Grumbler, Berkut, Valmy and
Yi have taken issue with me noticing there is significant cross over between Libertarians some of the stranger aspects of Trumpism. I'm not the only one to notice this by the way. I'd like to share an article from the WaPo
QuoteAfter the alt-right march on Charlottesville last month, Matt Lewis, writing at the Daily Beast, pointed out the existence of an apparent "libertarian to alt-right pipeline," an ideological trajectory through which those who begin life as ordinary, freedom-loving libertarians wind up more aligned with the torch-wielding demonstrators.
Members of the non-mainstream right were quick to distance themselves from the alt-right, which is a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state. Taylor Millard, writing on Hot Air, heaped abuse on the alt-right, calling them "grifters" and "fakers," and calling on his fellow conservatives and libertarians to decisively "purge" the alt-right from their ranks. Nick Gillespie, an editor at the libertarian magazine Reason, denied that there is any "pipeline" between libertarianism and the alt-right, arguing that real, liberty-loving libertarians reject the collectivism and authoritarianism of the alt-right. Michael Brendan Dougherty, writing in the National Review, similarly asserted that there's not much to the whole idea of a "libertarian-to-fascist" pipeline, that fringes will be fringe, and that "kooks" will always congregate there.
It's probably true that some of the overlap between libertarians and alt-righters can be explained by their companionship as members of the political fringe. But it's not purely accidental, either. Historically, prominent libertarian thinkers have made the decision to cultivate ties with the nationalist far right, and have viewed racial demagoguery both as an efficacious political tool and an intellectually defensible position. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline may have been forged partially by coincidence, but it was also crafted and maintained.
[Libertarians wrestle with the alt-right in the wake of Charlottesville]
In the early 1980s, economist Murray Rothbard left the libertarian Cato Institute, which he had helped found. Rothbard's impatience with respectability politics and the moderate tone enforced by the Kochs on their organization (including Reason magazine) led to his departure. He made common cause with another dissident libertarian named Lew Rockwell, founder of the Mises Institute, a home for a more hardcore brand of thought than was permitted at Cato.
A self-confessed admirer of Joseph McCarthy's political tactics, Rothbard wanted to put some emotional meat on the spare, abstract bones of libertarian economics. Rockwell, who shared Rothbard's strategy, penned a series of virulently racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic newsletters on behalf of Ron Paul, in hopes of crafting a viscerally appealing emotional aura around libertarianism. "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational," one missive went. "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," said another. With these themes, Rothbard and Rockwell brought sensation and visceral feeling to a libertarianism that had otherwise been a matrix of lofty abstractions.
The fullest articulation of Rothbard's strategy — and a piece of political cynicism for the ages — appeared in his 1992 essay "Right Wing Populism," an apologia for former Ku Klux Klan grandee David Duke's failed presidential run. Rothbard found much to like in Duke's positions: "lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: What's wrong with any of that?"
Rothbard went on to argue that the mainstream libertarian project of trying to convince "intellectual elites" by spreading "correct ideas" through institutions such as Cato and Reason had failed. Libertarian intellectuals were, after all, part of a corrupt and feckless ruling class, so they had an invested self-interest in perpetuating their situation. The elites had to be overthrown.
[Where did Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.]
Rothbard's eight-point program for toppling these elites included a call to "abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire 'civil rights' structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American." Also in his program was a call for economic nationalism, under the ominous heading "America First."
Perhaps it's not fair to lay blame for Rothbard the heretic at the feet of the mainline libertarian church, which attempted to purge him. But even putting Rothbard aside, his views were too widely shared to be dismissed as a fluke. Rothbard's disciple Hans-Hermann Hoppe has kept alive his master's dialogue to this day: His Property and Freedom Society's yearly symposiums have hosted talks by Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow, founder of VDARE, the anti-immigration site that also counts Hoppe as a contributor.
Hoppe's book "Democracy: The God that Failed" cites specious scholarship on the IQ differences inherent in race to support his arguments, presents an "anarcho-capitalist" defense of segregation as the prerogative of property owners, and is so unabashedly anti-egalitarian he doubts the basic humanity of people who don't fit into his ideological schema. A characteristic passage goes: "A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person, but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal — of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a "free good") or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest)."
