied, sound-minded adults who fuck up and do stupid shit? Fuck, no. You make your bed, you sleep in it.
That goes for bailing out corporations, too.
-
"Punishing them for being bad?"
No, shithead, not *rewarding* them for silly behavior. -
How about not thinking in terms of deserving at all? If you need to pay for something, you tax people and try to make it as painless as possible. What people deserve is immaterial unless we're in court or church.
-
If you need to pay for something, you tax people and try to make it as painless as possible.
Golden words, Tony, if you know what I mean.
And, yes, I been drinking with Ben again. What are you going to do about it?
-
"How about not thinking in terms of deserving at all?"
Of course, shithead, actions should have no results at all, right? -
Can someone please frame that quote from Tony for all time so we will forever know one of The Left's most important tenets?
-
Poverty is victimhood.
-
"Poverty is victimhood."
Shithead is beyond ignorant. -
Weapons. Grade. Stupid.
-
How about not thinking at all? I never do.
-
I don't deserve a fucking thing but I got power to tax all you assholes to support my lavish lifestyle, spread it around so it hurts less, thanks Tonee, for taking out the trash.
-
Don't you get tired of being an idiot?
-
Actually, I think most of us would be more than happy to simply not reward the poor.
-
TL/DR?
We found out you can't spell TEAM without A-T-M. And by A-T-M, I mean the Ass To Mouth-fest that went on at the top of the thread.
-
+100
I'm getting pretty fed up myself.
-
Yeah, what the fuck?? My brain cells just had their human rights violated. And I even skimmed past most of it.
-
Actually, I've never asked for the banhammer on anyone here until this very thread. The other trolls are extremely annoying, but at least they sometime have something interesting to discuss. You literally took a fat shit in our faces in an attempt to suffocate our brain cells. And you do that all the time. And it would be one thing if it could be ignored, but no, you insist on shitting in every fucking crevice of the room. I know it's what gives you kicks but it ruins our favorite website every time you decide to defecate in the punch bowl.
-
Why do I have my henchman perform such trite acts of thuggery? I don't like to share things. Be it money market profits, or with other Jews in Nazi Europe. Libertarians don't deserve salons of their own, independent of MY moderation.
-
As soon as I saw this post I thought to myself "pretty much anybody is going to find something to be pissed off about in this post" and it sure didn't take long to be proven.
-
I find all of this especially interesting because my own drift from right-leaning libertarian to libertarian-leaning liberal has a lot to do with issues around the conditions for robust agency and the role of broad socio-economic forces in establishing those conditions, or not. I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights.
--Will Wilkinson"A beggar cannot renounce wealth," Master would say. "If a man laments: 'My business has failed; my wife has left me; I will renounce all and enter a monastery,' to what worldly sacrifice is he referring? He did not renounce wealth and love; they renounced him!"
--Paramahansa Yogananda -
Jesus fucking christ, I would love to see an IP log of todays comments. This has got to be the most absurd amount of spam from a single person that I've ever seen on an internet forum.
-
Every thread is worse than the one from before.
-
"She" actually managed to take it up to 11.
-
I think the proper expression in this case is "gone full retard".
-
But have we hit peak retard? Somehow, I doubt it.
-
Like energy, there is always an ample supply of retard. No matter how much you drill or mine or troll, more can be found.
The difference is that most people desire energy, but only masochists like (or respond to) trolls.
Don't fucking feed them. Ignore them.
-
I don't see any reason to violate Episiarch's privacy by publishing the IP log with his address on it over and over again.
-
The editors could publish partial addresses by all of our names.
Like so:
42.xxx.xxx.153
Our privacy remains, but we would all know whose post belong to whom. Over time those who switch addresses to avoid bans would lose credibility as we all would expect a consistent identity from those of whom we converse.
-
Or they could publish a list of names that have used the same IP as the one making the current comment.
Though that would reveal some bad things about some of the regulars, probably too.
-
If the activity dies down when Skyrim comes out in 6 days, we can pretty much be assured its a regular. Not to cast any guilt on any particular party because I just don't know.
-
It's a "regular" in the sense that it is the work of one troll who never leaves and skirts around IP bans.
-
"casual racism"
-
Time to drink my own piss.
-
So, Matt, how about some kind of registration system?
-
No one likes you.
And your idea is moronic, email addresses are free and ubiquitous.
Maybe you could just leave? Nah, you'll insist you get your way because (insert stupid justification that is the same as you being a baby throwing a tantrum) and then cry, because your life really is so empty and meaningless that you couldn't quit the place if you wanted to.
So just shut the fuck up and take it bitch.
You're not man enough to do anything about it but run your dicksucker anyway.
-
By the way, I love the attempt to stifle speech. Classy.
-
It's not stifling speech at all. Reason wouldn't be stopping you from setting up your own blog and working to attract readers to it, just preventing you from fucking up THEIR property with your drivel.
Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience.
-
Whatcha drinkin' tonight MNG?
-
How fuckin' adorable! It thinks Warty has the power to stifle speech!
Folks, won't *someone* adopt this fuzzy li'l thing? From what it's told us, it has to live on roots and berries! C'mon... Strongheart Dog Food is cheap AND nutritious! Keep it in your yard, it'll adapt!
-
One or two assholes always spoil anarchy for the rest of us.
-
It's okay when Team Blue anarchies, then?
-
Say it, Tony, say it, I need a drink. Please say "Somalia".
-
Seriously, you couldn't leave if you wanted to. You're a Reason addict, and you're pissy cause someone else harshed your fix.
Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with you.
-
you couldn't leave if you wanted to
It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Everybody knows it.
-
Damn Warty, looks like you made her mad.
-
It's not rectal.
-
I don't know what's wrong. Maybe she misses Cooter or something.
-
Ahhh, romantic love, so sweet and so painful at the same time! I'm sure there's a sweet, caring boy for her somewhere out there. It really must be lonely, having nothing to do but post nonsense all day.
-
Beca8use if I can't, I'm not free! NOT FREE!! I have a right to gambol in your cooch!! Hoe dare you USE THE POLIC to stop me!!
-
Beca8use if I can't, I'm not free! NOT FREE!! I have a right to gambol in your cooch!! Hoe dare you USE THE POLIC to stop me!!
-
Well, at least it's good at cut'n'paste.
-
ftw
-
Wow. Just...wow. Between WW's inane doddering, Matt's rebuttal, and the incredible slew of verbal vaginal blood farts over a partial ANAGRAM, I could write a detailed clinical psychiatric dissertation worthy of Sigmund Fraud WRT to the pathology of both the OWS'ers dissonant greed and libertarians' penchant for arguing with brick walls. For the Gamboling Idiot, one word comes to mind: smallpox. Tonybot, just please take the pain pill and die already.
Also, what Warty said.
-
I took your advice and eschewed the grape soda today, but the Dimetapp Elixir in the medicine cabinet is beginning to tempt me. What do you recommend?
-
Groovy Doctor is infinitely wiser than I am, but I use a combination of honey, lemon juice and whiskey.
-
Tulpy Poo, you never struck me as a ROBO fiend. Run out and get some grape Bubblelicious to relieve the grape flavor monkey on your back. Grape Kool-Aid may be helpful as well. It's the artificially flavored chemically goodness of grape that is the problem here. If that fails, grape flavored Pixi Stix, grape pop rocks and tonic water is about the best I can suggest.
-
Tulpy Poo, you never struck me as a ROBO fiend.
He's actually a Juggalo, addicted to Faygo Purple Drank.
-
Dude, that was so low! Despite the grief I give Tulpy Poo over his MassHole Dreamscicle Flopney fetish and unusual preoccupation with peanut butter, he's a likeable sort who argues in good faith and would be remiss if he decided to stop contributing. I would never refer to Tulpy Poo as a Juggalo. That just ain't right.
-
Completely mistook where you were going with that. What 'bout Laffy Taffy?
-
Completely mistook where you were going with that. What 'bout Laffy Taffy?
Laffy Taffy is contra-indicated in mathematicians, it sticks to the roof of the mouth.
-
H-Town represent:
-
Oh, how CUTE! It's pretending it has a right to be heard on a privately-owned website!
Folks, this thing has *really* been trying. We should at least give it a round of applause. Give it up for it!
-
We should at least give it a round of applause.
How about a slow golfclap instead?
-
That may be too kind, JMW.
-
AM I FREE TO GAMBOL ABOUT THE WHITE TOWER?
-
All your gambol are belong to us.
Somebody set us up the city-STATE.
-
You have been since the end of book 12.
-
ding ding ding ding
-
It'll take a long time to get thru the comment thread and/or read the article, so sorry if I'm going over ground redundantly here.
I reckon that "fusionism" had more to do with hating on commies during the Cold War,
I reckon that that was a factor, but that a far bigger factor, starting well before the Cold War, was that with a few exceptions from time to time (such as liquor prohibition), until 50 yrs. ago or less, there were no social issues. That is, matters such as the ones brought up here -- same sex marriage and abortion -- were, practically speaking not matters of public controversy. Had they come up they might've divided libertarians from "conservatives" then, but they were on practically nobody's mind, so people never found out. There being no apparent disagreement on sex & drugs & rock & roll in the gen'l public, neither was there any in the smaller world of "conservatism".Fusion is an illusion. It's not as if there were pre-existing separate "conservative" and libertarian movements that temporarily merged. The libertarian movement did not exist as a distinct tendency at all before the 1960s. In retrospect the more radical of those who were considered "conservative" at the time are now often singled out as libertarian.
Also operating for a long time was the effect of the Sol Steinberg cartoons that show enormous foreshortening from a dominant perspective. Since various forms of socialism and dirigism were predominant, any opposition to them was seen as a single type.
-
For example, before (and basically even for a long time after the writing of) Wm. Burroughs, both the popular and the intellectual image of the "dope fiend" and of the homosexual were not of someone exercising will and choice, but of a rare type with something wrong with them acting practically involuntarily.
-
Note also that the present "religious right" in the USA did not exist before the 1970s. It arose in response to court decisions that legalized abortions and most pornography, and a political economic environment of inflation and a jump in taxes & gov't spending.
-
Maybe rectal is upset because no one will take her to the zoo.
-
She's just plum dumb.
-
Anybody wonder why the serious people who used to comment here have bailed?
-
I think most of us regulars here agree with Matt's ambivalence to both groups - even though both have some redeeming points.
The problem is that populism (left or right) is not based in reason but in emotion, and it leads many people down paths of idiocy many of us aren't willing to follow them down.
Birthers, anti-Semites, nativists, conspiracy theorists, racists, class warriors, people lacking awareness of their own cognitive dissonance and other specimens of mental simplicity are rampant on both teams, and they add a yuck factor to what were already vaguely defined and amorphous movements with unclear goals.
