|
Guavanaut posted:Also 'aggression' means immediate subjective violence only, i.e. violence committed directly by an identifiable actor. I punch you, I steal your property, I detain you without your consent. It makes no allowance for indirect violence, like I put up a series of billboards declaring your ethnic group to be witches and pedophiles, and so someone burns down your house. The arsonist is the only one that violated the NAP, I merely exercised my freedom of speech and purchased advertising space for an agreed upon value with the owner, the arsonist should have done more research first. It's also terrible at dealing with objective/systemic violence, the violence that we all engage in and suffer from to different degrees because of our economic and 'justice' systems and the history of various groups. such pathology is also rampant in the anti-SJW communities, when they specifically paint targets for their viewers to harass, with a small disclaimer saying "also, don't harass these guys".
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It especially falls apart when it comes to land, being as most of that was stolen by a state at some point and redistributed by some form of favoritism or other, and most ancaps can usually agree that trading stolen property is wrong. (Unless it's to their benefit, then somehow magically nobody owned the land.) Or better, in places like England and Wales (and until 2004, Scotland) where the ultimate owner of all land*, legally, is the crown, and you can live on or control the operation of her land as a tenant through leasehold or freehold without technically ever fully owning it. If the monarch wants to set up an insitituion to collect dues and enforce rules (let's call this The Crown, with an administrative body we'll call, let's say, "parliament") on her private island, who are any of us to say that her absolute property rights do not allow her to do so? If you don't like the rules on her private island, leave. If you don't follow the rules, and you don't leave, surely this is a violation of her property rights and she would be justified in taking measures to protect her property rights. Anarcho-capitalism sort of breaks down when you realise that one gestalt entity that manifests as a 91 year old woman with lots of funny hats owns 5% of the entire surface area of planet Earth. *The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall don't belong to The Crown, Lancaster belongs to the Queen as a seperate entity and Cornwall belongs to the Prince of Wales, for technical, feudal, and ultimately pointless reasons. Reveilled fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Sep 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:It's always interesting to find the one guy who wasn't using code words when everyone else drops the mask. It reminds me of when David Icke ended up going on a white nationalist radio show. It took a couple minutes for everyone to figure out they didn't all mean the same thing by "lizard people." I love that I live in a reality where someone has needed to clarify "No, I'm not talking about Jews, the beings who secretly run all governments on Earth are literal lizard aliens" several times throughout his life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ancaps believe that some people are better than others and that they are pretty high on the scale and that society should let them have power because they would use it well. This. It's a pretty common thread among libertarians (and their flavors) that simply being a "True Believer" means that they'd be safe if this system ever took hold. Dig a little down, and they'd find that the policies they support would really hurt them too. Perhaps it's a feeling of "I'm advocating a policy that sounds super smarty pants on the surface so that must make me super smarty pants so I would not stand to be injured by this!" I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Or better, in places like England and Wales (and until 2004, Scotland) where the ultimate owner of all land*, legally, is the crown, and you can live on or control the operation of her land as a tenant through leasehold or freehold without technically ever fully owning it. The best part is you loving know they still have all the paperwork to prove that somewhere because of course the UK government does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
I dunno, given the amount of UK procedure that is just customs and practice, it wouldn't surprise me if she just claimed she owned it without contest for so long that she's effectively invoking squatters' rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Likewise, if something doesn't violate NAP, then it's totally fine even if it has terrible side effects (thinking of stuff like industrial pollution or other tragedy of the commons type situations) How does industrial pollution NOT violate NAP, though? If a coal company is placed within my neighborhood and it pollutes my air or water supply, how is that not an infringement on my safety?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How does industrial pollution NOT violate NAP, though? If a coal company is placed within my neighborhood and it pollutes my air or water supply, how is that not an infringement on my safety? Because it's not a very intellectually rigorous philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I dunno, given the amount of UK procedure that is just customs and practice, it wouldn't surprise me if she just claimed she owned it without contest for so long that she's effectively invoking squatters' rights. I mean, human settlement basically everywhere on the planet predates any concept of individual property rights, so if some place wasn't claimed by right of conquest in the modern era, that's pretty much how it has to work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How does industrial pollution NOT violate NAP, though? If a coal company is placed within my neighborhood and it pollutes my air or water supply, how is that not an infringement on my safety? Because you are entirely free to move away from the coal-burning gas plant next to your house. If you choose not to you have made the rational decision to value your health and safety below you staying put in your existing home/job/family/social circle. Perhaps the coal-burning gas plant will motivate you to work harder to afford to move away. And anyway, you can't prove that all the black goo you're coughing up has anything to do with the fumes from the gas plant; the Libertopia Coal, Carbide & Lawn Dart Co. has a scientific report which states that fine carbon particulates are harmless. And it's not LCC&LDCo's problem where its waste products go once they waft out of their property in any case. So there.  OwlFancier posted:Because it's not a very intellectually rigorous philosophy. That too... BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
