Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

Apparently this isn't that far of a jump from their usual stuff.

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1623001538766553088
https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1621567247419408386
https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1591282710873796608

VitalSigns posted:

He doesn't actually say that Osama was right, just that his reasons were not as bad as Lincoln's, which is not a high bar to get over.

I guess you're also a fan of slavery?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 12, 2023 17:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 12:59

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Lol.

There's plenty to criticize about Lincoln, but if you want to get into how Libertarians are tacitly pro-slavery, just look at how selective they are about moral standards they apply to the North versus the South.

They'll talk about Lincoln's wishy-washy attitude on slavery and civil rights: his support of the Corwin Amendment to resolve the secession crisis by permanently enshrining slavery in the US constitution as a sop to the slave power, that his motivation for prosecuting the war was explicitly to maintain US power and control with emancipation as a tactic that he wouldn't have done if he didn't think it would help him win, that he believed black people were inferior and opposed equality of blacks and whites etc. And they say all these moral failings make the Union cause irredeemable (and there's an argument there for sure, especially if you include the massacres of Native Americans the US still managed to commit during the war)

OK so then the Confederate cause, whose leaders were all virulently racist and passionately devoted to the preservation and expansion of slavery ought to be even worse right? Wellllll pobody's nerfect, and anyway federal tariffs are worse than slavery, and well maybe they would have freed all the slaves anyway if Lincoln hadn't invaded and all kinds of excuses for why slavery is forgivable when Confederates did it.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 04:18

Caros: May 14, 2008

VitalSigns posted:

Lol.

There's plenty to criticize about Lincoln, but if you want to get into how Libertarians are tacitly pro-slavery, just look at how selective they are about moral standards they apply to the North versus the South.

They'll talk about Lincoln's wishy-washy attitude on slavery and civil rights: his support of the Corwin Amendment to resolve the secession crisis by permanently enshrining slavery in the US constitution as a sop to the slave power, that his motivation for prosecuting the war was explicitly to maintain US power and control with emancipation as a tactic that he wouldn't have done if he didn't think it would help him win, that he believed black people were inferior and opposed equality of blacks and whites etc. And they say all these moral failings make the Union cause irredeemable (and there's an argument there for sure, especially if you include the massacres of Native Americans the US still managed to commit during the war)

OK so then the Confederate cause, whose leaders were all virulently racist and passionately devoted to the preservation and expansion of slavery ought to be even worse right? Wellllll pobody's nerfect, and anyway federal tariffs are worse than slavery, and well maybe they would have freed all the slaves anyway if Lincoln hadn't invaded and all kinds of excuses for why slavery is forgivable when Confederates did it.

And also they clearly would have ended slavery all on their own anyways, through the magic of capitalism.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 04:36

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Caros posted:

And also they clearly would have ended slavery all on their own anyways, through the magic of capitalism.

Ignoring as always how the Confederate ruling class openly and explicitly hated capitalism, thought it was something only those grubbing Yankees cared for, and was at best a distasteful thing they had to engage with to maintain their aristocracy pseudo-feudal fantasies.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 05:07

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Ignoring as always how the Confederate ruling class openly and explicitly hated capitalism, thought it was something only those grubbing Yankees cared for, and was at best a distasteful thing they had to engage with to maintain their aristocracy pseudo-feudal fantasies.

This is the real funny part given pretty much the standard libertarian (and liberal, and conservative) position is that capitalism is a universal and eternal law of physics and trying to defy it is folly at best, blasphemy at worst, and the idea that systems existed before capitalism that operated in different ways is something that they cannot process.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 05:37

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

https://twitter.com/DennisPrattFree/status/1624747819780251650?s=20

Thread, though the highlight is where he blames Lincoln for 9/11

https://twitter.com/DennisPrattFree/status/1624766895600672769?s=20

# ? Feb 13, 2023 05:43

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Lol at submitting 9/11 to materialist analysis (it was a response to US DC imperialism), but not doing the same to the Civil War (is any powerful industrial empire going to let its lucrative agricultural regions just walk away?). If the South hadn't seceded the Civil War which was supposedly the root of US imperialism wouldn't have happened so he could just as well blame 9/11 on Jeff Davis.

