The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread! [Part 2]

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread! [Part 2]

Rugoberta Munchu: Jun 5, 2003; Do you want a hupyrolysege slcorpselong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjb0Ltw1Tj0

Have some "race realism"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR87tK1KB9E

...and how Christians, especially Christian women, are contributing to White Genocide via virtue signaling.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 07:28

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

so by your own admission you watched his video and found nothing racist except a "common racist talking point" that isn't actually in and of itself racist; you just like to imagine that racists use it

so you disagree with him about who supports BLM, and again found no racist statements in his video to point to

so you disagree with him about the definition of racism, and again -- lo and behold -- found no racist statements in his video

maybe you should give up

What do you even consider racist? Several of the things I mentioned are transparently racist. Are you one of those people who believes someone isn't racist unless they explicitly say "I believe race X is inferior to race Y"?

Discounting/denying the impact of racism is, itself, racist. Non-racist people are not going to go out of their way to repeatedly condemn minority activist organizations and attempt to refuse any claims that systemic racism is a problem. No one says the kind of stuff I pointed out in those videos except for people who are either racist or advocating ideas with racist outcomes (which isn't much different). Unless you spent your entire life cut off from media and civilization, all of this should be transparently obvious.

edit: Like, using your standards the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, aren't racist. But this is clearly nonsense, because in practice most racists have realized that explicitly saying "I hate (racial slur)" doesn't go over well, and instead just give a bunch of negative opinions, perpetuate negative stereotypes about a race, and attack any individuals and organizations concerned with racism/discrimination.

Great Metal Jesus posted:

Sorry if it's not 100% relevant, I read about this a while ago and was straight up struck dumb by how brazen re-segregation was being given the a-okay.

De facto segregation never even ended in the first place. My mom taught at an elementary school for over 20 years that was literally 100% black.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:15

it shaun: Jun 6, 2017

Ytlaya posted:

What do you even consider racist? Several of the things I mentioned are transparently racist. Are you one of those people who believes someone isn't racist unless they explicitly say "I believe race X is inferior to race Y"?

I've run into my fair share of folk who claim nothing is racist unless it is as obvious as a guy in a white hood shouting racial slurs. & even then a few will insist he's only doing it ironically, so it's okay.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:21

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Rugoberta Munchu posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjb0Ltw1Tj0

Have some "race realism"...

Time until Nick Wade scientific racism namecheck: 44 seconds.

Nick Wade is the guy who says that Jews are good with money because they have a genetic predisposition to working with numbers and texts.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:24

Desiderata: May 25, 2005; Go placidly amid the noise and haste...

So I bought and read "Kill all Normies".

It is little more than a brief synopsis of the events in the alt right so far, and very brief at that. Strangely It hardly even functions as a primer, as it skims through a list online personalities that without name recognition would mean nothing outside those who already know the topic. What little analysis sandwiched in there is reduced to throwing in the names of some philosophers towards each chapter end, which feels less a reference to intellectual antecedents and more like academic totem markings to demonstrate the books seriousness. The middle is devoted to a critique of tumblr culture, fair enough and worth analysing, but this too is skimmed over and very little is drawn from it. Yet somehow this is used to claim that tumblr culture caused the rise of the alt-right, which... well ok causally I'm not convinced that is true at all: but the book makes no real stab at demonstrating this accusation, and the equivalency between the two just seems lazy. It then all ends having hardly diagnosed (or even looked at) the problems that caused the rise of the alt-right let alone offered anything to done to resolve these issues.

It's not a bad book (heh more like pamphlet), but ultimately on par with a long effort post / think piece on recent online history. Basically if you're here reading this on the internet forum something awful, you probably already get the idea that transgression can be fun and seductive. Plus if you've actually read this thread or the dark enlightenment one are probably already better versed in this topic than the book can offer.