How did Rothbard, Hoppe and others end up keeping company with the likes of Spencer, Taylor and Brimelow? The problem is that libertarian principles, which revolve the abstract notion of self-interest, are really not principles at all; they have no content and allow anything to be attached to them. Abstract self-interest alone can provide no instructive rule of thought and can disqualify no particular course of action, because each person is free to concoct what is in their best interest, and because "aggression" can be and has been defined in a variety of spurious ways.
It was the very bareness of the idea of self-interest and liberty as such that allowed Chris Cantwell, the weeping neo-Nazi made infamous in Vice's coverage of Charlottesville (and avid reader of Hoppe and Rothbard) to make conceptual space for racism: "People should be free to exercise complete control over their own person and property. If blacks are committing crimes, or Jews are spreading communism, discriminating against them is the right of any property owner."
It's a quick step from here to full-on white nationalism, which interprets history and politics as the story of different races pursuing their collective self-interest. It shouldn't come as a great surprise that enshrining self-interest as the core of morality would lead to a cynical worldview that takes all action to be struggle or manipulation. The "liberty" of libertarianism is merely negative; and a mind guided with the mere concept of its own interest can be led to anything or to nothing. For this reason, the intellectual wasteland of libertarianism continues to provide a safe space for fascists: It simply has philosophical room for them, and no particular injunctions to turn them away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/?utm_term=.3f7c1acacc29 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/?utm_term=.3f7c1acacc29)
Now allow me to list some of the names from the Alt-right/Alt-light/simply crazy Trump supporters who have some affiliation with the Libertarian movement or the Ron Paul Revolution
Milo Yiannopoulos, Alt-light activist and Marty's crush - Calls himself Libertarian
Chris Cantwell, Neo-Nazi shock jock charged with some felonies from the incident of charlottesville - Former Libertarian, claims to come to the Alt-right through Libertarianism
Tim Gionet, AKA Baked Alaskan Alt-Right speaker at charlottesville, said he was once an easy going libertarian
Gavin McInnes, Former Vice News founder of the Proud Boys street fighter group, calls himself libertarian
Augustus Invictus (born Adrian Gillespie), speaker at Charlottesville, Ran for Senate in the libertarian primary. I created a thread on this guy two years ago http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13352.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13352.0.html)
Stefan Molyneux Alt-right Youtube personality and apparent cult leader- calls himself "Right-libertarian"
Richard Spencer- popularized the phrase "alt-Right" and was the Nazi who got punched- former Ron Paul supporter
Mike Peinovich -AKA Mike Enoch, runs the Alt-Right sites "The Right Stuff" and "Daily Shoah" claims he is a former libertarian.
Paul Gottfried - Coined the phrase Alt-Right, described as the "God Father of the Alt-right despite being Jewish- writes for the Von Mises institute.
Jared Taylor - Runs a racist magazine called American Renaissance- Ron Paul supporter
Ben Garrison, insane cartoonist and conspiracy theorist -calls himself libertarian
Alex Jones- Conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter, host of Info wars- Ron Paul Supporter and professed libertarian
Charles Murray- wrote the Bell Curve attempts to prove difference in IQ between races - Libertarian
Mike Cernovich - Alt-Right/light blogger and frequent guest on info wars- former Libertarian
Theodore Beale, AKA Vox Day Alt-Right Christian nationalist and Blogger- has called himself a "Christian libertarian".
Laura Southern, Canadian Alt-Right- Ran for office as a Libertarian.
This makes up a good deal of the "thinkers" and voices of the Alt-Right. In fact, of the big names in the movement I only found a few who did
not have a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist or Ron Paul connection. Those were Steve Bannon, Mathew Heimbach (head of a Traditionalist worker's party), and the engimatic Andrew Anglin who until recently ran the the Daily Stormer and is currently in hiding.
I missed the post where you wrote "there is a significant cross over between Libertarians and some of the stranger aspects of Trumpism," as well as the one where I took issue with it.
Libertarians are just Republicans that don't want to be affiliated with Republicans. Because Republicans are bible-thumping buzzkills and Libertarians are the cool because they smoke weed.
What these people have in common is that they are on right wing, have issues with the GOP mainstream, and in some form or another are not quite right in the head. "Libertarianism" is a convenient label that connotes "right" in contemporary discourse but not conventional GOP. (I don't think that was true in the 80s btw when the Libertarian party had a stronger civil liberties slant). Even the guys that march with swastiaks aren't quick to call themselves Nazis or Fascists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2017, 10:30:23 PM
I missed the post where you wrote "there is a significant cross over between Libertarians and some of the stranger aspects of Trumpism," as well as the one where I took issue with it.
