?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Because I expect this post to disappear - Journal of Omnifarious

Jan. 6th, 2008

11:35 am - Because I expect this post to disappear

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

I expect this post to be made friends-only and/or this comment on it to disappear. I'm tired of this sort of garbage so I've prepared this post as an eventuality.

In a post by mle292, she says this:

An epiphany!


It has recently been brought to my attention that it may be too over-simplifying to say that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke weed.

Libertarians suck, but they do suck in their own unique and special ways.

F'rinstance: Libertarians genuinely believe that everything that's theirs is rightfully earned, and everything that belongs to someone else has been given, and is probably rightfully theirs.

Sort of like a six month old with voting rights.

My response which is, to put it bluntly, downright mean... But then again, I was de-friended over mentioning that Chez Guevera was a torturer and murderer (which are labels I also apply to George W. Bush) in a post she made about "The Motorcycle Diaries". Thereafter she has enacted a policy of selectively deleting responses of mine in her journal that she found objectionable because they had an opinion she didn't like. So I feel that I'm a bit entitled to be mean.

What I really like


Is how you can dish it out, but can't take it, and then have the gall to call the people you like to dish it out to the 6 month olds. With your reactions to things I've previously said to you combined with this post, I've lost any shred of respect I might've had for you.

Have fun idolizing your communist revolutionary war criminals.

And, also unsurprisingly, I've been banned from commenting in her journal now, which is just par for the course for someone who wants to be able to spout of her opinions and vitriol without ever having to listen to any dissent.

Current Mood: [mood icon] angry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:sparklewench
Date:January 6th, 2008 09:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Libertarians seem to rally around the concept of making money in any way possible, as if it is their inalienable right to get rich at the expense of anyone and anything else. My big objection to them is their lack of environmental scruples. A rare libertarian injects their own concern for the environment, but overall they do not want industry to have to pay for the pollution they create or the devastation to nature that mining involves. If it doesn't have money, it doesn't count. For example, my ex wrote a paper on economic incentivization of sustainable forestry. Essentially, a label or seal takes on the monetary value-- that people will may $X more for a label that has the seal indicating sustainability. This kind of thing helps the libertarian brain wrap around non-monetary values, but for many people it seems sort of obvious. A serious hardcore libertarian would probably dismiss the whole idea. I do think they are like toddlers who don't notice what fell out of their hand as they grabbed for more. Many libertarian ideals sound good, but when you actually get into the details, yes, wah wah babies gimme mine.

sorry, but I have grown increasingly political as I age, and I came to this opinion in 1991 when I really wanted libertarian to be a viable third party for me to join.

That lj person has all comments screened so I could see any discussion.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:January 6th, 2008 10:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)

I think your assessment of libertarians as a whole is spot on, and this makes me really nervous. It is one of the reasons I have "unrealized externalities" in my interests list. Right now, environment harm is exactly that.

I'm not completely willing to own the libertarian label. My political views are complicated. The funny thing is, if she didn't keep reacting like anybody who said something she didn't like was an enemy she and I have a lot of common ground.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:January 7th, 2008 06:48 am (UTC)

Oh, you're saying that it's reasonable to call libertarians this

(Link)

Well, I don't disagree that it is exactly. It's like calling Democrats whiny, bleeding heart, guilt ridden people who like to spend other people's money. Or calling Republicans selfish authoritarian jerks. You can say all those things you like. They're inflammatory and don't help anybody figure out what they really think. Using those kinds of names and that kind of language serves to divide, not reach consensus. And that's fine too.

My objection is when it's OK to use names like that, but not OK to even attempt to make a case for the side being maligned. To me, if you're going to post stuff like that in your journal, you should be prepared for people to say things at the same level that or opposed to you. And certainly a well-reasoned critique of why you are wrong should be OK. But in her journal it isn't.

I lose respect for people who can't even listen to the people they disagree with. A lot of respect. It's like "Hi! I can kick you in the nuts, but if you yell or complain about it, I'm going to cry foul and make sure your voice isn't heard."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:sparklewench
Date:January 8th, 2008 12:47 am (UTC)

Re: Oh, you're saying that it's reasonable to call libertarians this

(Link)
well, she isn't exactly a paid journalist. It's her journal and people do whatever they want in their own journals. Especially, lose the respect of others.

