|
Juffo-Wup posted:That seems kinda weird and stalkerish, though? Given how hard he works to pretend like his ideas haven't been ripped to shreds already it seems reasonable.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:If there's something you want to see on the wiki, put it on the Wanted List I just made. Or grab something off the list and make a page for it if you want. I'll do one on SovCits eventually
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, I think there's a difference between 'public quotable words' said by a guy on an obscure debate forum versus those published in journals and books and such. Whatever. Anyway, I just wanted to communicate that the idea made me feel vaguely uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link on hand to the Ayn Rand megathread that was either in here or in GBS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Honestly a lot of the focus on jrod outside of responses to his posts on SA feels kinda creepy to me. And yeah nobody but the handful of people who've encountered him on a message board has any reason to care. He basically just regurgitates what the "actual thinkers" say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, I think there's a difference between 'public quotable words' said by a guy on an obscure debate forum versus those published in journals and books and such. Whatever. Anyway, I just wanted to communicate that the idea made me feel vaguely uncomfortable. Almost all of jrod's posts are just plagiarized from those famous people anyway so a jrod page would just be redundant
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Almost all of jrod's posts are just plagiarized from those famous people anyway so a jrod page would just be redundant And wouldn't including him with such luminaries as HHH and Rothbard just go to his head anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Jrod's a lot more handsome and more likely to win in a fist fight so he at least deserves a page for that
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Yeah I think nothing would please Jrod more than for him to be mentioned in the same breath or on the same page as his heroes so we should definitely not do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah I think nothing would please Jrod more than for him to be mentioned in the same breath or on the same page as his heroes so we should definitely not do that. If he must be mentioned, and I don't think he should, his entry should be something like, "Jrodefeld: *Faaaart*"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:If he must be mentioned, and I don't think he should, his entry should be something like, "Jrodefeld: *Faaaart*" "too much of a baby to fight noted mentally ill poster dickeye"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I'm going back through the other thread to find poo poo to mine for the wiki and I keep finding these wacky new word filters. This time it's "hth" to "I'm a huge prick".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Is the idea that if we let this thread die JRod will come back?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Is the idea that if we let this thread die JRod will come back? Maybe he is gone for good. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Maybe he is gone for good. Nah, he's probably just letting the pertinent questions get sufficiently buried.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Is the idea that if we let this thread die JRod will come back? The Great Women’s Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight By Murray Rothbard Originally published May 1970 It is high time, and past due, that someone blew the whistle on “Women’s Liberation.” Like The Environment, Women’s Lib is suddenly and raucously everywhere in the last few months. It has become impossible to avoid being assaulted, day in and day out, by the noisy blather of the Women’s Movement. Special issues of magazines, TV news programs, and newspapers have been devoted to this new-found “problem”; and nearly two dozen books on women’s lib are being scheduled for publication this year by major publishers. In all this welter of verbiage, not one article, not one book, not one program has dared to present the opposition case. The injustice of this one-sided tidal wave should be evident. Not only is it evident, but the lack of published opposition negates one of the major charges of the women’s lib forces: that the society and economy are groaning under a monolithic male “sexist” tyranny. If the men are running the show, how is it that they do not even presume to print or present anyone from the other side? Yet the “oppressors” remain strangely silent, which leads one to suspect, as we will develop further below, that perhaps the “oppression” is on the other side. In the meanwhile, the male “oppressors” are acting, in the manner of Liberals everywhere, like scared, or guilt-ridden, rabbits. When the one hundred viragos of Women’s Lib bullied their way into the head offices of the Ladies’ Home Journal, did the harried editor-in-chief, John Mack Carter, throw these aggressors out on their collective ear, as he should have done? Did he, at the very least, abandon his office for the day and go home? No, instead he sat patiently for eleven hours while these harridans heaped abuse upon him and his magazine and his gender, and then meekly agreed to donate to them a special section of the Journal, along with $10,000 ransom. In this way, spineless male Liberalism meekly feeds the appetite of the aggressors and paves the way for the next set of outrageous “demands.” Rat magazine, an underground tabloid, caved in even more spectacularly, and simply allowed itself to be taken over permanently by a “women’s liberation collective.” Continued.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nah, he's probably just letting the pertinent questions get sufficiently buried. Jokes on him, goons are just like elephants; enormous, fat, prone to freaking out over nothing and stomping someone to death, smell awful, poo poo everywhere, have lots of hair on their asses, awful teeth, don't see very well, are probably a mistake of nature and certainly a crime against God, and most importantly we never forget!