I took the sleepy face to indicate you were not in agreement.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2017, 10:44:05 PM
I took the sleepy face to indicate you were not in agreement.
I missed the post where you wrote "there is a significant cross over between Libertarians and some of the stranger aspects of Trumpism."
Stranger aspects of Trumpism covers a lot of ground . . .
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2017, 10:56:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2017, 10:44:05 PM
I took the sleepy face to indicate you were not in agreement.
I missed the post where you wrote "there is a significant cross over between Libertarians and some of the stranger aspects of Trumpism."
QuoteThat's how he describes himself. There are a remarkable number of Libertarians who have shifted over to Trump or the Alt-right/Alt-light. Richard Spencer was Ron Paul guy back in 2008.
Excellent. Now show me the post where I took exception with that.
What is the alt-light?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2017, 11:09:43 PM
Excellent. Now show me the post where I took exception with that.
Okay, I relent you only took exception to my statement identifying Garrison a libertarian. You did not take exception of noting a connection of libertarians and the Alt-Right. I listed everyone who had a general objection to my argument when I should have written detailed sentences list each person's individual grievance.
Show me the post where I took exception to your statement identifying Garrison [as] a libertarian.
FYI, Johnson got the highest ever vote total for a Libertarian candidate. So clearly a lot of libertarians didn't/don't like Trump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2017, 11:53:13 PM
Show me the post where I took exception to your statement identifying Garrison [as] a libertarian.
We did this part already.
No we didn't.
Yi, when you make a point, just make a fucking point, don't start an endless stream of one-sentence posts with no one knowing where you're going. If you were a cat, you'd take a week to finish off the mouse you caught.
So, who's arguing that the alt-right & libertarians are not the same kind of assholes?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2017, 07:18:47 AM
So, who's arguing that the alt-right & libertarians are not the same kind of assholes?
Adam Smith, John Locke, and Jeremy Bentham.
No, that's not it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2017, 10:40:24 PM
What these people have in common is that they are on right wing, have issues with the GOP mainstream, and in some form or another are not quite right in the head. "Libertarianism" is a convenient label that connotes "right" in contemporary discourse but not conventional GOP. (I don't think that was true in the 80s btw when the Libertarian party had a stronger civil liberties slant). Even the guys that march with swastiaks aren't quick to call themselves Nazis or Fascists.
The problem with people calling themselves libertarians is that they can be largely classified into two kinds of crazy: the fascists that call themselves libertarians because no one likes to think of themselves as a fascist, and the true believer Libertarians that think that the communist approach to perfectly rational ideology was correct, except that they got every single detail exactly backwards. Either approach leads to extreme idiocy.
Most people hold some libertarian beliefs, but that doesn't make you a libertarian. That may make you a pragmatist, who realizes that there is no perfect ideology yet that address all the social problems, and the best results are achieved with a mix of ideologies chosen judgmentally.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2017, 07:52:07 AM
No, that's not it.
Sorry. I thought you were honestly asking a question, but I see from this response that you are just trolling.
So, to counter-troll, I will respond to "So, who's arguing that the alt-right & libertarians are not the same kind of assholes?" with "everyone but morons." Because, after all, calling everyone you disagree with "assholes" and "morons" is the key to a lively and informative intellectual debate, right?
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 07:56:34 AM
The problem with people calling themselves libertarians is that they can be largely classified into two kinds of crazy: the fascists that call themselves libertarians because no one likes to think of themselves as a fascist, and the true believer Libertarians that think that the communist approach to perfectly rational ideology was correct, except that they got every single detail exactly backwards. Either approach leads to extreme idiocy.
Most people hold some libertarian beliefs, but that doesn't make you a libertarian. That may make you a pragmatist, who realizes that there is no perfect ideology yet that address all the social problems, and the best results are achieved with a mix of ideologies chosen judgmentally.
The problem with this kind of simplistic name-calling and pigeon-holing is that it is intellectually bankrupt. The exact same argument can be made, with only the most modest changes, to say the same thing about, oh, say, Democrats:
QuoteThe problem with people calling themselves libertarians Democrats is that they can be largely classified into two kinds of crazy: the fascists that call themselves libertarians Democrats because no one likes to think of themselves as a fascist, and the true believer libertarians Democrats that think that the communist approach to perfectly rational ideology was correct, except that they got every single detail exactly backwards. Either approach leads to extreme idiocy.