The Tea Party is an purportedly anti-government movement where many want the government to leave Medicare or Social Security unscathed and to boost military and border enforcement spending. Thus, most would like to trim around the edges and give Obama a few political slaps on the cheek, but really don't want to make the hard decisions to seriously and permanently wound big government. The Occupy movement is an anti-corporatist movement that utterly fails to see the true basis for corporatism and in fact their vague political solutions would often make this very system even worse. More arbitrary government control = more corporatism.
It's completely rational to be upset about the government and corporations manipulating the political-economic system that we are forced by law to pay for and submit to. But anger should not be the basis for a political philosophy, for starters because anger turns people into raving lunatics. Rational political philosophies follow a rational moral and ends-oriented structure. Temper tantrums, while justified, are not a real solution to the problem.
-
The problem is that populism (left or right) is not based in reason but in emotion, and it leads many people down paths of idiocy many of us aren't willing to follow them down. There are two main reasons for this Proprietist:
1) Every voter is a single issue voter. Though most will protest to the contrary, there is one issue for each of them from which they will not yield, regardless of the argument or counter argument presented. The current issue for most is they don't have enough money for the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, and will resort to governmental theft to maintain it and will very easily rationalize the outcome.
2) All of the logical fallacies serve a very important purpose in rhetorical "debate" and in practical life in general: All those logical fallacies are what turn minds. You can present the most sound, cogent, or tautological, self-evident argument with nary a flaw, but if does not square with the emotional perception of how a given solution will solve a given problem, then the target audience will reject the elegant, logical argument. You must win a heart to win a mind.
Case in point: taxing the "rich" more while still maintaining the concept of a capitalist system. It's a emotional position that polls very well, though logically and arithmetically, it doesn't work and never will. People in their individual situations may realize that numerically there are no where near enough "millionaires and billionaires" to tax to make up budget shortfalls for current spending levels, but emotionally they don't care and feel rationally that taking from others under the guise of compassionate governance is perfectly moral and acceptable, i.e. "The end justifies the means."
Jefferson has been proven correct over and over, and yet collectively, we fail to heed his warning.
-
fair dinkum, mate, but crikey how do you put that into 140 characters
-
I hear you doc, but I really wonder if that "single issue" you cite is accurate. Honestly, how many people do you know that do not have the same lifestyle they had 4-5 years ago? My answer would be "very few.". And the ones I do know that are in that boat are there because of their own actions, not some vague notion of "the economy" or "Wall Street."
Nearly every person had the opportunity to stay in the market and see their portfolio gain almost every penny back. Not a single person had a gun to their temple when they signed the mortgage to their McMansion. And I don't know a single one that lost their job because of corporate greed, downsizing or any other reason unrelated to performance.
I do agree with most people having one issue they refuse to bend on. I just disagree on what that issue is for most people. Hell, I'd put abortion at the top of the list ahead of lifestyle maintenance...for both pro-life and pro-choicers.
-
Nearly every person had the opportunity to stay in the market and see their portfolio gain almost every penny back. Not a single person had a gun to their temple when they signed the mortgage to their McMansion. And I don't know a single one that lost their job because of corporate greed, downsizing or any other reason unrelated to performance.
Every point you make, sloopy, is correct, but serve to further prove my point: regardless of how or why those people ended up in the situation they are are in, and regardless of who's fault it is, ehy will not, and I repeat, will not give it up without a fight.
Another case in point: The Wisconsin Public Sector collective bargaining brouhaha. Even though those teachers were not adversely affected mathematically and education has not blown up, the perception is education and benefits have been decimated and destroyed.
When it comes down to it, you can be given a million reasons to vote for someone, but when you pull the lever, there is only one that occupies your mind when you do.
-
I guess I misread your original post. You're right, of course. In this day and age, when personal responsibility is a novelty, most everybody is willing to fuck somebody else to get what they want, whether it's a free house, forgiven debt (be they student loans or TARP money) or reduced credit card rates.
-
Nearly every person had the opportunity to stay in the market and see their portfolio gain almost every penny back.
Dollar cost averaging FTW.
-
You could also just argue that most everyone is a conservative in the sense that at the end of the day they don't want to accept any real changes that would upend their way of life and the way business is done completely in order to fix the system that they know deep down is killing them anyway. They want to whine and point fingers and leave all the burden on anyone else, when the fault really lies within themselves for perpetuating the status quo.
-
This is also true; this is the single issue to that which I was referring, and overlaps more than any other issue and falls under the umbrella of "The Economy."
I see this thought process and rationale every day in some fashion in the medical world, and that is one of the reasons my outlook would be considered grim and often expressed in a profane manner.
-
1) Every voter is a single issue voter
Damn straight!
-
Another Friday news drop from the scandal free and honest Obama administration:
-
I saw that earlier, but decided to avoid this thread for a while.
Can I try that the next time I get subpoena'd?* The "Most Transparent Administration" just flaunts the Rule of Law in more ways than I can imagine.
1. Libya bombing w/o Congressional authorization.
2. Drone murder of an American citizen w/o due process.
3. Flatly refusing a legitimate subpoena.And that's just in the last month. Had this been the Bush admin, people would be out for blood...and rightly so.
*I haven't been in any real trouble with the law, so I don't expect to get the chance.
-
Right, I didn't know you could cite "partisanship" as a reason for dodging subpenas.
-
Don't laugh. I have a city councilor that (thankfully lost her primary, so it's no longer an issue) did that very thing and gave both the Bronx cheer and The Bird to a subpoena. And got away with it scot free.
It happens at both the state AND local level. Not coincidentally, she is also totally on board with OWS'ers and actually suggested waiving daily permit requirements, park curfews and insurance fees for all the "protesting" going on here in Tulsa Town. Tulpy Poo (blame Banjos, not me.)
-
I will gladly take the blame when I have successfully influenced people where it most matters, in music and alcohol influenced nicknames.
-
LOL no problem, diminutive Mediterranean goddess. The trip down punk/nu wave/ska memory lane was most enjoyable and The Commodore needs a soft, plush Cabbage Patchy nickname. Tulpy Poo works nicely.
-
Oh man, this video is so perfect for this and I'm forced to post it in this shitty thread hours after the fact?
Goddamn it.
-
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
-
I know they didn't start it by any means but this Friday evening bullshit really pisses me off. I don't know if I'm more angry with the politicians that pull that shit or the media for playing along with the idea that something can be released on Friday and be buried by Monday.
-
The modus operandi is, I believe, a response to conservative talk radio, as the more influential hosts take the weekends off. Like 'em or hate 'em, they do serve a function, since most of them dislike this administration immensely and will point out its flaws quickly. Some of those hosts also purport to dislike "Establishment GOP'ers"; as pointed out by others upthread, the goals of TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are not entirely dissimilar.
-
Probably but I think it is because most influential media types take the weekend off (tv hosts and newspaper journalists as well). Both parties use it regularly so I don't know if it can just be conservative talk radio. I'd be interested in learning which political adviser came up with it and when.
A derivative of that is when Perry released his economic plan two days (on a Thursday, not a Friday) after the last debate when he knew that there was a relatively big period of time until the last time. RP in contrast released his the day before the debate. It was a blatantly obvious piece of gamesmanship by Perry.
-
PUT UP THE CAVANAUGH SIGNAL!
-
We were calling for the "Saturday Stemwinder" last week, so it's time to get the spotlight up.
-
Here it is, but I never got a consensus on it.
Can the few sane members here get a vote in please?
-
It would be a fruitless exercise but it would put less stress on my browser by dividing up the insanity so sure. (seriously, last weeks thread wrecked havoc every time I loaded it up)
-
FUCK, even the few on-topic comments suck on this shit-sewer of a thread.
-
-
SUSPECT DEVICE!
I dunno, my threads don't have that much quality music.
-
It does now :P
-
I have to admit, this isn't bad.
-
Meh. Needs more grape flavor. I take it you did not care for my recommendations.
-
I wish we could just go back to the Lucy thread. That was pretty fun, but you could see it getting polluted with this bullshit after a while.
It's just a fucking shame that we have to put up with this shit. And yes, I post my share of goofy shit, but (true as it all may be) it's all in good fun. These stupid assholes aren't out to provoke laughs. They're out to destroy the fucking site.
I swear, I'm getting close to pulling out for a while. And I never pull out.
-
That's why you have 18 years of monthly payments sloop'.
-
No. He. Di'n't!
-
**Looks at Wells Fargo Statement**
FUCK!
-
Think of what you could do with all that $$$, if only you'd just cum in her mouth.
-
Or go Greek.
-
Both usually happened, because I followed Sarah Palin's advice: "Don't retreat. Instead, reload!"
-
She apparently doesn't follow her own advice. See Jerome Tanner, Who's Nailin' Palin?, Hustler Productions (November 4, 2008), http://figureitoutforyourself.com
-
I see you are prolific in your sloopery sloping, young gun. Carry wisely and make sure the safety is on at all times.
-
That might solve your younger women "problem" for you.
-
There's a "go younger until it isn't a problem any more" joke in there somewhere.
But I'm not gonna be the one to make it.
-
I swear, I'm getting close to pulling out for a while.
At this point, it would be better if they just killed off commenting. You all know it's true.
-
strewth
-
Where else would I get my Warty fix?
Wait, that didn't sound right.
-
Yeah, but it did sound earnest.
-
I swear, I'm getting close to pulling out for a while. And I never pull out.
Lame. There's still time to salvage your fantasy football season.
-
Bastard.
-
Perhaps an alternate secret site that duplicates the original H&R posts but requires logins/authentication/IP reporting to post. Would Reason fight this?
-
yes it is (bad)
-
WORST. THREAD. EVER.
-
This is starting to remind me of the old Baseball Primer days. The open commenting system was great fun at times, because it could lead to some truly inspired mocking.
But it became so easily abused as the site gained in popularity that it eventually became the mess that this thread (and the worse thread from last weekend) is.
Wish I knew the solution to keeping the good and ditching the bad. Ain't got one. Spamming, regardless of content, just destroys the readability of comment sections.
-
There was a WORSE thread last weekend? Thank god I missed it.
And no, don't post the link. Be kind to people's brains, and not their morbid curiosities.
-
I'm pretty sure there is well over 1000 comments now, likely around 700 from the same person.
-
Ah the Madonna thread. I still think this one's worse.
-
...I mean, at least that had some decent rational debate about whether Libertarian values allow us to judge miserly hypocrites. Of course, turns out Madonna had damn good reason not to give him anything, and his dad had damn good reason to fire him.
-
Is it too late to complain about reason advertising on MSNBC in an attempt to expand the readership?