I mean yeah there's rationalizations for anything you want I'm sure but it boils down to the fact that libertarianism is a post hoc justifcation for an intrinsic feeling of superiority in its advocates and a desire for a meritocratic society because they feel like they or their idols are the only people fit to lead and everyone else is just rabble who can't be trusted to decide things for themselves. It's not the only such justification which is why it often gets on so well with liberals and fascists because they also believe some variant of that, but have different ideas about how you sort out the best people and what their goals should be. I think it's also probably the best delineation you can draw between them and the left because good leftists should desire to create level societies in some way where the emphasis is not on people leading and using society to achieve their goals, but instead on mass service of people to each other and to the welfare of the collective society, and the hard left often get quite ardent about their dislike of hierarchical organization. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Because you are entirely free to move away from the coal-burning gas plant next to your house. If you choose not to you have made the rational decision to value your health and safety below you staying put in your existing home/job/family/social circle. Perhaps the coal-burning gas plant will motivate you to work harder to afford to move away. And anyway, you can't prove that all the black goo you're coughing up has anything to do with the fumes from the gas plant; the Libertopia Coal, Carbide & Lawn Dart Co. has a scientific report which states that fine carbon particulates are harmless. And it's not LCC&LDCo's problem where its waste products go once they waft out of their property in any case. So there. I know you're joking, but why is it the responsibility of the aggrieved to pack up and acquiesce to the aggressor? By that logic, if my neighbor were to threaten me, saying that they would either beat me up or shoot me or whatever, would it also be my responsibility to move out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I know you're joking, but why is it the responsibility of the aggrieved to pack up and acquiesce to the aggressor? By that logic, if my neighbor were to threaten me, saying that they would either beat me up or shoot me or whatever, would it also be my responsibility to move out? Because the aggressor owns a coal plant and thus is part of the superior industrialist class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the aggressor owns a coal plant and thus is part of the superior industrialist class. okay that's more like it
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
I mean I'm sure that they'll probably give some convoluted explanation but given that ancaps worship capitalism as a method of deciding who is best in society it basically boils down to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:By that logic, if my neighbor were to threaten me, saying that they would either beat me up or shoot me or whatever, would it also be my responsibility to move out? If you don't like it, join an ethical coercion association, or some other group of people who use their combined property rights to enforce a higher level of morality. Best to join one of the larger groups whose members control your neighbor's utilities and the streets in front of his home. Of course, your neighbor might already be making such moves against you within these associations, so hopefully you're good at these kinds of group politics. Get out there and taste the liberty!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also: New Hbomb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYgjGDaMYg I love that Andjen is now Shaun's last name.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
The scientific skepticism movement has been trying to keep their claim to 'skeptic' for decades now, in light of YouTube 'rationalists' and 'skeptics' it seems particularly pointless, it's not as though it's a protected term in any way. Yet the big names in the movement are particularly quiet on the issue, all in the name of being inclusive and non-political.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
A little bit interesting if you're into drama regarding our favorite Swindonian Emperor. Carly made a vid making GBS threads on Dick Couhlan, so Dick livestreams a response in which he reveals that Carl is a spineless coward who is a slave to his audience. Like he kept sending Dick videos of Aurini going LOL IT'D BE FUNNY IF SOMEBODY MADE A RESPONSE CALLING OUT HIS BULLSHIT RIGHT RIGHT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChKGk-63QU
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The big names like Dick Dorkins and Shermer are reactionary woman-hater cocks anyway and were mras before there was a word for it. They probably don't mind one bit. The skeptic movement that started with Randi and Sagan is pretty much dead anyway, precisely because it was chock full of entitled white nerds who couldn't handle the move to have it start dealing with diversity. A lot of the people who seemed like they were going to carry the Randi torch ended up being con men and rapists. Who's left, other than Tyson and the SGU?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