Which is a shame, as what I read could have been the interesting opening chapters of a more rounded thoughtful book.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:26

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

Ytlaya posted:

Discounting/denying the impact of racism is, itself, racist.

well there you go, you're rewriting the definition of the word in order to attack people who disagree with you and brand them as racists, so as to justify your hatred of those people

you have nothing to support your claims, so you redefine words until things fit your warped perception of reality

your worldview is not healthy

Pittsburgh Lambic fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:42

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Nagle is pretty clear about what's to be done to counter the alt-right: the left needs new ideas. She's pretty clear that reaction is the only direction for capitalism's critics to drift because there's nothing productive to scoop them up. And I don't think she blames tumblr for the rise of the alt-right as much as she says they latched onto the excesses of tumblr culture to energize themselves in the beginning as an entre that "reasonable" people would also find laughable, but obviously there's hardly any tumblr left any more.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 00:44

BigRed0427: Mar 23, 2007; There's no one I'd rather be than me.

The best explanation for Tumblr culture I found was int he trade collection for Kim and Kim

Kim and Kim Forward by Imogen Binnie posted:

Look: the short version is that I talked a lot of poo poo about Neil Gaiman, and I�m sorry. I used to have this blog where I wrote about what I was reading and I got swept up in the Your Fav Is Problematic craze of the early mid 2010s. Maybe you remember this? It took place mostly on an internet hell made up primarily of pornography and self-righteousness called Tumblr, where people would write up little reports on how artists or singers or writers or whatever - your faves - had hosed up, so you could feel bad about liking their work and hate them forever.

It was fun, dude. You can�t really argue with the sense of power you feel when you�re taking down a famous or semi-famous or almost semi-famous person who has done something that makes you feel like you�re better than them. Of course, when you�re dividing people into two groups (�problematic� and �not yet problematic�), and those two groups roughly equate to �bad� and �good,� you�re not doing analysis as much as its opposite. But it�s enticing, right? We all live in a culture that makes us feel lovely and hurt and powerless all the time. Of course we�re all doing whatever we can to feel less powerless.

So okay. When I was a kid I loved Neil Gaiman�s Sandman comics. And like a lot of teenage trans girls who haven�t quite figured out that they�re trans, I built myself an elaborate personal hall of mythopoetic mirrors in order to sort of understand that I was trans and sort of not know. And there were trans women in those Sandman comics! In the mid-nineties, in the rural part of New Jersey that they never seem to show on TV, I wasn�t really seeing trans women anywhere else. I mean, they were there. We�ve always been there. I just didn�t know yet, so the trans women in Sandman comics became really important to me. They were basically a lifeline.

On re-reading those comics a couple years ago, though, I noticed something kind of disappointing: the trans women in those comics kept dying. There were something like a dozen trans women who died offstage over the course of those comics, and I think one who died onstage? None live. So I did what any self-righteous grownup with a laptop would do: I talked a bunch of poo poo on the internet.

YOUR FAVORITE, NEIL GAIMAN, IS PROBLEMATIC, I hollered into the void.

Other jerks on the internet loved it. That post got passed around extensively. Neil himself seems still to have a career, which I am happy about, because at the time I don�t think I had an endgame besides feeling powerful by attacking someone who was more powerful than me. And I regret it.

Neil, I�m sure you�re reading this, and I apologize. I was being a jerk. We haven�t met but I�m told that you are not, actually, a bad person who hates trans women. You yourself have said that if you had it to do over again you�d write those characters� stories differently. And honestly, while I still very strongly prefer stories in which trans women do not die, I�ve realized that I was never mad at you. I was mad that those comics were the best I could do at fourteen. You know? I was mad.

If there�s a point to any of this, it�s this: it rules that it�s no longer the early mid 90s. Everything is awesome now. I mean... actually I guess there is a lot of stuff from now that is not awesome. A lot of stuff blows. But there is way more awesome stuff now than there used to be. The late mid 2010s are amazing: now it is the future and we have G.L.O.S.S. and Ryka Aoki and Janet Mock and Her Story and Tangerine and look. Check this out. If you want fun and monsters and spaceships and legit sexuality and gender stuff and hitting robot gorillas with bass guitars and cool girls giving a poo poo about each other and cute boys also giving a poo poo about those cool girls and interdimensional death magic, good news: we live in the future and we also get to have Kim & Kim.

