Here’s me, Ashley F. Miller, Brianne Bilyeu, Russell Glasser, Ian Cromwell, Al Stefanelli, Justin Griffith, and Ophelia Benson having a discussion about why this blog network talks about progressive social issues all the time, in addition to being Vulcan-eared pontificators about atheism.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
That was good!
I am not familiar with everyone on the chat, so it was good to have their names/blog on the screen when they were talking.
Who were the 4 who weren’t “titled”?
Al on the left, Brianne 3rd from left, Justin 5th, Ophelia 6th.
Man, Ian gets the featured still frame, in the part where he’s telling everyone how big his penis is.
PZ, this may be a very loaded question but this conversation reminded me. A common tactic you use for arguing against religiosity includes ridicule and sarcasm, and you’ve defended these tactics by saying there should be a variety of strategies used to help people, and I agree. But doesn’t this tactic require blame on the part of the religious? Since I think you are a “hard determinist” like I am, can you rationalize blaming religious people for thinking what they do?
I like that frame way better than the last one!
Listenin’.. just a comment on “atheist community”. I’d say “communities”, because there are multiple atheist communities worldwide and online. The stark difference between “the rules” of the “YouTube Atheist” communities and “Skeptic bloggers” communities has just lately been all too visible.
(This is also why I find it so difficult to partake in FTB comments, because I’m very used to YT troll-fests).
What.
If the purpose is correction, as opposed to punishment, determinism doesn’t affect the problem.
Free thought closes the free speech of well-respected Thunderf00t.
Well done.
Credibility of ftb = zero.
@Tony Ryan #9
Not that well-respected.. I unsubbed from him a while back due to his bombastic and arrogant style and bad arguments a while back. Using a YouTube poll of his fanbase as scientific data is what has really reduced his credibility.
But mostly I think it’s because TF is rotten at blogging (while being great at smashing and pwning creationists and science-deniers). I mean just count the number of ALL CAPS words in his posts – this isn’t YouTube, you don’t have to shout.
Free Thought means we don’t have to agree with you or anyone else. We think for ourselves, and look at the EVIDENCE. Which TF didn’t. TF can still speak, just not under the banner of FtB. He isn’t censored. And he isn’t that well respected, as you obviously haven’t read the responses here over several days. When you deliberately treat half the population as playthings, it gets noticed.
Credibility of TP is that of used TP flushing down the toilet.
I’m currently enraged after seeing some comments from the other side. Apparently we’re “hysterical” and lacking in “balls” for caring about stuff, oh, and by implication we don’t actually believe in fighting sexism, we’re all just spineless pawns of the women who are trying to control everything.
It was definitely one of those cases where I couldn’t figure out whether I’d be angrier if they were saying those things out of cluelessness and apathy or if they were knowingly trying to anger people like me.
Tony Ryan, anyone who uses the word “feminazi” unironically–EVER–has no status to make pronouncements about who has credibility and who doesn’t.
Oh, and I’m an ex-Tfoot fan. Tfoot lost all the credibility and respect I once gave him.
Tony, you are a fucking fool. Is it intentional? I mean, well-respected among whom? White misogynists? High bar to clear, that. Fuck off.
^This!
Also, I used to watch thunderf00t, but stopped after he demonstrated that he was an islamophobe. This is the same reason I never read his blogposts.
And while I’m thinking about it, I just want to thank all the bloggers who *do* care about social justice and equality. I don’t want to be part of any community that deems such issues irrelevant. I especially don’t want to be part of any community that would declare we’re post-sexism/racism/you name it — especially not a supposedly skeptical community.
@SamStrange #13.
Just wondering, is radfem ok? I mean I’ve come up against some feminist women with extreme ideas and that’s the label I use.. Feminism is much newer to me than atheism, skepticism or belief in scientific fact (evolution, global warming), so I’m kind of worried if this is ok to use?
@michaelblayney #17
He has a lot of subs on YouTube.. and has been kind of a hero that won the “are creationists really nutjobs” debate on YouTube.
On a lighter note, I don’t know if it’s the lighting and camera angle, but Justin Griffith looks a lot like Jim Parsons in this video.
Oh, that was @ #15.
Wait, FtB has closed down Thudnert00t’s Youtube channel? And prevented him from setting up his own blog somewhere else? And he can’t even, like, send a letter to the editor or anything? Man, FtB is way more powerful than I ever guessed. They must really be the Illuminati or something.
Just finished listening and it was really interesting. A bit sad that none of the specific issues showing their ugly heads currently was addressed and a little bit happy about that too. About the closest to a general mission-statement for FTB I’ve heard before with lots of laughs and good points. Thanks.
So does the Angry Atheist – doesn’t really make him well-respected. Thunderf00t used to have many more fans, and a lot of respect from others, but he have lost much of it through his islamophobic content (less so than Pat Condell, but still..)
@Kristjan Wager #24
Yes, that’s a good appraisal.. just as I loved listening to TAA + Howard Bloom rants, I’ve unsubbed because pissed-off-atheist-vs-the-world no longer appeals to me.
I was just clarifying where the TF appeal is coming from – TFoot’s subs are also humans and part of the “community”, happily on the non-religious side, but unhappily not in the ration-skeptical segment. (They talked about just that in the podcast!)
@19 I used to follow him a couple years ago when his content was primarily aimed at debunking Creationism. When he became a full-fledged Islamaphobe I tuned out; that he’s a misogynist to boot lets me know I’m not missing much. There are other, better debunkers of nonsense without the baggage of being a jerk-off.
I don’t know if I’m derailing here, or building my own damn railroad and stoking the locomotive with the fiery fuel of social justice…
I was thinking that about 100% of atheists think blasphemy should not be a crime. (Show of hands?)
Probably nearly 90% of atheists think pot smoking should not be a crime. (We could poll this.)
Where I live (USA) the preponderance of people in prison are men, with men of color being imprisoned at the highest rate.
Could decriminalization (of victimless crimes) and reform of the so-called justice system be a social justice issue that atheists who read FtB and atheists who read ERV and atheists who watch Youtube could (mostly) all support?
We have so many people who will argue tirelessly. With a common purpose, or a common enemy, how much social good could we aim to accomplish? I think we could build a fairly big coalition. I’m not saying we can all get along, but I have hope that we can find something that at least 80% of us want to accomplish.
radical feminism is a specific, pretty well defined flavor of feminism. using that word as an insult for non-radfems is pretty close to the accommodationists use of “fundie” or “militant” when speaking about non-accommodationist atheists
@ michaelblayney:
Yeah, same here. I used to watch (and rather liked) his videos, but left when it became clear how much of an Islamophobe he could be.
If it had just been a one-off thing, I might have been able to forgive it. Racism is impossible to avoid in our society and sometimes people are going to make mistakes. If he had just backed off, I probably would have continued to watch his videos.
But of course he didn’t. Sigh.
Radical feminists are a subset of feminists, but the label is frequently thrown out at any feminist who does not concede that society is perfectly equal and women should get in the kitchen.
The people who actually take the label of ‘radical feminist’ usually self identify as such. Some of the common beliefs that radical feminists have are actually not far off the mark, if at all off. Most controversial is when rape is discussed; people like to pretend that in the USA, consent is actually legally meaningful, despite the fact that its presence is assumed by the justice system, both in theory and in practice. Some of the beliefs common to those that claim the label ‘radical feminist’ are not accurate; gender essentialism, the racist, classist, cis-sexist shit, etc.
tl;dr if you have to ask you don’t know what radical feminist means. And really, you using it is just another outsider throwing the label meaninglessly if you use it on a feminist who doesn’t identify as such. No sense in throwing it out as some sort of ‘insult’ in general.
“if you have to ask what ‘radfem’ means, you don’t need to be using it” rather.
About halfway through and loving this conversation. Also noticed something. The women are rarely being interrupted and when it does happen, it’s usually when everyone is joking around. It’s strange and little sad that this seems unusual.
@smhll #27
Blasphemy /hand
Pot-smoking /hand
US prison problem /hand
I think I’ve read quite a few FTB bloggers on the US prison problem, this is a social issue that hasn’t gotten as much attention though, because entrenched prison-owning interested aren’t as controversial in the “community”. It’s about the only point that the “sexism in conferences isn’t important” crowd have.
@Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe #28
Thanks. I think I use “asshole” or “fuck you” as insults. Radfem for me is when talking about feminists who have (to me) radical ideas, which to me seem to preclude discussion (“all men are rapists”/”all men should be castrated”). Is that OK?
I’m completely for the direction that FtB is moving*. I’m tired of atheism 101, and am ready to learn some new shit.
*(I presume that FtB bloggers give many fucks about my approval…congratulations, in other words)
I’m just going to cut the snark and say you’re putting way too much thought into something that isn’t going to happen.
I’ve been reading pharyngula for a few years and FTB for since it started. Thanks for the clarification. I don’t think I’ve used x-feminist as an insult, but in IRL conversations in my country (CZ) I try to distinguish between positive feminism (which all men and women should learn about and encourage) and the extreme views out there (which are then associated with feminism in general).
Le Exasperated Sigh. Stop it. You’re never going to run into someone making that statement. If you did it would be completely obvious that they’re in the extreme fringe.
Moving on.