In calling libertarians babies, sure, it's just like saying democrats are whiney. But it is hyperbole of a facet of their platform, the one lacking in personal responsibility. I am not sure what any of your names for democrats actually hyperbolizes. When polled in a non-partisan way, the vast majority of americans support funding safety net programss, as listed individually. It is only in general terms that they balk at paying other people's way. The big difference b/w dems and republicans is that republicans like to spend other people's money to pay corporate CEOs before bailing out the corporation that swindled the money. At least democrats spend other people's money on social services, um, that is, services for other people. And guilt ridden? Anyone who characterizes a huge segment of the population with a psychological profile is not only bound to be wrong, but is clearly not interested in having any credibility. Although I have been guilty of blaming the majority of our political problems on the fact that an entire generation who are now old men in power were not breast fed or held adequately as babies. I'm telling you, boobies can save the world.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:maatnofret
Date:January 7th, 2008 02:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:January 7th, 2008 04:24 am (UTC)
(Link)

The basic exchange was: "I watched The Motorcycle Diaries and we had a really nice discussion afterwards.". And my response something like "Yes, I watched that and I wondered how he got from that admirable determined compassion to someone who killed so many people?".

At which point she went off on me and deleted all of my comments and de-friended me.

And now whenever she posts something political and I comment, if I'm a little too contradictory or bring up too much contrary evidence or reasoning or whatever the comment gets deleted. It really takes the cake IMHO for someone to post really inflammatory vitriol and then essentially shut down discussion of it. She has no obligation to of course, but I get the think of her as being a weasel for doing it.

As for libertarianism... Yes, many libertarians are like that. OTOH, if you ask some of the saner ones about infrastructure you might get some interesting and surprising answers. I do not think that taxes and public funding are the only ways to get these extremely useful pieces of infrastructure.

I do think that our current funding methods for roads greatly contribute to urban sprawl and basically represent a subsidy for people to drive, which I think is a pretty bad thing.

And while I also agree with you that the people who benefit the most from the structure and infrastructure of society should pay the most, I disagree that we actually accomplish that right now, and I think the way our political system is currently set up it actually ends up being the reverse. The ones who benefit the most also have the most political clout to make sure their pockets aren't the ones who are picked and we end up with a situation in which the middle class actually end up footing most of the bill.

Arguably the comment I most recently posted in her journal was a drama producing flame. But, yeah, it was hopeless and I couldn't let her snide remark about libertarians pass. I really hate it when people name call as a substitute for actually trying to talk about differences. IMHO, if she had just let the comment stand there and not done a thing she would've proved me wrong and I'd have egg on my face. :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:sparklewench
Date:January 8th, 2008 12:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
"As for libertarianism... Yes, many libertarians are like that. OTOH, if you ask some of the saner ones about infrastructure you might get some interesting and surprising answers. I do not think that taxes and public funding are the only ways to get these extremely useful pieces of infrastructure."

So... private business is? I haven't been surprised by a libertarian debate in a long long time. I find the idea that everything government does wrong can be solved by private business to be naive of human nature. There are certainly plenty of times when profit motive must be harnessed to make progress, but in the realm of public services, it's too corruptable.

A political system has to be robust enough that you don't have to look for the saner individuals to buy into the platform. By the very nature of government's purpose, it has to work for the most people possible.

If you think of the spectrum of people as a plot, in terms of wealth, or intelligence, standard of living, or other basic measures of fitness, I would not want to limit the upper tail of that gaussian. Many socialist systems limit how high people can reach. However, I do think we should intellecutally determine a lower end, and bolster the people below it. The capitalist system wortks when everyone is on a level playing field, but it has no pretty end game. There needs to be a reset that levels the field for those getting the shaft.

okay, maybe I have mixed a few too many metaphors here.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:January 7th, 2008 06:49 am (UTC)

I think you think I'm objecting to her choice of wording...

(Link)

I'm not. :-) Read this which is an answer I gave someone else in this post.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:maatnofret
Date:January 7th, 2008 07:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:January 7th, 2008 08:52 pm (UTC)

Re: I think you think I'm objecting to her choice of wording...

(Link)

Yes, if you employ blanket statements like those, you will face consequences. However, it's still her journal, and she can still ban those dissenting voices if she so chooses. It seems to me that your chief complaint is that her banning is overzealous, and she has pegged you as a political enemy when you are really someone who agrees with her more often than not.

Yes, that is partially correct. That does bother me. But it's more that she removes dissenting voices. And you are right, it's her journal and she can do that if she chooses.

But if I went over to someone's house and was kicked out for saying the wrong thing even though it wasn't an insult or trollish or whatever, or witness the same thing happening to someone else, I might choose a similar course of action. I might choose to go over there again and next time a discussion happened where I knew that I'd likely be kicked out for stating my honest opinion instead state my opinion of the behavior, even with the understanding that I would no longer be welcome in that house. I might also then choose to tell that story to others.

I do not believe that she should be prevented from removing my comments or banning me. I do not believe that she should face any sort of hard consequences for it. But I do feel that other people should know the story so they can make social decisions based on the information.

I this this is much like the one nutcase libertarian guy that Matthew used to (and may still) hang around. Once interesting stories about his behavior started circulating, people stopped inviting him to stuff. I don't think mle292's behavior is nearly as egregious, but I do feel that removing posts when you don't like what they say is pretty obnoxious.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:maatnofret
Date:January 7th, 2008 09:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)