-
That'd be akin to the Jews waiting until after Potsdam to bitch about their broken shop windows.
-
hit & run was better when commentators were drunkenly linking to music videos on youtube. Cancel my subscription!
-
No, I was thinking the Michael Moore thread from the weekend before Halloween.
Because it was virtually all spam.
-
Conservatives may not have much to offer to libertarians but the democrats / team blue are a complete disaster.
liberaltarianism was a reality challenged concept from the start
The idea tends to be that while liberals want to tell you what insurance to buy, how much salt, fat, and what kinds of fat you can use in cooking, what kinds of lightbulbs you can use, how much water you can use each time you flush, how much carbon you can exhale, and at what point you’ve made enough money and need to have it spread around, conservatives don’t want you to have sex with other men.
So the two sides are basically the same, you see. -
Apropos of nothing, this comment comes to you via my new PS3. Typing on the controller is a pain.
-
How's that?
try one of these
http://www.reghardware.com/200....._keyboard/ -
I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights.
Then, what is his position on healthcare, and what is yours Matt?
-
What position do you have when you fart in a jar?
-
Thinking about a keyboard, but the browser's a bit of a pain on its own.
-
agree, not worth it. but any usb keyboard will do.
-
Oh, cool--thanks.
-
Then, what is his position on healthcare, and what is yours Matt?
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks
Your Cunt Stinks -
OH HI MISS RECTAL I MISSED YOU AT THE COTILLION DINNER TONIGHT. I HOPE YOU WERE NOT TAKEN SICK. I FOUND YOU THIS FLOWER THAT LOOKS PRETTY CAN YOU PUT IT IN YOUR HAIR?
-
Please go away!
-
MINUS. . .FIVE. . .STARS!
-
Try tasting it
-
Heheh Neil Patrick Harris looks more like me every week. Hehehe
-
Harris, Harold and Kumar do E in the new movie and have a 3 way.
My popcorn got greasy.
-
I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to pick my own butt.
-
I don't pick my butt. I harvest useful methane gas that can be used to power a car, cook a meal, scare away animals, etc. Fart in a jar and try it yourself.
-
At least you trolls only ruin one thread a day. I thought this post was excellent. So excellent it ought to have generated some solid commentary. As soon as I see the rectal taint on a thread though, fuck it. Not even worth a skim.
Somehow the commentariat has spawned an unholy troll-strosity. How much longer will this endure?
-
Shoot, I miss the days when our top troll was Tony, at least he made coherent arguments and wasn't here just to make the comments section unreadable.
-
At least you trolls only ruin one thread a day.
Uhhhh... take a look at any thread today with over 100 comments.
-
at least I only look at one thread a day
-
Drunk. But who's counting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqfpkTTy2w -
I'm counting links to shit music.
-
Stevie Williams knows what color an asshole is, but doesn't know that he's a racist dick.
-
-
I think this is the worse thread that I've ever read here. Fuck, there are threads at Mother Jones that read better.
-
Rectal needs to be banned.
-
Seconded.
-
Thirdeded.
-
Fisted
-
Super small government really messes up the methods and processes of Republicans. But the rhetoric itself is only opposed to some of their political goals (drugs, gays, immigrants) and is pretty consistent with other political goals (saying nice things about small government and freedom, like Reagan and the Founders).
The Democrats, however, are fundamentally at odds with super small government. It not only conflicts with their methods, it conflicts with their political goals. They believe in having a large and powerful government to smooth out the kinks in society. Libertarianism is irreconcilable with the goals of the Democratic party. The nominal hard-left goals (easing poverty and aiding the dispossessed) are totally compatible with even the total absence of government, but the center-left is pretty irrevocably tied to active government.
I've known a lot of friends and family who think it's somehow unfair libertarians lean Republican more often than Democratic. But where Republicans think libertarianism is totally unrealistic but well-meaning, Democrats find libertarianism exactly the sort of political evil they most despise.
-
The legit original Tea Party folks and the legit OWS folks have far more in common than the media is noting. Both detest government welfare. Both believe in giving people a hand up, rather than a hand out. Both hate how a few amoral, unethical folks in finance and big business have basically given the taxpayer the finger, by begging for a bail out and then once they got it they told the government to take a hike that they would do what they damn well wanted. And if I hear one more politician bemoan jobs being shipped overseas when its the politicians who created the laws that encourage companies to do so, for tax breaks, I will scream!
Meanwhile the majority in both the Tea Party and OWS movement were playing by the rules, and instead of punishing the wrong doers its akin to a teacher telling the class that as long as the kid who was wrong doesn't step and take responsibility, the whole class will be punished. Never mind that the whole class was present when the kid did what he/she did. Heck I have begged some OWS sane folks to please learn from the legit original Tea Party folks on how to get things done. And I have begged a few of the later Tea Party folks to not lump everyone who is getting food stamps in together with the few who are generational food stamp users. The rise in food stamp use as an example is because the middle class who paid by the rules, are now losing jobs, getting hours cut and the only way to feed their families is with food stamps.
We need to start building some damn bridges rather than walls, because the elite few who are the amoral, unethical folks are laughing all the way to the bank. The only positive is history shows what happens to the amoral, unethical elites.
-
Comments here at Reason have become a strange place. Anyway...
Wilkinson says, "complaining about handouts for poor people sitting on their asses and praising rich people working hard to make civilization possible..." My question is, why do people keep trying to pin libertarianism to complaining about the poor and praising the rich? We stick up for the poor and complain about the rich all the damn time. When the rich get government deals, we complain. When the rich get government handouts, we complain. When the government screws the poor, we complain. When the government makes being poor easy and getting out of poverty difficult, we complain. And a bare minimum of paying attention to what libertarians actually say would bear this out.
So why do so many people get this so completely wrong?
-
The healthcare issue is my reason I dislike libertarianism -private charity can't do it.
I give food to a foodbank once a week, and they are barely able to keep up with the demand.
-
Fuck off canker-blossom
-
I give food to a foodbank once a week, and they are barely able to keep up with the demand.
Due to your withdrawals being significantly larger and more frequent than your deposits.
-
And also once a week, a donate a case of farts in jars to the local methane for kids collection.
-
[PETITION]
Dear Reason:
As we see with our country today, there comes a time when desperate measures are required to save something great from the abusive and horrific forces within. Unfortunately for Hit and Run, today is such a day, and this thread is evidence laid bare.
It is with great solemnity that we request that you bring out the weapon of final resort, the banhammer, upon the skull of the Troll of Many Names who primarily refers to itself as "rather".
Be assured that we do not make this request lightly: indeed we have many resident concern trolls and racist drifters who like to crash our Reason hangouts from time to time. Nor would we ever ask this of someone who genuinely disagrees with us in good faith, or even most people who disagree in bad faith.
No, this is a case where every single time we try to throw a party, one specific uninvited monosynaptic cretin decides to show up and shit in the punchbowl for laffs. And not just a dribble or two - we're talking explosive diarrhea in the punchbowl.
Of course we should feel sorry for its extreme developmental difficulties, its complete lack of social skills or human decency and its extremely explosive bowels. We have tried being reasonable, and we do pity it, but surely almost all Reason regulars have had enough of drinking its worm-filled-shit-flavored punch. All attempts to get it to leave peacefully have been for naught. We can't incif her, because she constantly changes names. It is severely impacting the user experience and dragging Reason down to the depths of total debasement.
If Reason fails to ban her, we will have to consider further free market
-
...alternatives like boycotts, hunger strikes and "Occupy the Jacket's House".
It is a time of great danger. Danger of losing both our country, and our favorite website. Please, Reason, won't you think of the children?
WE ARE THE 99%!!!11!1!
Your humble slave,
Proprietist(Sign below if you agree, comrades.)
-
Below
-
Other H&R commenter collectives in the past have formed register only alternatives to H&R.
The attempt to limit trollish behavior on a public site, however, is probably futile. If somebody lives for the chance to disrupt libertarians talking about the stuff they're interested in, no amount of registration will put an end to that.
We've suffered waves of trolls before. I remember when they were mostly neocons--hating on us for supposedly being terrorist sympathizers and traitors to our country.
We'll weather this too, but we had a few advantages before. One of them was that we didn't pointlessly antagonize the trolls. Doesn't mean we didn't disagree with them, but hammering somebody for being wrong is a lot different from just pointlessly hammering somebody.
MAKING H&R COMMENTERS GO ALL CAPS WITH LISTS OF PERSONAL INSULTS is what trolls live for. Everybody who responds to personal insults like that--even if they're longtime reasonoids--is part of the problem.
i.e., responding to infantile personal attacks rationally is never the cause of the problem and sometimes part of the solution.
There are a number of regular commenters here who I remember originally showed up to denounce us for various things. They didn't go from trolls to participants because everybody emulated their troll behavior.
Some of the intolerance for other people's positions has gotten so bad around here, that people are going after Matt for not being a real libertarian now?!
I'm not directing any of this at Propertist--it's others around here.
Just because somebody doesn't agree with whatever point, doesn't mean it's anybody responsibility to drive them off the site with personal attacks and ridicule.
We're just throwing kerosene on the fire. There are a bunch little kids on this site now, who seem to think libertarianism is somehow a cultural identity--and it's their job to enforce conformity in H&R thought through personal attacks and ridicule.
This has, in turn, created the troll monsters we have with us today. The trolls will always be with us--registration or no registration. If we can't stop ourselves from acting like trolls, we're creating a troll magnet. ...and this thread is what we get.
Some of the people I see complaining about the trolls--are the same people who pile personal insults on anybody who disagrees with them. It's like they think the difference between a troll and a commenter is just whether they agree with that person's comments.
So, I don't blame the trolls we're dealing with now. I blame those Hit & Run regulaors around here who pile personal attacks on anybody--libertarian or otherwise--that doesn't tow whatever that particular Hit Runner imagines is the libertarian line.
Why does anyone feel it necessary to personally attack people for disagreeing with them? I don't know, but the only reason somebody would feel it necessary to return insults for insults is because they're little kids. ...just out of high school.
-
See, I can live with the MNG-John bitchfests, White Indian's off topic anti-civilization drivel, the occasional Max Ron Paul phallic joke, the racist Slappy posts, Tony's disingenuity in his claimed devil's advocacy. It adds character and humor to a site to have a certain number of regular trolls.
I just think Rather, specifically, has a problem or an obsession with making Reason not a fun place to be at. She's not entertaining, adds nothing to the conversation (in fact she destroys it), has a fucking BLOG about the commenters here (WTF?), etc. She's like the stalker intent on destroying your life.
I find Reason to be one of the best forums on the internet and the regulars here are mostly great fun. I've never asked for anyone to be banned, especially not for differences of opinion. Rather has a serious problem, an addiction even, and the banhammer would probably be best for both parties in this specific case.