yeah shermer is one i was going to bring up because he was the face of the skeptic movement before the rise of youtube and poo poo. there were always some issues with skepticism as a movement because shermer like business hammocks said is a misogynist and also only came around to climate change fairly recently. sam harris, on top of being an islamophobe, seems to be very unskeptical when it comes to paranormal garbage like esp. so the movement always had problems it's just been magnified with the rise of youtube and the internet in general. i remember back when i was "active" in the community in the early 2000s (i mostly focused on conspiracy theory stuff particularly jfk and 9/11/subbed to skeptic mag/all that jazz) there were a surprising number of right wingers. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
PZ Myers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:The scientific skepticism movement has been trying to keep their claim to 'skeptic' for decades now, in light of YouTube 'rationalists' and 'skeptics' it seems particularly pointless, it's not as though it's a protected term in any way. Yet the big names in the movement are particularly quiet on the issue, all in the name of being inclusive and non-political. skepticism isn't as necessary nowadays since the left have mostly won the culture wars. all that's left are the kind of people who have a need to prove how smart and rational they are
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:skepticism isn't as necessary nowadays since the left have mostly won the culture wars. all that's left are the kind of people who have a need to prove how smart and rational they are On the other hand, anti-vaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:On the other hand, anti-vaxxers. Anti-vax is a bipartisan problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:On the other hand, anti-vaxxers. you mean, a group of folks who are widely mocked and who have zero traction in loosening vaccination laws? remember, there was a time within recent history when being homosexual was classified as a mental illness and this was widely accepted in society. skepticism needs to be about more than mocking a handful of creationists and crystal healers
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:PZ Myers? PZ is sadly a non-entity nowadays, precisely because he tried to make a stand against the FREE SPEECH edgelords and get a more inclusive, representative going. It can also be blamed on the blogger movement basically losing its steam over Youtube/Reddit. Dawkins is a weird case, because he actually mentions feminism by name in The God Delusion as a good example for atheism to emulate in raising consciousness about its message and pointing out unfair portrayals. And then, the moment he could speak out about it, he opened his maw and vomited ignorant garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
My point is that skepticism is extremely necessary still. Reasons why include but are not limited to: anti-vaxxers (who loving kill kids, remember), anti-GMO nuts, climate change deniers, homeopaths, herbal supplements, and other horseshit peddlers, and plenty of other legit dangerous kooks whose unscientific bullshit can catch folks vulnerable to it because their science and critical thinking education has been hamstrung by the people you claim lost the culture wars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
It's kinda hard to look at the US right now and go "Oh yeah, the Left totally won the culture war here" The issue with Skepticism is it's filling up with people who just want everyone to stop talking about emotive/political issues and think skepticism is a way to get them to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Skepticism is good because it maintains evidence based approaches to life, which don't just get put in place and magically endure forever more. Society can regress as well as progress, or it can progress in bad directions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
I miss when the sceptical movement was all about calling out creationists for having stupid "scientific" explanations for the ark, young earth etc. It tied into general Atheism and rejection of the homophobia and women-repression of more hardened bible-thumpers. I was hopeful that so many people were regretting dogma in favour of being more open and inclusive. Thunderf00t was...good? Then the wheels came off the wagon and it went to poo poo. Does anyone really know how it went so wrong? Like has anyone catalogued the failure. I feel like it started off as scepticism, which then beget "Logic", which then resulted in really attracting fedora'd gentlemen who do sure love feeling superior down a keyboard at people. As the sceptical/evidence-based eye turns towards social and racial issues, the Supreme Gentlemen of the internet have become more and more unhinged and angry. They got on board with the bible-burning because really they hated all religion because it's dumb and stupid (+/- thinly veiled anti-Muslim sentiments). Scepticism provided a post-hoc justification for their existing bias. Now their own bias is being challenged and they are not happy. The "brains" of the sceptical movement aren't really even part of this anymore, they're still discussing vaccines and Atheism while the greater conversation seems to now be about toilets and genders and black people replacing whites. So "sceptics" have no scientific facade to hide behind anymore, nobody else doing the hard work for them and telling them what the research shows in a way that proves their point. This coupled with the click bait driven nature of YouTube has lead to the sorts of stuff HB covered in his last video where you just have the same people lifting points from each others videos, lazily reacting to the same selective quoting. The same problematic nature of YT means that even if someone puts together a clearly well researched accurate video on a topic like "race replacement" or transgender science, it'll receive 1/10th of the hits of a response video entitled "SJW TRANSCUCK OWNED!!!".