I�m not sure how to tell you about this collection of Kim & Kim without spoiling the best parts. There�s a bunch of stuff I could quote. I won�t! You�ll get to the part where the guy is making fun of the boys and the part with the word �fuckhead� and you�ll see. If Kim & Kim had existed when I was in high school, it would have hosed me up in such a good way. Even now it�s a legitimately important contribution to the way we talk about and portray trans women. I mean, it is not a comic about being trans. It�s a comic in which one of the protagonists is trans in a way that feels real - not �just happens irrelevantly to be trans� or �will not shut up about being gender.� It�s just a thing that comes up sometimes. You know That�s what being trans feels like to me and to a lot of my friends and one of the best tricks that writer Magdalene Visaggio pulls off here is to set a relatable version of being trans as the grounded heart of a story about sand worms and octopus monsters and what appears to be the van that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles drove in the Saturday morning cartoons from the 80s, modified for space travel. It�s a bright, fun, funny comic that works because at its center it�s got this sweet, real relationship between two imperfect queer women who you fall in love with.

And also? I care about trans women, but you don�t have to. There�s plenty here for you even if you have a deep, profound indifference about that stuff: parent drama, the struggle to pay rent, organized space crime, cosmic bounty hunting, bright pink guns, you name it. You know: the stuff that makes comic books rule. I�ve argued before that if readers can accept dragons and warp drives, they can probably also handle trans women with agency. In Kim & Kim, we get all three. And I�m happy to spoil this for you: over the course of these issues of Kim & Kim, no trans women die, as far as I can tell.

Your move, Gaiman.
Imogen Binnie
10/2016

My point is Kim and Kim is a Good Comic. And that maybe we need a thread to discuss Internet subcultures, communities and how they affect political opinions and life.

BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:13

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

well there you go, you're rewriting the definition of the word in order to attack people who disagree with you and brand them as racists, so as to justify your hatred of those people

you have nothing to support your claims, so you redefine words until things fit your warped perception of reality

your worldview is not healthy

The literal definition of racism includes showing/feeling discrimination based on race, and having opinions that involve denying the effects of discrimination that exist (and thus also denying attempts to rectify them) is racist.

Or if you really want to be pedantic (though I'm pretty sure you're not even in the right pedantically), we can just call them "terrible people who have opinions that involve denying and perpetuating the existence and effects of racism."

The issue with your idea here is that we know from polls that at least ~30% of the country is explicitly racist (in the sense of thinking black people are less intelligent, more criminal, etc). But most of these people realize saying this stuff explicitly doesn't go over well, so they instead just express political views that deny the importance of these issues and attack activist groups concerned with them. Using your logic, you would basically end up ignoring the vast majority of racists, who are smart enough to not go around calling people racial slurs.

I'm not even one of the people saying all Trump/Republican voters are trash or whatever. But there's a difference between a random low info conservative voter and guys who go on Youtube and make a bunch of videos talking about how the concerns of minorities and women are dumb and overblown. The latter are absolutely trash people, because they explicitly define their ideology along such lines (as opposed to possibly just being ignorant, like a Trump voter who thought he would bring back coal jobs or whatever).

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:14

Evrart Claire: Jan 11, 2008

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

well there you go, you're rewriting the definition of the word

There's nothing being rewritten you idiot.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:14

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

Ytlaya posted:

The literal definition of racism includes showing/feeling discrimination based on race, and having opinions that involve denying the effects of discrimination that exist (and thus also denying attempts to rectify them) is racist.

the problem comes in when people misrepresent/overstate the effects of racism; your definition of racism means questioning misstatements re: the effects of racism is also racist

and since you have set up an environment where it is not racist to overstate the effects of racism but is in fact racist to understate the effects of racism, overstatement will inevitably happen and it will be racist to question that overstatement

see what happens when you try to play with word definitions?