-
I appreciate all of that. And keeping a blog of people's comments is pretty weird.
But pointlessly antagonizing the weirdness, like some people do, is counter-productive--the effort against the trolling, SCREAMING ACCUSATIONS IN ALL CAPS, is often worse than the trolling itself. ...and provoking those OVERBLOWN reactions is probably the whole purpose of the trolling anyway.
Until people stop reacting inappropriately, things aren't about to get any better. Registration won't help either. If we're dealing with someone, who for some strange reason goes to the trouble of keeping a blog with all our comments, then we're probably dealing with someone who would be unfazed by having to take the time to re-register before making every troll attempt.
Instead of concentrating on trying to make someone strange act like a normal person, I think we should concentrate on what we really can control.
Our own behavior!
We're never gonna get insane people to behave rationally, but we should be able to ask the sane among us not to go all nutty every time the kooks show up.
In a forum where we don't personally attack other people for what they think, this kind of trolling would generally be minimal. And, you know, I don't speak for the Reason Foundation, but it seems to me that the purpose of the site is to get the libertarian message out to the masses--whoever wants to show up.
Matt and KMW and Gillespie and Tim and all the rest are out there invading the airwaves--and every time they hit the air, I bet, people come here to the site to check them and our message out. Some of them come here because they disagree with us--and that's perfect!
We should be more welcoming to people who disagree with us--libertarianism doesn't come to people through prayer or meditation. You gotta talk to people who know something about it if we have any hope of getting the word out at all. I sure as hell didn't always know everything I do now.
And, anyway, in rather's case, it looks to me like she's especially giving it back with interest on what she's been getting. She may be a bit trollish to begin with, but I still think it's our own behavior--from people who should know better--that's pushed the knob on the amp up to eleven.
Just because rather tells us to jump up and down and make fools of ourselves doesn't mean we have to.
-
Oh, I think we should absolutely allow and engage people who disagree with us. Even though they are disingenuous as fuck, I engage Tony and WI all the time, probably out of masochism.
This is not about that at all. This about Rather, who is far more than "a bit trollish".
Look at this thread. It's an embarrassment, and anyone expecting to come here for an honest, rational debate over a liberaltarian alliance has to put up with a pointless fucking 100-post thread about anagrams - that rather has copy-pasted in full at least twice. Inviting everyone to the party doesn't mean we have to put up with someone shitting in the punchbowl and then laughing at us. It won't allow us to ignore it, and every time a rational point starts, she decides to take a fat dump on it.
We've all been very patient, but its making Reason unenjoyable and, like Cartman's BMI, bringing down the net IQ of this place immensely and making the rest of us suffer needlessly.
-
Just for the record, I'm not trying to defend rather specifically.
That behavior is indefensible.
I'm just trying to say that there are people throwing kerosene on that fire (you're not one of them), and that if they stopped doing that, the rather situation would be better than it is.
It's not just rather that gets personally attacked though. When I was talking about John and joe, I didn't mean to compare them to rather. It was meant as an example of good stuff that can happen when we tolerate people who may disagree with us on one point or another...
Lately, I've seen people who apparently consider themselves libertarians go after fellow libertarians in much harsher terms than we used to go after non-libertarians who came around to cause trouble...just a few years ago.
-
"Lately, I've seen people who apparently consider themselves libertarians go after fellow libertarians in much harsher terms than we used to go after non-libertarians who came around to cause trouble"
Oh, this is very true and has been my constant criticism of the libertarian movement and Party. However, this is not a new phenomenon at all. Murray Rothbard poisoned the well, and now if you're not a purist anarchocapitalist paleoconservative, you're not REALLY a libertarian. There's a whole site devoted to the continuation of this mindset (Lew Rockwell), and they particularly hate Reason for exposing Rockwell's role in the Ron Paul newsletters. (Of course, we're the ones that have to put up with Max for some reason...)
Even with the internal bickering, Reason and Cato are definitely the more moderate voices in the movement, which is absolutely critical to growing the movement into something that can actually change things in a libertarian direction.
None of this is contradictory to the argument that we have to do something about Rather. This isn't an ideological or personal disagreement, it's a recognition that she is intent on being as destructive of the enjoyment of this site as possible. Yes, the regulars fuel the fire. But what can we do? We can't ignore her. We can't have a conversation without her interruption. She blogs about commenters like a stalker creep. We have no real choice, and the banhammer would probably be for her own good as well as ours. She has serious issues, an unquenchable addiction to making the best blog on the net into a piece of garbage.
-
....drivel?
When did pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimiate-property, and principled anti-Statism ever become drivel
Are you one of those city-STATISTS, Proprietist?
-
Its off-topic because it specifically has nothing to do with the topic at hand most times you post, and drivel because you refuse to engage in honest debate and distort what libertarians actually believe to make your arguments. Then when you get called on it you disappear.
-
"I can live with the MNG-John bitchfests"
My memory could be faulty, and I'm not saying John's a troll...
But if I remember correctly, when John first started showing up around here, it was to tell us how wrong we all were about the Iraq War.
John's a regular now...according to anybody, right?
Trying to chase John off the site with persistent personal attacks and ridicule would have been a stupid thing to do. Even if John still doesn't agree with us on a lot of things, he's an asset now. He's an interpreter of libertarianism to all his friends, coworkers and family--people who think a lot like he does.
joe was like that too--to a completely different audience. He wasn't a libertarian, but he was an interpreter of libertarians to like minded progressives such as himself. He was a secret agent--secret even to himself.
We lost a big asset when we lost joe.
-
I agree, I'm glad John's still around and I miss Joe, but Rather will never be an asset and she will never contribute anything productive. There's a big distinction between annoying trolls and a sadistic and schizophrenic stalker retard, which Rather somehow manages to be all at once.
-
Not to mention, but who is rather going to "interpret" us to? If it had any friends to talk to, it wouldn't act that way.
It reminds me of a girl who used to live next door. She was a hateful and sniveling creature, so none of the kids in the neighborhood would play with her. She kept trying more and more desperate methods of gaining attention, all of them guaranteed to draw merely negative focus if they were even acknowledged.
Eventually she resorted to throwing rocks, which of course gained her projectiles in return.
-
Please tell me that you have the logic of a 13 year old because you are a 13 year old
-
"Not to mention, but who is rather going to "interpret" us to? If it had any friends to talk to, it wouldn't act that way."
Like I said elsewhere, I'm not defending rather.
I'm attacking those among us who feel it necessary to personally attack people for not towing whatever they perceive as the libertarian group-think.
This is what created the environment that makes rather possible. If people weren't constantly personally attacking each other--rather's antics would find little soil to grow in.
In fact, what rather is doing to the rest of us? Is the flip side of what people are doing to rather.
Again, I'm not defending rather--rather's behavior is indefensible. But it isn't that different from what some of our fellow libertarians are doing to rather.
Spoofing rather's account?! Spewing insults at rather in ALL CAPS?! If we do stuff like that to a weird troll, what do you expect the trolls to do back?
Quote Rothbard?!
-
Take a look at this thread from yesteryear...
http://reason.com/blog/2005/11.....tcontainer
Do you imagine a thread like that is even possible these days?
What's the difference?
There are a few. Some of the worst of my fellow libertarian trolls--who troll outsiders around here today? I suspect many of them were still in junior high when that thread happened.
Some of the people we're dealing with today are little high school kids.
But the other thing is that people respected the idea that just because somebody disagrees with me, doesn't mean mean you have to turn in your decoder ring--or that you're a bad person. We're all pretty much on the same side here.
The other thing is that when people do personally attack each other in those threads back then? We didn't go ballistic with the personal attacks back. Some people would start ignoring each other--and that was a whole lot better than this!
So, yeah, the trolls have always been with us and always will be. The solution isn't trying to make the trolls change and not be trolls anymore--because that will never happen.
The solution is the sane rest of us not overreacting to trolls. The solution is not antagonizing new people around here by attacking them personally just because they don't agree with us. If we cut that out?
More than half of the troll problems would go away.
With White Indian, the more I've engaged with him in a reasonable manner, the better he treats me! We have honest disagreements, and the few times he's called me names have been after other people ganged up on him and antagonized him.
I don't think I've ever had more than one short forgettable altercation with rather either...
Not pointlessly antagonizing people with personal attacks--and not reacting to their personal attacks irrationally, that's the solution to this. That's always been the solution--going back to 2003 at least.
So don't blame the trolls. They'll always be with us. Blame our fellow regulars who pointlessly antagonize the trolls into a frenzy. The existence of trolls may not be the way the world should be, but if that's the way the world is? Then it's our own fault if we don't behave rationally.
-
But let's not pretend it didn't bring the bulk of this on itself. I recall when it first appeared. Anyone who disagreed was instantly flamed with references to their masculinity and genitalia.
-
Oh, I agree with you about the responses. I just sneer and move on.
-
Again, I'm not defending rather--rather's behavior is indefensible.
Tell me what that behavior is?
You're astute enough to recognize I'm spoofed but yet you are personally able to know which remarks to attribute to me?
Either you're a lousy psychic, or you are actually what you critize, and more so, because you claim to know right from wrong-I'm altogether not sure your fellow libertarians have the maturity to know the difference
-
Were you always this goofy, Ken? I seem to remember a non hippie version of you on this forum in years past. What happened, man? And for the love of all that is real, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back by mistaking it for maturing. Something happened there.
-
No, I was never a hippie. Where I came from, calling someone a hippie or a long hair was about the worst thing you could call someone. ...except for maybe "poser".
And like I said, I'll slam someone for being wrong as hard as anyone--probably harder.
But there's a big difference between slamming someone for being wrong--or morally pathetic--and slamming someone just for the sake of slamming.
The Torture Apologist, TARP Supporting, Public Employee Union, Malthusian, Progressive Brigade is still on my list--because they're wrong and immoral.
Not because they're rather. You don't just pointlessly pound on someone and antagonize them just because they're rather.
People who disagree with Ken Shultz should feel welcome to argue with Ken Shultz. Hell, I've learned a lot from people I disagree with around here over the years. I liked this place a lot better when there were more people around who disagreed with me!
Having smart people who disagree with you to scrutinize your thinking--makes you smarter. Sitting in an environment where everyone just personally attacks anyone who disagrees with some imagined party line has the opposite effect.
I want the Hit and Run comment section that used to make me smarter back. ...back from the people who think they're defending it from the trolls but are really making it worse than it would be without their help.
-
Maybe it's a California thing that you'll tolerate even those who try to destroy you. You say you would like the old Hit'n'Run back because it was full of smart conversation, and you say you don't wont a ban on WI, but you can't have both. People are leaving and continuing to leave because we are not all saints (or hippie saints) who'll put up with any damn thing.
