Libertarianism: The Official Thread Of Freedom As An Ideology.

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Shieldwife is spot-on here, I think.
With the SJW crowd, the desire to denounce and blame white people for something - anything - comes first, the particular accusation, whatever they can find or invent, comes as a result of that.
It is, in fact, because they hate (other) white people.

I just can't comprehend it. it just makes no sense.

 

[Skallagrim]

I just can't comprehend it. it just makes no sense.

Ah, there's your problem! You're looking for reason. You should be asking a different question:

If you asume that you're basically dealing with orcs, rather than thinking humans, everything makes much more sense.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Ah, there's your problem! You're looking for reason. You should be asking a different question:

If you asume that you're basically dealing with orcs, rather than thinking humans, everything makes much more sense.

feels more like dealing with a zombie to be honest. A hive who's only goal is to consume. The only way to they can die in theory is for them to burn, but attempting to burn them yourself is all but a sure likely way to get bitten and turned into a zombie in your own right.

 

[JagerIV]

I just can't comprehend it. it just makes no sense.

Why? Its extremely simple. Lots of human institutions operate on very similar principles. Well, you have a lot of intersecting interests and beliefs that lead to roughly the same outcome. Which I guess thinking about it can make it look complex, when its really a bunch of simple, self reinforcing concerns that push in roughly the same direction.

1) Protection of brand: If only, say, Indian music made by Indians is authentically Indian, then that creates a walled garden of a market where only Indians can compete in the Indian music scene. You then have several different groups that push for brand protection too, complicating it:

a) Customers: Consumers of Indian music desire "authentic" Indian music. There is perceived, potentially real, value in the authentic good, vs imitations, even very good ones. So, even if you a white Californian consumer of Indian Music, you still might want to gatekeep the "scene" of authentic, real Indian music. So, your anti-cultural appropriation because you want to preserve the authentic foreignness of the thing you love. Or authentic localism of the thing if its your native culture: I could see some indians railing against non-indians bastardizing art they don't really understand, or cultural traitors Americanizing a previously authentic thing.

b) Creators: If your an Indian producer of Indian music, its in your interest to not have to compete with the whole world: competing with all Indians is hard enough! Especially if you want to get into something very lucrative like an American market, where an American learning the austhetic of Indian music and modifying it to American tastes in America has an advantage over someone bringing Indian music from India into America.

Now, part of the strong inauthentic aspect of cancel culture is that it often manifests on the left, when many of those impulses above would seem otherwise deeply conservative. Claiming for example the only real Champaign is Champaign from Champaign, France makes more sense as a conservative policiy than a "liberal" policy.

This I think comes down to the left is generally the faction of ethnic minorities, who are the ones in possession of culturally distinct stuff that's valuable to protect. For example, if the only "authentic" Jazz musicians are black musicians from New Orleans, well, you've created a very valuable carve out for Black Musicians from New Orleans, who are going to be very jealous of their carve out. Or if you make it so anyone who plays an Indian (feather) in a movie has to be an authentically blood indian, well, that's a valuable carve out for all the Indian actors.

So, politically its a way of creating a bunch of special interest carve outs who will support you utterly because they depend on you for the carve out that makes their livelyhood.

Though you also don't want to put it to total cinicym either: something is generally powerful when you can get both the bootleggers and Baptists on the same side: so the purely mercenary and true believers push in the same direction.

Just about everyone does feel ethnic risk at some level: Even somewhere like Japan that very aggressively embraced western values and general westernization, did not whish to stop being Japanese. Even they have some limits to how much they were willing to copy and paste the West into Japan.

A black family living in a white country has legitimate reason to fear they're children losing the black culture and adopting a white one. If they value that black culture, preserving it against the majority likely requires active effort to police that boundary. To the degree then being anti cultural appropriation is being pro the preservation of minority culture, well that's responding to a likely real concern.

This unfortnately has turned into a quite long and rambily writing over a "simple" thing, and not really complete. I'll post this now, and if this conversation doesn't die before I get back, maybe then see if I can edit it down into something less stream of concensusness.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Why? Its extremely simple. Lots of human institutions operate on very similar principles. Well, you have a lot of intersecting interests and beliefs that lead to roughly the same outcome. Which I guess thinking about it can make it look complex, when its really a bunch of simple, self reinforcing concerns that push in roughly the same direction.

1) Protection of brand: If only, say, Indian music made by Indians is authentically Indian, then that creates a walled garden of a market where only Indians can compete in the Indian music scene. You then have several different groups that push for brand protection too, complicating it:

a) Customers: Consumers of Indian music desire "authentic" Indian music. There is perceived, potentially real, value in the authentic good, vs imitations, even very good ones. So, even if you a white Californian consumer of Indian Music, you still might want to gatekeep the "scene" of authentic, real Indian music. So, your anti-cultural appropriation because you want to preserve the authentic foreignness of the thing you love. Or authentic localism of the thing if its your native culture: I could see some indians railing against non-indians bastardizing art they don't really understand, or cultural traitors Americanizing a previously authentic thing.

b) Creators: If your an Indian producer of Indian music, its in your interest to not have to compete with the whole world: competing with all Indians is hard enough! Especially if you want to get into something very lucrative like an American market, where an American learning the austhetic of Indian music and modifying it to American tastes in America has an advantage over someone bringing Indian music from India into America.