And at the Civil War being the start of an arrogant militaristic US, and not like the Mexican War, the Indian Wars, the War of 1812, all of which were, oops, supported if not primarily engineered by the same Southern plantation owner class that started the Civil War

And at "DC" imperialism, like the confederates didn't dream of their own slave empire expanding into Cuba, Mexico...

# ? Feb 13, 2023 09:00

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Even the premise there is based on a lie, as Lincoln did not start the civil war

# ? Feb 13, 2023 10:01

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

QuarkJets posted:

Even the premise there is based on a lie, as Lincoln did not start the civil war

I believe you will find he violated the NAP by being mean towards the brave Southern businessmen.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 11:18

Professor Shark: May 22, 2012

Order of Events question: do you become a Libertarian by taking stupid pills or does 16 year old you freak out at the deductions from your first paycheque AND THEN become a stupid pill popping Libertarian?

# ? Feb 13, 2023 11:23

HootTheOwl: May 13, 2012; Hootin and shootin

VitalSigns posted:

Eughh it's true but you shouldn't say it or people will think you're pro-Osama or pro-slavery

VitalSigns posted:

He doesn't actually say that Osama was right, just that his reasons were not as bad as Lincoln's, which is not a high bar to get over.

SlothfulCobra posted:

I guess you're also a fan of slavery?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Bad shoot.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 15:16

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

HootTheOwl posted:

Bad shoot.

Jokes are illegal in D&D, my brother in Christ.

Well sometimes, if a mod thinks it's funny they might let it slide, but if you make a joke on the comedy forum you're gambling with your rap sheet.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 15:59

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Anyone reading would have had to remember VS post long enough to realize it was a joke. (it's me, I didn't get the punchline because I forgot the setup)

# ? Feb 13, 2023 16:11

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Professor Shark posted:

Order of Events question: do you become a Libertarian by taking stupid pills or does 16 year old you freak out at the deductions from your first paycheque AND THEN become a stupid pill popping Libertarian?

In all seriousness, it's propaganda + privilege. There's a lot of bullshit out there with a just world fallacy, and the idea that the only reason people fail at things in life is that they didn't work hard enough. And for a teenager, that can be an appealing view - work hard enough and you can get anywhere and do anything.

Of course, then you meet reality. In my case, the cracks had already been forming for years beforehand, but the 2008 recession laid bare the lie behind the idea of a just world. I did everything that society said I should to be successful and even graduated with a degree in engineering, but there were no jobs available because gently caress you, we're having a recession now so that a bunch of rich assholes could make bank off of the rest of us suffering.

For people who stay libertarians, I think it's a combination of either being completely insulated from consequences (of course I worked hard and worked my way up to be a VP at my daddy's company at the age of 22! anyone could do it if they applied themselves!), or people who want to desperately believe that they would be successful if only "they" would stop holding them back.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 16:15

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Dirk the Average posted:

In all seriousness, it's propaganda + privilege. There's a lot of bullshit out there with a just world fallacy, and the idea that the only reason people fail at things in life is that they didn't work hard enough. And for a teenager, that can be an appealing view - work hard enough and you can get anywhere and do anything.

Of course, then you meet reality. In my case, the cracks had already been forming for years beforehand, but the 2008 recession laid bare the lie behind the idea of a just world. I did everything that society said I should to be successful and even graduated with a degree in engineering, but there were no jobs available because gently caress you, we're having a recession now so that a bunch of rich assholes could make bank off of the rest of us suffering.

For people who stay libertarians, I think it's a combination of either being completely insulated from consequences (of course I worked hard and worked my way up to be a VP at my daddy's company at the age of 22! anyone could do it if they applied themselves!), or people who want to desperately believe that they would be successful if only "they" would stop holding them back.

Now do Heinlein!