-
Yeah, well, obviously if I'm in California, that must explain what's wrong with me...
Actually, I'm from Maryland, went to high school in Virginia.
I do think there's a direct relationship between how intelligent we are about listening to people who disagree with us--and the IQ of the conversation. And it's seems unreasonable to expect an organization that exists to spread the libertarian gospel to the masses--to shut itself off to the general public though banning people and registration?
See! Attack me personally for California (for some reason), and I just respond with reason. I'm not perfect, but being reasonable isn't that hard. ...even when people dismiss your views because of where you live.
-
That is exactly what I would expect a Californian to say.
-
Also, you didn't answer the question concerning what went wrong with you, so you forced me to speculate. You were a rebel angel at one time. You would have been the first to punch WI in the face. By blaming your environment for what it has done to you, I was at least giving you an excuse.
-
I wonder if H/R's posts could have a dustbin with sweep/needs sweeping buttons.
-
That's why end-user filtering is the best option. From the troll's POV, they're able to post their crap, but they don't get any response.
Unfortunately the filters out there right now have easily exploitable weaknesses.
Don't ask me, I'm a mathematician, not a web programmer.
-
No. No bannings. No registration.
If you think this is chaos, wait until this forum's character, flow, and exchange changes for the worse when it loses its free-form nature, and succumbs to the fake, false security of registration. Any idiot troll can register multiple fake IDs, mask their IP, and to pretend otherwise is to just encourage and empower them to become more devious and bide their time waiting for higher stakes opportunities to muck things up.
And the editorial redactions, outright deletions, and hand-wringing that always accompanies moderated/registered comments totally corrupts the forum's content and any semblance of openness or transparency. At least now it's all out in the open, and everyone knows what's going on, and no one - Reason and commenters alike - can pretend otherwise. "No policy" is the best policy.
Many comment forums that suck suck precisely because of the tended-garden effect that registration causes. (DailyKos, BloggingHeads, I'm looking at you) If you want static, curated content, buy the printed magazine and read the letters to the editor. They're boring.
Also, fuck threaded comments.
-
If you want a good example of what you described vis a vis registration, just look at the comment section at Zerohedge. That was an awesome free-flowing exchange at one point, and ever since it went the registration route, the comment sections are extremely turgid, usually dominated by about 10-12 posters.
-
Sounds like MediaMatters. They have roughly the same amount of Divine Truthsayers, and they're all Team Blue.
And, MM uses registration.
-
How could getting rid of Rather, specifically, change the blog for the worse? Did you actually read the comments above (under the names Coeus, ..., Reality, Cry More Bitch, etc)?
I'm not really for or against registration, and I seriously don't want to bring out banhammer. But Rather is like the Josef Mengele of trolls, as I said earlier - insistent on torture and total destruction of our favorite blog on the net. We can't block her or ignore her, and confronting her feeds her ego and makes it worse.
Don't forget, getting banned is a badge of honor for trolls. It says "Yes I did take it to another level." I say we give it to her.
-
Welch wrote a decent self-referential/self-reflective piece about "psychological linchpins" of libertarianism and factionalism, and lo-and-behold, the comment section explodes in self-referential factionalism, ideological quibbling, and various psycho(logical?) outbursts. If you think some trolls messed it up, you're missing out. (What were you pining for anyway - more cosmotarianism vs liberaltarianism vs whocareswhatitscalledarianism circle-jerkery?)
"Did you actually read the comments above (under the names Coeus, ..., Reality, Cry More Bitch, etc)?"
Ha! No. Why, did you??? Did anyone? Do you really think *anyone* actually read them? If they did, they've got much bigger problems than a few trolls. As for me, I have a scroll wheel on my mouse that works pretty well.
"insistent on torture and total destruction of our favorite blog on the net"
What's "rather" destroying or disrupting? A conversation that you wanted to be one way, but others took in another direction? Are "threadjacks" disruptive? Posting too much? Name calling? Hurting people's feelings? Being stupid? What's being destroyed? It's all here - as far as I can tell she can't modify or delete other people's comments.
I recently posted a completely innocuous, non-trollish comment on H&R and a regular rather-feeder responded as though *I* was rather and started a new round of bickering - which she happily joined. I doubt that's the first time that's happened. From what I see, "rather" is responsible for about 10% of the effects attributed to her. The rest is in her detractor's minds and responses, and they (assuming they're not ALL "rather") are getting worked up about a bunch of pixels, and for that, I have to begrudgingly give her high marks. (That said, my favorite H&R commenter/performance artist is/was Hercule Triathlon Savinien.)
This piece of shit thread? This is was the internet is. If you take blogs and blog comments as anything other than a free-form publishing experiment, you're doing it wrong.
-
"Welch wrote a decent self-referential/self-reflective piece about "psychological linchpins" of libertarianism and factionalism, and lo-and-behold, the comment section explodes in self-referential factionalism, ideological quibbling, and various psycho(logical?) outbursts."
I'm not seeing the meta correlation between Matt's coherent difference of opinion with Will Wilkinson, and the devolvement of this thread into pure mental debasement.
"What were you pining for anyway - more cosmotarianism vs liberaltarianism vs whocareswhatitscalledarianism circle-jerkery?"
No, I'm perfectly fine with liberals, conservatives, even communists coming here for a good debate. But this isn't a debate here. This is a skullfucking warzone of idiocy. I think this is the opinion of the stark majority here.
"As for me, I have a scroll wheel on my mouse that works pretty well."
And the fact that she keeps REPOSTING the 100s of posts in worst part of the thread over and over again? Incif and a scroll wheel works fine with regular trolls. Rather is not a regular troll.
"What's "rather" destroying or disrupting? A conversation that you wanted to be one way, but others took in another direction?"
I don't care what direction the conversation goes, as long as it does not devolve to the depths of pure mental debasement. There is one poster who consistently causes this here.
"My favorite H&R commenter/performance artist is/was Hercule Triathlon Savinien."
At least we agree on something.
-
The problem with Kos is that they ban/moderate based on political POV rather than disruptive behavior.
Back when Tim Cavanaugh was in charge of the blog, he frequently deleted comments and banned people, and we never had these problems, but it was an extremely diverse community back then. Probably more so than it is now.
-
Daily Kos sucks because they ignore or bury any story that shows the Obamessiah in a bad light.
-
It is advertised as "news, views, and abuse", so someone has to hold up that end, right?
-
I think this troll(s) is getting out of hand.
While I love blogs, I'm not an expert in all the bells and whistles available in their operation.
I think it would nice to have some sort of dustbin to sweep banned comments into. They actually wouldn't be banned -- they would be "ghettoized." I think this would be a nice form of transparency. Some comments would probably have to be deleted for legal reasons, which is understandable.
I remember reading a thread for a eulogy where a comment from MAX was deleted. This is a situation where I think a lot of readers might be curious to see the comment.
The more I think about registration, the more I'm against it. It might be fine (even preferable) to other blogs, but it does seem to go against the title and spirit of "Hit and Run."
-
...alternatives like boycotts, hunger strikes and "Occupy the Jacket's House".
It is a time of great danger. Danger of losing both our country, and our favorite website. Please, Reason, won't you think of the children?
Your humble slave,
Proprietist(Sign below if you agree, comrades.)
-
I didn't do it.
Some libertarian(s) can't stand my challenge to to their religio-economic dogma, and decide to shit up the place to force registration.
Fine, I'll register. I'm consistently pro-freedom and anti-regulation, pro-legitimate-property, and anti-State.
It's hard imagining why that's a problem.
-
I did it.
-
Free range comments for armchair anarchists, libertarians, neobarbarians, Reds and Blues, and (ugh) tiny-minded statists who dare to disagree! The Koch boys have thick skin and probably rarely read these comments -- and the editors very rarely ban comments. Something positive in a world filled with negativity.
Anyone is being funny to even suggest registration. And WI isn't usually funny ha ha. Many posters would disappear rather than register. Jaunty Golfer Obama and BushPig Obama wouldn't register, much less Stalinist Cunt Napolitano.
Mother Soros and Daily Soros require registration but look at the little Statists who run them, and try to make sense of an "Occupy" site, most of which are shut down heavy so only "the one percent of the 99%" can slam an opinion.
-
-
• I'm consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.
• I bring incontrovertible evidence from anthropology and archeology that the workings of the State are an inseparable part of the agricultural-city-State. The only people upset are those city-Statists who must cling to their dear dogmas by avoiding reality.
• If you think I'm repetitive, I only bring up the agricultural-city-State when somebody is pissing and moaning about the State. Complaining about the State, but loving the city-State (civilization) is like complaining about noise, but loving jets.
• Don't respond to me if you can't grasp the simple truth that civilization is the aggressor. It's like I'm at a Boeing company picnic, and people are complaining about the noise ruining the picnic, and when I mention the noise is an integral part of the jets flying above, they go apeshit on me.
• I change my name, not to cause confusing, because other people steal it and deliberately spread disinformation under my name, thus I was given a private incentive by libertarians to use the "name" as a "header."
• I'm all for registration too. Libertarians here act like a bunch of angry fundamentalist when I've pointed out to them that the Hebrew priestcraft plagiarized Ugaritic clay tablets written 600+ years before the Torah. Lots of emotion and froth, not much Reason. Seems that some libertarians are quite willing to shit up their own comment sections, and then try to falsely blame the bringer of the truth.
-
We are always trying to reduce the noise of our jet engines. We are min-noisists.
-
Fine, Mr. Boeing, I understand. But...
• Don't claim you hold to a zero-noise "principle."
• Don't petulantly continue calling everybody else "damn noisists."
• Realize that you're just like every other flavor of jet advocate, just like the Marxist and Socialist and NeoCon noisemakers.
-
STFU and agree with me, you-- you-- computer-user!
-
Luckily, WI has the good example to follow of libertarians who constantly moan about public roads, schools, and welfare programs -- and never use them.
-
Dude, suck my dick.
You have never once in your fucking idiotic posts talked about the Ugaritic sources of the Old Testament.
Are you trying to convince people that you're a sockpuppet of mine or something?
Blow me asshole.
This is the kind of insidious nonsense that should get you banned.
And also, the real reason you keep changing your name is because you know that people using the Reasonable extension on Chrome can block your posts if you use a consistent name.
So there we have two obvious lies in your little Manifesto. (Even if I may have missed some Old Testament post of yours - which I doubt - there is absolutely no doubt available about why you're changing your name, so we can know with a certainty that at least that one statement is a lie.) Why shouldn't we believe that your other little bullet points are all lies too?
-
I'm not sure why this Ugaritic stuff matters to you so much, I meant it as illustrating an analogy that Libertarians = Fundamentalist crazies.