@ruteekatreya #35
Of course it isn’t going to happen. I came here from other online communities (YT mainly), and 8 years back a Catholic background of “feminism is evil” and “men need rights too”. Thankfully I’ve passed that. Here the discussion is much more nuanced and the vocabulary much more precisely defined.
The first thing I learnt from pharyngula comments was to listen to what the women have to say.. and I’m really grateful for that.
My question with “radfem” was associated with the notion that there are feminist ideas that are way off, inacurate and wrong, and it become part of my responsibility to argue against them, despite being a man.
Still watching but wanted to say I like the back and forth and disagreement between the different participants.
“You’re never going to run into someone making that statement.”
I have. Um. Online. Not here.
Thanks to all for clarification and patience.
what the fuck are you talking about. this is the echo chamber of the groupthinking hivemind; there cannot possibly be disagreement.
All of which is irrelevant; all a feminist is generally going to see at being called a ‘radical feminist’, if they do not identify as such, is an ignorant outsider. There’s some exceptions, but they rely on the feminist in question not being cis-sexist, racist, or classist, and being aware of the cis-sexism, racism, or classism common amongst radfems.
You mean a feminist advocating for altmed or some shit? “Wrong” is sufficient.
Just finished the talk and I really enjoyed it. And for what it’s worth, what Ashley said at the end is true — y’all have changed at least one mind. I’ve gone from being a completely clueless dunce to somewhat less of one, and I have this network to thank — among other spurs, of course.
A couple of comments on the video:
First, the way I think to look at the world is between people who have a fundamentally cooperative view of the world vs. people who have a fundamentally competitive view of the world. Each side probably has very distinct opinions on what the “optimal” goal should be.
Needless to say I think the end conclusion…that atheism generally speaking is a movement against hierarchy is correct. So is modern feminism, for that matter. The thing is that the competitive view of the world, values hierarchy (it increases the value of “winning”). Expecting the two sides to get along is probably foolish at the end.
But yes, inherently atheism IS a social justice movement, and people who are against equality are simply doing it wrong. They want equality for atheists, but they don’t want to apply that to other issues. It’s silly.
Hoo-boy. Wow. The content of this post has to be seen to be believed:
https://proxy.freethought.online/rockbeyondbelief/2012/07/01/the-pits/
I would post an audio link for this talk but it just errors out. Sorry.
@45: Josh: What do you mean? Is that agreement/disagreement? For what it’s worth, I agree with the content of the post, and as someone who basically is 110% on the side of the good guys here, I think it’s actually very informative of a lot of the meta behind the issue.
I’m sorry. . I should have been clearer (that was dumb of me!): Greg Laden’s letter to Justin just floored me.
Ahhhhh. Yeah, the way you worded it kind of indicated that you thought that Justin’s post was just awful. Which would have surprised me to be honest.
Yeah, that floored me as well, but I agree with Justin’s take on it. Greg is FAR too personally invested in these particular issues and as such should probably step back and take a breather. (And he’s correct that basically the slimepit stance is nothing more but trolling at this point)
Yeah. I’ve got to say Laden’s letter shocks but does not surprise me. Several of us here have had direct experience being very ill-treated (altering the contents of our comments without disclosing the editorial change, outing the real name and email of a commenter he didn’t like, vaguely threat-ish type things) by him. I don’t know what gets into sometimes but there’s some deep-seated vicious.
@ Josh
Wait, what’s going on? Why is Greg Laden upset and why is Justin Griffith defending the slimepit?
Man, I’m out of attention span after using it on Thunderfoot and his douchebaggery.
Fluffy—there’s backstory. You’ll get into a world of hurt if you don’t read up on it at Justin’s before commenting (just friendly advice, not snark).
Tony Ryan wrote @ #9:
This is such a poignantly stupid comment, I’m going to assume you are deliberately trolling and really aren’t so monumentally stupid as to have written that in dead-seriousness.
Free speech does not mean “provided a platform by a private entity from which to spew my bile.” Free speech is something that can be granted, curtailed, or revoked only by an authority with the backing of the law. You know, the government.
FTB is not a government, and not capable of censorship for any meaningful definition of the word. That this argument exists and continues to be made by people of your ilk is, frankly, maddening. Which I suppose is why you continue to do it.
Also, “well-respected?” Really? Rush Limbaugh is “well-respected.” Ann Coulter is “well-respected.” It’s not hard to find plenty of Islamophobic misogynist assholes with plenty of people who respect them.
For fuck’s sake, my dogs are “well-respected.” FTB is censoring them by not giving them their own blog! IT’S THE END OF FREE SPEECH AS WE KNOW IT!!1
He’s not defending the slimepit. At least I didn’t read it that way.
He’s trying to take a somewhat neutral stance toward it, but in the end basically says NOPE it really is horrible, so they should stop it. He’s stating that a LOT of this is basically the slimepit trolling for tribal reasons. I agree with this.
@Josh: Personally, I’ve ran into that attitude before, so this doesn’t surprise me…it tends to put identity and tribalism before progress and growth. Personally I unbookmarked a whole bunch of feminist spaces a few years back over certain issues (the trigger wars, if anybody remembers those). Do you remember several months ago there was a bit of a conflict between FTB and the old Slacktivist site (not Fred Clarke’s one, although I do have a beef with him, but the old site he handed over to the community)? That’s the sort of attitude that I see here. Purity over progress.
In related news, look for my dogs’ upcoming blog: FreeThoughtDogs
How did you work that out ?
You will not have missed the referene to Greg Laden also parting ways with FtB, because of how he behaved to other bloggers on the network. I, along with others, had issues with Laden, but there is no denying was, and I hope remains, passionately committed to having women treated as equals. So in that respect he is the total opposite of Thunderfoot, whose second post declared he saw no need to fight for equality for women.
So can you explain to us why you ignored what happened to Laden, and would you like to take moment to offer your thoughts as to why you have continued to be quite so dishonest ? I cannot force you to do so, but keep in mind that your continued refusal to address your dishonesty does not look good.
truebutnotuseful at #53
No, he really is that stupid.
He’s one of the people who whinges whenever Rebecca Watson speaks, because she’s Rebecca Watson.
He’s the one who, when blocked by PZ and Rebecca for being a troll and a bully painted himself as the victim because Rebecca misremembered the particular insult he’d used against her. (He’d said feminazi instead of cunt). He demanded an retraction which Rebecca posted on Twitter, then decided that it wasn’t good enough because the attached apology was insincere.
That was a nice conversation! Religions tend to support/enforce injustice. In my opinion, it is only natural that atheism activism tends to gravitate towards social justice.
Let me simplify this: radfem or radical feminism does not mean what you think it means. No, it isn’t OK to use it that way. No one will understand you when you use the term in that manner, and it will lead to bad conversations that leave everyone pissed off and accomplish nothing.
I understand that you are from the Czech Republic, and perhaps are not exposed to the term as people in some other counties might be. But to be blunt about it: Shit, look it up. (Nothing wrong with asking here, either, but you seem to not be quite grasping the answers.)
If you find someone holding a (at least self-identified) feminist position which you find unreasonable, just say that you find the position unreasonable. (You probably want to make sure you understand the position, and be able to back up your assessment.) You might also pick up on terms here as used by feminists for people or positions of particular natures, which you would probably be welcome to use if you understand the usage properly. I cannot, however, really think of any which apply directly to your search for a term for feminists which hold extreme or irrational views. I would tend to treat such a person as personally irrational, without dragging feminism overall into it as if there were some major feminist party which simply wants men eradicated.
Things are much more complex and nuanced. Issues with some of radical feminism have been raised, but do nothing to support the manner in which you say you have used “radfem”.
This is slightly off-topic, but I noticed that Josh linked to Justin Griffith’s post about his original post about the ERV:
What is the point in sexist trolling as a means of “protest” against “censorship”?
What the fuck is the point here? Why would you prioritize your “right” to use slurs over the people that are hurt by them? Why does that become more important than engaging in non-trolling dialogue with people about things you might have in common? And why are they trolling for the “right” to use sexist terms and not homophobic or racist terms?
WHAT IS THE POINT?
It almost bothers me more to think that people are demanding their “right” to use such terms without any consequences, than if they were true, deep-down misogynists.
Can I come in out of left field and do some of this mansplainin’ I’ve been reading about?
Ever since the “elevatorgate” debacle, I’ve been reading blog posts from people I respect (or suddenly stopped respecting because of their blog posts) about the issues of privilege and racism.
Before that all happened, I didn’t think about it much, because I (ignorantly) thought that we in fact lived in a “post-sexism” society.
I’ve learned a lot, and I’ve also failed to understand a lot (probably because I’m one of these white privileged males).
But something occurred to me: my understanding is not a requisite of friendly compliance with the wishes of groups or people who feel slighted by my speech or actions.
I don’t have to get it to realize that women wish to be treated a certain way, and spoken to a certain way, and the same goes for any marginalized group.
It doesn’t hurt me at all to comply.
This isn’t to imply that I won’t continue trying to “get it”, I admit a responsibility to try. I just haven’t yet.
But I don’t need to “get it” to try and be a better person.
Hope I didn’t say anything really stupid.
I heart this community, and lurk daily, and hope that the bloggers here continue to make an effort to educate ignoramuses like me.