Now, part of the strong inauthentic aspect of cancel culture is that it often manifests on the left, when many of those impulses above would seem otherwise deeply conservative. Claiming for example the only real Champaign is Champaign from Champaign, France makes more sense as a conservative policiy than a "liberal" policy.

This I think comes down to the left is generally the faction of ethnic minorities, who are the ones in possession of culturally distinct stuff that's valuable to protect. For example, if the only "authentic" Jazz musicians are black musicians from New Orleans, well, you've created a very valuable carve out for Black Musicians from New Orleans, who are going to be very jealous of their carve out. Or if you make it so anyone who plays an Indian (feather) in a movie has to be an authentically blood indian, well, that's a valuable carve out for all the Indian actors.

So, politically its a way of creating a bunch of special interest carve outs who will support you utterly because they depend on you for the carve out that makes their livelyhood.

Though you also don't want to put it to total cinicym either: something is generally powerful when you can get both the bootleggers and Baptists on the same side: so the purely mercenary and true believers push in the same direction.

Just about everyone does feel ethnic risk at some level: Even somewhere like Japan that very aggressively embraced western values and general westernization, did not whish to stop being Japanese. Even they have some limits to how much they were willing to copy and paste the West into Japan.

A black family living in a white country has legitimate reason to fear they're children losing the black culture and adopting a white one. If they value that black culture, preserving it against the majority likely requires active effort to police that boundary. To the degree then being anti cultural appropriation is being pro the preservation of minority culture, well that's responding to a likely real concern.

This unfortunately has turned into quite long and rambily writing over a "simple" thing, and not really complete. I'll post this now, and if this conversation doesn't die before I get back, maybe then see if I can edit it down into something less stream of consensuses.

What I'm getting from this is there is an unhealthy extreme to everything even commoditizing.

What happens when the only allowed producers die as all things inevitably do whether Because of disease or famine or even worse war? Does everything just become lost to time as if it never was? What's a worse fate, to be changed or to never have existed at all?

Speaking for myself at least, I'd rather give up being pure American if it means that it gets to live on in the next culture as opposed to it dying with America and becoming completely lost.

 

[JagerIV]

What I'm getting from this is there is an unhealthy extreme to everything even commoditizing.

What happens when the only allowed producers die? Because of disease or famine? Everything just becomes lost to time as if it never was? What's a worse fate, to be changed or to never have existed at all?

. . . your posting style really throws me for a loop. I get the sense you prioritize something smart sounding, rather than in the actual topic thread or actually inciteful. Could just be a different of style, but it rubs me wrong. To actual response as best I can.

Well, every social thing has some reductio ad absurdum. Because your always dealing with somewhat fuzzy categories. Adults should not sleep with children for example is generally non-controversial in these parts at least, but its also understood that you've got fuzzy margins on all three of those categories that produce grey areas which makes universal rules on them either impractical or arbitrary.

For example, accepting the principle "adults should not sleep with children" is very clear over a wide variety of possible interactions: a 60 year old with a 10 year old is a no-no relationship. Its generally pretty black and white if anyone in a sexual relation is in the 0-14 to 24-80 age range: anyone in the prior having sex with the later is a no no relationship, covering about 90% of the human age range. Not really unclear.

However, that 14-24 age range is that fuzzy boarder where all the trouble is. A 14 and a 16 year old relationship is trickly because they're both mostly but not quite children: A 16 and an 18 year old is fuzzy because they're mostly but not quite adults. Thus, real world requires either arbitrary lines or exceptions to the rule: the law says a 16 year old is an adult for the purpose of sex, and a 15 year old is not. So, the 16-18 year old relation is legally fine, but the 14-16 year old relation is criminal. Its arbitary, but clear.

Or, you have an exception, basically a different principle governs the frontier: under 14 definite no no, over 18 fair game, but between 14 and 18 the principle is age difference, not absolute age: say sex is okay as long as the two are 2 or less years apart. Thus, 14-16 and 16-18 are both legal and acceptable relations, because they are both within a year of each other.

Long way of saying that the ability to come up with weird edge cases is not particularly persuasive in a cultural/legal matter, because all of the categories are large diverse categories with fuzzy boarders and all probably have weird edge cases.

Which your question isn't really getting at: the fates in question are not to change or to never exist. This whole question pre-suposes something existing. The real question is: "how much can we change and still exist"?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

. your posting style really throws me for a loop. I get the sense you prioritize something smart sounding, rather than in the actual topic thread or actually inciteful. Could just be a different of style, but it rubs me wrong

feelings mutual. You say something is simple and yet it takes a school essay riddled with $20 words for you to explain it. if it's simple it should be able to be explained in one paragraph maybe two. If it can't be explained to a 2nd grader it's not a simple subject, at least in my opinion.

Which your question isn't really getting at: the fates in question are not to change or to never exist. This whole question pre-suposes something existing. The real question is: "how much can we change and still exist"?