But you provide opportunity to prove that you are a damn poor liar, just like the Fundamentalist Crazies, Fluffy. I did indeed once talk about the Ugaritic sources of the Old Testament.
White Indian|8.26.11 @ 12:02PM|#
Christian, pro-life beliefs
Now that's a stretch.
Anybody who believes that an innocent virgin human must be slaughtered in a bloody sacrifice on a Roman torture device, so as to appease a Bronze-age Ugaritic sky-god plagiarized by the Hebrew priestcraft who claimed their gOD commanded the kidnapping, sexual humiliation, and forcible rape of "comely" female war captives,* ain't pro-life.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/08.....tcontainerAnd I'd keep "White Indian" all day -- I'd prefer that -- if it hadn't been stolen and some libertarians use it to shit all over the comment section -- and then blame me.
-
Libertarians here act like a bunch of angry fundamentalist when I've pointed out to them that the Hebrew priestcraft plagiarized Ugaritic clay tablets written 600+ years before the Torah.
I don't see any debate at that link about the topic at all. Where are the libertarians acting like fundamentalists about it?
You got me - I missed your use of a throwaway line. But your post is claiming that you argued here with libertarians who freaked out about it, and I would have noticed that, if it had actually happened.
I'm bitching about it because, unlike you, I have actually had discussions here about that very topic, and when you claim to incorporate it in your babbling and trolling it might make someone think that we're the same poster.
And I'd keep "White Indian" all day -- I'd prefer that -- if it hadn't been stolen and some libertarians use it to shit all over the comment section -- and then blame me.
I just don't believe you, sorry. It's obvious to everyone that you keep modulating your shields because the Reasonable Borg will block you otherwise.
I'd have less contempt for you if you would just admit it.
Just say, "Hey, fuck you, Fluffy! I'm not going to let you block my posts! I'm going to keep changing my name so you have to see them. Don't like it? Too damn bad, don't come here any more!"
That would be honest and I'd have to concede that your point was well taken. But you just have to lie. That's too bad.
-
But your post is claiming that you argued here with libertarians who freaked out about it
I didn't claim that; you are making up bullshit.
I'll clarify.
When I've mentioned the Ugaritic origins of Hebrew scriptures among Fundamentalists (not here on Reason), Fundamentalists freak out.
This freaking-out is analogous to Libertarians freaking out when I mention that the State is an integral, inseparable aspect of the agricultural city-State.
You keep your contempt of me. I don't value the admiration of the ignorant.
I suspect you've used the White Indian name in an attempt to falsely discredit it, thus your petulant focus on my switch to using the "name" as a "header."
-
Blah blah blah bitch bitch bitch moan moan moan.
-
At least WI has good company.
-
Daddy never hugged me.
-
-
.
-
Tribal elders, may I sit in on your council and pickle you every two minutes? Hey, hand me! Whatdya mean yer gonna shit me up for good?! My books say yer not violent.
-
My books say yer not violent.
Incorrect.
Domestication > Agriculture > Civilization intensify violence.
-
Hey, disgruntled tribe members, can you depict my lynching on an animal skin or something. Wanna make sure future scholars don't get a false impression of our society.
-
If folks want to "own" a name, would they pay for it? Paid registration, subscription? Maybe the editors would allow ego-stroking avatars, too.
That being said, there is a lot of claim-jumping on names, but grass on a free range? The famous names live even when gone: Lonewacko? Learn to live with chaos. The world is not always an orderly place.
-
I don't care to "own" it. You have it if you want.
Some Liberards were taking WI and using it to spread disinformation. If you agree with that, have all of it you want too. It's so reasonable.
-
It's claiming to be the victim of disinformation. So cute'n'fuzzy!
-
My science, what a clusterfuck.
-
Tragedy of the Commons.
We need a market-based solution.
-
You could always hire those nice cyber goons from Kazakhstan you were telling me about, JW. You know, the ones with the granny panty babooshka pr0n. They will work on the cheap, at least before the next QE.
-
Here's one big reason why Wilkinson is a dick:
The fact that he has any sympathy for OWS at all means that his statement that the Tea Party employs "populist paranoia" should properly be estopped. (That one's for the fans of estoppel out there.) The main OWS critique of American society - "The big banks are evilly conspiring to make us poor" has to be populist paranoia, if the Tea Party critique of American society - "Big government is conspiring with rent-seeking corporations and individuals to make us poor" - is.
And how in holy fucking hell can the Tea Party be accused of "hyperventilating rhetoric" if OWS is not? The Tea Party called for policy solutions that were extreme, but still possible within our current governing context. OWS is calling for total Communist transformation and fundamental constitutional transformation. How can the Tea Party be guilty of hyperventilating rhetoric if OWS is not?
-
Fluffy
WW is the cosmotarian I always jokingly accuse the Reason writers if being. The Tea Party is guilty and the OWS isn't because WW culturally identifies with the OWS. That is really all there is to it.
And how can any who advises tearing things up and spitting on people accuse anyone else of extremist rhetoric? Go head Will. There are bankers and cops all over DC. What is stopping you?
-
The intellectual spawn of Will Wilkinson: Violent OWS Protester Arrested At McDonald's, After Refused Free Food
-
HE'S JUST FORAGING OFF OF THE LAND, YOU BASTARDS!!!
-
The foraging part, or the window-kicking part?
BTW, that line was from this song:
-
The foraging part, or the window-kicking part?
BTW, that line was from this song:
-
Give a man a free house, and he'll kick out the windows...
-
-
The foraging part, or the window-kicking part?
BTW, that line was from this song:
-
One difference between the Occupyists and the Tea Party is that the latter makes more coherent statements in public about what it believes.
I am here at Americans for Prosperity's tea party summit in DC, and a pathetically small group of Occupy people decided to park their 30 or 40 behinds in the middle of a major intersection at 7th St and New York Ave (tweet pic at brucezmajors). they didn't do this while Romney was pitching woo or Cain was cracking jokes about being the Koch brothers' brother from another mother, or even when David Koch appeared. They did it during Judge Andrew Napolitano's speech on the evils of the Patriot Act, to a room full of tea partiers at dinner who probably didn't all agree with him. One loon even got in and shouted incoherent gibberish, one person thought about Thomas Jefferson, at Napolitano. Apparently the Occupiers are dumb enough to let loose during a presentation one would have thought they might agree with. D U M B
-
Guess I should stick my comment after the 1st iteration of this one, although the 3rd looked tempting!
Bruce, I think you're old enough to remember whose events the Spartacus Youth League ("the Sparts") and, to a lesser extent, the Revolutionary Communist Party chose to disrupt. I think you're a little too young to remember the Nat'l Caucus of Labor Committees' -- LaRouchies' -- similar tactic. It is typical on the "left" to attempt "glomunism", or, next "best", disruption, of those who come closest to the same message you want to project. After all, they're your closest competition. That's because with these movement types it stops being about having allies and becomes about intrigue. They don't want friends, they want lackeys.
-
One difference between the Occupyists and the Tea Party is that the latter makes more coherent statements in public about what it believes.
I am here at Americans for Prosperity's tea party summit in DC, and a pathetically small group of Occupy people decided to park their 30 or 40 behinds in the middle of a major intersection at 7th St and New York Ave (tweet pic at brucezmajors). they didn't do this while Romney was pitching woo or Cain was cracking jokes about being the Koch brothers' brother from another mother, or even when David Koch appeared. They did it during Judge Andrew Napolitano's speech on the evils of the Patriot Act, to a room full of tea partiers at dinner who probably didn't all agree with him. One loon even got in and shouted incoherent gibberish, one person thought about Thomas Jefferson, at Napolitano. Apparently the Occupiers are dumb enough to let loose during a presentation one would have thought they might agree with. D U M B
-
One difference between the Occupyists and the Tea Party is that the latter makes more coherent statements in public about what it believes.
I am here at Americans for Prosperity's tea party summit in DC, and a pathetically small group of Occupy people decided to park their 30 or 40 behinds in the middle of a major intersection at 7th St and New York Ave (tweet pic at brucezmajors). they didn't do this while Romney was pitching woo or Cain was cracking jokes about being the Koch brothers' brother from another mother, or even when David Koch appeared. They did it during Judge Andrew Napolitano's speech on the evils of the Patriot Act, to a room full of tea partiers at dinner who probably didn't all agree with him. One loon even got in and shouted incoherent gibberish, one person thought about Thomas Jefferson, at Napolitano. Apparently the Occupiers are dumb enough to let loose during a presentation one would have thought they might agree with. D U M B
-
"One difference between the Occupyists and the Tea Party is that the latter makes more coherent statements in public about what it believes."
Like "get your government hands off my Medicare!"?
-
Yes, and isn't it important they delineate the bounds of their demands like that?
-
Everybody. Get help.
-
I wanna give raw vegan diet a serious go this time!!! I need to go raw so badly! I haven't even been feeling like myself lately never mind the best, healthiest version of myself
-
I wanna give raw vegan diet a serious go this time!!! I need to go raw so badly! I haven't even been feeling like myself lately never mind the best, healthiest version of myself
-
Remember, remember
The fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot. -
Awesome!
Get help. -
Remember, remember
the fifth of November
The trolling of reason a lot
I know of no reason
Why the trolling of reason
Should ever be forgot.FTFY
-
This thread is bad and you should all feel bad. I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes even attempting to read this crap.
This is why we can't have nice things.
-
The responses to the trolls are getting as bad as the trolls. This place needs an exterminator. Rather or Orin or whoever the fuck it is is destroying the site. They just need to stop taking the bait
-
The responses to the trolls are getting as bad as the trolls.
But you won't call them trolls, because you hate the truth White Indian brings (which you call trolling) into the comments.
How's that working out for you?
-
But you won't call them trolls, because you hate the truth White Indian brings (which you call trolling) into the comments.
You mean the truth that White Primitard wouldn't take up someone's gamboling offer when it was handed to him?
-
It brings truth? Since when has it posted any truth?
-
Orin or whoever the fuck it is is destroying the site
Most forums are hopelessly narcissistic and pointless. It just took a while for this one to reach critical mass. But I have the solution: Ignore-a-Troll Day! Hahahaha!
-
Try reading this on a tablet. Ricockulous.
-
Hooooley fuckin' hell. Is this Occupy Hit & Run?
-
How's that, Wallie?
-
It's the only real logical result.
We've always had trolls, but these new trolls, specifically the rather/WI duo (if it is indeed a duo and not 1 person as many suspect), only aim to basically bring any decent and productive conversation to a complete stop. They don't seek to join the conversation, but dictate it with inanities and pure gibberish. There is no intent on discussing anything.