Thanks Boggs.
I would love to watch this Google+ Hangout, but after watching several of these in the last month I noticed my Internet went over quota (which meant spending extra $ which I don’t have). I decided to checkout how much bandwidth this one was using, and it essentially reminded me why I generally don’t watch YouTube videos.
Is there any possibility of having an audio-only version of these things. An hour of conversation as an mp3-type of compressed audio is well under 100 MB. The video version (even scaled down to the lowest setting of ‘240p’) was well on its way to a gigabyte before I stopped it. tl;dr = can’t afford it.
You should comment more, Boggs. That is a very good point you’re making, and one that many people don’t seem to want to grasp.
@ Xanthë
You could try installing Flash Got, an addon for Firefox, which allows you to download all sorts of streaming videos. For instance, this podcast was only 214 mb …
Of course, if that’s too much, you could google around for some online tools or browser add ons that allow you to convert streaming videos to mp3 without downloading – or streaming them.
Xanthë, these sites will convert YouTube videos to mp3s for you and you don’t have to watch the YouTube video to do so:
http://www.listentoyoutube.com/
http://www.video2mp3.net/
http://www.youtube-mp3.org/
There are more sites available, but I can vouch for the first one and I’ve heard good things about the other two.
Hi, PZ. Long time no post, either here or at sciblogs. Hope all is well with you. Just had to tell you I got a real chuckle out of you putting out there for discussion the idea of a “mission statement.” Sounds like quite a few megachurches in my experience! Atheists, being human beings, are not immune to the inevitable conflicts between individual liberty and the “needs of the many.” The sad irony is that anyone who attempts to make the world a better place by making common cause with like-minded people on issues that matter end up in these kind of conflicts. This theist salutes you for trying to frame your advocacy in terms of the kind of values that many theists and atheists share. I still owe you a beer. Or two. Or three. Take care.
I enjoyed that, does that now make me part of the echo chamber as well :)
BTW, I really like these new fangled ftb google chats of yours and though I only tend to catch the recordings, more please.
I am a little baffled by the few minutes of bad-mouthing the libertarian atheists just before (and after) talking about ways to make the atheist movement more inclusive. Do libertarian atheists not get to be included?
Generally speaking, no, because they are as a rule completely privilege-blind, to single out one of the many inexcusable stupidities of the vast majority of self-identified libertarians.
Let’s just go ahead and cut to the chase where you pretend libertarians are more oppressed as non-white people/women/etc now, shall we?
No problem if they keep their
theologypolitics private. But then they tend to open their mouths and show themselves to be clueless privilege-blind presuppositional and evidenceless bullshit artists. They earn their derision by ignorning history and economics.@rhysmorgan
“No, he really is that stupid.
He’s one of the people who whinges whenever Rebecca Watson speaks, because she’s Rebecca Watson.
He’s the one who, when blocked by PZ and Rebecca for being a troll and a bully painted himself as the victim because Rebecca misremembered the particular insult he’d used against her. (He’d said feminazi instead of cunt).”
While I know you are talking about Tony Ryan, in the given context someone could actually misread your post and think ThunderFoot caller her that word. Yesterday somebody claimed in a reply to me that he had in fact done this… (I haven’t seen any evidence as of yet so…)
Off course the obvious thing as this point is that TR didn’t even use that word, Rebecca got it wrong and people are grabbing on to the meme… . Sure Feminazi is not that much better, but striving for accuracy when reporting other people’s words would be nice even more so in a “skeptic” type blog… Ok let’s get the obligatory insults. 1-2-3 go.
The idea is that said assholes are a big reason why it is not inclusive to more people. Libertarianism is entrenched privilege and assholery. There’s plenty of spaces where they can go because the world fucking caters to them. People they shit on do not get that luxury.
Just to show that I’m not making this up:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/07/01/thunderf00t-check-your-email/comment-page-1/#comments
Comment #170
That was in response to comment 162 which is about TF… I guess the insult comes first and then the fact checking is optional…
Thank goodness you cleared the air on that one, jacklewis.
Are you dense? The entire conversation centered on promoting issues of social justice, something that libertarians give not a fuck about.
Libertarians won’t (and can’t) be blocked from reading whatever they want on the internet. However, don’t be surprised if the FtBloggers are not going to be soliciting the libertarian opinion on social justice issues, because, its already pretty plain what that opinion is*.
*Fuck the poor, amirite?
First, I am not attempting to sock-puppet (I have been posting as TwoPiDeltaIJ in other FTBs) but I am having trouble with Pharyngula’s login.
To the people who replied to me (comment #‘s 71 and 73):
I will address your different points later, but you both had a common complaint. You both cite your problem with libertarians being that they are privilege-blind or privilege entrenched (presumably for being mostly white and male, rather like the atheist movement). I am not sure why you think this has anything to do with libertarianism, but so far as I know this is not a “feature” of libertarianism per se. I think the problem is a little more nuanced than that, in that libertarians might agree with a very progressive view of any given issue but still think it would be immoral to impose it on someone who did not consent to obeying those rules (or that social contract).
Nerd of Redhead, I do not know what you are referring to with ” …blind presuppositional and evidenceless[sic] bullshit artists. They earn their derision by ignorning[sic] history and economics” and I doubt this is the place to debate the merits of libertarianism. However purely from the point of explaining why I am confused, almost all libertarians subscribe to some version of the Non-Aggression Principle which is compatible with the goals of social justice proponents.
We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective, how you can write off a whole segment of the population (small though it is) as assholes who also must be part of the problem related to inclusiveness is also not clear to me. I think it is perfectly fine to argue that libertarian ethics or libertarian economic ideas are incorrect (or maybe even stupid) but to decide that all of the libertarian people are assholes a priori does seem to be something like the actions of an asshole. So if libertarians are welcome somewhere (though where that is I am not sure), they do not also get to be included in the atheist movement?
Sorry, I did not see responses #’s 69 and 70 before:
KG, I think I addressed your comment with my other reply.
Ruteekatreya, I am not making comparisons of who is more oppressed. Though I would like to point out that just because two things are bad, one being vastly worse and more pervasive does not make the first bad thing not bad (this is the “Dear Muslima” argument if you want an example of why it is flawed and the proper response to it). I am not even claiming libertarians are oppressed. I was asking what I think was a fairly specific question. Thus far the answer seems to be that no, libertarians are not welcome if they do not intend to pretend to not be libertarian.
You know wrong. Libertarianism is designed to maintain the status quo or regress; It is to be expected that the people who benefit from the status quo or regression are more represented among its ranks.
“Oh of course racism is bad, but don’t expect me to actually do anything about it. Their right to be racist is more important than your right not to live in a racist society”.
We know, that’s why we don’t want them around.
…But they’re not willing to really enforce it for values of aggression that matter, so nobody gives a shit.
No, but basing that decision off the evidence seems just fine and dandy to me.
Not catering to libertarians is a good idea on its own merits, not a bad one being made to look less bad. Libertarianism gets plenty of truck in general; too much so, considering it all too often pushes for what is harmful. Excluding fools with harmful beliefs is supposed to be bad because?
Ok so it’s a bug. It’s a well known bug that no one addresses and it’s a game breaking bug. What’s you point.
Libertarianism relies on sophomoric (at best) views of civics, economics and sociology, eschewing real empirical research on all those fields and calls for the damning of multitudes for the sake of ideology.
regardless of any other problems with it, the fact that libertarian ideology says “oh sure we could save that child from starving…but it’s better if we don’t because of the platonic ideal of freedom!” makes it IMHO incompatible with a rational humanist mindset. Furthermore, it is notoriously callous to the under privileged, frequently associated with racism (both blatant and civil) AND due to it’s ignorance of economics, civics, sociology blah blah blah is basically a faith dependent position. And the defenses of it and it’s “bugs” are inherently dishonest.
It depends on the invisible hand and natural selection to guide society ignoring all evidence that that’s a disastrous idea.
Sacrificing others for YOUR ethical purity is not nuanced, it’s perverse.
Power and responsibility. libertarianism says that if we have the power we should let people die because fuck the responsibility. It’s based around the idea that sacrificing the unprivileged (due to action or inaction) benefits society in the long run. WHOSE view of society does this benefit?
ruteekatreya:
I am pretty sure you are doing what I am going to have to call something like progressive-splaining to me about libertarianism. You are also of course wrong. Libertarianism is not conservative in the sense of preserving the status quo. It is much closer to forms of anarchy than to any “conservative” ideology. I do not know why white males are more likely to be libertarians than other demographics any more than I know for certain why they are more likely to be atheists than other demographics. I doubt you do either.
That is not what I said or even an implication of what I was saying, so…nice straw man I guess. A libertarian personally might hold progressive views, and promote progressive views of things as true but still not require other people to do something without their consent. If you disagree with the idea that consent is required before you can hold someone to an agreement maybe we are better off being excluded from you.
We know, that’s why we don’t want them around. No, you have a stereotype, and you have decided that this is a prejudice you are OK with keeping.
Do you have a source to cite for this? Have you polled a statistically significant population of libertarians and your poll indicates that by and large all of them are OK with racism/sexism/homophobia being practiced around them? Yeah, I did not think so. The fact that a libertarian might not want the government to do something because of that pesky issue of coercion is not a clue that they will not do the thing themselves.
