This may just be me ranting while in a bad mood, but I feel this needs to be addressed.
What in the flying fuck is going on with people? I mean, Thunderf00t, DPRJones, FSAtheist, TheAmazingAtheist, RationalWiki, TheLeageOfReason, even JREF's forum. How did libertarianism get this negative baggage? I mean, I just don't understand it. It's almost enough to make you think there was a conspiracy of some kind.
Any thoughts on how this happened and how to counteract it?
I had a daydream once where we all just abandoned the label "Libertarian" and just renamed it "Individualism".
Wow...
You mean TF, DPRJones, FSAtheist, TJ, etc, etc, are STILL going on about it to this day??? wtf?
Well, to cut to the chase, I really don't have much idea how we can counteract this bullshit of theirs.
Well, as for how the world sees Libertarians, at least the bad side of it...
at the risk freaking anyone out (the reason for the NSFW thing too): http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Libertarianism . This seems to give a rather...in your face kind of overview of what people seem to think as being what we stand for...I'm not suggesting that that's where TF and them are getting their information from, but I figured it might shed some light into what they are thinking.
I honestly wish TF and the rest of them would just...fucking...respond to us personally and stop this passive aggressive bullshit. I mean, TJ has blasted people for being "pussies" before, while TF hates people spreading misinformation yet they're doing JUST that... What cheek...
Well, I don't think relabeling would work. It sure hasn't for the socialists/communists/liberals/progressives, or for the ID proponents (sorry to burst your daydream bubble ^^; )
It's okay. The day-dreaming is primarily to relieve stress while I'm at work. I swear, after I leave Wal-Mart, I never want to "zone" another cat food aisle ever again. Or dog shampoo aisle. Or dog-toy aisle (do people have to let their kids throw the chew toys everywhere?).
Anyway, I guess I was wondering why it seems to be so pervasive in skeptical/atheist communities. Maybe it's just a flaw with my sample group, but I can't help but feel like libertarians are a minority among atheists. Is there some influence that "progressive/liberal" thinking has on the skeptical/atheist community that libertarianism doesn't? Is it partially the result of the Republicans labeling themselves as the fiscally conservative "moral majority"?
Getting hit with a problem like this and not knowing what's causing it... It's like getting slapped in a dark room. You have no idea where it came from, who did it, etc. It's unsettling.
All I know is, I tried for several years on the JREF forum to set the record straight. You can look through the old posts and see the abuse--including one-sided moderation--I received for my efforts.
Well, I guess it might have something to do with people associating anything considered conservative (something people think that Libertarianism is via guilt by association of redneck type people) to be oppressive, anti-science, and anti-human.
I suppose...I couldn't say for sure.
As for TF, TAA and them, it could have something to do with HowTheWorldWorks, but after reading Shane's post, I doubt that's entirely why...
I think one of the biggest hang ups is that most people don't understand just what a free market is. They simply assume that the US is a free market by default and think that is what Libertarians are talking about. Also, I don't think a lot of people know just what Libertarians stand for. In popular media, "Libertarians" range from crazy bastards like Glenn Beck to Bill Maher who says "I consider myself a Libertarian but" then goes on a rant about gun control or how the free market is horrible.
The thing is, I've made videos explaining it, and people make the same "mistakes" in the comments of those very videos! Then there are some (most recently gorypleasure) who steadfastly REFUSED to watch the other videos, and then kept saying that I refused to make an argument! He was told the arguments were in the videos!
These people are dogmatists. They don't WANT to learn.
I get that all the time. Much like when Bill Maher was describing Ron Paul.
"You know, nobody ever says to him 'no, that's factually incorrect' or anything. No, the reaction is always more like 'oh god..this guy's going to make us have to think isn't he?'"
As for encyclopedia dramatica, I wonder how quickly it would get deleted if I added an article about the encyclopedia itself being written by half-baked, spoiled rich kids who make their english teachers cry themselves to sleep at night.
I've never been to the JREF forum but...even they're on the blind-hate bandwagon? Ugh...James Randi would be ashamed of them all.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on August 30, 2009, 11:53:04 PM
at the risk freaking anyone out (the reason for the NSFW thing too): http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Libertarianism . This seems to give a rather...in your face kind of overview of what people seem to think as being what we stand for...
Don't mind that. Encyclopedia Dramatica is just a big, fat troll site.
when i was in american government class, we dident go over libertarianism at all, so i dont have any say in this, you know have a neutral blogger =l
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on August 31, 2009, 09:01:35 PMAs for encyclopedia dramatica, I wonder how quickly it would get deleted if I added an article about the encyclopedia itself being written by half-baked, spoiled rich kids who make their english teachers cry themselves to sleep at night.
Actually, they'd probably love it! It is a troll/parody site, after all. If to you write it, add in some bit about, "In fact, the only thing sadder than people who write articles for ED is the poor, sad losers who actually read them!"
