Kulturkampf

[benji]

As I have insisted before: When a Democrat wins in 2028, they will rename ICE and it will continue to operate as INS/ICE always has. Not a single one of these people will talk about it just like they never did before 2017 and during 2021-2025. It will be treated as a solved problem because all their information sources will be onto something else like the latest genocide or even an old genocide.

[Uncle]

Feminism is an inferior method to stopping a bear.

feminism is not the method being used to stop the bear, a shotgun is

possessing a shotgun does not speak to the superiority or inferiority of feminist ideals, it speaks to the axis of superiority related to physical force

I'm not sure why in so many other scenarios you would call nepenthe's pontificating reductive, because there are important distinctions and gradients present in the ideas which she boils down to black and white, and here you are arguing that a man who believes in libertarianism is wrong and believing in a backwards, inferior philosophy because he died, so since his libertarianism couldn't save him from death, obviously that set of beliefs must be inferior

[benji]

feminism is not the method being used to stop the bear, a shotgun is

possessing a shotgun does not speak to the superiority or inferiority of feminist ideals, it speaks to the axis of superiority related to physical force

I'm not sure why in so many other scenarios you would call nepenthe's pontificating reductive, because there are important distinctions and gradients present in the ideas which she boils down to black and white, and here you are arguing that a man who believes in libertarianism is wrong and believing in a backwards, inferior philosophy because he died, so since his libertarianism couldn't save him from death, obviously that set of beliefs must be inferior

Because he's admitting it's inferior if he abandons the belief for its contradiction. In this case, the antithesis to libertarianism is being used as the method. I'm not removing "important distinctions and gradients" because the central thesis of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, protectionism is the abandonment of that principle. It's arguing that violence is superior and that's why it should be used instead of non-violence and consent. Protectionism isn't a method against outsiders.

[Uncle]

if a culture completely overtaking another proves that all of their ideals must be superior to that other culture, from militarization to willingness to innovate to whether Sony is better than Nintendo, then if that culture believes that immigration-based "protectionism" (in the tweet's analogy) is not weakness but strength and proves superiority, then that idea would be superior to your supplanted culture which calls it weakness

if preserving your culture through strict immigration laws and deportation results in your culture maintaining global dominance, by your philosophy it would demonstrate the superiority of that set of beliefs

[benji]

Correct, that is Angela's position (and the protectionist one) and why she is not libertarian as the tweeter was trying to illustrate to her.

[Uncle]

Correct, that is Angela's position (and the protectionist one) and why she is not libertarian as the tweeter was trying to illustrate to her.

however, if she simply states that he is wrong and that she can hold that view while still also being fully libertarian, and then she murders him, that would prove that her set of beliefs in this clash of ideals was the superior one

[benji]

Yes, murdering your opponent so you can claim that might makes right is non-violent is a superior method of winning your argument against all comers.

[nachobro]

which is why one day boredfrom is gonna murder uncle

[Uncle]

is that really the ultimate form of libertarianism? not defending yourself from a bear that's attacking you because that would be an admission that your belief that various sentient creatures' ideas about how the world should be organized must be allowed to be expressed openly in order to compete freely, and that to kill the bear admits your philosophies were too weak to survive such a clash, so you tear up your membership card in shame?

[benji]

No, because self-defense is different from aggression in character of target and intent. Protectionism is not self-defense, it is aggression against other members of your community. But I personally, as a pacifist, believe that the ultimate form of libertarianism should be pacifist as a first assumption that wins by default if exceptions cannot be defended. Traditional libertarianism doesn't even get to this point because it still validates aggression despite claiming to be opposed to it, so perhaps Angela is not so out of step with it as I and the self-labeled anarchist who tweeted suggest. Again personally I believe there's an important distinction regarding the state, which uniquely claims a monopoly, that traditional libertarianism could square the circle on if it's members were more willing to abandon defending the state's moral position. This method's superiority could be questioned considering anarcho-capitalisms lack of victory within libertarian circles, but it's only been about a century. It might win the long-term like the argument that free trade is ultimately superior to violence as demonstrated by the last few decades of increasing trade and falling conflicts. Most people certainly do not seem to believe history is true, or at the very least do not believe it works as evidence of anything, however.