You do not have evidence, you have a prejudice based on a caricature of libertarianism.
Replace libertarians and Libertarianism with any other ideology or even a population segment you want and then re-read that statement. I think after that you can see the flaw in your reasoning. You have provided a claim, that Libertarianism is harmful, that it already has undue influence, and that the people who hold the belief are fools (which is not a rational argument, but it is a testable claim). So, cite your sources. Go on, I’ll wait…
Libertarians need their policies explained to them by progressives because they are notoriously fucking short sighted and don’t think them through.
It’s a childish philosophy that is built on a house of cards.
Libertarians are found to be less empathetic and more callous and selfish. Actual study shows this. So shuddup.
Thanks for the reminder. I’ve been meaning to unsub for months, but I’m far too lazy to bother.
You can call it that, if you want to make libertarians look even more like appropriating shits than they already are. FAr be it from me to stop you.
Preserving the status quo is almost too generous, given there is a serious undercurrent that wants to remove protections that already exist. But a nonzero number of libertarians concede that maybe the Civil Rights Act isn’t killing too much of THE FREEDOM (Insert crying eagle here), so there’s that.
Libertarians, almost to a person, are perfectly fine with where race, gender, gender identity, etc, relations are now. Its actions, if embraced, tend to paralyze it at where it is, or worse, regress things.
Consider me unsurprised that you don’t know why women, the poor, poc, queer people, non-able bodied people, and non-neurotypical people, are not flocking to join a group that tells them abortion is bad (both Pauls), the Civil Rights Act is an atrocity on white rights (Paul the Lesser), matched only by the Americans with Disabilities Act (Jilette), and advocate destroying the already-limited social safety net that exists for the poor because FREEDOM. Oh, and mass support for STATES RIGHTS on gay marriage.
Prepare to be surprised.
It’s the direct consequence, in the real world, of saying you refuse to support government measures against racism. This is not caricature, this is either you being ignorant of the effects of your desired policies, or you being dishonest of same.
And that means I don’t give a shit, because in practice they oppose meaningful efforts to end racism, sexism, etc. On the grounds that it’s ‘inethical’ to force anyone to do anything ever. Fuck yourself.
Well, there’s you, right now. And every libertarian I’ve ever debated, with one exception.
An argument made while defending the destruction of legal protections. And you don’t fucking know why these ‘prejudices’ are fucking held. Ain’t you just fucking precious.
I really wish you would have just done that when Is aid “Can we cut to the chase”. It would have saved me from having to read shitty reasoning and reality denial.
Sure.
I know what you wanted me to quote there, ofc. You wanted me to include black people, or gay people, or something similar. Sadly for you, that is negated by “get plenty of truck in general”, and “Considering it all too often pushes for what is harmful”. Neither of these is true, despite your cowardly attempt at false equivalence. Have the intestinal fortitude to stand by your own lame ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008-2009
Well, I point to you there.
We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective,
It is not a bug either because it is not necessarily related to the libertarian-ness of the person in question. It is a “bug” we see in many people regardless of the rest of their philosophical leanings presuming they are not in the un-privileged group in question.
Libertarianism can be arrived at in several ways (and has a staggering number of subgroups). I am not going to go into it here but many of them start from establishing the morality of agreements only with consent of all parties. This has a lot of consequences, some economic, some civic. I doubt we will be allowed to debate this idea and its many consequences here, and I will not go down that road. Afterall, I am not trying to convince anyone here to be a libertarian, merely to accept that they exist and it is possible their ethics are not the ones you seem to think they are. Let us presume for the moment that you are right and that libertarian atheists do not hold a rational world view. Does this mean you should not include them in atheist events, or that they should not be made to feel welcome in atheist events? I doubt many organizations would say yes. I also take issue with your characterization of a defense of libertarianism as dishonest. Please, demonstrate where I have knowingly attempted to deceive you (or someone else here). Your views on how well libertarians treat the poor is also flawed in something like a libertarian state there is a different safety net but one which conforms to different goals and ethics than a so-called welfare state.
This is also not correct. While it is true that libertarians are largely capitalist (there are socialist libertarians and even something like communist libertarians) that is not to say that there is no value placed on compassionate treatment of other people in society.
I am not suggesting sacrificing anyone. If someone both needs my help and wants it and I am in the position of helping I am likely to. This does not mean I should be forced to, and similarly I would not force someone else to just because they could.
I have no idea how you arrived at this idea or attribute it to libertarianism.
Oh, that study here? I might just save it vfor being fucking hilarious.
http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/11/17/whosthelibertarian/
…to deny the validity of taxes, the civil rights act…
Oh, okay, so you really couldn’t read us saying exactly that.
And I care because…?
It’s either that or ignorant.
Yeah there is, in practice.
We’ve seen how well private charities actually care for the poor. Too many will only cater to the poor who grovel to them; and many are religiously oriented, with a number of problems as charities because of it.
Not being as short sighted as you.
ruteekatreya,
I do not know what it means to be “an appropriating shit” unless you mean I also exist in the same society you do and so I have drawn an analogy to a shared cultural idiom. If that is what you mean, then sure libertarians are appropriating shits (where the above is true).
Well, even the ones who are irritated by it are only irritated by the idea of someone telling a private business how to run their business. That’s OK though, because debating about things you or I think the government should or should not do is totally what I was talking about when I asked if libertarians would be welcome.
Again you seem to not understand. Libertarianism is not monolithic. In addition, it is perfectly in harmony with the idea of individual (or group) activism in regards to social justice. The fact that two popular American examples of libertarianism do not fit the mold you would like might have more to do with their religious beliefs than their political ones. Would your rather have a person with right-wing and authoritarian tendencies or right wing and libertarian tendencies? Which is likely to do more harm?
No, your quotes are fine. Of course the obvious counter examples make your statement look stupid. Even picking the ones you have picked though I hope will allow me to make my point. For instance, what does it mean for a group to be welcoming to a demographic? Could we say that it is in the best interests of the skeptic movement to talk to Catholics, Republicans, and AGW Denialists (presuming they are open to being involved in rational debate) in a way that would get them to engage and try and defend their positions or not? Does it make our movement or society worse to do this? I don’t think so. By all means, tear into their arguments. It is hard to convince a person they are mistaken if you make it so they won’t (or can’t) talk to you.
As to your links; of the many things libertarian could mean I do not think you have found one…
I know you don’t know that. You’re a libertarian, and libertarians fucking suck at actually being involved in social justice. Frankly, explaining the concept just means you’ll misapply it somewhere else for your own ends, but there’s always lurkers, so…
You are appropriating language from social justice movements to borrow credibility from them; credibility you obviously don’t deserve. Hence the language from white/cis/straight/ablesplaining. You are trying, once again, to make libertarianism look similar. It’s not.
And fuck you if you have to be told not to discriminate on grounds of race. Fuck you if you don’t even like to be told it; adults should fucking well be beyond knee-jerk complaints of not wanting to be told to do anything whatsoever.
No, you don’t understand: I don’t care.
What do I care, when they remove what is generally one of the best protections we get?
Neither. Fuckwit.
Hey, put those goalposts back, you jackass. I’m not going to let you pull that shit. Being made to feel welcome is a lot more than just being given the opportunity to make your arguments, such as they are.
Really? You sure about that? Okay, I guess you’re an ignoramus and didn’t actually read.
You’re aware, I trust, that the crises caused by deregulation stand by libertarian economic ideals… let me go ahead and get to the other major one. Do you know why I linked Pinochet? Do you know what that idiot did to his nation, under the advice of Milton Friedman, who follows your economic ideals to say the least? Do you know how Friedman fucking got there? I fucking hate ignorant honkies and ignorant Meriken.
As to the Gilded Age… that’s your economic ideal right there. Asshat.
Actually, it is caused by the rude loudmouthed unevidenced and unrefutable arrogant idjits professing that theology, er economic/political theology, ever since six spring of 2008. So we are very well acquainted with those who preach that fuckwittery. To a person they were selfish and amoral people.
That’s why we don’t think much of liberturds and liberturdism.
Oh, I almost missed that. No no, little appropriating shit; They are not fucking equivalent just because a hetero honky wants to score points on a perceived other hetero honkey. What you wanted me to say doesn’t work because it isn’t fucking equivalent. Fuckwit. And stop fucking dancing around here; You want to paint libertarians as oppressed. That’s why you’re fucking doing this, and it’s why you’re a piece of shit.
“You want to paint libertarians as oppressed. That’s why you’re fucking doing this, and it’s why you’re a piece of shit.”
Make up the motivation and then slam it down, it’s the old 1-2 dimwit trick. Well played ass hole.
I imagine misogynist nitwits like you are really mad when people read between the lines, yes.
Penn of Penn and Teller has done a whole show whining about how wheel chair ramps are evil. You honestly expect anyone to take this position seriously?
You seem to ignore my main point: a social philosophy built around “we shouldn’t do anything even if we have the power to help because in the long run it will support the greater good” is a system that favors the elect few.
And who, god or PZ, gave you permission to tone troll? Your tone trolling is rated at a zero, no originality or thought, and you think you are, but aren’t, funny.
Ok, I am awake again:
Your study admits that it is not a good study for looking at libertarians…
I think you will find very little evidence for this, but ok.
