|
There have been no shortage of substantive posts not on the topic of racism. But you choose to ignore those in order to argue against accusations of racism. If they truly are so I substantive then just be a loving adult and ignore them!
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
 How could I possibly take the time to explain how privately-funded mercenary groups being the highest possible authority will improve society when I know that someone is besmirching the name of the honorable Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul*?*by listing facts about him
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I'd like to know exactly how any of the accusations made against, say, Ron Paul, could be construed as libelous. Well, you see, it's really quite simple: Quoting libertarians verbatim whenever they say some racist poo poo, or pointing out that libertarians like Hoppe, Rothbard, the Pauls, etc. seem awfully chummy with racist organizations or those spouting white-supremacist views, is an unfair and terribly libelous tactic to discredit the entire movement. Because of personal responsibility, you see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
This thread exploded the last couple of days, which I take as a sign that Jrode's actually answering questions in a timely manner now (may the saints be praised). I'm quite a few pages behind and I have a lot to sift through, but I'd like to address Jrode complaining about how he shouldn't have to pay taxes (or at least all of them) because he never formally signed any contract authorizing the government to tax him in the first place. How is this situation any different from say having to work at some lovely McDonald's cashier type job because there are no other positions at other, better companies being offered in the area you live in. If it's so bad, why not move to another city, state, etc. where the job market is better? No one's forcing you to take that job. You just made the decision that it's better working there than starving to death, so you thereby agreed to the terms set forth by McDonald's. We have implicit contracts all the loving time. RuanGacho posted:Ultimately as Jrod has displayed its not about racism with libertarians, its an extension of all prosperity gospel, self governance as the only pure form of liberty and ultimately unchecked selfishness. Racism gets Jrod in a tizzy because it implies he actively thinks about the value of others outside himself. If there is one and only one thing you take away from libertarianism in this thread; libertarianism is the ultimate expression of selfishness. It doesn't consider how people will be affected, it's only interested in what it affords the practitioner and what they can get away with. And this is probably the biggest thing that bugs me about discussion on libertarian/conservative economics. I'd have tons more respect for these people if they just cut the bullshit and stopped pretending that they're supporting these policies because they really, REALLY want to help poor people. It's always been a selfish ideology that tries to pretend it's beneficial to everyone because it's easier to attempt to sell it that way. edit: Oh, let's also not forget that JRode actually has no problem with White business owners turning away Black people, and it's said Black people's responsibility to find another, more tolerant restaurant to eat at! Seriously, you can't make this poo poo up. Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Like I mentioned a while ago, you guys obsess over the alleged racism supposedly inherent in libertarian philosophy all on your own without my participation. Then when I respond you display mock indignation. Hey retard, if you stop talking about racism then it will stop being such a major thing in this thread. If you don't care to talk about accusations of racism, then why do you keep talking about them? In previous posts you've even gone so far as to bring up racism accusations unprovoked, out of the blue You respond to the racism accusations more than anything else. If someone has legitimate criticisms, such as pointing out the numerous historical falsehoods to which you cling or pointing out that people don't act like you think they do while providing examples that completely demolish your ideas, then they get overlooked. I have a theory as to why: you won't deal with arguments that bring you uncomfortably close to realizing that your ideology is full of poo poo. It's much easier for you to feign indignation over a secessionist rally in a state that formerly seceded for racist reasons as being labeled as racist than it is for you to to deal with the significant number of real criticisms that utterly demolish your naive and foolish ideology
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, for a while I genuinely was hopeful that I could have a productive and interesting discussion about libertarianism and leftism on this forum. That may still be possible but the sheer number of overtly intellectually dishonest responses makes that now seem unlikely. It seems instead of seeking common ground or trying to understand the perspective of your opponent, you are instead intent upon distorting, misquoting and contorting every thing I say to conform to your own prejudices. Jrodefeld, click "Poster" followed by "Ignore this User" if you really think that is enough of an issue. I've done it with plenty of posters one these forums, but lets not pretend that there aren't literally at least a dozen or more posters in this thread who have hapilly engaged with the substance of your posts. I personally spent a half hour refuting some bullshit Tom Woods video just to show you that we aren't ignoring your sources solely because we don't want to watch a thirty minute video of a guy rambling on, but because it is also not a good source. Get off your cross buddy, A lot of us have been nothing but patient with you. quote:Like I mentioned a while ago, you guys obsess over the alleged racism supposedly inherent in libertarian philosophy all on your own without my participation. Then when I respond you display mock indignation. "Why on earth would you react with anger to our repeated claims that everything you believe in is merely a front for white supremacy and racism and that nearly all libertarian intellectuals are closet or overt racists who believe in the inherent superiority of the European race? Also, you just want all the poor to die on the streets because you hate everyone who is not like you because you are a selfish sociopath who lacks any empathy." Hm, why would I take offense to repeatedly claims such as this? You'd think I was exaggerating but I am characterizing your intellectually dishonest attacks pretty well. Jrodefeld, you don't want to talk about racism, then don't talk about racism. As I've been telling you, you are ultimately the one who leads the discussion. Just slap a bolded section at the top of your posts saying "I am done talking about racism because I find it unproductive" and we'll happily go on to telling you why you are wrong about natural rights, or healthcare, or any number of other subjects. We continually end up on the subject of racism because you insist on having the last word on it, and I'm sorry to say, but that isn't going to happen in a subforum with 500 people who pretty much all disagree with you on this issue. And for what its worth I don't think you want to let the poor die on the streets, I think it is the end result of your policy as we have shown you. The poor not even having a ditch to die in is considered a feature of Mr. Molyneux's DRO system, and I can loving quote you the section where it is discussed. quote:Putting aside the question of whether there is a problem with racism in the libertarian tradition, responding in this matter forestalls any productive discussion. You poison the well and you automatically destroy whatever potential conceivably existed for policy debate and a good faith exchange of ideas. Multiple posters have pointed out that they don't think you are a racist, and the ones who have called you that are being hyperbolic and unproductive, I actually agree. Again, this goes back to you wanting to have the last word on the subject of racism. If you don't think your idols are racist then simply say "We will find no common ground on this point and I do not wish to discuss it further." I'd actually be really happy if you did that, and if you kept to that. This most recent bout of race talk is actually my fault for pointing out that you probably shouldn't be using Hans Hermann Hoppe's talk about forced integration, and unlike all the others I actually consider it a productive win because you have agreed with us that he probably believes in some really worrisome poo poo in regards to 'Racial Realism'. So be the bigger man than posters in this thread and drop it in favor of some other discussion. Please. quote:Honestly, I should have expected as much from Marxists. A Marxist remaining respectful when speaking to a proponent of free market capitalism is as likely as Lenin propounding the virtue of private ownership of the means of production. So is this you taking your ball and going home for a couple of months? You're just going to jam your head in the sand and say we are all being mean to you because we are Marxists? Seriously, I'd actually you rather take a week off, relax, calm yourself down and come back and respond to my effort post on the Oklahoma Surgery Center, or any number of other topics we've placed here. And Since Who What Now has been harping on it, you still have multiple standing offers for 1 on 1 respectful debates, in either podcast or text format where you won't get dogpiled as you are in this thread. I really wish you'd take someone up on this because I think it'd be helpful for you. [quo]teHonestly, this recent pile on about the Mises event in Houston Texas was a bridge too far. Everyone there was accused of White Supremacy because they dared to discuss the political concept of decentralization in, of all places, TEXAS! Because I am sure you'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they were discussing the principle of secession in New York or Massachusetts. Various members on these boards went on and on as if the event was hosted by the League of the South and was, necessarily, Neo-Confederate, southern and racist.[/quote] Err, no one ever accused people of being 'southern' even though I think most of them other than Tom Woods are. I don't even think being from the south is a bad thing. And no, the reason the talk was accused of probably being racist (by me) wasn't that they were talking about decentralization. It was that they were talking about secession. In a southern state. On stage with a Neo-Confederate who was a founding member of the League of the South. If you took away one of those things the event would probably be a minor footnote, not even worthy of the coverage it got. But for fucksake dude, you're doing that thing again where you put on the blinders where unless someone is dragging a black man by the bumper of their truck then we can't be 'sure' there are racial implications. quote:The only tenuous link to anything close to supposed "neo-confederacy" was the fact that Tom Woods was one of the speakers and he supposedly was a "founding member" of the League. The implication here is that every other speaker must agree with the LotS because ONE of their speakers was said to have some connection to them. Okay, so a couple of things. First off it was one of five speakers. If you go back to your last page you'll find a bunch of links regarding Ron Paul and his connections to white supremesist groups, including the fact that he met with them in 2011 during his presidential run, took campaign funds from them and endorsed David Duke for senate. So that makes two. Then we have LewRockwell, a guy who runs a website the hosts numerous Neo-Confederate diatribes in a positive light such as "Neo-Confederates are gaining ground". So that is three. So 3/5ths of the people on that stage have links to Neo-Conservatism or white supremecy. The other two are relative unknowns as far as google is concerned, though considering the fact that Brion McClanahan has pretty serious ties to the other three I'd certainly be willing to put him in the maybe category. As far as the League of the South, you know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that he merely remained a member. So what? As far as I can tell Tom Woods has been a card carrying member of the League of the South since 2005. In fact I can't actually find any evidence that he stopped being a member even after it was pointed out to him that the group was effectively a hate group, he didn't mention revoking his membership in his 2005 piece on the issue, and he seemed awfully combative about the fact that the League of the South was being called 'racist'. At best he says he has some disagreements on specifics with what is described by most people as a hate group. Frankly I find that to be pretty worrisome, especially in light of other evidence. quote:You can claim that the League still lists Tom as a contributor or founder or whatever, but it is abundantly clear that Tom is worlds separated from the LotS and doesn't support their southern focus. How could you label an anarchist a Neo-Confederate anyway? The Confederacy was a STATE. The Confederate constitution has VERY little in it that any libertarian could support, not least of which was a support for the institution of slavery. Because the Neo-Confederate ideology is a mish mashed hydra. They don't literally believe that the confederacy should come back and reinstitute slavery, instead it is an ideology largely rooted in white power, and a return to 'cultural norms'. As to why I would personally call Tom Woods a Neo-Confederate? Mostly its because he quacks like a duck. For example, his book "A politically incorrect guide to american history" has this as its cover:  Why yes, that is a Confederate Soldier looking smug on the cover. He also tends to use phrases such as "The War of Northern Aggression" when describing the civil war, which is about as Neo-Confederate as you can get without going full 88. But really what is most telling is a 1997 article wherein Tom Woods proudly described himself as a founding member of the league of the south and said this: quote:So the War Between the States, far from a conflict over mere material interests, was for the South a struggle against an atheistic individualism and an unrelenting rationalism in politics and religion, in favor of a Christian understanding of authority, social order and theology itself. The intelligent Left knows this, and even the incurably stupid, like [former Democratic Senator from Illinois -- the first African-American woman to be elected as a U.S. Senator] Carol Moseley-Braun, must at least sense it. For all their ignorant blather about slavery and civil rights, what truly enrages most liberals about the Confederate Battle Flag is its message of defiance. They see in it the remnants of a traditional society determined to resist cultural and political homogenization, and refusing to be steamrolled by the forces of progress. That is some sweet, sweet revisionism. quote:This is incredibly dishonest for you to use this incredibly tenuous link that Tom Woods has, to suppose that all the speakers support the Confederacy and only are speaking of secession and decentralization so they could bring back Jim Crow and establish a White dominated culture that only wants to oppress people. This is beyond intellectually dishonest. It is deceitful and outrageous. 3/5, but yeah, basically. The vast majority of people who would want to see secession in Huston woudl want to do so for the same reason that they opposed the civil rights act, because they want out from under the federal government so they can go back to the 'good old days' when it was okay to treat black people like non-humans. We are only fifty years out, so I find it rediculous that you are so shocked that there are people in loving texas would really want to repeal civil rights. quote:Then Caros made some claim that Ron Paul personally endorsed David Duke when he ran for Congress or he hangs out with former KKK Grand Wizards and all these discredited smears. None of it is true. It is slander and deception by people who attempt every trick conceivable to discredit Paul by circuitously linking every unsavory figure to him in the most outlandish ways. "See, this guy who hates Jews had his picture taken with Ron at some campaign event!" So you're just going to put your fingers in your ears and go 'nuh uh?' Because this isn't new news. Hackers pulled private e-mails from A3P's personal web servers detailing meetings that matched up to the travel schedules of both Ron and Rand Paul in 2011, along with the White Supremacists that they met with. Either it is the single most pointless political sting on behalf of Anonymous, to shut down Ron Paul a full year after he declared he was never running for office again, or you are full of poo poo. I get that you don't want to believe this, but you keep walking face first into mountains of evidence and just screaming "No no no no no" like my two year old godchild. It isn't loving circuitous to say that Ron Paul had an article penned in a newsletter that bore his name and was written by either him or Lew Rockwell that supported David Duke. He was either horrifyingly racist, an opertunitst, or loving incompetent. Take your pick. or as Robert Kirchick wrote: "To believe that Ron Paul had no knowledge of what was being written in his own name, in his own office, for 20 years at the benefit of nearly $1,000,000 -- and that he didn't even read his own monthly publication -- not only “stretches credulity to the breaking point,” it actually requires believing bald-faced lies." It isn't loving circuitous to say that Ron paul accepted donations from stormfront (which we can prove). It isn't circuitous to point out that he was the Stormfront.Org endorsed candidate. It isn't circuitous that both he and his son have had White Supremacists or Neo-Confederates such as 'The Southern Avenger" and Randy Gray on their payroll. Since when is bringing up basic evidence 'circuitous' quote:It is ridiculous and no serious person would dig so far into the gutter to slander and defame someone, especially if they value the intellectual discourse that is possible if you make a good faith effort to exchange ideas and debate the substance of a proposition. It is literally a google search. "Ron Paul White Supremacist ties." gets you pretty much everything you need to know but want to deny. quote:Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations. I'm not going to let you have the last word on this if your last word is another half page rant about how we are all liars and marxist evildooers. If you want to get on to talking about something else then by all means please do, take the last word and say "I disagree but think this is a pointless discussion.". But if you want us to just let you post a wall of text like this saying that down is up and things that we can factually prove are not true, then I'm sorry but we aren't going to be able to have a constructive debate because you want us to disregard the truth in favor of not hurting your feelings, and I'm not willing to do that. Seriously JRodefeld, lets agree to disagree. Put a bold statement at the top of your posts from here on out saying "I am done talking about race because it is not productive" and I'll do the exact same and we can have a more productive discussion. Caros fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:So you can quote him disowning said organization? I find it highly unlikely he was tricked into founding an organization, that would mean he was stunningly naive. He doesn't disown them he merely states that he was never a major influence in the group. And then goes on to defend them. quote:I might as well address this issue once and for all, since I probably won’t have the space in my piece for TAC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:
Holy poo poo, those bullet points 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Holy poo poo, those bullet points Yeah, wish I had a bigger photo version so people could read it in all of its glory. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the FDR one. Yeah, FDR released russian prisoners of war. No loving poo poo, is this somehow seen as a bad thing? Should the US have kept captive POW's of its then ally? Is he calling for WWIII, which is what would have resulted if the US kept literally a million Russian soldiers prisoner after the war had ended? I mean if he means that we forcibly repatriated soviet refugees then that is another matter, because that was pretty lovely. But why not put that on the cover then? Caros fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:Jrodefeld, you don't want to talk about racism, then don't talk about racism. As I've been telling you, you are ultimately the one who leads the discussion. Just slap a bolded section at the top of your posts saying "I am done talking about racism because I find it unproductive" and we'll happily go on to telling you why you are wrong about natural rights, or healthcare, or any number of other subjects. We continually end up on the subject of racism because you insist on having the last word on it, and I'm sorry to say, but that isn't going to happen in a subforum with 500 people who pretty much all disagree with you on this issue. This is why Sedanchair says you don't know what racism is, Caros. Your libertarianism is showing. It is literally impossible to disentangle a system or ideology that has a callous disregard for racist outcomes and the racist nature of wealth division and discrimination from racism itself. I don't think Jrod has an active racial animus, but he has defend racial science, defended the right to discrimination, and used arguments about police brutality and the stupidity of black voters in this very thread. He is absolutely racist and bigoted and only someone with a detached and reductive view of racism could think otherwise. I actually find the attempts by many to find some sort of sympathetic common ground with people like Jrod sickening, because they absolutely do not deserve it, and compromising on calling them out purely to spare the feelings of a racist asswipe is not something I will do. JRod can claim racism discussions are unproductive all he wants, but when he talks about eliminating programs that would have a vastly different impact on black Americans versus White, race is implicit in the discussion. Any attempt to sideline it as an issue is mildly racist in and of itself. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, wish I had a bigger photo version so people could read it in all of its glory. How viciously racist are the Native American parts of that book, do you think? On a scale of basic "we had a mutual agreement until they broke their promises, shame on them" revisionism to full-on Ayn Rand "those savage mudbloods deserved to be genocided for being too stupid to industrialize"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, for a while I genuinely was hopeful that I could have a productive and interesting discussion about libertarianism and leftism on this forum. That may still be possible but the sheer number of overtly intellectually dishonest responses makes that now seem unlikely. It seems instead of seeking common ground or trying to understand the perspective of your opponent, you are instead intent upon distorting, misquoting and contorting every thing I say to conform to your own prejudices. So, what about all the people who have spent time putting effort into responding to your arguments that you have ignored time and time again so you can, as Caros says, get the last word in on race. The fact of the matter is, the more you try to show you're not a racist, the more you look like a racist. A lot of the people that run in your circle have some unfortunate associations, to put it nicely. But you can ignore all the race talk if you really wanted to by focusing on the subjects you would find more interesting to discuss. You don't have to look hard to find people who spent a lot of time and effort trying to show you where your arguments are flawed. Let me say this - lose your victim complex. Part of the reason why you don't have a productive conversation is that you don't do a good job arguing, and then you get caught up in these little games that people can play online. The fact is, you write tons of content trying to debunk that someone is a racist, and it just further diverts the conversation towards racism. quote:Like I mentioned a while ago, you guys obsess over the alleged racism supposedly inherent in libertarian philosophy all on your own without my participation. Then when I respond you display mock indignation. "Why on earth would you react with anger to our repeated claims that everything you believe in is merely a front for white supremacy and racism and that nearly all libertarian intellectuals are closet or overt racists who believe in the inherent superiority of the European race? Also, you just want all the poor to die on the streets because you hate everyone who is not like you because you are a selfish sociopath who lacks any empathy." Hm, why would I take offense to repeatedly claims such as this? You'd think I was exaggerating but I am characterizing your intellectually dishonest attacks pretty well. Who seriously has said that? Who are these people. Most of the indignation that is directed at you comes from YOUR lovely behavior. Ignoring the effort posts in favor of trying to defend the honor of the virginal Ron Paul and your Libertarian heroes. A lot of the anger comes from the fact that you argue things that have really lovely consequences, and you have said some terribly lovely things in your attempt to be a libertarian. Also, it's the internet and the Something Awful forums. Roll with the punches. Don't come in here writing like a first year philosophy student. Call someone a dick-bag. Imply that their mother was a whore. Have a little fun. Show that you have a bit of a sense of humor. Because ultimately, we're all here because we want to have fun. And also, because there may be the possibility that somebody's mother is a wanton harlot, and I would so love the chance to razz her. quote:Putting aside the question of whether there is a problem with racism in the libertarian tradition, responding in this matter forestalls any productive discussion. You poison the well and you automatically destroy whatever potential conceivably existed for policy debate and a good faith exchange of ideas. What about all the policy debate and exchange of ideas you've ignored? Look at my posts. When have I engaged in the racism talk? quote:It's like, "Yes, I believe you are a KKK member who has white robes in your closet and who wants to resurrect Jim Crow laws in the South. Now, on another topic, let's talk about your theory of property and fiat money?" No, gently caress you. You don't insult my character, hurl unsubstantiated smears against me and the things I believe in and then expect to have a respectful discussion on the substance of these ideas. But Jrodefeld, there are plenty of people who are having the serious conversation without saying you're a secret KKK member. Unless you think we are all part of one hive-mind. The reality is, people on the internet are going to push your buttons because it's easier to do. And you take the bait every loving time. It's annoying to see you constantly say "this conversation on race is pointless" and then respond to ANOTHER post on race while you ignore my posts and other people's posts that actually deal with the meat you want to deal with. You're a first time visitor to this forum - what do you think Jrodefeld is more likely to discuss? Race or have a back and forth on the issues? quote:Honestly, I should have expected as much from Marxists. A Marxist remaining respectful when speaking to a proponent of free market capitalism is as likely as Lenin propounding the virtue of private ownership of the means of production. Drop the loving victim complex. You're not engaging in a good faith debate. Also, we're not all Marxists. I'm not. But of course, pretending that we are makes you feel better about your inadequacies. quote:Honestly, this recent pile on about the Mises event in Houston Texas was a bridge too far. Everyone there was accused of White Supremacy because they dared to discuss the political concept of decentralization in, of all places, TEXAS! Because I am sure you'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they were discussing the principle of secession in New York or Massachusetts. Various members on these boards went on and on as if the event was hosted by the League of the South and was, necessarily, Neo-Confederate, southern and racist. Jrodefeld, a conversation about secession in the south is likely to raise some suspicion about the character of these people. And the fact is, you can find the connection pretty easily. ALSO, NOT EVERYONE WAS ENGAGED WITH IT. quote:The only tenuous link to anything close to supposed "neo-confederacy" was the fact that Tom Woods was one of the speakers and he supposedly was a "founding member" of the League. The implication here is that every other speaker must agree with the LotS because ONE of their speakers was said to have some connection to them. Once again, I don't care because you didn't have to have that conversation! But you chose to, and now you're mad because you're losing the argument. quote:This was expressly NOT what Tom advocated for or supports. And his participation came literally seven or eight years before he converted to libertarianism and dropped his previous conservatism. Even now, Tom frequently recants and apologizes for being a "stupid conservative" when he was young in the 90s. He was duped and mislead. He listened to Rush Limbaugh and supported George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton. Well, I could bring up Ron Paul's news letters. But I'm sure you have a quick retort for that. quote:Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations. Dude. This is the internet and the SA forum. You have to ignore the noise and focus on the signal. You know what you're real problem is? You have to try and beat everyone. You have to try and win every argument. Instead of just ignoring the bullshit, you instead focus on all the poo poo that nobody cares about. And then you get frustrated when you get more of it. It's like when you're a kid. If you give them a reaction, they'll do it more. Don't give them a reaction, and guess what, they'll go else where. I, Caros, and many others have made serious attempts at discussing your points. Why don't you start there? And grow up and stop being such a baby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:This is why Sedanchair says you don't know what racism is, Caros. Your libertarianism is showing. Because I don't necessarily think that applying the label of racist to JRodefeld is productive?  I will admit that JRodefeld has said some things that I find pretty questionable, but I'm of the opinion that he says them out of ignorance rather than any sort of malice or even subconscious belief that blacks or others are in any way worse or different than whites. If I taught my parrot to say 'I hate jews' I would hope that you wouldn't be arguing that the parrot is racist. Well... except for the superiority of white culture thing he said a bunch of pages back, but I personally think he just didn't think that one through and was speaking out of anger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I don't think Jrod has an active racial animus, Im pretty sure this is what Caros means when he says jrod isn't racist, not that jrod has never said or supported anything racist himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Im pretty sure this is what Caros means when he says jrod isn't racist, not that jrod has never said or supported anything racist himself. Pretty much this, yeah. Even if Jrodefeld has supported positions that are ultimately really, really bad for african americans I firmly believe he is doing so from a position of ignorance rather than malice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because I don't necessarily think that applying the label of racist to JRodefeld is productive? I don't want to say JRode himself harbors any real animosity towards black people, but I do wonder why he seems to save the real contempt for people like Lincoln and LBJ instead of instead of the people who actively encouraged slavery and Jim Crow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because I don't necessarily think that applying the label of racist to JRodefeld is productive? He has been called on the things he says multiple times and has not backed down but doubled down on them. He is the very definition of an unrepentant racist. Naivete only goes so far and just as a recent example, his attempt to deflect the issue of police brutality was nothing but racist. If his first recourse when he's angry is to say racist things, maybe he is a racist. And gently caress the idea of not calling out racism to remain productive. Not everyone deserves to have a productive hearing, certainly not someone like Jrod who has repeatedly shown reprehensible opinions. Sorry but giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point seems pretty ridiculous. E: Jrod's racism is the more insidious form of racism, especially because many many people have it in them to some degree. Not caring the way Jrod does is what allows people to vote for policies that do harm to others without hating them directly. It is just as toxic as any other form of bigotry, and just as damaging to people on the receiving end. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I don't want to say JRode himself harbors any real animosity towards black people, but I do wonder why he seems to save the real contempt for people like Lincoln and LBJ instead of instead of the people who actively encouraged slavery and Jim Crow. Learned behavior and team playing. Lincoln isn't on his 'team', and the people who are on his team tell him that Lincoln is the bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld, I think you'll find that Marxists aren't the only people on this forum who argue for the existence of a state. Pointing out the failings of Marxism isn't going to get you very far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Actually Caros this particular line of discussion was brought up because he presented Ron Paul as a paragon of moral virtue (as opposed to loving statist politicians) and the thread rightly pointed out how massive a racist he is, which appeared to give poor little Jrod here the vapours. Oh and he tried to spin Eric Garner as a 'bad law on selling loose cigarettes' issue (which is loving lol because I guarantee those laws exist because of retailers anyway.) So actually gently caress apologizing, the substance of his arguments are pretty loving racist and he by extension is as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Caros posted:Pretty much this, yeah. Even if Jrodefeld has supported positions that are ultimately really, really bad for african americans I firmly believe he is doing so from a position of ignorance rather than malice. This is the more virulent and damaging kind of racism though, this is the type that gets racist policies passed and racist politicians elected. He is racist by the ramifications of his beliefs, regardless of the intent or ignorance behind them. You are right that calling him out on it isn't 'productive' since like so many other libertarians he demands to be coddled and shielded from things that might make him feel bad, but gently caress him, even giving racist poo poo like this a platform legitimizes it in a way it doesn't deserve. This poo poo needs to be shouted down at every corner. So yeah he really should take it to 1 on 1 if he cared. but he doesn't because he's really here to evangelize like a good little cultist
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
If supporting policies that have incredibly disparate results to people of different skin tones and explaining it with racial pseudoscience isn't racist, then the term is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
To put it another way, you can knock down straw Marxists all day if you want to, but that doesn't do jack to explain why anyone would start a new business in an an-cap society when they'd be turned into an Unperson if it fails. (Remember, you said limited liability won't exist.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:If supporting policies that have incredibly disparate results to people of different skin tones and explaining it with racial pseudoscience isn't racist, then the term is meaningless. To be fair he did pretty much agree with us that Hoppe and Friend's 'Racial Realism' is total bullshit that he rejects outright. So this is one thing you absolutely cannot accuse him of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Libel laws are an unfair restriction on the free market in speech, jrodefeld.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Libel laws are an unfair restriction on the free market in speech, jrodefeld. No no, they'd just be enforced by DRO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, for a while I genuinely was hopeful that I could have a productive and interesting discussion about libertarianism and leftism on this forum. That may still be possible but the sheer number of overtly intellectually dishonest responses makes that now seem unlikely. It seems instead of seeking common ground or trying to understand the perspective of your opponent, you are instead intent upon distorting, misquoting and contorting every thing I say to conform to your own prejudices.  You snapped like fresh celery. You must really hate being told that you have allied yourself with a pack of racists! But the fact remains, you did.You then proceed to avidly defend Neo-Confederate racist Tom Woods Are you aware that it is perfectly reasonable, jrodefeld, to judge people by the company they keep? Or the intellectuals they cite. And you cite ardent racists, one after another. You keep doing it! You double down on it time and time again! The reason we keep going after you for it is you never drop one of them. You still haven't dropped Hoppe for God's sake! You can't get through a post where you claim not to agree with him without mitigating and contextualizing his naked racism, to a point far beyond what it deserves. Now you're doing the same thing with a pack of Reb scum who long to hold themselves above minorities, and would declare war on the government to do so. Not for any other reason, jrod. You are buying their lies. Everyone else gets it. They are "pro-secessionist" because they love to espouse racist ideas, but retain a smidgen of plausible deniability. They look at you and titter to themselves because you're a dupe and you have no reason to be there. Because you don't want to hold yourself above minorities, and that's the only reason their movement exists. Don't loving quote me their bullshit about other reasons, either. They are lying. You're their dupe, you're providing cover for their racism. "Look at jrodefeld!" they would say. "He loves black people and hates police violence, and yet he supports secession!" Turned out, a sucker and a dope. Looking like a fool, with your pants on the ground. The funny thing is I really think you want to be an anti-racist. But until you get shut of all these disgusting stealth klansmen, you're doing more harm than an active racist who drives around in his car yelling "friend of the family!" at people. Because you, personally, lend plausibility to their denials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
So, Jrod. I'd like to take you on a journey to a distant, distant future (please ignore the dramatic build up: this is actually a serious question.) We're post scarcity, post singularity. Everything is made by robots. All research, management, politics, leadership, etc, is done by robots. Let's ignore how we got there for now. Anyone can have anything they want for free, with no opportunity cost to anyone else. Is this ok? Or should we still insist on having jobs and payment for things? And if so, what jobs would we take? Anything we could possibly do is being done better by computers, and no rational boss would hire an inferior worker, and hiring one out of pity would be filthy charity. Or does humanity just follow the natural order of things and die out as less efficient beings? In short: how does libertarianism work when humanity becomes obsolete? Do you acknowledge that any individual company has the incentive to try to strive for this future in your libertarian world, in order to maximize their profits?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
