Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

[Ed Anger]

This thread:

[Berkut]

You start by accusing libertarians of being fascists, or motivated by fascists, or in bed with fascists (ior whatever ridiculous equating to fascism you are currently pretending was your intent all along), and then you are all butthurt that someone calls you insane?

You don't get to accuse those you don't like of being fascists, THEN demand "rational" discourse.

[derspiess]

Clearly Obama is going to regret making that clever comment he made during the debate, if he isn't already.

Doubt he's losing much sleep over it.

[derspiess]

[I'd say there are more "false libertarians" then real ones.

I bet you would.  I suppose it depends on how high of a bar you set.  I don't agree with every single position the Libertarian Party takes, but would 75% be enough for me to call myself libertarian?  Or can I call myself a libertarian-conservative?  Or can I say I'm a conservative with libertarian tendencies?  Or should I make you guys happy by putting on a black shirt and calling myself a fascist?

Also Dguller didn't say he was one, just that he got in bed with one.

It was worded a bit vaguely.  I took what he said to mean that libertarians like Ron Paul are only libertarians because the federal government clamped down on fascism and it's no longer possible for them to be openly fascist.

[grumbler]

I'm not taking part in the debate, I'm commenting on your behaviour here, you come across as a grade one arsehole.

Yes, of course I do!  That's what I set out to do by copying the posts of grade-one assholes!  I just find it interesting in a stalkerish way that you only call me out for posting imitation grade-one assholish things, and ignore the original author when he creates the grade-one asshole post.  Once would be a coincidence, but this isn't the first time (nor the first time I have called you on it).  Double standard much?

[grumbler]

You are some guy to talk about that.

I am, indeed.  You won't find me engaging in ad homs and hysterical hyperbole.  I am enjoying puncturing the ego balloons, but it isn't personal, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to much enjoy it.  It's rather like taking a satisfying dump; only one person ever gets any satisfaction out of it! 

[Berkut]

It was worded a bit vaguely.  I took what he said to mean that libertarians like Ron Paul are only libertarians because the federal government clamped down on fascism and it's no longer possible for them to be openly fascist.

What was interesting (and illuminating) about the exchange was that he said something that sure as hell sounded like he was calling libertarians (and not even Libertarians, but the generic kind) fascists.

Then when he got blasted for it, he says "Oh noes, *that* isn't what I meant! I meant that they just love fascists, or the young libertarians have fascist ideas but don't know it, or some such babble like this in an effort to pretend like I didn't just say that" (and yes, I am paraphrasing).

But he is STILL insisting he has every right to feel offended that he got blasted for calling libertarians fascists...even after he has admitted that supposedly that wasn't really what he meant. So if it isn't what he meant, then why would he be upset at the response, since it clearly would not actually apply to him, but rather his badly worded opening salvo?

I suspect that it is exactly what he meant, despite the subsequent attempts to pretend like it isn't what he said - otherwise, this would never have gone anywhere. He would have said what appeared to be equating libertarians with fascists, he would have caught some grief for saying something so stunningly ignorant and self serving, he would have then said "Ooops! Sorry - my apologies, that isn't what I meant at all, and I can understand you calling me insane if I had something that amazingly douchebag! My bad! Here is what I was trying to say..."

But no - he just insisted he didn't mean that, not *exactly* that anyway, but something a lot like that....but also insisted that he still has the right to feel all put upon at the response.

[DGuller]

You start by accusing libertarians of being fascists, or motivated by fascists, or in bed with fascists (ior whatever ridiculous equating to fascism you are currently pretending was your intent all along), and then you are all butthurt that someone calls you insane?

You don't get to accuse those you don't like of being fascists, THEN demand "rational" discourse.

This is why it's so extremely unpleasant to discuss things with you.  I clarified exactly what I meant, to remove any ambiguity in my intent that could be present in my first post.  After all the further discussion where my intent was clarified again and again, you still go back and attribute something to me that I definitely did not intend to convey.  I did not mean to equate libertarian ideology as being in any way affiliated to fascism in general.

Essentially, you're implying that I'm flat out lying about clarifying my point, and that I walked back my comment under the guise of clarifying it.  How exactly are you supposed to maintain rational discourse that's not at all personal when you keep questioning my honesty and choosing to define what I said?  Yes, my post was the flashpoint of this thread derailment.  But it is absolutely your extreme belligerence that actually derailed it.

[Berkut]

It's distressing how much it takes to get you to finally admit that your first several posts on the subject were utterly ridiculous and talking out of your ass, but at least we finally go there - that is something.

"I did not mean to equate libertarian ideology as being in any way affiliated to fascism in general."

That statement is not a possible "explanation" for multiple posts explaining how libertarians and fascists are linked, but I appreciate that you are willing to admit how ridiculous you were when bludgeoned about long enough.

And your insistence that it is still those who called you out in it's fault for any "belligerence" after you called them fascists (completely mistaken of course, you actually meant something that was not in any way connected to fascism, even though you used the term over and over and over and over again).

Oh right - I think you were not saying they were fascists, just that they supported fascist ideas because they were too stupid to understand that the genesis of the party came from fascism? Was that were we ended up? I honestly don't really know...


It is "extremely unpleasant" for you to discuss THIS PARTICULAR topic (your own intolerance and bigotry towards those who do not agree with you) because having people point out how intolerant and close minded you are is painful. Which is a small mark in your favor - it would be worse if you did NOT find that unpleasant.


But we can and have had plenty of discussions that are not so painful, when you sometimes, rarely, decide to NOT turn every single topic into a jihad against those who do not share your 100% absolute faith in the rightness of you conclusions.

[derspiess]

I did not mean to equate libertarian ideology as being in any way affiliated to fascism in general.

Funny thing is you got Raz & Jacob to pretty much agree with that point, inadvertent as it was.

[HVC]

This thread:

I... I don't know what's going on.

[Malthus]

I... I don't know what's going on.

Not enough news from Ukraine, evidently. 

[Razgovory]

It was worded a bit vaguely.  I took what he said to mean that libertarians like Ron Paul are only libertarians because the federal government clamped down on fascism and it's no longer possible for them to be openly fascist.

Do you think characterizing Jim Crow laws or the Klan as "fascist" is fair?  If not, how would you characterize them?

[derspiess]

Probably wouldn't call them libertarian.

[CountDeMoney]

I... I don't know what's going on.

Partisan posters denying being partisan posters by partisan posters accused of being partisan posters.