You are again assuming my motive. You are again incorrect, though I already explained my motive…so maybe you are just making things up to argue against.
I do not think people have to be told not to discriminate on the grounds of race, I think that was the point. If people want to discriminate now they will (and do), so what is wrong with proposing that we use the same method of correcting it (namely pointing out to those people that it is bad business).
I think what I did was re-ask my original question….if that is now moving goalposts then we are all in trouble.
Yeah, fairly sure. The gilded age problems run much deeper than the lack of government regulation of the market and are tied in no small part to corruption. Pinochet was autocratic in the extreme which is the opposite of libertarian… The financial melt down was the a perfect storm of many bad things but again I just do not see libertarianism there.
I am reasonably sure you can not hold me responsible for people who have been rude to you before (at least not rationally). I might be loudmouthed, in as much as that is possible when I am the only person arguing against several other people over the internet. As to unevidenced[sic], I am not sure I have made a claim other than about one basic moral/ethical question. Also I am perfectly open to the idea that libertarian ethics could be refuted. I have not seen an effort to do that here (and again, this is probably not the thread for it since that would be a bit of a tangent). So, again, consider me baffled that you and other persist in calling something theology which is open to being questioned and disagreed with (again see the many subgroups).
I am not sure you listend to what he was saying. He was saying that the lawyer suing an entire town of store owners was evil (and pointing out that the line for accommodation was somewhat arbitrary). How you get from “this is a protection racket” to “wheel chair ramps are evil” is an interesting mental contortion.
I did not ignore it, I tried to correct it to be more accurate. People should do what they can to help others, they should not be forced to do so. In the first case it is an exercise in promoting a moral good. In the second case (being forced) it is no longer moral because it is coerced.
Obviously you weren’t around back in the ’60s, or paid attention to what is happening. Many people must be told they can’t do it still. Liberturds cause de facto discrimination.
Easy to refute, as its “I’ve got mine, fuck you and yours”.
Not one liberturd has acknowledged they are wrong despite of the level of refutation brought against their ideas. Which is why it is considered a theology. Like a godbot, they can’t be refuted due to presuppositions. Ergo, theology. Show us wrong by allowing us to refute your nonsense, and acknowledging when that happens. I would be very surprised if you did. Start with a thirty year history in first world country in the last fifty years, showing the concept worked for the whole period….
Sorry, the guy who actually tried to appropriate -splaining is going to tell me I don’t have evidence you are going to appropriate appropriate? How quaint.
…You’re a complete fucking lackwit.
Yeah. It’s not your idiom. You fucking fool. IT’s not even your fucking culture; -splaining is not an artifact of normal western culture. It comes from social justice culture… which I know because you don’t understand what ‘appropriation’ is. Fuck off.
You are such a piece of honky shit, pretending they do so as much as they did prior. Fuck off and die.
Of course you don’t; you deny reality.
You moved the bar for what’s ‘being made to feel welcome’, quite blatantly, so yeah, fuck of.
Yeah, corruption alone was all that was needed for shitty medicine, shitty food… IT was a fact, but you do realize what we did to root it out, right?
No true libertarian. OFC. Ignore the Chicago School Economics.
Yes I do suppose that when one looks at the huge giant smoking crater that is the financial melt down it’s hard to see Alan Greenspan standing in the center of it.
*which I know isn’t yours,
And the strobe lights, and the can-can dancers wearing uniforms emblazoned with “DEREGULATION” and the like.
The salient point about a mission statement is that it must be simple and clear enough so that when you contemplate any particular action for your organization, it’s easy to answer, “Is this inside or outside the scope of our mission?”
This principle was stated by Robert Townsend, author of “Up the Organization.”
Sure, I was not around in the ‘60s in the US. I think I have a handle on what went on in at least a general sense though. I am trying to point out that your solution to *ism is to tell people not to do it. A possible libertarian solution is to just not help those people (or buy from them) and be clear about why they are not going to be helped (or have their business patronized).
I have tried to point out a few times here that this is simply not the case no matter how much you wish it were.
That might have something to do with the issue we seem to be having. I have yet to see you argue against libertarianism in any way other than saying “the methodology is wrong.” That is not an argument. That is not persuasive. There has been no attempt at persuasion, merely invective hurling (from one side).
I am not sure you get to claim ownership of language, or that you are the arbiter of who belongs to which culture. I am not “borrowing” respect or authority from the idiom because I assume you will evaluate my claims the same way I evaluate yours (rationally), which has very little to do with what special jargon I use in an argument but a lot to do with the argument I make.
So you admit to being a foul, ignorant, racist? Also I did not say anything about rate, or cause. Are you arguing that correlation is causation?
Well, corruption and lack of technology which made it really easy to check up on factual claims probably was a large part of it, yes. There was also the slight issue of misunderstanding (even of experts of the time) of what would be safe. Was some (large portion of it) purely greed and dishonesty? Sure, and? How much money to chiropractors still make in one of the most regulated industries that exists in the US (or the rest of the western world)?
I do not think that is the argument I made. I am not ignoring “the CHicago School of Economics” which bothers you so much, I am just not claiming it is the source of all social and economic ills (or that it is even the dominant influence in libertarian economic thought).
Well, let us assume that Greenspan is a libertarian (which I do not think he has said) rather than a Republican with some libertarian leanings (rather like the Pauls though to a lesser degree). Are you seriously blaming the financial meltdown on one guy who was not in a position of power over what happened when it occurred? Also what would a libertarian do when in charge of the Federal Reserve? The answer is probably very little (as opposed to what Greenspan did) since they by and large think that it is a bad idea that it exists and that it can only harm the free market. But hey, lets not let that get in the way of your narrative…
There is no liberturd solution that will work. You must prove it will work with empirical data, not theological slogans. Which is all liberturds have presented to date. Short on the evidence their ideas work in real life.
Your OPINION isn’t worth the electrons used to post it. Third party data is the key. Where is your evidence it is true? Empirical evidence, showing liberturds are more selfish than the general public, show I’m right, not you.
I’m asking you to show positive evidence, not just slogans, that your ideas work in real life. Not one citation…funny how your ideas don’t’ work, and you can’t admit the obvious. I challenged you to cite one first world country using libertudian ideas for thirty years in the last half of the twentieth century for a historical look that it works. But it doesn’t. I suggest you look at the US economy between the civil war and the turn of the century. Boom/bust cycles, forming of monopolies and trusts, and all sorts of economic malfeasance. That tells me empirically your theology doesn’t work.
First of all, of the two of us I am not the one dealing in absolutes. Second, it is not a theological slogan and the evidence of it working can be provided by looking at what I think PZ commented on about a christian business owner’s discrimination, .
Atheists did not need a law to fix this problem, did they? This is an example of free market pressure (and social stigma) at work.
You have also not provided any evidence, only opinion. Should I disregard all of your statements as unreasonable and unbacked up? The one survey that has been posted admits it is not a good survey of libertarians. Here is a link to an explanation of why some libertarian behavior is not , and . As a counter point to your claim that libertarians are more selfish than the general public (and that this is bad) I would just like to point to this interesting gemI stumbled across trying to verify your claim (I freely admit that I do not know the reputation of the social science research network and I am not inclined to look up its impact factor).
Is it normal to claim I have not complied with your request in the same post that you make the request?
You are welcome to set such a narrow test of validity, but it does not prove anything. I do not think any country has tried to fully implement libertarian ideas in the last half of the twentieth century so it would be hard to point to one as a historical example. That being said, lacking a history does not make an idea invalid. You are attempting to appeal to an argument from silence (which is fallacious). If it has not been tried in modern times it has not been tried, so your assertion that it does not work is flawed. It is awfully hard to have empirically tested things that have not been tried.
The US economy post civil war (and this has already been discussed in this thread) suffered from many things but it is dishonest to blame all of it on lack of government regulation. Capitalism will always have cyclic behavior, if your complaint is with capitalism that is fine but it is also not an argument against libertarianism.
Further, none of this is a reason that libertarian atheists should be excluded from the community at large.
Yawn, evidenceless OPINION and OPINION pieces from a liberturd. Typical, lacking the academic, historical, and economic rigor required to change minds. It took me fifteen minutes of thinking to determine the moral, economic, and historical banruptcy of liberturdism twenty years ago. Not hard if one looks at the evidence.
If you want to find the right evidence, and for the length of time I mentioned as solid evidence it works, try here. Otherwise, it is theology, as w must take your word for it. And I consider your words and OPINIONs worthless.
Hell can we just get our economic adviser in here to point out why it’s so stupid? Since apparently the moral argument of “you’re honestly going to let the less privileged suffer and/or die to make way for a utopia for those who have wealth?” doesn’t work.
Oddly enough, google scholar was where I found most of those links (obviously excluding the first). The first link is a report of an event that occurred (which is probably not usually considered opinion so much as history unless you are accusing Greta Christina of making it all up and perpetrating some kind of conspiracy for it to be reported by other people). The Reason article cites its (scholarly) sources though it is admittedly commentary on those sources. The commentary is relevant, so I linked to the article and not just the studies and books linked to in the article. The opposing views article also cites its sources, and fairly soundly refutes your argument about selfishness. Since I do not like to re-invent the wheel I linked you to someone else who had already dealt with your extremely common (and still incorrect) argument. My last link I am not sure you read. Do you distrust economists more than the general public?