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:19

it shaun: Jun 6, 2017

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

the problem comes in when people misrepresent/overstate the effects of racism; your definition of racism means questioning misstatements re: the effects of racism is also racist

Nope. they didn't say "questioning misstatements," they said, "denying the effects of discrimination." Goalpost shift

You're also acting like your definition of the word is the right one, & other people are trying to 'play with' it. That's just your opinion, they could say the same to you. Words don't have definitions separate from what people give them

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:29

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

Who What Now posted:

I'm trying to get you to gently caress off is what I'm doing.

thank you for admitting that your accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny are not meant to be factual, but to denigrate people

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:31

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

neil gaiman is more problematic for putting a baby in a lovely person and defending grrm being a lazy rear end in a top hat.

Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:32

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

it shaun posted:

Nope. they didn't say "questioning misstatements," they said, "denying the effects of discrimination." Goalpost shift

it follows as a consequence of the definition he gave; if you have a problem with it then take it up with him

# ? Jul 17, 2017 01:39

Aramis: Sep 22, 2009

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

and since you have set up an environment where it is not racist to overstate the effects of racism but is in fact racist to understate the effects of racism, overstatement will inevitably happen and it will be racist to question that overstatement

You are just being willfully dense and ignoring that what he meant obviously was "Denying established and demonstrable effects of racism". That defending any single imaginable effect of racism does not make someone racist, and that it only applies to demonstrable facts is self-evident.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:01

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

Aramis posted:

You are just being willfully dense and ignoring that what he meant obviously was "Denying established and demonstrable effects of racism". That defending any single imaginable effect of racism does not make someone racist, and that it only applies to demonstrable facts is self-evident.

nice goalpost shift; he didn't even have to ask you to

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:04

Lightning Lord: Feb 21, 2013; $200 a day, plus expenses

Sweet cherrypicking of posts to respond to as well, Lambic.

I guess your obvious goal of destabilising the thread or making it focus on you has been accomplished.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:05

Edible Hat: Jul 23, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Any complaints about a female Dr. Who? I imagine there is a lot of overlap between Youtube "skeptics" and die-hard Whovians.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:05

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

it follows as a consequence of the definition he gave; if you have a problem with it then take it up with him

No it doesn't? You'd have a point if they were questioning actual misstatements, but (as you can easily from see from any Sargon video) they automatically assume any statement that could remotely be interpreted as coming from an "SJW" perspective is wrong, and their criticism itself is also almost always wrong (and when it's not wrong, it's usually being aimed at some random tumblr person or whatever). Like, watch the Shaun and Jen video on Sargon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9E2iEi6vMY) to see how deliberately dishonest he is.

Basically, if someone spends most of their time dishonestly and incorrectly smearing minority/feminist activism and denying - without any valid evidence or explanation - the existence and/or impact of racism/bigotry, it's pretty obvious where they stand.

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

nice goalpost shift; he didn't even have to ask you to

No, it was pretty obvious that was what I was saying.

Like, I said "denying the effects of discrimination that exist", which clearly implies I'm referring to real discrimination, as opposed to someone making incorrect claims of discrimination. I even added the "that exist" just to make it clear that I was referring to people denying stuff that is demonstrably true.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:05

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

So here is some real YouTube "intellectualism."

I wasn't active in the YT community back in the day but from what I have pieced together, a lot of the more popular shitlords used to be Atheists. A notable few however care about things besides laughing at Creationists and these people were subsequently banished for this heresy.

Probably the most derided of these heretics is Steve Shives who has a whole forced meme these idiots cooked up because he won't talk to them on Twitter. Well, someone took it a step further:
A Steve Shives "Documentary"

Because he's changed, man. He used to be cool before he became a mangina.

And here is less awful people watching and laughing at this farce:
https://youtu.be/AjOJPRe0yjk

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:23

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

thank you for admitting that your accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny are not meant to be factual, but to denigrate people

I've never said otherwise. The whole point of this thread is to denigrate people. I'm sorry that it's aimed at actual garbage human beings instead of the mentally ill and non-passing trans people like you normally prefer.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 02:54

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

Ytlaya posted:

No it doesn't? You'd have a point if they were questioning actual misstatements, but (as you can easily from see from any Sargon video) they automatically assume any statement that could remotely be interpreted as coming from an "SJW" perspective is wrong, and their criticism itself is also almost always wrong (and when it's not wrong, it's usually being aimed at some random tumblr person or whatever). Like, watch the Shaun and Jen video on Sargon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9E2iEi6vMY) to see how deliberately dishonest he is.