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Women in the Military By Walter E. Block December 21, 2015 The U.S. government has just announced that women will be allowed to take on all roles in the military. No longer will they be banned from any of them. This will undoubtedly weaken this institution, as criteria for acceptance will be lowered, as Walter E. Williams has so brilliantly demonstrated. (A similar situation occurred when “firemen” became “firefighters” so that women who could not carry at person weighing 190 pounds up or down stairs to escape from fires were allowed to participate anyway). Then, too, biological imperatives for men to protect women will kick in even the more, instead of fighting the enemy. Also from this perspective the natural tendency of males to compete with each other for the attention and affection of females will further deflect them from the presumed goal of the army, to defeat the enemy. How shall we as libertarians view these new developments? Are they an unmitigated good? Are they a clear evil? Neither, I contend. Rather, we should be ambivalent about them. For, on the one hand, a weakened armed forces is to be regretted, since they are charged with protecting the citizenry, and now with these new initiatives the soldiers will become less able to carry out that needed task. (In saying this, I speak from the minimal government or mlnarchist point of view; from the anarcho-capitalist perspective, the government should be completely disbanded; thus, its makeup would be irrelevant). On the other hand, much, most of what the armed forces actually do is in no way related to defense. Instead, it involves offense: the U.S. military are scattered all over the world, located in literally hundreds of other countries that pose no threat whatsoever of conquering our country. Thus, an emaciated military is something to be welcomed, since it will reduce U.S. imperialism. There is another focus from which to view this new initiative of promoting female participation in the military other than the libertarian. This is the biological. Women are the limitation of population, and its growth. It is not for nothing that the farmer keeps 50 cows and one bull, rather than the reverse. If there were 50 bulls, 49 of them would be superfluous. If there were one cow, all the bulls in the world could not by one iota increase the size of the flock. In other words, females, at the margin, are much more important for increasing the size of the human race. They are the precious limitation on population growth. Why is the latter to be preferred? That is because in order to create another Mozart, or Mises, or Einstein, or Rothbard, or Salk, or Bach, or Gates, we need millions of new babies. The more of them the better. If we are ever to occupy the Moon and Mars and eventually colonize worlds in other solar systems, we shall need lots of human beings. But in order to accomplish this goal, women, not men, are required (always at the margin). Men are relatively speaking, good cannon fodder. Women are too important, again from this biological point of view, to be wasted in any such manner. In World War Two, the Russians and the Germans inflicted heavy blows on each other. There were hardly any healthy men left standing afterwards of child-bearing age. Yet, after this conflagration, they were never missed, at least not in terms of population growth. Any woman who wanted to become pregnant, such is the human condition, had little or no difficulty achieving this goal. Imagine, instead, that this war had been fought only or mainly by females, with the males taking on the role of civilians (in those quaint times, non-combatants were less targeted than in the modern era). Then, there would have been hardly any healthy women left upright afterwards. What would have happened to the population in these two countries? To ask this is to answer it: there would have been virtually no new generation. So, we may oppose placing women in those “boots” that are and are going to be “on the ground” all over the world, not only on libertarian grounds, but on biological ones too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jokes on him, goons are just like elephants; enormous, fat, prone to freaking out over nothing and stomping someone to death, smell awful, poo poo everywhere, have lots of hair on their asses, awful teeth, don't see very well, are probably a mistake of nature and certainly a crime against God, and most importantly we never forget! To confirm this assertion, I will be sitting on a toilet for the next few hours to expel a tapeworm
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iib0nyobUQM
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Just spoil it for me; is there a single nonwhite person in any of the crowd shots?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Just keep in mind if you're checking that some of the the people attending may be in blackface.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
For people who claim to hold individual liberty as sacred, Liberitarians seem awful quick to fall back on weird notions of biological determinism when it comes to deciding what people get to do and what they don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Just spoil it for me; is there a single nonwhite person in any of the crowd shots? Not a single one. Lots of fedora wearing goony types, but none that were dashingly handsome (no jrode). Really stupid softball questions, less a debate and more "here's three people who will regurgitate libertarian talking points while people clap, and maybe we'll disagree on one or two minor issues but not actually go into anything of real meaning and act like adults to show that we're actually not the crazy people. Basically, if you've read anything jrode has posted, or anything linked from Mises.org, or have a friend posting crap on Facebook; filter out the more crazy stuff, and that's basically a play by play of this debate. Cerebral Bore posted:For people who claim to hold individual liberty as sacred, Liberitarians seem awful quick to fall back on weird notions of biological determinism when it comes to deciding what people get to do and what they don't. This actually got brought up in the debate as an argument against the government regulating gender pay equality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
I was not aware that John McAfee was running for the nomination. That is so goddamn fitting. As is the screeching tone that indicates a candidate's speaking time is up. It's almost like they tried to self-parody the negative externalities that can be expected from deregulated industries. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:(in those quaint times, non-combatants were less targeted than in the modern era). Yes, in fact the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad was famous for not targeting civilians. Also, when Russian troops entered Berlin they were notoriously courteous and did not rape and loot to their heart's desire. Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Yes, in fact the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad was famous for not targeting civilians. Also, when Russian troops entered Berlin they notoriously courteous and did not rape and loot to their heart's desire. I'll take that excuse to post this: Have any of you ever wondered what Jrod's schtick would look like coming from a different ideological position like, oh I don't know let's choose one at random here, a pseudo academic Neo-Stalinist one? Gosh, I sure know I have, and now we've got one just posting away about all sorts of poo poo you'd never have guessed in a million years, like how no one really invaded Poland in 1939 (because Poland mysteriously just sorta ceased to exist late that year, making it just fine and dandy for any nearby armies to wander in), that Stalin had nothing to do with the purges other than to prevent show trials (and everyone convicted totally deserved what they got), and how literally everyone in my profession is on the CIA payroll. I guess they've just not sent me my checks yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