Not too different from the OWS nonsense.
-
Frankly, I really wish White Indian was a hell of a lot more serious because I actually enjoy debating well-studied anarchoprimitivists. The problem is that every time you point out his philosophy's complete lack of praxis as proven by his own hypocrisy, and the lack of conflict between libertarianism and primitivism, he scurries away.
-
Not to mention the fact that he's a one note wonder. If he only brought up his idiocy in the comments of posts that were at least somewhat tangentially related to his rants, it might not be as bad; instead, he shits all over the place, saying the same fucking things over and over.
-
I fulfilled my masochistic tendencies today by reading both Kathleen Parker and David Brooks. They had essentially the same theme, anti-government and anti-capitalist types are equally culpable for Our National Crises because they refuse to accept the wisdom of moderate centrist. I just fucking love it when these two mamby pambies pretend Bush wasn't their ideal guy, or pretend the Beltway is not still firmly controlled by their ideological brethren. It just warms the heart to see them on that creaky old treadmill pushing forward for the third way cause.
-
Government for me, but not for thee.
-
Strawman for me, but not for thee.
-
Sure. Come in. Thread on my post. Go ahead. Shit anywhere you like. I don't fucking care. Just drag your mangy ass across the carpet. It's a foreclosure anyway.
-
the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is founded on something like the assumption that individuals are caught in a web of socio-economic forces upon which only the collective action of organized class interests have any influence.
It would be more honest to phrase this thusly:
"the Occupy Wall Street movement is founded on the assumption that individuals who blame their unhappiness on vague philosophical constructs like 'a web of socio-economic forces' ought to gang up and vilify and hopefully use politics to pillage successful people, rather than getting off their arse and using their intelligence to create something of value and get what they desire in return.
-
I think a lot of them are just confused and ignorant.
They see the world through their own biases, and if I could change their biases with a snap, I'd do so.
...but most of them mean well. Again, they imagine that it's this monolithic faceless 1% that's doing all the damage to the rest of us. They imagine that the damage they want to do will only be suffered by the 1%, who have no right to the money they stole anyway.
They're just confused about the facts of what happened in 2008 and 2009, what the government's role in all of this was, and what the likely consequences would be of what they're advocating.
They think that cranking up taxes on the highest 1% of wage earners, for instance, will create more jobs--I'm almost positive that's what they think!
It's like the old Shakespearean actor's trope--that when you're playing a villain, remember that no villain ever imagines himself a villain. He's just trying to do whatever he thinks is best. I suspect parasites are like that too--very few of them think of themselves as parasites.
Helping them realize what parasites they are is probably the solution to them acting like villains, but I'm not sure we can reach them--or the people who sympathize with them--if we don't at least acknowledge that their intentions are good.
-
...Are like erectors of barbed-wire fences on the free range.
-
All your gambol are belong to us.
Somebody set us up the City-State.
-
and gambol where the bison used to roam, nakedly across the Dakota plains in winter time.
-
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...and provide for the...general Welfare of the United States.
Sincerely,
The ConstitutionP.S. Problem?
-
See how that piece of paper works?
-
constitutional???
-
In your fevered imagination?
-
no, 98.6% tax, okay!
-
oh, shut up!!
-
oh, shut up!
-
...for city-Statism (civilization.)
-
-
-
Get help.
-
Oh, snap! It found "general welfare" and thinks the phrase means "whatever we decide welfare to be, dole it out and squeeze anyone who makes over 200K a year to pay for it".
-
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare' ... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views ... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event ... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
-
REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION!
PublicServiceAdmin
412,764 views
2,560 likes, 636 dislikes
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0Lest we be accused of misrepresenting their views, actual Libertarians have been kicking around this take on Somalia with a straight face for some time now. No shit:
mises.org/story/2066A more nuanced completely insane view is that Somalia has been awesome-ized by Anarchism, not Libertarianism.
reason.com/blog/show/117519.html -
Golly! Now it's defending any and all social programs because of the magical "general welfare" snippet!
What it fails to recognize, though, is the more government spends on welfare, the farther away we get from that time when people could wander into the teepees of total strangers and shit on their dirt floors.
Quite the quandary.
-
...which explains why we have so many welfare programs, let alone welfare recipients...
-
God knows WE never fuck up and make shitty decisions! We're ALWAYS right!
-
our [insert your favorite] rights!
soo....
How's that working out for you?
-
What's it saying now?
-
Want to join White Indian's Non-State* Society?
How's that "WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS" Libertarian bullshit working out for you?
* NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf -
It thinks it has the answer to life's problems. How fucking hilarious.
-
I knew he was a Statist.
-
...am I free to shit on any living-room floor I choose?
-
Besides, I'm not an officer.
-
We view "general welfare" as "whatever welfare program we can either create or just increase funding on, that gets us more votes".
Sweet, huh? We scare the fuck out of poor people, they vote for us, we stay in power and laugh at them in our cushy multi-million dollar homes.
-
What meaning does the Constitution of a city-state have to a Primitivist mouth-breather like Blanca Idiota?
-
-
Wasn't that the salty ham tears thread?
-
Greatest worst thread ever.
-
Jest. Nice find.
-
Every weekend thread is getting progressively worse. And that link was great.
-
A question Jon Stewart posed the other day in response to this platitude: what do we do with the losers?
Stewart could start by not being a condescending wealthy leftist a-hole, and stop labeling those less successful than him as "losers".
You don't have to have lots of money to be happy, you just have to lose the illusion that stealing money via government is going to lead to happiness and fulfillment.
"We" don't have to do anything about the "losers". Happiness can not be achieved collectively. It is up to each individual to figure out how that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing actually works.
-
A question Jon Stewart posed the other day in response to this platitude: what do we do with the losers?
It's his fucking audience; let him wipe their smelly little bottoms for 'em, if he's genuinely concerned.
-
It is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115:16), "has given the earth to the children of men," given it to mankind in common.
~ John Locke
Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690)
Book II, CHap 5:
Of Property -
You feel responsible; you do something about it.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.
-
Now it's justifying fusion of church and state.
That White Idiot, it's quite the contradiction of itself. It hates civilization, and yet continues to defend it. Probably can't whittle Xanax out of tree bark, either.
-
You just gotta grin at the sheer, balls-out cluelessness inherent in attempting to trump reasoned argument -- on a libertarian board, no less! -- by means of a (literal) "Hail Mary" pass, via a plummy, self-serving recitation from the Book of Psalms. ;)
-
-
"To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism."
The Right to Property
by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005
http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-property/So why do Libertarians believe in the divine right to property? Isn't the notion as silly as the divine right of kings?
-
Now it's equating simple home ownership to "divine right of kings".
What a fucktard it is.
-
Not me, Locke did.
How's that reading comprehension, FIFY? LOL
-
Now it's claiming to understand Locke.
-
It knows nothing of my work.
-
Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.
Fuck off, White Frolicker.
-
Good find, AC.
-
are in it together, but not everybody else....
-
...where you have to pay for Libertarian air rights to breath?
-
"to breath"
stOOpid.
-
Really funny shit!
They never have read Locke at all.
Lockesian property rights = divine right to property.
Which is about as silly as the divine right of kings.
Deal with it, boys. Rage on!
-
I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights.
Oh, for fuck's sake.*
*I guess I owe Warty a nickel.
-
Now, wait. I don't think Wilkinson is totally off base on that.
I think the problem comes in the phrase "rightful liberty".
I certainly think that people can be less free as the result of diffuse cultural forces. Problem is that "rights" are a construction of the state and by definition can only be violated by positive actions of other people.
Let's assume that we're leaving out "positive rights" which IMO are internally contradictory and unenforceable.
So leaving aside LEGAL rights, yes, people can be constrained in ways that are socially unjust by diffuse social and cultural forces. See what happens to women in Muslim communities in Europe, for instance. They have to live in a culture in which there is a threat of social osctracism if they behave improperly.
That said, I don't thibnk the socialion to that ought to lie through any state-based method. Cultural and social issue are things that must be addressed by bringing about change in the culture and cannot be imposed through force.
-
The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
Pat Sullivan, AP
Output of carbon into the atmosphere increased 6% from 2009 to 2010.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.
[. . .]
"The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said Thursday. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world."
In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.
Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.
Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme."How do they say this shit with a straight face anymore? The IPCC's models are designed to be accurate in the future but not now. WTF?
-
When I saw "643 Comments", I knew it was going to be a complete shitfest.
Why can't they get the squirrels to bury the nuts?
-
It's like a wind-up monkey incessantly banging its cymbals.
-
I just want to bang on the drums all day.
-
So we need to kill the Gamboler!!!
This is a Libertarian website, for LOCKE'S SAKE.
Anyway, boys, how's that divine right of property working out for you?
Going to church tomorrow?
-
How's that gamboling working out for you, primitard?
Going to the woods tomorrow?
-
It wouldn't last ten minutes in the woods.
-
That's why he LOVES the city-STATE, the little bootlicker.
-
Oh, I could go twenty minutes in the woods.
But at least *I* don't go around claiming to LIVE there.
-
Advantage in Somalia
Brian Doherty | December 27, 2006
http://reason.com/blog/2006/12.....e-in-somalFIFY, they've reserved a libertarian spot just for you.
-
It is not a travel agent, and I have no interest in buying one of its imaginary trips to fourth-world hellholes.
"You firsr, Sparky."
-
-
Can't live the shackbrah lifestyle, White Primitard?
-
my roomate's sister-in-law makes $81/hr on the internet. She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her income was $8779 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read about it on this site NuttyRichdotcom
-
My roommate's sister-in-law's cousin Jamie has herpes.
-
I got int a car wreck with a guy who once met the great-nephew of the guy who lived next door to Russell Johnson, who played The Professor on "Gilligan's Island".
-
I knew a guy who collected used colostomy bags and stalked Wayne Newton, even getting a picture with Wayne before the guy went loco. That's Wayne "Mr. Vegas" Newton, singer of "Dankeschoen" for those not in the know.
-
Wow... "used colostomy bags" reminds me of White Indian.
-
-
Out of curiosity, how did he store them? As-is or cleaned out?
-
-
Did something attempt to perpetrate a witty bon mot?
-
Last night I watched 'The Magic Bus', a two hour documentary about Ken Kesey's acid fueled road trip around America.
Near the end of it is a scene where they show Barry Goldwater saying 'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice', and the shot of the Atomic bomb commercial. Wierd an incongruous as this was. In the next scene they begin talking about how the conservatives were scared of the hippies and how society was changing.
My mind was blown. Instantly I realized: These people had no fucking idea what Barry Goldwater was afraid of. He was against Soviet Communism, not hippies. He did not give A SHIT about hippies.