Most people hold some libertarian Democratic beliefs, but that doesn't make you a libertarian Democrat. That may make you a pragmatist, who realizes that there is no perfect ideology yet that address all the social problems, and the best results are achieved with a mix of ideologies chosen judgmentally.
This is mere argument by name-calling assertion; it only serves the purpose of virtue-signalling to one's own tribe by indicating the contempt the writer has for any opposing ideas.
No true libertarian is an alt-right nutjob.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2017, 12:43:09 AM
No we didn't.
QuoteI took the sleepy face to indicate you were not in agreement.
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2017, 08:36:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 07:56:34 AM
The problem with people calling themselves libertarians is that they can be largely classified into two kinds of crazy: the fascists that call themselves libertarians because no one likes to think of themselves as a fascist, and the true believer Libertarians that think that the communist approach to perfectly rational ideology was correct, except that they got every single detail exactly backwards. Either approach leads to extreme idiocy.
Most people hold some libertarian beliefs, but that doesn't make you a libertarian. That may make you a pragmatist, who realizes that there is no perfect ideology yet that address all the social problems, and the best results are achieved with a mix of ideologies chosen judgmentally.
The problem with this kind of simplistic name-calling and pigeon-holing is that it is intellectually bankrupt. The exact same argument can be made, with only the most modest changes, to say the same thing about, oh, say, Democrats:
QuoteThe problem with people calling themselves libertarians Democrats is that they can be largely classified into two kinds of crazy: the fascists that call themselves libertarians Democrats because no one likes to think of themselves as a fascist, and the true believer libertarians Democrats that think that the communist approach to perfectly rational ideology was correct, except that they got every single detail exactly backwards. Either approach leads to extreme idiocy.
Most people hold some libertarian Democratic beliefs, but that doesn't make you a libertarian Democrat. That may make you a pragmatist, who realizes that there is no perfect ideology yet that address all the social problems, and the best results are achieved with a mix of ideologies chosen judgmentally.
This is mere argument by name-calling assertion; it only serves the purpose of virtue-signalling to one's own tribe by indicating the contempt the writer has for any opposing ideas.
You can any argument about anything or anyone. The trick is making an argument that fits, and the fact that people can make the same argument that doesn't fit says nothing about the fitness of your own argument.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 09:19:04 AM
You can any argument about anything or anyone. The trick is making an argument that fits, and the fact that people can make the same argument that doesn't fit says nothing about the fitness of your own argument.
The trick is making an argument that fits and doesn't just consist of name-calling. You failed, as I demonstrated with my little thought-experiment. Merely asserting that libertarians are exclusively either fascists of mirror-image-communists is just meaningless name-calling. As I pointed out, it might signal your virtue to Raz and Grey Fox, but no one (even them) thinks it is an intellectual argument.
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2017, 07:43:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2017, 07:18:47 AM
So, who's arguing that the alt-right & libertarians are not the same kind of assholes?
Adam Smith, John Locke, and Jeremy Bentham.
That rejoinder would be stronger if it included someone alive in the last 150 years.
Ed Clark would be a decent example, but his fate and the fate of his wing of the Libertarian Party comes closer to making Raz's point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2017, 10:15:57 AM
Ed Clark would be a decent example, but his fate and the fate of his wing of the Libertarian Party comes closer to making Raz's point.
True, but his fate and the fate of the Reagan wing of the Democratic Party would support Raz's point if Raz extended it to democrats as well as "libertarians."
I don't get it. Democrats are a big tent political party who have supported and ridiculous amount of contradictory positions since their founding in 1828. There is no 'Democratic' ideology.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is an ideology.
@Grumbler.
I wanted to move the conversation away from YI. It worked.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 06:32:06 AM
Yi, when you make a point, just make a fucking point, don't start an endless stream of one-sentence posts with no one knowing where you're going. If you were a cat, you'd take a week to finish off the mouse you caught.
I want Raz to get there by himself.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2017, 11:29:01 AM
@Grumbler.
I wanted to move the conversation away from YI. It worked.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2017, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 06:32:06 AM
Yi, when you make a point, just make a fucking point, don't start an endless stream of one-sentence posts with no one knowing where you're going. If you were a cat, you'd take a week to finish off the mouse you caught.
I want Raz to get there by himself.
The pedagogical approach is the core of the Yicratic method, much like its namesake.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 21, 2017, 02:08:40 PM
The pedagogical approach is the core of the Yicratic method, much like its namesake.