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:My point is that skepticism is extremely necessary still. Reasons why include but are not limited to: anti-vaxxers (who loving kill kids, remember), anti-GMO nuts, climate change deniers, homeopaths, herbal supplements, and other horseshit peddlers, and plenty of other legit dangerous kooks whose unscientific bullshit can catch folks vulnerable to it because their science and critical thinking education has been hamstrung by the people you claim lost the culture wars. i dont think humans will ever stop being superstitious and illogical. this is just who we are. i dont even think you can blame red state education, that's a bit of an illogical red herring there as an excuse to avoid talking about the much bigger problem of socieconomics leading to differential outcomes in a deeply capitalist society so long as we largely keep this stuff out of public policy making i'm happy. more net harm is done from parents encouraging their kids to play football than parents refusing to vaccinate e: actually this post reminds me why i never really liked "skeptics" in the first place, because too often they would just use the skeptic label in opposition to some other thing like religion while making incorrect arguments. not that you are doing this necessarily but there's a lot of wannabe sam harrises out there who are all "i am a rational and a skeptic, let me tell you how islam is uniquely bad using logic and should not be tolerated" like it's way too easy to get fooled by your own self labeling about being a bona fide smart guy boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
How on Earth could anyone think that the Left has "won" the culture wars when not too long ago we had some shitheel bakers refuse to make a wedding cake for gay people? What, just cause gay marriage is legal now you think all those homophobic scumbags just disappeared into the ether? Same with the creationists, anti-vaccers, and pro-lifers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
We were promised that the internet would bring about an age of enlightenment while mostly I think it has brought about an age of higher velocity idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
winegums posted:I miss when the sceptical movement was all about calling out creationists for having stupid "scientific" explanations for the ark, young earth etc. It tied into general Atheism and rejection of the homophobia and women-repression of more hardened bible-thumpers. I was hopeful that so many people were regretting dogma in favour of being more open and inclusive. Thunderf00t was...good? It was when women who participated in skeptic events and groups began expressing discomfort with how the gross internet men in the movement treated them. Specifically, it was Rebecca Watson making a video telling shut-in nerds not to proposition women when they're cornered alone in elevators, which pretty much initiated the trend of endless internet harassment as a mode for chuds to express their hatred of women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Mm, while critical thinking is a very important tool it cannot, sadly, replace ideological commitment to not being a dickhead, though it can enhance it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How on Earth could anyone think that the Left has "won" the culture wars when not too long ago we had some shitheel bakers refuse to make a wedding cake for gay people? What, just cause gay marriage is legal now you think all those homophobic scumbags just disappeared into the ether? Same with the creationists, anti-vaccers, and pro-lifers. because those bakers were punished in a court of law? do you think that in order to win the culture wars bigotry and ignorance must be driven from the human race forever? that is an impossibly high standard if so you know what the difference is between a open racist and one who keeps their mouth shut because they know society isn't tolerant of their bigotry? one is beaten. believing we can build a utopian society free of stupidity is the exact kind of stupidity which wouldn't be allowed in a utopian society
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:because those bakers were punished in a court of law? do you think that in order to win the culture wars bigotry and ignorance must be driven from the human race forever? that is an impossibly high standard if so They don't stay beaten, though, they can remain silent until an opportunity presents itself to retake power, and without constant effort, that happens easily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
winegums posted:I miss when the sceptical movement was all about calling out creationists for having stupid "scientific" explanations for the ark, young earth etc. It tied into general Atheism and rejection of the homophobia and women-repression of more hardened bible-thumpers. I was hopeful that so many people were regretting dogma in favour of being more open and inclusive. Thunderf00t was...good? New atheists have always been massive social regressives. Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are the progenitors of this movement, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:because those bakers were punished in a court of law? do you think that in order to win the culture wars bigotry and ignorance must be driven from the human race forever? that is an impossibly high standard if so I'm not saying our job is to eliminate bigotry - which is pretty much an impossible goal - but rather, just because we've managed to win a few legal battles doesn't mean these fuckers have stopped trying to push back. The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1964, and right-wingers kept fighting it to this very day. Also, what Owlfancier said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 04:24
|
|