That'd be funny...
The ED thing would be funny. Although them making fun of Fakesagan and TJ threatening to sue them did make me laugh.
Actually, it looks like they've already done it:
QuoteLike all websites with user-generated content, ED quickly degenerated into a forum for unfunny revenge attempts by butthurt individuals of every description -- bigots, banned website users, trolling victims, failed trolls, and virgins rejected by hot girls. 99.9% of all ED articles are tl;dr ravings about things the person dislikes, or unknown and uninteresting LiveJournal or deviantART users who made someone mad by existing. The other .1% are archives of dead YouTube embeds.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_dramatica
Though the rest of the article is a bunch of self congratulatory nonsense. Not to mention the same old flawed argument that "it's just a joke" is a blank cheque to be an idiot.
Though back on the subject of the haters, you call them dogmatists and they are but they're something even worse than that I'd say. They're cowards. As badass as they talk, they won't actually put their necks out and risk being proven wrong. That's why they won't even look at your vids or actually address the questions challenging their claims.
On a few forums as a bit of an ongoing joke, I have presented questions challenging common beliefs and said "If anyone can give a straight shot answer to this question, I will change my font color to pink and talk like a bimbo."
Nope, they never do it. They don't even try. I mean, I'd have thought people would leap at the chance to see the big bad libertarian make a fool of himself but I guess even that wasn't enough motivation to do some homework. Well, can't say I don't try.
Anyone watch thunderf00t's new video today? Starts off well enough, but about half way through when he gets to Howtheworldworks(who I think is a douchebag myself), it goes way down hill. I found it funny he picked easily the worst videos to show yet left out anything Shane addressed to him on the subject.
Geez, he needs to read my blog about the traffic stuff...
"The benefits of social interractions can only be purchased with the limitations of the individual"
...spoken like a true fascist Thunderf00t...
Someone should show him John Stossel's ice rink experiment. Anyone else seen that? Where everything was going fine until Stossel tries to direct things so that people don't fall only to find MORE people were falling?
It's the same intellectually bankrupt argument as "there had to be a god, no way could this all form if you left it all to it's own devices." We NEED planners or we'll all fall apart? Well..then the planners need planners or they'll fall apart and so on and so forth...
It's amazing how people just don't see the parallel.
The ice rink was GREAT! It didn't even work when he had Brian Boitano do it!
I couldn't find a video of John Stossel and the Ice Rink deal, but I did find this criticism of it: http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/10/18/john-stossel-once-again-on-thin-ice/
Geez, talk about missing the point! He said it's "not clear what" Stossel was talking about--it's PERFECTLY clear!
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 12, 2009, 01:56:19 PM
Geez, talk about missing the point! He said it's "not clear what" Stossel was talking about--it's PERFECTLY clear!
Not to mention his criticism about how "ice rinks have rules" is just stupid.
Libertarians are NOT saying there shouldn't be rules or laws.
That's not Libertarianism. Hell, it's not even Anarcho Capitalism.
The point being made by Stossel is that when there is intervention imposed from the top down, it fails.
PS: Is this the video by thunderf00t that's got your attention?
[yt]8z9dIJRqBN4[/yt]
OK, I'm sure it's the one.
I saw the discussion between Shane and others.
Man...that was nuts.
I facepalmed when I saw this comment:
VoteNixon2008: "I don't see how you can possibly call yourself an atheist when you think there's a benevolent invisible hand that guides and directs people onto the promised land"
Me: Vegeta, what does the bogometer say about his bogosity and projection levels?
Vegeta: IT'S OVER 9000!!!!
Me: WHAT, 9000!?!?
I've NEVER seen a rink that has police like he claims!
Are you referring to the article/blog I posted talking about the Ice Rink Experiment?
Shane and I are dealing with dogmatists in Thunderf00t's latest video (the one I linked to here).
Please help us if you can.
"If Stossel with his bullhorn is trying to demonstrate that arbitrary authority controlling our every move is a bad idea--well, it's not exactly clear who needed to be convinced of that."
You'd be surprised...
He also used the term "libertarian anarchy" which is actually Swahili for "I want to look smart but can't be bothered to actually look shit up"
In addition, what's his excuse for "frozen pond" type skating rinks that no one really owns or runs? There's no people ramming each other left and right there so...
Of all them, Freemont100 is the biggest woo at the moment.
A rebuttal to Thunderf00t's video by FlowCell: [yt]KBipkULRTQI[/yt]
Wow, busted! So when talking about evolution, morals are self regulating but as soon as you get to human society, suddenly you need a central planner? Could the guy be any more dishonest?
An excellent collection of most anti-Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist arguments can be found here: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html. While most of critiques listed have merit, some are pure bogosity and others full of straw men. I am new to many arguments from both sides so I am interested in what some of you think.