Disagree. In most cased teh Yicratic method is a request for clarification. "You seem to be saying this, and if you are I disagree."
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2017, 09:36:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 09:19:04 AM
You can any argument about anything or anyone. The trick is making an argument that fits, and the fact that people can make the same argument that doesn't fit says nothing about the fitness of your own argument.
The trick is making an argument that fits and doesn't just consist of name-calling. You failed, as I demonstrated with my little thought-experiment. Merely asserting that libertarians are exclusively either fascists of mirror-image-communists is just meaningless name-calling. As I pointed out, it might signal your virtue to Raz and Grey Fox, but no one (even them) thinks it is an intellectual argument.
All you demonstrated was your ability to use the strikethrough functionality of the forum software. Whatever that experiment was, it didn't contain a lot of useful thought.
I know you're big into tribe bullshit, but tribes are not in fact interchangeable. I feel comfortable name-calling North Koreans as brainwashed, even though they feel just as strongly that we're the brainwashed ones. I will not post two tomes on Languish supporting my belief that North Koreans are brainwashed.
Just because two sides believe with equal earnestness that the other one is stupid doesn't mean that both of them are equally wrong. More often one side is correct, and the other side thinks the same thing because the former side is so very right in its assessment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2017, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 21, 2017, 02:08:40 PM
The pedagogical approach is the core of the Yicratic method, much like its namesake.
Disagree. In most cased teh Yicratic method is a request for clarification. "You seem to be saying this, and if you are I disagree."
Rightly or wrongly, it often comes across as being deliberately obtuse and disruptive to the discussion.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2017, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 21, 2017, 02:08:40 PM
The pedagogical approach is the core of the Yicratic method, much like its namesake.
Disagree. In most cased teh Yicratic method is a request for clarification. "You seem to be saying this, and if you are I disagree."
Rightly or wrongly, it often comes across as being deliberately obtuse and disruptive to the discussion.
I hate to say it Yi, but DGuller is right; it often does come across that way. Maybe part of the problem is that you often aren't specific enough about what you want clarified.
My judgement was that leaving a puzzle on the table was fun, but if the crowd says it doesn't work then I will listen.
I support the Yicratic method.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2017, 01:35:57 AM
My judgement was that leaving a puzzle on the table was fun, but if the crowd says it doesn't work then I will listen.
So which is it, a puzzle or a request for clarification?
All this time, you mutts still haven't figured out that the basic premise of the Yicratic Method is that Yi already knows the answers when he asks his questions.
That's what makes him such a magnificent asshole, and you people morons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2017, 07:48:20 AM
All this time, you mutts still haven't figured out that the basic premise of the Yicratic Method is that Yi already knows the answers when he asks his questions.
That's what makes him such a magnificent asshole, and you people morons.
I kinda suggested that, but he disagreed.
Of course he would.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2017, 01:35:57 AM
if the crowd says it doesn't work then I will listen.
Don't
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 09:19:44 PM
All you demonstrated was your ability to use the strikethrough functionality of the forum software. Whatever that experiment was, it didn't contain a lot of useful thought.
I find it amusing, though hardly surprising, that my point was so acute that it escaped you entirely.
QuoteI know you're big into tribe bullshit, but tribes are not in fact interchangeable. I feel comfortable name-calling North Koreans as brainwashed, even though they feel just as strongly that we're the brainwashed ones. I will not post two tomes on Languish supporting my belief that North Koreans are brainwashed.
Since I never stated that tribes were interchangeable, I will ignore this breathless restatement of the obvious.
QuoteJust because two sides believe with equal earnestness that the other one is stupid doesn't mean that both of them are equally wrong. More often one side is correct, and the other side thinks the same thing because the former side is so very right in its assessment.
The irony that you make this assertion is vast. Of course I am so right that you cannot see it. My argument was entirely about the feebleness of arguments by assertion, and you not only failed to counter my argument, you didn't even understand it! I cannot, alas, make my point any more clearly or simply. We will just have to accept that you don't have the ability to understand my argument and move on. Others understood it and that's enough for me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2017, 07:48:20 AM
All this time, you mutts still haven't figured out that the basic premise of the Yicratic Method is that Yi already knows the answers when he asks his questions.
That's what makes him such a magnificent asshole, and you people morons.
Exactly. The Yicratic method allows him to challenge your arguments without having to make any counter-argument that he has to defend. If people stop falling for that, he won't use it any more. He's a smart guy.