Basically, if someone spends most of their time dishonestly and incorrectly smearing minority/feminist activism and denying - without any valid evidence or explanation - the existence and/or impact of racism/bigotry, it's pretty obvious where they stand.

No, it was pretty obvious that was what I was saying.

Like, I said "denying the effects of discrimination that exist", which clearly implies I'm referring to real discrimination, as opposed to someone making incorrect claims of discrimination. I even added the "that exist" just to make it clear that I was referring to people denying stuff that is demonstrably true.

no, you don't get to use your favorite youtube video to make your points for you

just like you don't get to tapdance around your claim that discussing/debating the effects of racism is racist

that's nothing but an attempt to hold your point of view unquestionable by deeming the evidence you use to back it up as sacred and untouchable, and then branding anybody asking questions as a racist

you've failed time and time and time again to present any proof that the object of your racism accusations is actually racist; why should i trust you to be intellectually honest about the effects of racism

Pittsburgh Lambic fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:07

Al-Saqr: Nov 11, 2007; One Day I Will Return To Your Side.

holy poo poo the levels of retardation and pedantry is incredible please Lambic loving get a life and learn to read.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:12

it shaun: Jun 6, 2017

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

nobody in this thread has ever pointed to any of the videos in question

i find myself increasingly doubting that said videos exist

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

no, you don't get to use your favorite youtube video to make your points for you

You ask for videos & then dismiss them when people show you. Ha

Everyone in the thread is talking about you, though, well done. That means you're winning the argument.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:23

Aramis: Sep 22, 2009

it shaun posted:

Everyone in the thread is talking about you, though, well done. That means you're winning the argument.

Isn't this thread about piling up on internet "smart people" who use lame straw mans and pedantry as a means to "win" arguments in the first place? It started off as a derail, but I think this is turning kinda beautifully self-sustaining at this point. So as someone who normally just lurks around, I don't really mind.

Aramis fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:33

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Aramis posted:

Isn't this thread about piling up on internet "smart people" who use lame straw mans and pedantry as a means to "win" arguments in the first place? it started off as a derail, but I think this is turning kinda beautifully self-sustaining at this point. So as someone who normally just lurks around, I don't really mind.

There is something to be said about homegrown content

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:37

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

it shaun posted:

You ask for videos & then dismiss them when people show you. Ha

Everyone in the thread is talking about you, though, well done. That means you're winning the argument.

sorry i didn't watch your video in response to a person who was trying to use your video to state his opinion for him

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:44

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

Aramis posted:

Isn't this thread about piling up on internet "smart people" who use lame straw mans and pedantry as a means to "win" arguments in the first place? It started off as a derail, but I think this is turning kinda beautifully self-sustaining at this point. So as someone who normally just lurks around, I don't really mind.

The Youtube Intellectualism is coming from...inside here!?

# ? Jul 17, 2017 04:59

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

lambic is mad that a bunch of people roasted sargon for being stupid for a few pages without interruption so now they're in the thread trying to defend his boy. "Nuh -uh! You are stupid, you can't even prove this very stupid man is racist so I guess he's not even stupid, it's just you!!!"

# ? Jul 17, 2017 05:02

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

sorry i didn't watch your video in response to a person who was trying to use your video to state his opinion for him

You said you wanted examples of Sargon being racist. Since I am not Sargon myself, I have no choice but to link you to videos in which Sargon is racist. I even mentioned some specific stuff in my earlier post because I anticipated you using this exact argument (which you just went "nuh uh!" to without any real counter-argument).

I'll just ask outright so you can't keep vaguely implying things - do you consider it racist for a person to both 1. repeatedly attempt to discredit and/or downplay valid and demonstrable examples of discrimination/bigotry and 2. repeatedly misinterpret information in a way that portrays minorities (or proxies for minorities, like conflating "migrants" with "Middle-Eastern migrants") in a negative light? As a somewhat exaggerated but still valid analogy, would you consider someone antisemitic if they insinuated that the death toll/impact of the Holocaust is actually exaggerated/overblown and that the Jewish people weren't totally innocent either? I mean, they didn't explicitly saying that Jewish people are all inherently evil or inferior, right? So I'm guessing you'd say that isn't racist?