Uh, if you feel like it. We're all NAP here.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 16:30

HootTheOwl: May 13, 2012; Hootin and shootin

It's teenagers wanting more responsibility from their parents who spent the last 16 years but being able to trust them with solid foods and knowing to shower. It boils down to "it's ok if I stay up late, it's only me I'm hurting if I go to school tired" ignoring that staying up late means using more electricity, eating more late night snacks, keeping your parents awake, and then having them struggle with your tired rear end in the morning, worry about your half awake school commute getting yourself injured, or you fall behind in school and now you depend more on your parents either because they had to get you a tutor or you couldn't get a good job/school after high school. Basically, it's kids being dumb thinking they are and can do it all by themselves. It's an episode of Old Enough

# ? Feb 13, 2023 17:17

Panfilo: Aug 27, 2011; EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

Dirk the Average posted:

In all seriousness, it's propaganda + privilege. There's a lot of bullshit out there with a just world fallacy, and the idea that the only reason people fail at things in life is that they didn't work hard enough. And for a teenager, that can be an appealing view - work hard enough and you can get anywhere and do anything.

Of course, then you meet reality. In my case, the cracks had already been forming for years beforehand, but the 2008 recession laid bare the lie behind the idea of a just world. I did everything that society said I should to be successful and even graduated with a degree in engineering, but there were no jobs available because gently caress you, we're having a recession now so that a bunch of rich assholes could make bank off of the rest of us suffering.

For people who stay libertarians, I think it's a combination of either being completely insulated from consequences (of course I worked hard and worked my way up to be a VP at my daddy's company at the age of 22! anyone could do it if they applied themselves!), or people who want to desperately believe that they would be successful if only "they" would stop holding them back.

Not always privilege. I've known libertarians that did bootstrap themselves to success, it's just they drew all the wrong conclusions from their journey. It really seems to come down to the individual; some people will re evaluate their beliefs when they hit a wall while others will double down. Most libertarians would blame the 2008 recession solely on the government itself. You gotta remember the "government" is the ultimate scapegoat for libertarians and the term can be as broad or as specific as they need it to be in the moment (much like the concept of "liberty").

I think a consequence of our Just World beliefs is the notion that terrible, right wing people can only cheat their way to success and its only leftist martyrs that are the real hard workers. I think a person's work ethic can influence their political beliefs (for better or worse) more than the other way around.

# ? Feb 13, 2023 17:55

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

The majority of people in the world work hard, but that does not account for differences in ability, circumstance, and fortune. Some people do well either by working hard or not, and get the idea that it was 100% because they simply tried harder than everybody else and there were no other significant contributing factors.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 03:57

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

I feel like libertarians don�t actually value hard work in any real sense, but take work ethic as one component of their inherent superiority. Like they would dismiss someone at starbucks working hard because only the inferior need to work at starbucks, but ceos work 65 hours a week because of their innate superiority.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 04:18

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

I AM GRANDO posted:

I feel like libertarians don�t actually value hard work in any real sense, but take work ethic as one component of their inherent superiority. Like they would dismiss someone at starbucks working hard because only the inferior need to work at starbucks, but ceos work 65 hours a week because of their innate superiority.

Yeah, I don't really get this idea that CEO's should work 40 hours a week, especially if they are only allowed to work for that one and only entity.

I do get that maybe they have very unique or rare...... either talent, or instincts, or observation, or life experience. Maybe that all means you deserve to be paid a hell of a lot even if it doesn't translate into a full day of you looking at charts and thinking really hard about improving the bottom line. To me, the job of the CEO seems to be just making your most important vendors and customers happy and avoiding obvious mistakes.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 04:44

Grace Baiting: Jul 20, 2012; Audi famam illius;
Cucurrit quaeque
Tetigit destruens.

don't make me tap the chart again

# ? Feb 16, 2023 05:02

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

The executive class are titled nobility who are assigned fiefs to maintain their lifestyles. Their actual performance in running them is unimportant, and usually delegated to stewards.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 05:04

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

Grace Baiting posted:

don't make me tap the chart again

I'd argue that CEO's should be expected to run 3 companies. It is fundamentally a job that doesn't seem to require a lot of work in terms of hours per week even if those few hours have a lot of intrinsic value, so for that kind of money we should raise the bar of expectations. If you are a CEO of "only" 2 companies that don't have a lot of sophisticated issues, then you are lazy.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 05:26

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

There are CEOs that work multiple companies, although I think it's rare for them to work two separate "real" companies. Elon Musk is a big weirdo with I think technically 5 companies under his belt. But also there's a guy who ended up on the lam with multiple international warrants on him for trying to keep multiple companies under his control at once (and some crimes he did as part of the process).