Quote from: grumbler on September 22, 2017, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2017, 09:19:44 PM
All you demonstrated was your ability to use the strikethrough functionality of the forum software. Whatever that experiment was, it didn't contain a lot of useful thought.
I find it amusing, though hardly surprising, that my point was so acute that it escaped you entirely.
QuoteI know you're big into tribe bullshit, but tribes are not in fact interchangeable. I feel comfortable name-calling North Koreans as brainwashed, even though they feel just as strongly that we're the brainwashed ones. I will not post two tomes on Languish supporting my belief that North Koreans are brainwashed.
Since I never stated that tribes were interchangeable, I will ignore this breathless restatement of the obvious.
QuoteJust because two sides believe with equal earnestness that the other one is stupid doesn't mean that both of them are equally wrong. More often one side is correct, and the other side thinks the same thing because the former side is so very right in its assessment.
The irony that you make this assertion is vast. Of course I am so right that you cannot see it. My argument was entirely about the feebleness of arguments by assertion, and you not only failed to counter my argument, you didn't even understand it! I cannot, alas, make my point any more clearly or simply. We will just have to accept that you don't have the ability to understand my argument and move on.
I'm pretty sure I understood what your argument was. I didn't find it on point, I think it's time to move on with your life.
Quote
Others understood it and that's enough for me.
Did they PM you with expressions of understanding? Or is your imagination running a bit wild?
I'm chopped ham. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2017, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Don't
Sorry DGuller and dps. Ace of Jew beats jack of Jew.
:( Can you at least make it easier for your victims and innocent bystanders to understand what you're getting at?
I struck Yi's name, which is what I though he wanted me to do.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2017, 04:12:45 PM
I struck Yi's name, which is what I though he wanted me to do.
I wanted you to see what it was that I disagreed with, and how that differed from what you were accusing me of disagreeing with.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2017, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Don't
Sorry DGuller and dps. Ace of Jew beats jack of Jew.
:( Can you at least make it easier for your victims and innocent bystanders to understand what you're getting at?
Maybe you should consider that this is just another example of you not being very good at reading comprehension? Yi was being clever, but not obtuse.
Quote from: grumbler on September 23, 2017, 04:19:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2017, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Don't
Sorry DGuller and dps. Ace of Jew beats jack of Jew.
:( Can you at least make it easier for your victims and innocent bystanders to understand what you're getting at?
Maybe you should consider that this is just another example of you not being very good at reading comprehension? Yi was being clever, but not obtuse.
:huh: Is this another one of those "clever" attempts to point out a fault by embodying it in an exaggerated way? I said that Yi can come off as being deliberately obtuse during his deployment of Yicratic method. Being deliberately obtuse almost by definition means not being genuinely obtuse.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 04:59:37 PM
:huh: Is this another one of those "clever" attempts to point out a fault by embodying it in an exaggerated way? I said that Yi can come off as being deliberately obtuse during his deployment of Yicratic method. Being deliberately obtuse almost by definition means not being genuinely obtuse.
:huh: Do you ever actually read the posts you respond to, or do you just decide what you are going to say and then quote someone at random? Your post doesn't respond to my post at all. As usual.
Quote from: grumbler on September 23, 2017, 05:55:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 04:59:37 PM
:huh: Is this another one of those "clever" attempts to point out a fault by embodying it in an exaggerated way? I said that Yi can come off as being deliberately obtuse during his deployment of Yicratic method. Being deliberately obtuse almost by definition means not being genuinely obtuse.
:huh: Do you ever actually read the posts you respond to, or do you just decide what you are going to say and then quote someone at random? Your post doesn't respond to my post at all. As usual.
I don't know if you're playing dumb or method acting it, but you are exceedingly tiresome either way.
Hey Raz, you never did explain what the "alt-light" is.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 23, 2017, 07:07:11 PM
Hey Raz, you never did explain what the "alt-light" is.
Wouldn't it be "dark"? :)
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 06:06:06 PM
I don't know if you're playing dumb or method acting it, but you are exceedingly tiresome either way.
:lmfao: You, on the other hand, are never tiresome. Moronic, yes, but I enjoy every stupid post you make as you avoid every argument I make. Please keep dancing, little bear.
Quote from: grumbler on September 23, 2017, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 06:06:06 PM
I don't know if you're playing dumb or method acting it, but you are exceedingly tiresome either way.
:lmfao: You, on the other hand, are never tiresome. Moronic, yes, but I enjoy every stupid post you make as you avoid every argument I make. Please keep dancing, little bear.