The thing you don't seem to understand is that people do not just randomly stumble into repeatedly interpreting information in a way that fits a particular narrative (in this case a narrative where 1. bigotry isn't actually a big deal and is just being overblown by "SJWs" and 2. foreign Muslim migrants are a terrible threat to UK/Europeans). The way someone interprets information/media reflects their underlying ideology.

(I'm fully expecting the response to be something along the lines of "but you can't know for sure something is racist unless God Himself comes down and confirms it!")

# ? Jul 17, 2017 05:37

Deified Data: Nov 3, 2015; Fun Shoe

YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING IN HONEST DISCUSSION

Please be courteous of other posters ignore lists, etc.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 06:07

Somfin: Oct 25, 2010; In my🦚 experience🛠️ the big things🌑 don't teach you anything🤷‍♀️.; Nap Ghost

Pitts, what evidence would prove to you that a person is, in your view, racist?

Please don't fill in for him, folks. I genuinely want to know this.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 06:52

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Symbolic Butt posted:

Someone mentioned that Carlgon recently read Adam Smith and I'm super curious about his take. I've been reading The Wealth of Nations and the impression that I got is that Adam Smith is not really a "classical liberal" in today's sense, so I wonder if he got that.

Yeah, Adam Smith had a significantly different view on the role of the state than today's neoliberals and libertarians. Rand and Nozick are both very far away from him ideologically despite at face value representing the same school of thought. In retrospect, he had borderline religious ideas on the role of markets (which have been mostly discarded) but his thoughts on states, taxation and the role of bonds are still very relevant today as everything that came after was to some degree based on them or in opposition to them.

MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 07:18

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

MiddleOne posted:

Yeah, Adam Smith had a significantly different view on the role of the state than today's neoliberals and libertarians. Rand and Nozick are both very far away from him ideologically despite at face value representing the same school of thought. In retrospect, he had borderline religious ideas on the role of markets (which have been mostly discarded) but his thoughts on states, taxation and the role of bonds are still very relevant today as everything that came after was to some degree based on them or in opposition to them.

Tons of Libertarians today still view the market as a quasi-religious force, so that's more relevant than you might think.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 13:39

Praseodymi: Aug 26, 2010

MiddleOne posted:

Yeah, Adam Smith had a significantly different view on the role of the state than today's neoliberals and libertarians. Rand and Nozick are both very far away from him ideologically despite at face value representing the same school of thought. In retrospect, he had borderline religious ideas on the role of markets (which have been mostly discarded) but his thoughts on states, taxation and the role of bonds are still very relevant today as everything that came after was to some degree based on them or in opposition to them.

There's an excellent quote from The Wealth of Nations that Mark Blyth uses a bunch. Smith absolutely recognised the role of the state in protecting established wealth.

quote:

Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary.

Sounds more like Marx.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 13:56

Pittsburgh Lambic: Feb 16, 2011

Somfin posted:

Pitts, what evidence would prove to you that a person is, in your view, racist?

Please don't fill in for him, folks. I genuinely want to know this.

i'm hesitant to give any definition for a word that a majority of this thread uses to justify hatred of people they don't agree with

# ? Jul 17, 2017 14:24

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

i'm hesitant to give any definition for a word that a majority of this thread uses to justify hatred of people they don't agree with

Coward

# ? Jul 17, 2017 14:27

Terrible Opinions: Oct 18, 2013

Somfin posted:

Pitts, what evidence would prove to you that a person is, in your view, racist?

Please don't fill in for him, folks. I genuinely want to know this.

I'm guessing he thinks the people who lynched James Anderson weren't racist because well they said they weren't racist, therefore they are not.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 14:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 07:28

Rumda: Nov 4, 2009; Moth Lesbian Comrade

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

i'm hesitant to give any definition for a word that a majority of this thread uses to justify hatred of people they don't agree with

# ? Jul 17, 2017 14:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread! [Part 2]

«‹›296 »