Again, none of what you have said is an argument against libertarianism. Your fifteen minutes twenty years ago does not interest me. I have not demanded you take my word for anything other than that you (in general and specific) are perhaps mistaken in your impression of libertarianism. You (and others) seem to have built a straw libertarian (with Ron Paul’s face, to your credit) and decided that all libertarian thought can be dismissed by tearing down your straw man. The right-libertarians are not all that exist. Like most people on the far right, I also disagree with some of their views. That is not the axis of political thought that libertarianism is on however. There is a lot of diversity in libertarian ideas (which you do not seem to acknowledge) and the common threads between the different thoughts are ethical and not always economic (which you have consistently ignored). Since you do not know (or understand) who it is that you oppose, your opposition would probably be classified as ignorant. Since you do not acknowledge that you could be wrong you are being dogmatic. Your insistance that people who hold libertarian ideas are bad makes you a bigot. So, way to go!
Your expert will probably argue against people like Ron Paul, and I would agree with him. See the above post. I am not asking people here to decide they are anarcho-capitolists. I would be thrilled if a few of you to acknowledge that you do not know very much about libertarianism (aside from Ron Paul’s views). In your ignorance you have decided that all people with a libertarian bent are some how really just Republicans but more vile in some way. Here is a link to an admittedly old study showing libertarian demographics and their distribution in the American political spectrum.
On the other hand, I would gladly talk to an economist about various forms of libertarian economic thought. I make no claim to be an economist, but the conversation would probably be interesting at least to me, but again economics is not the foundation that libertarianism is built on, so at most it would be someone arguing that I should be more in favor of something other than capitalism. This is sort of like someone arguing to an atheist that if they could disprove evolution the atheist must stop being an atheist.
Ah, the liberturd is still behaving like a theologist. “Show me wrong”. That is how theologists, and those without evidence argue. If your political/economic theory really works, two things should be true. It is well documented as working. Second, first world countries would be using it on a regular basis. I don’t have to show you wrong, you have to show yourself right.
Now, if you had to show evidence that it really works, where is that 30 years from a first world country in the last half of the twentieth century? There should be several examples. Not one country used liberturd principals for that long, and most never did. Every think why? They don’t work. Countries like the US have been there, done that, and had severe problems that required regulation to solve, as the market never did, nor never would.
Our economics specialist is ‘Tis Himself. He has worked for the Treasury Department, and is now employed by a private firm. He is a straight shooter. And unlike those with a theology, he doesn’t out and out lie.
We don’t care if you are a liberturd or not. Just don’t proslytize, and you cause no trouble.
Did you think we were done? How ignorant do you fucking libertarians get?
A: The problem isn’t fixed, You fucking piece of shit. ATheists are still really fucking racist.
B: You are ignoring what happened prior to the civil rights act, you racist asshole.
A piece of shit honkey confusing anger at white people with actual racism. OFC. Tell me, what structural discrimination against white people did I strengthen? Go on, tell me, I want to hear this.
Devaluing the Civil Rights act means you fucking are. You are pretending it did very little, to pretend the CRA wasn’t useful.
Are you seriously arguing that an enforced law that you claim infringes on freedom by virtue of existing, that specifically states that you can not discriminate on the grounds of race in matters X, Y, and Z is mere ‘correlation’? Did you work hard to be this stupid, or was it handed to you in life like everything else? Do you even realize why those two arguments negate themselves neatly?
What technology emerged between 1880 and 1910 that changed that? Because it wasn’t radio.
Nobody needed to be asked whether rotten meat was bad for you. Read the motherfucking jungle.
If you look at what they technically work in, it isn’t usually medicine. Hence couching their bs claims in the most weasel words possible. They dress themselves in the trappings of it. The free market will never make that shit go away; everything libertarians say absolutely will work should here; it never does. Meanwhile, a non-zero number of western countries *do* legislate them out of everything except massaging.
Go the fuck away, your ignorance and racism aren’t wanted.
I did not ask for you to prove me wrong, I asked for you to acknowledge that you might not have a complete understanding. Also it is not correct to claim that for something to be proven to be possible (or good) that a first world country must currently be doing it. I would need to demonstrate I was correct if I expected you to accept libertarian ideas (which is not my purpose here).
I think I have already addressed this (and why I disagree with the framing and thus the question). Feel free to stop repeating yourself anytime now since you already know I do not intend to respond to this demand of yours.
Ok, though I would like to point out that I know an astrophysicist who worked as a diplomat for a government body ( I will not say more for purposes of anonymity), so the listed credentials themselves while impressive sounding do not necessarily indicate a particular specialty. Not that I doubt the claim, I just intend to caution you against using place of employment as the claim to expertise.
I do not think I have asked any of you to become libertarians. I do not think I have had long leading conversations about moral systems and consent (which is usually how one would push the idea of libertarianism). So, all is well.
You just whined to be treated ‘comfortably’, and insisted that there was no reason to treat Libertarians like shit, and when challenged, you started spewing shit.
Not while there’s a fool racist here spewing shit about how the Civil Rights Act was worthless and the free market will always solve racist shit.
I lost my job and am filing for unemployeement. My life is already shit and Libertarains think it would be a good thing if my life was made more shit by removing any tiny break I might get. Because they’re freedom is more important than my freedom apaprently.
I have so much fucking freedom right now! I have the freedom to stay up at night, to toss and turn at night, to stare at a clock and contemplate death, to feel useless, to worry about every expense, to worry about losing everything, to panic every day I don’t get an e-mail back form a job ap or the union or unemployment.
But that’s all worth it so that we can have the freedom for richer people to remain rich and not have to worry about me and my problems! tehee! If I wind up becoming homeless through no fault of my own well that’s just a sacrifice we need to make to keep our nation good and free….for the people who have money.
I am sick of this no one…tell me why I should tolerate this world view that shits all over me and tells everyone else to either not help me or to join in on the shitting? This isn’t some academic question for me, this is me wanting to know why the fuck you hate me so much.
You know what. Please just answer that question. I just want a libertarian to actually answer me. What the fuck did I do, or what is it about me, that you decide that your freedom is more important than me? How much do I need to be treated as a fucking person to you assholes?
I doubt your interlocutor is using that particular definition of ‘racism’. Most people aren’t.
Aww, just when I thought the conversation might stay civil…
Wait, did you have a trick after government regulation? Oh, you mean a social movement to promote changing views? Right, because that is totally impossible as part of the solution in a libertarian state….
Atheists did not need a law to fix this problem, did they? This is an example of free market pressure (and social stigma) at work.
A: The problem of the store owner discriminating was fixed…. what are you talking about? B:I don’t think I am, but you are free to assume what you like.
Well, for starters you are using a racial epithet for the purposes of attempting to shame me into silence (which works about as well as it usually does). Second, here in this blog any power difference you assume based on our (presumed) races is entirely in your head. You are just text to me (as I am to you). I have no idea what race you are, nor do I care. You have no idea what race I am (nor should you care).
Nope
So…yes then. You are in fact arguing correlation is causation, good to know.
I am not sure what you think was given to me, or by whom…
Well, since I was comparing the gilded age to now, I do not think this is relevant. I did not claim regulation could not fix things just that it was not the only way to do so (and that it is possibly an immoral solution).
I don’t think I was talking about rotting meat, and I did, years ago…still don’t think its relevant to what I was talking about.
So, if they manage to escape good regulation and they manage to hide behind bad regulation…the answer is clearly more regulation!
No
Most USians are white and don’t deal with meaningful racism because of it, so I imagine not. Fuck off.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/156104/job_insecurity%3A_it%E2%80%99s_the_disease_of_the_21st_century_–_and_it%E2%80%99s_killing_us/?page=entire
Libertarian’s focus increases freedom for a small demographic while making life more difficult and less healthy for everyone else.
That sucks, and I am sorry to hear it.
If you know any libertarians in meatspace ask them about that. I think you will find most of them willing to help you if they can. Where are your friends/family/community?
Well, that is not the reason. I suspect the reason does not matter to you much right now, but in the interest of being correct I will try and explain. The problem most libertarians have with government unemployment insurance is that it is forced charity. If people want to be charitable, if we think it is important to have a social safety net (and I for one do think that) they would rather take part in it voluntarily and without the middle man.
Just as a question (never having lived in a place or worked in a field where it was common) shouldn’t a union membership help protect you from this very situation?
Well for starters, I do not know you and I do not hate you. Also, libertarianism does not tell people not to help you. Libertarinism does not tell people to make your life worse (this would violate non-aggression to deliberately harm you unprovoked).
Well, again this is a false premise. In the immediate term I would just point out that people who are libertarians do currently pay taxes even though they probably disagree with that in some way. Also, as I said above no one is putting their freedom above yours in priority (except in the strict sense of most people being self serving to some degree). Also, I would like to know how you think libertarians are not treating you like a person?
Why do you think I am in the US (presuming I parsed your sentence correctly)?
FUCK YOU.
After all that complaining, it’s amusing to see you do what you claimed I couldn’t, and read motives. No, I didn’t call you a honkey so you would be quiet. I called you a honkey because I am fucking angry at ignorant white people. How much of a structural problem do you actually think this is for white people again? Because white people qua white people don’t face racism.