I don't know of a single libertarian that takes Huben's bogosity seriously. He's a joke. Lots of people have sent him rebuttals, and he refuses to even acknowledge them. You're supposed to modify your arguments when that happens; he doesn't. He's a woo.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
Hey, that's the same site someone on devart linked me to as his proof that "Ron Paul is wrong on just about everything."
Naturally, when I pressed him for details, he pulled the "you lack education" card. (nevermind that he doesn't actually know what my education level even IS)
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 24, 2009, 06:21:48 AM
I don't know of a single libertarian that takes Huben's bogosity seriously. He's a joke. Lots of people have sent him rebuttals, and he refuses to even acknowledge them. You're supposed to modify your arguments when that happens; he doesn't. He's a woo.
That's somewhat disturbing when someone does not accept posting other points of view. Yet he has posted critiques of his critiques . . . so is he just selective in picking the poorer ones? :P
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 24, 2009, 09:36:19 AM
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
Hey, that's the same site someone on devart linked me to as his proof that "Ron Paul is wrong on just about everything."
Naturally, when I pressed him for details, he pulled the "you lack education" card. (nevermind that he doesn't actually know what my education level even IS)
The first comment on that blog entry:
QuoteHere come the RonDroids, all shouting "He's fer the Kawn-sti-two-shun!". Seriously, if Doktor Paul had his way you would be able to buy an African slave down at WalMart, with gold bullion no less.
Kudos to Trefayne for the compilation.
*facepalms*
Yeah, because as we all know, the 13th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution...
*double-facepalms*
Heh, I don't know. The fantasy nerd in me thinks it would be pretty badass to have gold pieces for currency. ^^;
On Shane's "What is the Free Market?" video I noticed I seem to be losing my "touch".
I also seem to have lost even more patience with Greywyn7 and hipity.
What can I say? I'm getting sick of their same old tired arguments and bleating, as well as their constant devaluation of the strawman fallacy (which when you accuse a person of a strawman when he/she didn't use one is in fact, a strawman) along with that fact that it's a Monday...
Posted because I needed to vent, and because it was on topic; as Virgil said "This is getting old." >_<
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on September 22, 2009, 06:33:14 PM
Wow, busted! So when talking about evolution, morals are self regulating but as soon as you get to human society, suddenly you need a central planner? Could the guy be any more dishonest?
It's even worse than that.
It's more like:
Human societies when talking about evolution: Rules/Morals are emergent.
Those same human societies when talking about the State: morals are handed down by the God known as the State's central planners.
I would'nt call it dishonestly per se. I think it stems more from the observation that modern human society does not seem to be what one would call a natural enviroment and thus concluding that because of the seemingly absence of natural laws there is the need to impose law and order by an higher, albeit still human authority.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 10, 2009, 02:37:54 PM
I would'nt call it dishonestly per se. I think it stems more from the observation that modern human society does not seem to be what one would call a natural enviroment and thus concluding that because of the seemingly absence of natural laws there is the need to impose law and order by an higher, albeit still human authority.
Define "natural".
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 10, 2009, 02:37:54 PM
I would'nt call it dishonestly per se. I think it stems more from the observation that modern human society does not seem to be what one would call a natural enviroment and thus concluding that because of the seemingly absence of natural laws there is the need to impose law and order by an higher, albeit still human authority.
Except that it is. Human beings are a part of nature.
That's why I said "The seemingly absence". I think in a man shaped world, meaning a city, that is mainly built from concrete and steel, surounded by electronical gizmos like fibre optical cables, cell phones and computer it is easy to think that human behavior has detached itself from self governing behaviors and needing outside guidance in our day to day lives all the while ignoring that many of the experienced problems stem from executive meddeling of "higher" goverement powers.
I apologise if seem like rambling. It's difficult for me to put my thoughts on this into words and I'm not sure that what I manage to put down actually conveys what I really mean.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 20, 2009, 08:08:31 PM
A rebuttal to Thunderf00t's video by FlowCell: [yt]KBipkULRTQI[/yt]
[yt]qhdcymNtKRs[/yt]
Another awesome one from FlowCell (please uprate. :( )
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 20, 2009, 02:20:11 PM[yt]qhdcymNtKRs[/yt]
Another awesome one from FlowCell (please uprate. :( )
To update, FlowCell had to disable comments on the above video because he got tired of hearing the same argument again and again from people who obviously didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.
Because of how poorly the concept of liberty is understood, he took it upon himself to make a video explaining the concept in greater detail.
It's an outstanding video that everyone here should watch. :)
[yt]ftd-AiOz_KI[/yt]
[yt]IdRHKp--elw[/yt]
Except what we have isn't capitalism.
It's corporatism and has been that way for at least a century now.
I find it hilarious that he blatantly mischaracterizes the "robber baron" period as he pretends to know what he's talking about.