There are some cases out there of CEOs who in tough times put the needs of the company before themselves when times are tough, but they're definitely the exception. Usually the dynamic you get is the CEO entrenching power by maintaining buddies on the company's board of directors so that they can securely pull all the money they want out of the job regardless of whether they make the company work any better.

Maybe there should be people out there trying to work governmental systems but for corporations, but I don't know if there are. It's also a bit of a weirder situation since corporations need to be able to act quickly and dynamically, which often doesn't work with a bureaucratic democratic process.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 07:08

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

SlothfulCobra posted:

It's also a bit of a weirder situation since corporations need to be able to act quickly and dynamically, which often doesn't work with a bureaucratic democratic process.

Haha, tell me you haven't worked in a large multinational without telling me you haven't worked in a large multinational. There's nothing quick, dynamic, or efficient about large companies. It's all just self-aggrandizing propaganda to make stuffed suits feel better about themselves.

When the execs retire, we get big e-mails about how it's so important that the leadership is changing, but the truth of the matter is that nobody other than their direct reports actually gives a poo poo. Quarterly meetings are just bullshit power plays where execs can force their workers to sit in an auditorium and clap like loving seals while they spin tales about how hard they've been working.

And hell, if you don't believe me about the efficiency thing, look no further than companies forcing employees to go back to the office. Employees have been working longer hours when working from home and been more productive, but no, execs want to see butts in seats because it makes their egos feel better.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 07:20

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Like the whole sacred text of libertarianism is literally about how CEOs are genius supermen without which the masses will mill about aimlessly in their short-sighted ignorance and laziness until society collapses.

# ? Feb 16, 2023 08:25

Grace Baiting: Jul 20, 2012; Audi famam illius;
Cucurrit quaeque
Tetigit destruens.

Rigel posted:

I'd argue that CEO's should be expected to run 3 companies. It is fundamentally a job that doesn't seem to require a lot of work in terms of hours per week even if those few hours have a lot of intrinsic value, so for that kind of money we should raise the bar of expectations. If you are a CEO of "only" 2 companies that don't have a lot of sophisticated issues, then you are lazy.

Be careful expressing suppressive sentiments like that about our chief executive overlords :ohdear:

# ? Feb 16, 2023 14:28

Lemniscate Blue: Apr 21, 2006; Here we go again.

SlothfulCobra posted:

There are CEOs that work multiple companies, although I think it's rare for them to work two separate "real" companies. Elon Musk is a big weirdo with I think technically 5 companies under his belt.

And he posts stupid poo poo on Twitter all day in between fits of screaming at his employees to find a way to make people love him more. Not the best example of a hard-working CEO.

# ? Feb 17, 2023 06:03

Elysiume: Aug 13, 2009; Alone, she fights.

Rigel posted:

I'd argue that CEO's should be expected to run

Agreed. Wonder how long they can make it for.

# ? Feb 17, 2023 09:34

Professor Shark: May 22, 2012

Yeah Musk seems to be the CEO who is proving what we all know about CEOs

# ? Feb 17, 2023 11:36

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

I AM GRANDO posted:

I feel like libertarians don�t actually value hard work in any real sense, but take work ethic as one component of their inherent superiority. Like they would dismiss someone at starbucks working hard because only the inferior need to work at starbucks, but ceos work 65 hours a week because of their innate superiority.

I mean it just goes back to the Protestant Work Ethic right? You made a lot of money, you must be virtuous, pious, and blessed by god. You are poor? You hosed up and god hates you. Circumstance literally doesn't matter.