If you think you're making arguments that I'm not addressing, then you're not communicating them very effectively. I'm just seeing a notoriously abrasive old man calling me a moron with poor reading comprehension with no apparent reason for it. Doesn't really have a bite to it, and the forced :lmfao: emoticons probably don't have the effect you think they have.
It could be that I'm not seeing that reason precisely because I'm a moron with no reading comprehension, but then how do you get external validation for making such awesome arguments? From the imaginary other people that understand what you're getting at, informing you telepathically? Tailor your arguments so that a moron like me could understand them, if they're the good shit that you think they are, they deserve being comprehended properly.
This entire argument by Raz and DG is basically a ad-hom on libertarianism. It isn't any kind of attempt to understand their position, and make arguments against it - it is just an attempt to say the equivalent of "libertarians are Nazis, and we all know how bad those Nazi's are!".
When someone tries to point out what the term actually means to people who actually use it, you get this claim that it is no meaningless it doesn't matter. I disagree - it most certainly does matter when it comes to actual discussion about actual policies, and people who would otherwise fit the supposed definition of valuing liberty for its own sake will argue that the state has the right to force people to be married, or the state should deport human beings, or trample on the rights of travelers, or even mandate what kind of insurance people must have.
Raz and DG are desperate for the alt-right to own libertarianism because they have an irrational hatred of the term, and everyone hates the alt right, so of course libertarians must be alt right. It's like their claim that libertarians are racists. It doesn't even fucking make any sense from the standpoint of what the word means. But that isn't important to them, people on a crusade don't actually are about the facts or reason.
I've never been on a crusade. I suck at shuffleboard.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2017, 01:54:11 AM
I've never been on a crusade. I suck at shuffleboard.
That's ok, they have a pool and dance lessons too.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2017, 01:37:07 AM
Raz and DG are desperate for the alt-right to own libertarianism because they have an irrational hatred of the term, and everyone hates the alt right, so of course libertarians must be alt right.
Don't try to read my mind. You've never been any good at it.
QuoteIt's like their claim that libertarians are racists. It doesn't even fucking make any sense from the standpoint of what the word means.
No true libertarian would be racist.
Quote
But that isn't important to them, people on a crusade don't actually are about the facts or reason.
Yes, yes, we know, you're the paragon of reason, we got it after the first 1000 times. Go easy on the rest of us, when something comes so naturally to you, it's very hard to empathize how hard it is for less gifted people.
So are there any true libertarians in politics today?
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2017, 03:00:42 AM
So are there any true libertarians in politics today?
I don't think it is a label in that fashion. It isn't a political position, it is a weight given to a particular competing consideration.
And no, I don't think there are any in politics today who give it anything like the weight it deserves. Which is why we have the Patriot Act, and the idea of deporting Dreamers, and such.
To the extent that there are those who DO give it anything like the weight it deserves, they are certainly all on the modern left, not the right, IMO.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 11:56:48 PM
If you think you're making arguments that I'm not addressing, then you're not communicating them very effectively.
I am not really trying to communicate them to you. If I dumbed them down enough for you to understand, they'd be boring to the rest of the board. It's fine with me that you cannt grasp my argument; that fact makes your non sequiturs all the more hilarious.
QuoteI'm just seeing a notoriously abrasive old man calling me a moron with poor reading comprehension with no apparent reason for it. Doesn't really have a bite to it, and the forced :lmfao: emoticons probably don't have the effect you think they have.
Ah, the
ad hom concession. I knew it was coming, but wasn't sure when. I won't say thanks for playing, but I will say thanks for flailing about in an attempt to play.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2017, 03:00:42 AM
So are there any true libertarians in politics today?
I think that true libertarians would have a hard time raising the money to be successful in modern politics. If you oppose big government, big business, and big church, you aren't left with many wealthy sponsors. I'd say John McCain is 2/3 libertarian but he's too cosy with business to be a real libertarian.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2017, 05:38:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2017, 11:56:48 PM
If you think you're making arguments that I'm not addressing, then you're not communicating them very effectively.
I am not really trying to communicate them to you. If I dumbed them down enough for you to understand, they'd be boring to the rest of the board. It's fine with me that you cannt grasp my argument; that fact makes your non sequiturs all the more hilarious.
They're already boring to onlookers so you might as well let your interlocutor know what you're saying.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 24, 2017, 06:01:01 PM
They're already boring to onlookers so you might as well let your interlocutor know what you're saying.