You idiots are so precious. That goes out the window when I stop letting people assume I’m white; I should fucking well know. You think this, because you’re white, and as a rule speakers are coded as white absent direct statements to the contrary. It stops applying when people are obviously not white.
Yup. You claimed that laws can’t be used to get people to behave well, whenever you can, you just dance away from the point later.
I’m arguing causation is causation, you miserable little fuckwit. You don’t understand the terms you’re claiming. If I say “People buy more ice cream on hot days, therefore hot days cause ice cream”, that alone is correlation = causation. If I look at why people buy ice cream, and say that hot days cause people to buy ice cream because it is hot (IE + explanatory mechanism), then I am saying a cause is associated with this correlation.
The Civil Rights Act is a law that makes it illegal to discriminate in particular contexts, and I argue that it being illegal and something you can face fines or jail time over is indeed a motivator for some, who abide by it to the extent they must. That’s a cause, you fuckwit.
Putting aside that you did make the claim regulation can’t, both earlier and later, let me go ahead and cut you off here; I’m not just comparing the gilded age to now. I’m also comparing it to what came after it. And there was demonstrable improvement once standards were placed that required at least so much care be taken in preparation of food before shipping it.
Also, how do you not fucking see the relevance of The Jungle to a conversation about regulation? It’s true that Sinclair wanted something more socialistic and was focused on the workers he had been with, but what actually arose from the truth of food prep coming out was regulation of food preparation.
Yes, constricting the freedom to poison people with rotten meat before treating them with snake oil is so very, very immoral.
You claimed we needed experts and/or more information to prevent the disastrous state of food that preceded the FDA. Most of it really was pure greed; We may not have had refrigeration, but we knew enough to know that canning meat that was already rotten was bad, for instance. You were talking about rotting meat; You’re just a fucking ignoramus and didn’t know it. You are ignoring what happened with a free market in food.
Sorry, are you seriously suggesting the free market solved this problem? The free market which according to you needs nothing in particular to work? This is why I don’t believe you when you say ‘I didn’t say good regulation can’t work’. You just did. You just waited for a time you thought you could get away with it to say it.
Yes, good regulation can solve it. Unlike free market fairy dust, it requires actual effort. Frankly, I have bigger problems I’d rather put political will towards, but there’s nothing that says you have to avoid doing so. Nothing except your libertarian tendencies.
Chas, IIRC, is, and likes to whine about this.
Frankly, I’ve never heard of white people qua white people ever being discriminated against on matters of race; I have heard of people’s whiteness being denied, however, which inevitably is before they’re treated about as much like shit as the other non-white people, but that’s gone down substantially ever since more non-white people have shown up…
notmyname @ #123:
Except that, when society relies on charity work to provide for those who are in need, the amount of help received is not sufficient to provide relief (not to mention, as stated above, that a lot of the time receiving charity help involves caveats, such as being proselytized to by evangelists who run homeless shelters).
The historical record is against you. The modern record is against you. Societies with strong, government-enforced social safety networks enjoy far better standards of living than those who don’t have them. The fact that you think “economic coercion” is worse (or as bad)* as trying to provide some degree of help to those who need the most means you are a horrible fucking person
—
* Yes, the fact that libertarians argue that welfare (or other type of governmental intervention) is bad because it infringes in their so-called liberties suggests that value comparison.
How is this my problem (or in fact related to me at all)?
Well, I think randomly attempting to shame demographics (for some unknown reason) is probably contributing to a structural problem.
If you say so, are you saying you are not white and that it is relevant to your arguments validity?
No, I claimed laws do not make people change just comply. In both cases, for certain definitions of “well,” then I suppose people are behaving well.
Your ice cream scenario is simple. The idea that the only thing that changed (regarding views on racism) between the mid sixties and now was a law is false. For an interesting comparions we can look at places where gay marraige is still descreminated against and views regarding it. It is not illegal in many places to discriminate against same sex couples but the view of it is becoming increasingly more dim (the social movement is “ahead” of the regulation).
That might be a cause for “behaving well” but it did not obviously cause the shifting zeitgeist away from racism being acceptable.
Its funny because its true.
Where?
I suppose it is pretty easy to ignore statements I did not make…
Well, to be fair I think we are conflating different terms for regulation. I did mean in that statement that government regulation in conjunction with corrupt industry led regulation has not solved the problem. I am not saying that industry regulation can never work. I am not saying that a free market should be totally unregulated. You are valiantly tilting at windmills and celebrating slaying dragons.
So people who are not libertarians (of any bent) are not doing things that I am arguing that libertarians promote…. I am shocked. Shocked!
Who gives a shit what a delusional theological fool thinks? You don’t think. You regurgitate slogans. That’s all liberturds can do.
You haven’t presented any real data your ideas work. Ergo they don’t. Anybody without a need for the theology of selfishness by having empathy sees that.
QFFT
You’re right to ‘not be charitable’ and keep a few fucking bucks of taxes trumps my right to live.
I hate you assholes
And you are desperately trying to deny the bad parts of your theology. It doesn’t work, as you have no evidence it does, just theological conviction it does, despite the mountains of empirical data showing it doesn’t.
For his kind of asshole, hate is an appropriate and tempered reaction. (Though it errs slightly on the side of caution. The proportionate reaction, homicidal rage, has unfortunate legal consequences for the reacter, so I wouldn’t recommend it).
Seriously that people see people fucking struggling and go “you know…I want to reserve the right to be an asshole and let them suffer” and honestly want that opinion respected is fucking insane.
“Oh sure we COULD do things efficiently and try to help as many people as possible…but I think my right to choose not to is more important!”
Also I don’t buy the “Oh sure I want to help those people and think that’s good….but I still think it’s important for me to have the option NOT to…not that I would of course, I personally am not a callous creepy; I just want the option to be so. And having that option is more important than those people suffering”
It’s like saying “Well shouldn’t we have the freedom to have sex with children…not that I want to mind you”
I’m not saying I’d ever want to slap libertarians over the head with a dead wood chuck to stun them then drag them out back to lobotomize them and use them as work hoses to pull my mighty glittery chariot through town…but shouldn’t I have the freedom of choice for that?
notmyname #123
Do you have any idea why governments got into the welfare business? Of course you don’t, like the vast majority of libertarians you’re an economic and historical illiterate. But your ignorance is easily fixed because the answer to my question is easy. Governments are doing welfare because private charities couldn’t handle the load.
During the Great Depression, there was a reasonable fear of widespread starvation. Private charities were unable to keep people from starving and normal people (i.e., non-libertarians) thought that starvation was an ungood thing. So governments worked in various ways to prevent starvation.
Incidentally in the US, Britain, Canada and Australia during World War II thousands of men were rejected for military service because of the effects of long term malnutrition. There may not have been starvation, but a large number of people didn’t eat well for years.
Because you’re another ignorant racist who is covering that fucking cause harm to non-white people.
What structures disadvantage white people, and how am I strengthening them? Be specific. Oh wait; you can’t, because white people do not suffer from racism.
Your racist shit is going to reduce legal protections of non-white people and strengthen discrimination that exists, such as bias in hiring/promotion/retention of employees, the denial of inter-racial marriages (You do realize that laws that force people with the authority to marry to marry these couples helped immeasurably, yes?), the end of programs that briefly grant some small reprieve to disadvantaged citizens (Such as affirmative action)… to say the very least.
Are you illiterate? I said I am not white, and once it is clear I am not white, even on the internet, racist fools treat me differently. Do not pretend that the internet is some sort of post-racist haven just because I have a Mismagius for an avatar (not that it shows here). Racist fools are still racist, and as soon as people stop thinking you’re white you might understand that. Maybe.
You don’t even understand how important compliance is in the here and now for the disadvantaged, do you? Fuck. Laws aren’t sufficient because enforcement of the necessary laws to completely change society into something not-racist or not-sexist isn’t possible; we don’t have mind reading technology. They provide a necessary baseline of behavior that you assholes need to follow, because without that baseline you morons backslide WAY farther. Maybe in a few centuries, people will be good enough to not need those laws anymore, but not only do I not think this is likely, but I see no benefit to removing them even then. I certainly will not play games with people’s lives in the here and now because fools like you throw a temper tantrum over the great offense to ‘freedom’ that has been committed.
What is a Straw Man, Alex.
I said the Civil Rights Act reduced it. I didn’t say it was responsible for all reduction everywhere forever. I said it was a cause.
So you do actually think that it is immoral to prevent people from poisoning others with rotten meat, and then offering them snake oil to treat them then?
Oh wait, you’re a libertarian, I kind of knew that.
It is, if you’re trying to fap about libertarianism’s ability to fix problems, rather than actually respond to points against it.
You’re implying it whenever convenient, and retreating from it whenever necessary. Do not think your inability to stand by your points has gone unnoticed; it’s just as when you tried to appropriate -splaining.
*another ignorant racist that is covering things that cause…
People who believed in the same economic and ethical principles and didn’t have the label failed to carry on what you said would happen. Why should we trust you assholes again?
Thanks, I’ve read both of the links in full and they provided a very helpful explanation of the terms and realities involved. Radical feminism is in the realm of what I thought it is, but it never hurts to learn more and at the same time my first question was about usage of a word (vs feminazi, femistasi) – I hope I’ve learned a bit about the correct usage of the word (I find it’s definitely not appropriate as an insult/dismissal).
[goes on to read the rest of comments].
No, even radfems very, very rarely think “Fuck it, castrate all men”, if ever.
I don’t care. I want the compliance. I’m not a xian, I’m not here to save their souls.
Shit.. this devolved (no – wrong word.. dissolved? Became reduced?) very quickly in true pharyngula style.
Just youknow, the pharyngula “regulars-will-shred-your-bullshit-idea” is VERY intimidating in general.
Just remember some* people on the internet are young/inexperienced/uneducated/stupid and metaphors containing tentacles and hiveminds are scarily appropriate!
*Lots of us. Me. But we try.
– – – – – –
And then it makes me wonder about the troll/slimpit thing – yeah a lot of pharyngula comments get filled up with 50+ comments of anti-troll/bigot-fights which remind me of the Atheist Experience idea – that people shouldn’t argue against bigots to convince the bigot, but to show through discussion that the bigot is wrong. FTB comments regulars do just that, but there is a lot of bile exhuded in the process. =/ =)
OK, I gave that as an example(met it only once), but I’ve seen the “trans-women aren’t women” thing and the sex-is-rape thing many times.
But then I think.. shit with sexism as it is today, radical answers are sometimes needed!
@Symbol number symbol symbol letter letter
If I didn’t expel the bile I’d get sad and septicy
IIRC the sex is rape thing is an out of context line lifted from some rad fem’s novel.
Just consider it a collection of Buddhist trickster mentors. The clerics can take all their touchyf eely happy teaching methods for enlightenment, we’re going Zen baby; now shut up and wax my car! It’s an important ‘lesson’
I loved the discussion, though I have to admit I’m not sure about PZ’s comment regarding liking authority somehow having something to do with atheism. What difference does it make if God’s an asshole or not? It seems to me a little too argument from consequnces. The point is that there’s no evidence any sort of god exists, why should a person’s attitude about authority come into play?
Because when some Xtian tells us “Jebus lurvs ya” then we can respond how he has a funny way of showing his love.
Which leads into all the ‘mysterious ways’ bullshit…I used to ‘witness’ and preach on those street corners and have those discussions, as I’m sure many here did. Arguing His personality doesn’t win amongst the smart ones. I never went to bible college or church with anyone who ever was convinced by stuff like that. Existence claims should be able stand on their own without having to add ‘besides, the guy’s a prick’.
‘be able to stand on their own’, damn my eyes…
YEah. Because legally, there’s almost no difference unless you have videotape of a weapon (maybe), or the defendant is black/brown. We have fucking case law still on the books, last I checked, wherein dude judges more or less say “consent is assumed”
When Dworkin (IIRC) wrote that it was even worse. You flat out could not be found guilty of rape if the victim was your
propertywife, for instance. That was the 70s; not exactly a long way back.Personally, I only mention “YHWH is a jackass” as a sort of ending line; Even if God were real, that would not necessitate me to worship him. The one in the bible is a jackass, and if it were real, it would be our moral duty to find a way to convince it to be considerably less of an asshole, or failing that, contain or kill it.
Yeah, I get that, I realize I have a bit of an issue with those who take the ‘ok, you just chose not to worship Him, your loss’ attitude, as though the existence argument had been ceded. That used to be my feelings when someone didn’t realize how much they needed my Lord, and further added to my own feelings of superiority and ‘us vs them’. Since the people were not heeding the message by their own free will, it made it a lot easier for me to live with the insane implications of my own belief system. Moral arguments just didn’t register with me for the first 25 years of my life, as that ‘mysterious ways’ thing carried a lot of weight. What ultimately got to me was the fact that this stuff JUST WASN’T TRUE, that every fact stood in evidence against what I and everyone I knew fervently believed in.
Of course the reaction from most people is not “I see people suffering, meh.” We are social beings, and most of us have some measure of empathy. If I propose an absurd analogue of this though I think you will see my point. Many people need kidney transplants (I chose the kidney because loosing one still would allow a reasonable quality of life, or so I understand). Some of them will be a match to you. What would be the criteria for assuming your kidney could be taken to give to one of those people? I would say, consent from you (without coercion). So now you say, “Aha but these are not the same the kidney is mine and taking it without my consent inflicts harm to me.” My only correction would be to tell you that when you are paid money it is in return for something you did, you earn it in some way. It is just a much yours as the kidney. If it is not right to take the kidney by force, it is not right to take the money. If I choose to to give either to you it is of my own volition. If you take one or the other, it is theft.
So, time to call in the repo men and start organ harvesting then? Remember, lots of people die without organ transplants!
Before I get to why I disagree with this ideologically, let me point out a small pragmatic matter. It is almost certainly true that I am not paying taxes in whatever country you are in. That being said, if I knew you in meatspace and was aware you were struggling I would help. I have received similar help, and given it before. I do not know you, and I doubt I ever will. Again though, where is your family/friends/community? Where are your fellow union members? Am I being less compassionate than them? I do not think so. Now the dreaded ideological disagreement. It is not moral to threaten me with violence to help you, especially if I am not responsible for your plight in the first place. Now, that being said, it is entirely possible you are not responsible for your plight either, and since I think we both agree we would like to live in a society where people are not grievously punished for problems that are not of their making I think people should help you. I might even go so far as to say people here who seem to enjoy your presence could help you if for no other reason than it is is awfully hard to berate people online if you are homeless.
It has nothing to do with if someones rights trump someone else’s suffering, it would require forcing the first person to suffer (even a minuscule amount) without their consent. If you are ok with that, then there are some ethical choices you run into which present you with consistency problems related to where to draw the line of the new suffering and who gets to decide where the line lies (and I have put a construction of a logical extreme in my previous comments in this post).
But it is moral for you to say “die in the gutter, I’m not lifting a finger to help you because I don’t want to.” Yeah, I know you claim you’d help people but guess what, I don’t believe you. I think you’re like every other libertarian, a selfish asshole who doesn’t give a fuck about anyone who isn’t you.
As a libertarian, you whine that the mean ol’ gummint is threatening you with violence for not paying your taxes and you’re especially distraught that these taxes may be used to help someone who isn’t you.
Thank you for showing yet again the libertarian philosophy: “I’ve got mine, fuck you!” And selfish assholes like you wonder why normal people call you selfish assholes.
Yawn, typical liberturd who doesn’t/won’t get it. Can’t see why their theology is harmful to others, and is indifferent to the suffering of others. It’s all about them, showing the selfish morally bankrupt nature of liberturdism…
I did not say that, though I would point out that it is not my fault that someone dies in a gutter unless I put them there. I will go ahead and say sure though. I am not required to right all wrongs in the world (or really any). Now, that being said, I agree that I also like to live in a society where people do help if they can and I have said that I would help if I could (I have been helped, and I have given help, and I will likely do so again). Your stunningly insightful rebuttal of “nu uh…” is noted.
I do not think the government intends to be mean usually, but they can not help it. Like most libertarians I do pay my taxes, and like many progressives I am distressed with what is done with that money. I did not say I disagreed with there being a social safety net (quite the opposite) I just do not like the government threatening me to pay for it.
Well, I am best equipped to control my moral behavior, so yes I guess. As to being morally bankrupt, I am not the one condoning violence as acceptable to get my way…
notmyname @ #156
Money is not the same as organs. To “start organ harvesting” would imply a gross violation of body autonomy, which runs against one of the most basic values of modern society (a person’s body is hir own). Therefore, to compare taxation to organ harvesting suggests that you a) suck at making analogies, b) don’t understand ethics much and c) are unable to distinguish between people’s money and people’s bodies (which is rather telling).
But you know, nothing is worst than being forced to pay taxes (which you aren’t… you can always move to a place with less/no taxation. I hear Somalia is wonderful at this time of the year).
Did I say it was your fault? No, I pointed out that if someone is dying in the gutter, you don’t feel the need to do anything to help them.
No you’re not. What’s more, as a libertarian, you don’t feel required to do anything to right any wrongs. Let people die in the gutter, you couldn’t care less as long as they die quietly and don’t disturb your sense of entitlement.
“If they can” is such a great weasel term. “Yes, I’d help you if I could.” Of course paying taxes that go toward welfare is a way to help those, but that would go against your sense of morality. You’d rather whine about paying taxes than actually doing something constructive like paying taxes.
Your rebuttal of “Oh yeah!” is also noted.
Where the fuck do you get the idea the government threatens you? Paying taxes is the price one pays for living in a civilized society. Most income taxes are withheld at the source. You are free not to pay. You are also free to pay for your anti-tax bullshit attitudes like any adult. Make up your mind like a mature adult.
You are distressed because you can’t control where it goes, and you think it goes to the “undeserving” poor. I read that as those whose skin color is darker than yours. I’m happy my taxes helps those who need it. Don’t ever mistake progressives as thinking like you do, or agree with you on any topic. It only insults the progressives. Your linking them shows your delusional thinking. You can’t forge a bond based on falsehoods, like your theology.
You do control where it goes. It is called voting. And lobbying. And being involved in the body politic.