And then, I thought, how the fuck could a bunch of hippies who had just been discussing how liberating it was to experiment with psychadelic drugs take a statement like "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", as an anti-hippie statement?
The only way you can explain that. The ONLY WAY, is that these people had some preexisting irrational prejudice with respect to everything labeled 'conservative', that made them completely fucking incapable of understanding what Barry Goldwater was ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT.
-
...and most everybody else unlike him, like most of the extreme Right Wing Nuts.
Since when doesn't individual initiative + free enterprise + militant anti-communism = get a haircut and get a real job, ya damn longhaired hippy?
-
/feed
/goldwater vermin
/shit
Easy.
Da, comrade? -
What's NOT to hate about communism?
-
/feed
/FIFY-COMMIE-LOVER vermin
/shit
Easy.
Da, comrade? -
Now it's claiming some love on my part for communism.
God, this thing is stupid.
-
"what's not to hate about communism" =/= "commie-lover"
Fail.
-
I think maybe it fails to understand what actual Soviet Political Offcials would have done with actually Hippies had any of them actually existed in the USSR.
-
That is possible, Hazel. It does only seem to be able to cut/paste, not actually *understand* things.
-
..to understand Communism isn't much different that Capitalism.
Zero difference to a gamboler.
Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest, to live a Non-State Society lifeway?
MARX: NO!
GOLDWATER: NO!What you whitewash as "property rights" is a big-government Land enTitlement program to restrict the free movement of free families foraging on the Land; i.e., Strict Gambol Lockdown.
-
Guess it told you off, Hazel. Glove-slapped by a twat who can cut and paste shit it doesn't understand fully, while claiming to be the bestest hunter/gatherer on the entire planet.
-
Tribal members, you don't mind if I don't follow our tribal customs, dress, and skip out on our manhood initiation rituals and raids of neighboring tribes. Oh, you do mind?
-
Kelly Thomas, the hippy looking guy, ya know.
USA = USSR
-
-
For the love of
money[POLIS' property values] is the root of allevil[POLICe brutality.Can't have long-haired hooligans and bums on the street in the USA/USSR shitting up the city-STATE.
How do I know?
Rothbard told me so.
Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, ... unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? ~Murray Rothbard
-
Officer, am I free to shit on that woman's poodle?
-
Shit anywhere you want, man. That's what we're HERE for.
-
Just don't shit anywhere on *my* property... but I'm right there with you brave souls. Except monetarily. And don't step foot on my private plane, either.
-
Officer, am I free to eat all of Michael Moore's ham?
-
But there is a difference:
• Legitimate property, stuff one needs to survive or personally enjoys, honored for hundreds of thousands of years by non-state society.
• Statist-enforced abstract ownership of Earth's resources well beyond what the "owner" can personally use or enjoy.
-
Tribal Chief, do you really personally use and enjoy all that tribute? Is it really making you happy?
-
One suspects it is full of shit.
-
Since when doesn't individual initiative + free enterprise + militant anti-communism = get a haircut and get a real job, ya damn longhaired hippy?
Since when does being a hippie mean you're forbidden from having a job, showing individual initialitive, or hating statism?
Seems to me that loving individual liberty is a core hippie value. Note that if any of them lived in the USSR they would have been shot or sent to a gulag within a week.
-
Since when did anyone in a Non-State Society ever have a goddamned "Job?"
Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with litte or no assistance from outside sources.
NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf -
Generating one's own subsistence certainly sounds like free enterprise and individual initiative to me ...
-
-
_faculty.smu.edu_ and employees of such.
-
Reason.com and employees of such.
You got it now.
-
Now it thinks Reason = Fullerton cops who beat Kelly Thomas to death.
It is REALLY bringin' the stOOpid today.
-
Why can't we just take stuff from other people? That's PROPERTY! And PROPERTY is immoral! But stealing isn't!
Officer, am I free to amble?
-
Officer, am I free to sashay across dance floor and Starbucks lobby?
-
I like where you're headed!
-
I've answered your questions on the difference between:
• Legitimate property, stuff one needs to survive or personally enjoys, honored for hundreds of thousands of years by non-state society.
• Statist-enforced abstract ownership of Earth's resources well beyond what the "owner" can personally use or enjoy.
-
It still thinks it has the right to shit in our living rooms, no matter what it says to the contrary.
-
If Goldwater had been elected, there would not have been an escalated Vietnam war. But a "scary right-winger" would have been president.
-
What political party escalated the war in Vietnam?
Hint: It starts with a "D".
-
Goldwater had a more balanced head on his shoulders than most D's and R's. I think that would have led him to a non-interventionist approach.
-
Do not feed the Goldwater troll.
-
Hazel is not a troll.
-
/feed
/FIFY vermin
/shit
Easy.
Da, comrade? -
Now it's comparing itself to a Soviet official, which may be the most-coherent thing it has said to date.
-
/feed
/FIFY vermin
/shit
Easy.
Da, comrade?©2011 sevo | All fights reserved, without prejudice.
-
...goes around.
-
One can only hope.
-
...and you don't like it.
-
/feed
/OFF TOPIC vermin
/shit
Easy.
Da, comrade? -
-
-
Occupy Lansing (and Grand Rapids) report.
With November in Michigan comes chilly weather and frost. The 'occupy' spot in Grand Rapids has dwindled to near nothing.
I was in Lansing at 8:00 this morning, dropping my wife off for some legal test (no, not the bar). Outside temp was 32 degrees with heavy frost on all the windshields. I drove by the capitol steps and didn't see anyone. I then drove by the 'Occupy Lansing' camp. There were still plenty of tents and banners up, but I didn't see a single living soul. I'm guessing they are staying somewhere else overnight.
-
Fucking Occutard pussies. They don't *really* believe in The Cause, if they're not willing to live in a tent around-the-clock.
-
Assigning housing now.
Da, Comrade.
-
It assumes I have the authority to assign housing.
Where DOES it come up with this shit?
-
I have the authority to assign housing. ~Mr. FIFY
Da, Comrade.
-
Now it's taking sentences out of context, which is also *lying*... and did it not bitch about others lying about IT, just recently?
-
For the record, I don't ever want any kind of political power.
Not that I couldn't use it properly... I just wouldn't want to be part of the system. Too much weirdness in Congress.
Not the good kind of weird, either.
-
LOL
Smack that!
-
George $oros and the Barack Obama 2012 reelection campaign.
-
Now it thinks it was *actually* the victim of lying.
-
wahhhh
White Indian spanked me!
-
Its concept of the truth is highly overrated.
-
After reading this comment thread, I now know how the Dude felt after they peed on his carpet.
-
White Indian would pee on that carpet AND claim a right to carpet-peeing.
-
am I free to gambol across the carpeting?
-
If it's YOUR rug, you can pee on it all you want.
White Idiot, OTOH, thinks it can pee on any carpet it chooses.
-
Assigning capitalist pee pee jobs.
Da, comrade.
-
It's reminding me of used colostomy bags again... as in "usefulness thereof".
-
Really?
-
We have a big sale coming up! Be sure to take advantage of HUGE savings on our wide selection of quality used colostomy bags!
-
-
Dude, the White Indian is not the issue here.
-
It peed on my fucking rug, Walter.
-
Since I do not believe in the concept of private property, I am free to pee on any rug I choose.
To believe otherwise, is Communism.
-
Apparently, I told White Indian it's okay to defecate in the living room of total strangers.
Don't ask me how he figured that out... I'm dead.
-
If I'm not free to pee on anyone's rugs whenever I feel like it, whether they mind or not, then, then...
...the city state's restricting my freedoms OMGZ!
-
Once again, it metaphorically shits on the concept of private property.
If it told us where it lives, would any of us be free to shit on its living-room floor?
-
I doubt WI would tell us on the off-chance we'd subject her to what she'd like to do to us.
Pissing on the rug is something White Indian wants exclusive rights to.
-
White Indian Embraces Property.
Read below, you STATIST LIAR FIFY.
-
Watch this, JMW... I'll say something totally innocuous, like this sentence... and it will attempt to turn it into something fitting its worldview.
-
Wow... it dropped the ball. Maybe it couldn't twist a completely non-political post into something fitting its worldview.
-
White Indian embraces property, legitimate property, as human have for hundreds of thousands of years.
White Indian embraces the capitalist and libertarian justification of property; i.e., the things and resources that are necessary to human survival.*
White Indian rejects the bait-and-switch chicanery that capitalists engage in:
BAIT: I need to own some things on earth as property that I need to survive.
SWITCH: I need to own whole bunches more than would ever be needed to survive.
P.S. Question:
• How do the 1% need 40% of the wealth to survive?
• How do the 10% need 85% of the wealth to survive?
________________
* ...if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own [property]... ~Murray Rothbard* [Property] Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. ~Ayn Rand
-
Thank you
-
Stop feeding the trolls
-
Hahahahaha!
-
Newark Police Department
-
The left are not social liberals.
They had the house the senate and the presidency and they did not pass shit towards social liberalization.
Instead we got Obamacare, stimulas, chastised about guns and religion, and fried food taken out of school lunches.
The left are simply statist culture warriors with a different social agenda then the right.
-
Don't forget how Team Blue blowing the chance to shitcan at least the worst bits of the Patriot Act...
-
Don't forget how Team Red brought the the worst bits of the Patriot Act...
-
What it fails to remember is... Team Blue added to AND approved the so-called Patriot Act.
Stupid people did stupid shit.
-
Or do they want to gambol in a Non-State sociopolitical typology with White Indian?
Can you clarify what you mean by Statist, Joshua Cornholing?
NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf -
Indeed, remember how gay rights, civil liberties, and even abortion rights were sacrificed to pass the healthcare bill?
That pretty much tells you what their priprities are.
Socialized health care >>>> gay marriarge, civil liberties, war, torture, abortion,
I'm not even going to include drug legalization for them. It isn't even on the map.
-
Maybe the editors cower from WI because he is in fact Charlie Koch gone nuts. Never got over your split with your mentor, eh Chuck?
-
Thank you
-
I'm glad all of you are distracted. You are paying no attention to my secret wars and assassinations. Soon the NWO will control Africa. "Great Job, Mission Accomplished" to the trolls. You will be rewarded with more than your share of lollipops.
Watch your neighbor and report him if he is over-watering his lawn.
-
First, I have posted only twice on this thread. All other rather posts are not mine, registration would be self-beneficial; but I lean towards unencumbered speech;
The trolling of my name is a little game played 6 of the regulars & a few others who are not part of the email chain but enjoy the noise; and I NEVER MAKE AN ACCUSATION WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
I've made no secret I'm a writer, and I enjoy a contemplative discussion of topics; for this Reason, I use quotes from posts. Read here for an explanation
-