I did. I said that arguments by assertion are not persuasive. He responded that all tribes are not identical. I'm not sure how you break through so profound a disinterest in reading comprehension. Maybe baby words? But I just cannot be bothered. He is funnier flailing anyway.
I'm trying to figure out how I can launch an Ad hominem attack on libertarianism. I'm also a bit perplexed as to what "big church" is and why Libertarians should be opposed to it. If it's not state action, what does it have to do with libertarian?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2017, 06:35:05 PM
I'm also a bit perplexed as to what "big church" is
It's one of life's great mysteries, like the alt-light.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2017, 03:00:42 AM
So are there any true libertarians in politics today?
I think that true libertarians would have a hard time raising the money to be successful in modern politics.
There are probably some successful libertarian in politics at the state level.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 24, 2017, 06:40:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2017, 06:35:05 PM
I'm also a bit perplexed as to what "big church" is
It's one of life's great mysteries, like the alt-light.
Oh, right I was going to get back you on that. I'm surprised you didn't show enough initiative to actually google it.
QuoteThe term "alt lite" was created by the alt right to differentiate itself from right-wing activists who refused to publicly embrace white supremacist ideology.
Today, the alt lite, sometimes referred to as the New Right, is loosely-connected movement whose adherents generally shun white supremacist thinking, but who are in step with the alt right in their hatred of feminists and immigrants, among others. Many within the alt lite sphere are virulently anti-Muslim; the group abhors everyone on "the left" and traffics in conspiracy theories, including #Pizzagate, which claimed there was evidence of a child slavery ring operating inside a DC pizzeria. The series of increasingly outrageous lies led to death threats against the pizzeria's owner and employees, and ultimately resulted in a gunman opening fire inside the restaurant in an attempt to "save" the imaginary children.
Some former alt right cheerleaders, including Mike Cernovich, migrated to the alt lite after refusing to openly espouse the alt right's explicitly white supremacist beliefs. Like the alt right, the alt lite is largely populated by young people, and has a prolific online presence, using blogs and podcasts to broadcast dissatisfaction with the media and what they sweepingly refer to as "globalization."
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate
So alt right guys who like Asian chicks.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2017, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 24, 2017, 06:01:01 PM
They're already boring to onlookers so you might as well let your interlocutor know what you're saying.
I did. I said that arguments by assertion are not persuasive. He responded that all tribes are not identical. I'm not sure how you break through so profound a disinterest in reading comprehension. Maybe baby words? But I just cannot be bothered. He is funnier flailing anyway.
So you read my statement that not all tribes are identical as a response to that first thing? And not, say, your stupid attempt to strike-through "libertarian" with "Democrat" while thinking your doing something profound, or the random drops of "tribal" in your screed? And I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem?
To believe that I couldn't comprehend your point that arguments by assertion are not persuasive requires some serious lack of common sense. Assuming the worst about people you dislike may make you feel better about yourself, but giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're not retards will result in a more productive conversation. If that's what you're interested in, that is, which I'm not sure you are.
Anyway, we've been at it more than long enough. I'll let you make your last deranged claim of victory, and then try my best to avoid dignifying your wisdom with a response in the future.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2017, 08:39:20 PM
I'm surprised you didn't show enough initiative
You really don't know me at all. :(
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2017, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2017, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 24, 2017, 06:01:01 PM
They're already boring to onlookers so you might as well let your interlocutor know what you're saying.
I did. I said that arguments by assertion are not persuasive. He responded that all tribes are not identical. I'm not sure how you break through so profound a disinterest in reading comprehension. Maybe baby words? But I just cannot be bothered. He is funnier flailing anyway.
So you read my statement that not all tribes are identical as a response to that first thing? And not, say, your stupid attempt to strike-through "libertarian" with "Democrat" while thinking your doing something profound, or the random drops of "tribal" in your screed? And I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem?
To believe that I couldn't comprehend your point that arguments by assertion are not persuasive requires some serious lack of common sense. Assuming the worst about people you dislike may make you feel better about yourself, but giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're not retards will result in a more productive conversation. If that's what you're interested in, that is, which I'm not sure you are.
Anyway, we've been at it more than long enough. I'll let you make your last deranged claim of victory, and then try my best to avoid dignifying your wisdom with a response in the future.
Well, that's a shame. Since Berkut and Grumbler refuse to talk to me (though they will post in my thread), I was wondering how you and I could be launching an Ad Hom against an idea.