# ? Feb 17, 2023 13:26

Panfilo: Aug 27, 2011; EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

Most Libertarians aren't CEOs, unfortunately for them. I'm sure they'd be the first to admit it's because they are too lazy or not good enough. Funny how none of the people who believe in that twisted just world fallacy use it to accept that they are among the untermensch and should just accept their lot in life.

# ? Feb 17, 2023 13:38

Professor Shark: May 22, 2012

The only irl Libertarians I know are 1) completely dependent on the charity their siblings who have union jobs (teacher and nurse) as well as leeching off their mother�s welfare and 2) the other guy had a great teaching job because he was charismatic but ended up throwing it all away by not being grateful to the people who were doing him favours and setting up his career for him and causing drama that ended with him quitting

# ? Feb 17, 2023 14:20

Panfilo: Aug 27, 2011; EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

My mom had a Libertarian co worker who was herself supporting a sibling that needed round the clock medical care. She considered her stance reasonable because she believed the only reason her sister was alive was because she was being taken care of by family and had her sister relied on the nanny state she'd surely have died by now because of "death panels". When my mom asked who would care for her sister if family was no longer an option she'd just give a curt, "not the government, that's for sure" and refuse to elaborate further.

# ? Feb 17, 2023 15:54

Professor Shark: May 22, 2012

I was around Guy #1 when he was reading a children�s book about climate change to his niece and he got cranky because the book didn�t reference the technology we would develop to combat climate change. He thought the book should talk about the magical technology we would make and not reality.

Dumb as poo poo.

# ? Feb 18, 2023 01:44

Panfilo: Aug 27, 2011; EXISTENCE IS PAIN😬

Libertarians sure hate the concept of Democracy huh. I guess since the constitution didn't mention it we're not allowed to have any?
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1627088989747568641?t=QMUepFDz7LiMVICG-KxxDA&s=19

# ? Feb 19, 2023 10:10

HootTheOwl: May 13, 2012; Hootin and shootin

You see, it's only a phylum of kingdom Democritus which means a Republic is completely different.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 15:08

Jabarto: Apr 7, 2007; I could do with your...assistance.

I'm sure the impoverished peasants living under Venetian plutocrats in the 1500's were very grateful to have a constitutional republic protecting their freedoms.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 18:45

Weatherman: Jul 30, 2003; WARBLEKLONK

HootTheOwl posted:

You see, it's only a phylum of kingdom Democritus which means a Republic is completely different.

The US is a plutocracy that self-identifies as an egalitarian democracy, which is quite strange given how much of the country is incensed by the idea of self-identification.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 19:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 12:59

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

I'm pretty sure the whole "republic not a democracy" bullshit got its start with Republicans trying to argue why it's actually a super great thing that the electoral college was denying the popular vote. Another sign that these libertarians are just very lightly veiled republicans.

Besides, a true libertarian shouldn't acknowledge the Constitution and should only work off of the Articles of Confederation, which neither says the word democracy nor the word republic.

Jabarto posted:

I'm sure the impoverished peasants living under Venetian plutocrats in the 1500's were very grateful to have a constitutional republic protecting their freedoms.

I think technically any agrarian peasants under Venetian rule were legally monarchial subjects. However the Venetian system was supposed to work, it was meant to work for people in the city. Venice's lands outside of the city were ruled with feudal titles. The Doge also held the title of duke of dalmatia. Not really unlike how the ancient Roman Republic worked back in the day. Citizens in the city of Rome (and I guess anybody who could schlep back to the city when a politics was happening) could vote, non-citizens and people outside the city got ruled by whoever the central authority of the city appointed to them.

The convoluted structure of the specifically undemocratic republics of medieval Europe are interesting, there's often even the element of drawing lots because medieval Europeans had weird feelings about random chance. They didn't acknowledge the idea of the popular will of the people at large, they just felt like none of them was powerful enough to control the whole thing so they made a weird ramshackle thing that would get hijacked if any one family actually consolidated power enough to take the pot.

# ? Feb 19, 2023 20:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »