|
GunnerJ posted:So, what does it mean for libertarianism that we're entering an age of dominant alt-right racism? btw the answer to this is it's going to get easier to tell the minority of useful idiot anti-authoritarians from the majority of white supremacists/misogynists, since the latter will be unable to hide how happy they are (like DeuxExMachinima, for example).
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I've gotta admit, from the almost total unwillingness to adapt to a changing economy and world, to the definitely total willingness to take hugely inefficient and overblown welfare in the form of subsidies and regulations protecting coal from competition and from environmental accountability, I'm not shedding any tears for the adults there either. How many people did Fukishima and Cherynobol kill? Can anyone really, truly imagine the outrage if nuke plants irradiated 13,000 people to death a year? Ten years ago it was over 20,000 annually. I feel bad for the kids who had no control over anything as well as the minority of voters there who saw it coming and tried to sound the alarm but that's it. It's funny that we went from arguing about retributive justice to someone arguing that literally all of society should be structured toward punishing vulnerable people for making bad political decisions, in a system already structured to destroy them no matter what they pick.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
No, the idea of consumers exerting pressure on corporations is the only possible argument for the free market.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Vesi posted:You said it better than I did and I agree 100%, that's how the term is used in the media here. The lack of coherent a platform is also the reason why they inevitably break down (so far at least) if they ever get into power. "Populist", at least recently in the US, is also a lazy smear that centrist technocrats like to use in order to paint Nazis and leftists with the same brush. It turns out that a lot of people in the political and media classes actually agree that there's an unaccountable elite ruling our country, but they believe themselves to be part of that elite and want to keep it in charge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ok but enough melting down. Populist is a legit descriptor, once again, of nearly every political movement bigger than 5 guys meeting in a basement. That you get all offended about being called a populist says way more about you than it does about anyone else. It's actually not weird at all to think it's pretty stupid and malicious when a fairly general political term (as you correctly point out) gets weaponized in order to pretend that social democrats are the same as Nazis. But hey I guess I'm just ~melting down~ because I made a point that you can't understand. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I want to hear more about Australia trying to ban boycotts? So if I make a facebook post about how me and my friends found rat hair in food at Johnny's Original Anzac Biscuitry then the government will come and lock me up? I haven't tracked it closely but the US also recently saw a bill floated to make participation in a boycott against Israel punishable by jail time. No idea how any of this poo poo is meant to be enforced, though I do imagine libertarians getting a secret thrill over the idea of companies being able to legally mandate you buy from them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:My point is libertarians specifically, because even though fascists love free markets, they also love a strong state with the ability to jam their fist into whatever particular part of the free market they feel like. It is that last part that makes them incompatible, in my opinion, because even your 'light' libertarians like Ron Paul wouldn't accept the government unilaterally deciding that they wanted to run 'oil' or 'healthcare' or whatever, even if it meant that the majority of the market was left alone. The Pauls don't seem too troubled with a government that can run the bedrooms of gay people and the medical decisions of women, let alone mandate the legality of chattel slavery. Nor has Donald Trump managed to make the GOP split along liberal vs anti-liberal lines. I see very little evidence to suggest that huge numbers of libertarians wouldn't flock to any sufficiently-popular politician that promises them economic benefits and the suppression of the right classes of undesirables.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Serious question: what are you even talking about? He's pointing out that the libertarian's claim that we'd get better, cheaper service if net neutrality is dismantled doesn't square with the fact that ISPs have spent a ton of money lobbying for exactly that. (Of course, the libertarian answer is that the magic of the Invisible Hand will make it so companies provide better service at a lower cost and also somehow make more profit. They know this through the immortal science of praxeology, because if it wasn't true then libertarianism would be a sham, which is impossible.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Libertarians hate the DMV because they get treated the same as poors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:In that case the franchise is basically already doomed because any other economic shock is going to hit it just the same. I think this approach comes across very clearly as a sort of No True Scotsman, i.e. "well those jobs would be lost but they don't really count", and it's not going to sway many opinions. It's probably better to ask what the social utility is of a job that doesn't pay enough for someone to live on, because it's going to eventually reduce to your interlocutor believing that people who don't work at a suitably prestigious job deserve to die or live in misery, and I prefer to believe that most people are non-sociopathic enough to not want to hold that belief. e: Alternately it could reduce to an argument about the moral value of work, which then leads to the obvious question "why do we need to legally enforce this morality on the poor but not the wealthy?" Mornacale fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
You might also be arguing with someone who is not a utilitarian, or who has a radically different idea of what constitutes utility, or who will counter your argument of "more people helped than hurt" by saying that whatever 10 cent price increase they have to eat affects still more people, or... Also, frankly, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone seriously prefers a minimum wage increase because they've sat down and mathed out the marginal utility of the policy based on an explicit function of the utility of a job at X wage, so I don't understand why you'd try to argue it from a strict utilitarian perspective rather than the much more resonant position that people deserve to live decent lives.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How? You will have to be more specific, because what is so self-evident to you, is not so self-evident to me. The assumption that a scholar won't be completely and trivially wrong relies on the fact that in most fields of study, their fellow scholars would point out such trivial flaws before anything could be published. However, in economics, literally billions of dollars have been spent on libertarian propaganda, so as long as a "scholar's" work is materially beneficial to the richest people in the world it will not be subject to the constraints of reality. Which means that those of us who actually live in reality can see that the work is trivially and completely wrong, despite being accepted by its ideological allies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Almost all of what you're saying is completely trivially wrong, read the Current Affairs piece GunnerJ posted. If your expression of democratic socialism is to concern troll people about how actually it's not trivially false that black people are born stupid, just go to Stormfront already.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, I have 999 Libertarian friends who also agree with my disapproval of Snowden. Prove me wrong. Cingulate is saying that libertarians are more likely to support Snowden than the general public, which is a completely true statement that I have absolutely no idea why anyone is bothering to argue against. The guy is in here trying to pass off The Bell Curve as good science, there's really no need to get caught up arguing a side point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If that's literally all he's arguing, he's picking the dumbest possible way to do it. Yeah I have no idea what the whole "name one libertarian who hates Snowden!!!" thing is supposed to accomplish besides trying to out-fishmech fishmech, but ultimately there's no good response when you say "X makes someone less likely to be a libertarian" and someone says "prove that not a single libertarian is X".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Look I’m not here to defend Murray. It’s more that what started this whole thing was Cingulate simply used him as someone who can’t be trivially dismissed, and this article kind of proves the point. You could spend a significant amount of time getting into the details of each person’s work that was mentioned in the article. I generally as a rule trust the opinions of a place like Southern Poverty Law Center, so this article probably the extent of mental energy I’d spend on the topic, but I think he is someone that at least warrants more than a flippant “racist, all work is trash, ignore at all costs” if for no other reason than understanding why his work has achieved some level of acceptance. Murray doesn’t strike me as the kind of person that your average racist redneck is going to turn to. His work has achieved a level of accomplishment because white supremacy is incredibly powerful in the United States, and people willing to give it a veneer of respectability are incredibly well-paid as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Has anyone ever asked you "Is this the hill you really want to die on?" Because that's exactly the point. If Murray is someone who has ideas that you disagree with and most other people view his ideas as toxic, and there's not really any benefit in reading his work, then why spend this energy defending him? I'm pretty sure Cingulate's argument is that he really expects it to become a widely accepted fact that black people are just less intelligent than white people and that therefore leftists are going to need to be ready to accept the genetic inferiority of black people and craft good leftist policy on dealing with the inferior races. It's not about "pointing out inconsistencies on the left" per se, it's that Cingulate seems to believe that the genetic inferiority of certain groups of people is an issue that we have to acknowledge just like climate change. tl;dr Cingulate defends Murray because he's a fellow Race Realist but he dislikes him because Murray's libertarianism is too laissez-faire about the problem of the lesser races
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I mean yeah, the answer to this question might be the same answer to every question regarding libertarians – they’re hypocritical douchebags that just want to maintain the status quo – but I was just curious if there was any reasonable, intellectually consistent argument they had for second guessing the power of the market. The whole basis of Damore's thing is that he thought Google's actions made it less competitive in the market. Believing in the Invisible Hand doesn't mean that you think any particular company is making correct decisions, and it would make sense for a libertarian with a vested interest in the success of a particular company to offer what they believe to be constructive criticism of its practices. Damore is a dumbass who mistakes his biases for facts, but his letter wasn't hypocritical. Trying to get the government to force a private business not to fire him, and in fact to let him harangue other employees, on the other hand...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I mean, sure he might think that he has better ideas that will help Google in the long run or whatever, but what right does he have a lowly employee to make such suggestions? He's not a venerated job creator. He's not the one making the decisions on who to hire. If the higher ups felt that their decisions were better for Google, then Damore already lost in the market place of ideas. This is silly. Libertarians are white supremacists without a single decent idea, there's no reason to strawman them by pretending that they don't overwhelmingly (e: claim to) support free speech. Universally, in fact, when the free speech is about how we should suppress women and minorities. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Just because no one has said it outright: the ACLU aren't unquestionable arbiters of moral good, and in fact their decision to defend Nazis (and thereby prioritize a certain interpretation of the idea of "freedom of speech" over the actual lives of victims of Nazi violence) is deeply racist and white supremacist. But the ACLU is a perfect example of an organization that does very racist things that leftists nevertheless find significant common ground with on other issues. In any event, as others have mentioned, the single greatest barrier to free speech is capitalism. Therefore, RealTalk, we must correctly recognize people like Jordan Peterson as being in opposition to free speech.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Thank god you showed up to act as the strawman Jortypete et al whine about. Leave it to fishmech to be scared of the possibility that fascists might be correct when they whine about their propaganda and recruitment being suppressed.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:The Neo-cons will continue to be treated as serious intellectuals worthy of respect on cable TV and even MSNBC, the supposedly "progressive" network. How do you square the fact that right-wing extremists are featured prominently on even, as you say, supposedly left-leaning mass media with your claim of dangerous mass censorship of the far right? Given that leftist positions, thinkers, and politicians have been almost universally ignored if not outright opposed by U.S. media for over a century, how can we possibly consider you intellectually honest when you focus on anything other than communists being given equal representation in American public discussion? e: Bonus round! Since you want so badly to talk about the results of political ideology on Russians, can you explain why it took less than 20 years from the fall of the Soviet Union before capitalism led to a far-right dictatorship, and why the majority of Russians wish they could return to communism? Would you agree with the historical evidence that capitalism is simply incompatible with democracy? Mornacale fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Libertarians:RealTalk posted:Sorry, you're the dumb one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Golbez posted:guys why is anyone in America sick or depressed Given the ludicrously small amount of American wealth owned by the working class, expropriation from them would do virtually nothing. In actuality, the sacrifice required by the western poor is to simply stop benefitting from the stolen wealth of developing nation's (whether in the form of extracted resources or mandated payments or slave labor), which is not something that the poor have the power to control in the first place. So in any case, the best thing that can be done for developing nations is to Eat The Rich.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I sort of feel like if we get to be the unambiguous Good Guy of World War 2 despite committing a series of crimes against humanity, then it's awfully hard to disqualify the communists as the right side of the Cold War.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
Ah, the part where capitalists pretend that deaths attributable to their ideology are simply the unavoidable state of nature.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that most libertarians mostly deny climate change for the same reason that most conservatives do: because environmentalism is associated with the left and they don't like that team.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
criminal, islamic, or socialist activities
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I have no idea why this is such a common brain worm with the right wing. Do these people decide 'Wow, it's been a nice 30 days of poo poo-free underwear since I adopted that no-making GBS threads-in-my-pants rule, guess the pants-poo poo problem is over, time to start making GBS threads in my pants again!' Because their actual belief is that rich people should be able to do whatever the gently caress they want regardless of consequences for the rest of us, and they're reaching for any possible argument that avoids just saying that out loud.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2018 19:46
|
|