I guess we have to decide what defines it first. to use your example Jazz. What defines Jazz if it's the racial aspect then it ceases to exist the moment the last indigenous new-Orleanian person dies, if it's a core style, then a lot can potentially be changed and still be jazz so long as that core style exist.

 

[Aldarion]

The white hate is ironic considering the lion share of the leadership of this philosophy is white people. Plus how do these people plan to gather resources without trade some stuff is only primarily available in white countries.

Self-hate is a real thing. These guys literally have a combonation of the Stockholm Syndrome, sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, self-hate and egoisom.

White lieftists are the greatest racists in existence, but it is less noticeable because it is the white race they hate.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Self-hate is a real thing. These guys literally have a combonation of the Stockholm Syndrome, sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, self-hate and egoisom.

White lieftists are the greatest racists in existence, but it is less noticeable because it is the white race they hate.

That just sounds like a nasty mess.

 

[Bear Ribs]

That just sounds like a nasty mess.

I think there's much more to it than just self-hatred. There's a large amount of class warfare going on.

When one looks more closely at the problems of "racism" a vast majority turn out to actually be classism, the result of poverty rather than skin color. Not all, there're a few more race-specific cultural issues like disappeared/deadbeat dads, but a vast majority are all poor people rather than all black people. That's why middle-class and wealthy blacks get such scathing hatred, and disapproval, and are claimed to be white supremacists somehow. It just so happens that inner-city black ghettos are the most visible poor. Upwardly mobile minorities like Asians have a tendency to inexplicably become "white people" whenever they reach middle-class status or become problematic for some other reason and wind up just as attacked.

The rich do not like the middle class. The poor are a resource from which value can be extracted, the rich are their fellow classmates, but those rotten middle class! The middle class is low-level competition and more to the point, can become wealthier and become major competition if the system has sufficient social mobility. Even as only the middle class, they're competition. Wal-Mart notoriously targets Mom and Pop grocery stores, not Cosco. Mcdonalds' is known for going full lawfare against Bob's Diner, not Wendy's.

The middle class are further a political risk, most revolutions are the result of the middle-class getting fed up with the super-wealthy's BS and getting rid of them, after which there's a period where the middle-class flourishes before some of them become super-wealthy and eventually get up to a fresh batch of BS. So, the thinking goes, if we can just kill all the middle-class, we can become immune to revolutions. Note: it's usually attempting to kill all the middle-class that pisses them off enough to start a revolution.

This dual economic/political behavior pairs well with Marxism, which is basically all about class warfare and advocates violence against the middle-class. Marx, Lenin, and their ilk notoriously heaped scorn on the middle class they described as the "Petty Bourgeois" in their writings. The rich were never as evil as those vile petty bourgeois were. This is one thing that makes Marxism so appealing to the limousine liberal faction, they're already engaged in a fight to destroy the middle-class so an ideology that preaches how evil said middle class fits right in. While they're at it, down with those vile nuevo riche who are jumped up middle-class! Sure, they might have money but it's morally wrong for the middle class to become wealthy and forcibly join the rich class so those guys need to go down, or at least be as ostracized as possible.

 

[Abhorsen]

This may be the greatest endorsement of Libertarianism ever.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Ok that is...unusual. Beyond Argentina, is proper non-leftist Libertarianism that much of a threat?

 

[Abhorsen]

Ok that is...unusual. Beyond Argentina, is proper non-leftist Libertarianism that much of a threat?

In NH, we control the statehouse by running as Republicans.

But more, the very idea is a threat. The entire ideology is anti-system, as Klaus so wisely says (lol). And the idea is spreading. Libertarian ideals permeate some of the best ways and movements that oppose him. Decentralized Crypto currency robs the government of power over money. Hatred of regulation robs the government of a pacified voting base.

Basically, we don't tend to have a huge amount of political power, but you'll see the ideals be enacted. Hopefully in the future, that changes though.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Dude literally dropping his private property on a public sidewalk...



Also full of Libertarian energy.

'Am I Being Detained?' Shouts Libertarian Toddler As He’s Carried Off To Bed

SALT LAKE CITY, UT—According to sources, local mom Shirley Wood had a surprise when she picked up her three-year-old to tell him it was time for bed. “Am I being detained?” shouted the toddler at the top of his lungs, greatly befuddling Mrs. Wood.

babylonbee.com

 

[Abhorsen]

Speaking of, in an actually awesome UFC fight, Money Maicone won after nearly being knocked out, only to be saved by his opponent celebrating not finishing him.

Then Money goes on to win, get on the mic with Joe Rogan, and rant about the First amendment, the constitution, and how y'all gotta read your Mises:


Sean Strickland has some competition as the most Libertarian MMA fighter.

 

[Agent23]

Speaking of, in an actually awesome UFC fight, Money Maicone won after nearly being knocked out, only to be saved by his opponent celebrating not finishing him.

Then Money goes on to win, get on the mic with Joe Rogan, and rant about the First amendment, the constitution, and how y'all gotta read your Mises:


Sean Strickland has some competition as the most Libertarian MMA fighter.

Should have said this!