swampman posted:The full title of Furr's book includes underlines and italics - it is: Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands Is False. Plus: What Really Happened: The Famine of 1932-33; the "Polish Operation"; the "Great Terror"; the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; the "Soviet Invasion of Poland"; the "Katyn Massacre"; the Warsaw Uprising; and "Stalin's Anti-Semitism". It's a title that would be completely ridiculous if it were anything other than a 100% accurate description of the content of the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Wally Block posted:in those quaint times [WWII], non-combatants were less targeted than in the modern era Alhazred posted:Yes, in fact the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad was famous for not targeting civilians. Also, when Russian troops entered Berlin they notoriously courteous and did not rape and loot to their heart's desire. Now that you mention it, is Block a holocaust denialist, by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Now that you mention it, is Block a holocaust denialist, by any chance?  e: Yes, yes he is! theshim fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The Great Women’s Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight Not even Mises dot org nor even Breitbart have an article for the opposition case  The market for books did a wrong thing! It couldn't possibly be that to make a big stink about how it's not a problem, only brings more attention to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
theshim posted:Isn't he the one with the concentration camp guard superhero scenario? He sure as gently caress is! Incidentally, that's also the article where he fantasizes about star chamber trials for (non-libertarian) professors at state-run universities (he is a professor at a state-run university)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Women in the Military Heh, this is funny. Block basically saying "We need rampant childbirth, of millions of children, in order to play the odds that some of them will be world-class geniuses! Oh, and for space colonization at some distant, murky point in the future!". Never minding that we already have (Tens of? Hundreds?) millions of children and adults languishing in a state of global poverty and uneducated ignorance that we could readily look at developing the potential of. But that would require horrible "statist" practices like programs to reduce infant mortality and promote birth control, improve childhood nutrition and educational access, and so on. So, nope, just make millions of babies, and odds are we'll get a few fresh geniuses out of them all...right? I also find Block's crocodile tears about the issue of women serving in combat to be hilarious, as if allowing them into those roles is going to open the military recruiting floodgates and cause a majority of women to jump on the frontline. It's really what women have been waiting for all this time, for some reason! Even though, for the US side of the Iraq war, there were less than 5,000 casualties. And while that is 5,000 lives, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall size of the US military presence in Iraq, and not even a blip in the broader American population numbers. It's like Block is making some sort of pathological mountain out of a molehill here...
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Hah, I just found where jrod brought it up and edited it in. Can you believe that was over a year ago?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
I added pages for mises.org, Walter Block, and Libertarians on Feminism to the wiki. Didn't add the concentration camp guard scenario yet, but copying some of those quotes has drained my soul a little and I need to recuperate. e: and I haven't written anything on his awful age of consent views yet. Or Hoppe's obsession with time preference. Or Hoppe's white supremacist conference. Oh god, there's just so much bullshit. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I added pages for mises.org, Walter Block, and Libertarians on Feminism to the wiki. Didn't add the concentration camp guard scenario yet, but copying some of those quotes has drained my soul a little and I need to recuperate. Step back from the edge of the abyss, while there's still time!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Step back from the edge of the abyss, while there's still time! I can't. It calls to me. It calls to me, and I must answer! Don't worry though, my roommate reads the thread and will intervene if I lose it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:This title would be completely ridiculous if it wasn't evidence for untreated schizophrenia. Was anyone else shocked that the poster wasn't HorseLord?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Was anyone else shocked that the poster wasn't HorseLord? A little!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'll take that excuse to post this: Have any of you ever wondered what Jrod's schtick would look like coming from a different ideological position like, oh I don't know let's choose one at random here, a pseudo academic Neo-Stalinist one? Gosh, I sure know I have, and now we've got one just posting away about all sorts of poo poo you'd never have guessed in a million years, like how no one really invaded Poland in 1939 (because Poland mysteriously just sorta ceased to exist late that year, making it just fine and dandy for any nearby armies to wander in), that Stalin had nothing to do with the purges other than to prevent show trials (and everyone convicted totally deserved what they got), and how literally everyone in my profession is on the CIA payroll. I haven't read past the first page but I've got all kinds of mixed feelings about this thread, none of which relate to my undying devotion and fealty to God-Emperor Joe Steelman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:30
|
|