I still prefer the fact that he hasn't dropped Molyneux to Hoppe. Hoppe is racist as all gently caress but it always seems like he simply prefers whites to blacks. He doesn't hate them, he just wishes that all the inferior races should go away. Now this is sickening beyond measure to be sure, but there is a certain special and blatant hatred to Molyneux's work that makes it so hard to even listen to. The most recent video I quoted had him talking about "idiot women throwing their vaginas out and having them boomerang back with a man to provide for them in tow" but I bet you if pressed Jrod would say that the statement might be offensive but that it doesn't prove Misogyny. As far as I can tell a big part of it appears to be that he doesn't want to concede anything just as a matter of principle. He doesn't want to let us win on this issue, because if we are right about this then what else could we be right about. I can see him clinging to Hoppe out of worship, but he doesn't even seem to like Molyneux. You are absolutely right on that last point by the by. At least the guy driving around yelling friend of the family would eventually get arrested or have his rear end kicked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I have to admit I don't understand the logic of the Molyneux cult (seems obvious but bear with me). Two people gently caress without birth control, and just the woman is stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Karia posted:So, Jrod. I'd like to take you on a journey to a distant, distant future (please ignore the dramatic build up: this is actually a serious question.) Post scarcity pretty much precludes anything libertarianism would have to say on the subject because personal property is a function wanting. SedanChair posted:I have to admit I don't understand the logic of the Molyneux cult (seems obvious but bear with me). Two people gently caress without birth control, and just the woman is stupid?  We're talking about personal responsibility here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I have to admit I don't understand the logic of the Molyneux cult (seems obvious but bear with me). Two people gently caress without birth control, and just the woman is stupid? The woman should be more aware of the consequences and/or chose not to have the baby or to give it away. Chosing to have a child into a single parent household is inherently child abuse. No I am not loving joking. The specific quote from above talks about how the government allows idiot women to throw their vagina at any man they want because the government will now fill the role of the father with various forms of welfare or child support payments from the father. This allows women to just be totally selfish creatures and have sex with whoever they want regardless of whether or not they are trying to boomerang back a productive male. Don't try to make too much sense of it. Its like reading the works of Abdul Alhazred, you won't understand 99% of what you see, and you risk your very sanity in the process. But to argue that it is not incredibly misogynistic is a loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
So I can fire my seed anywhere on God's Earth: woe to she, who leaps up into the path of it. If she gets pregnant, she's on the hook. But don't you dare try to get me on the hook! With MEN WITH GUNS to garnish my wages, wages that could be spent on books from Freedomain Radio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So I can fire my seed anywhere on God's Earth: woe to she, who leaps up into the path of it. If she gets pregnant, she's on the hook. But don't you dare try to get me on the hook! With MEN WITH GUNS to garnish my wages, wages that could be spent on books from Freedomain Radio. Oh... oh god. You know, I had to have known that he wrote books, in the back of my mind I had to have known. Like some sort of twisted splinter in my soul that festered for years I had to have known. And now I do know. Do I dare to read it? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Post scarcity pretty much precludes anything libertarianism would have to say on the subject because personal property is a function wanting. That's why I'm asking. Libertarians have every reason to want to take us to a future where their values mean nothing. So... What then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:As Alex Jones would say, "It's waiting for you to breathe power into it." No! They're free! I can't even use the excuse that I don't want to give the fucker money. I hope you are happy SedanChair. You goddamn monster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Ahahaha Caros will be unable to resist reading those  I feel kind of bad.e: ^^^
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ahahaha Caros will be unable to resist reading those Joke is on you, turns out I am completely loving immune to this by dint of his writing style somehow being more godawful and messianic than his speeches. Even the book agrees with me. Here is the opening from "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion" quote:From a short-term, merely practical standpoint, you really do not want to read this book.[/url] Cuuuuuuuuuult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Mountains of bullshit. You loving coward. Instead of taking any posts that are constructively addressing everything you've posted, you're whining about people on an internet comedy forum being mean and them calling them all marxists. People talk to you this way because you hand-wave away their arguments and opinions without offering any sort of response. How the gently caress do you expect people to discuss things when it's largely just you pontificating for pages about some mises.org article while ignoring every single counter argument you can't dismiss with your bullshit victim mentality. The only thing you bother to address are joke posts or people just tired of trying to get through to you so they just call it like they see it. If your philosophy and world view can't take a pounding from anonymous internet strangers how the gently caress do you expect the world to run on it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:34
|
|