[Lonewulfeus]

which is why one day boredfrom is gonna murder uncle

Just gotta wait outside Jansens house for his daily milking session and ambush him, easy peasy.

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

[Uncle]

No, because self-defense is different from aggression in character of target and intent. Protectionism is not self-defense, it is aggression against other members of your community. But I personally, as a pacifist, believe that the ultimate form of libertarianism should be pacifist as a first assumption that wins by default if exceptions cannot be defended. Traditional libertarianism doesn't even get to this point because it still validates aggression despite claiming to be opposed to it, so perhaps Angela is not so out of step with it as I and the self-labeled anarchist who tweeted suggest. Again personally I believe there's an important distinction regarding the state, which uniquely claims a monopoly, that traditional libertarianism could square the circle on if it's members were more willing to abandon defending the state's moral position. This method's superiority could be questioned considering anarcho-capitalisms lack of victory within libertarian circles, but it's only been about a century. It might win the long-term like the argument that free trade is ultimately superior to violence as demonstrated by the last few decades of increasing trade and falling conflicts. Most people certainly do not seem to believe history is true, or at the very least do not believe it works as evidence of anything, however.

I did intentionally say "kill the bear" rather than "stop him from attacking" to be clear that you weren't merely defending yourself

is defense against physical bodily harm really the furthest extent that libertarianism believes in? or perhaps defense of property, stopping people from stealing your food because that also counts as defense against bodily harm because you could starve?

it just seems rather arbitrary, can't practically anything be argued to be defense rather than aggression? how many steps must the slippery slope ending in personal harm be, before it's a step too far? suppose you defend against an ideology which as evidenced by history sure seems likely to eventually result in bodily harm to oneself or one's family down the line?

isn't keeping people out of your country (or your property) more a matter of defense than active aggression? "I'll talk to you and trade with you, just stay over there?" Are you really only against active eviction of people who already managed to make their way here?

[benji]

Those are both pretty obvious active aggression: you're attacking the person who says the ideology or the person who wishes to trade with others. In both cases you're justifying the protectionism as "defense" in order to attack them to stop them from acting in a way they want that doesn't infringe on you except for your pre-ordained conclusion that it creates externalities against you.

You're basically arguing for hate speech crackdowns or invasions of Brazil to protect the Amazon here. Self-defense only happens upon the aggression against you, an ideology and trade with others isn't aggression against you unless you're planning on heading down the path of progressives where others not doing as you command is violence against you.

[Uncle]

no, I really meant I want to know the line, like for starters do you get to defend against people stealing from you?

and then what happens when they're stealing from you by proxy by taking advantage of state programs you spent your whole life funding which were meant to help support YOU and not those guys?

are you allowed to aid your neighbor in their defense of their person or property, or is that forbidden because it's not specifically against you personally?

[benji]

Do you mean me personally or libertarian thought more generally?

In either case, I find the middle one to be the only questionable one and that libertarians generally take more issue with those who receive stolen labor than those who steal the labor. I take the position of the US Postal Service, that you are not required to pay for unsolicited goods. In other words, by all means shoot the tax man, but just ignore welfare queens. Generally the hatred seems to be directed more at the latter, sometimes almost to the exclusion of the former.

I think the main question you would want is who is the immediate initiator of aggression. The thief is the aggressor and thus loses his moral defense against further aggression against himself. Most everyone aside from me and a few others seems to believe that anything that can be interpreted as possible aggression is fair game for violence against someone. So it's perfectly fine to bomb a foreign city because by a long trail of other actions they had a possible hand in lowering your property value and you're defending against this theft. Or to murder a CEO because you got optional surgery from others in the same industry and it didn't work out the way you wanted. I think those are the people who aren't articulating any line at all.

[Ribosome]

[TylenolJones]

Got em. 

[HaughtyFrank]

[Polident]

Between that and them using a chad-filter on his photo… man, it’s rough out there.

[benji]

Alex didn't like to talk about it much publicly but one of the things he said to me was that as bad as ICE was the worst was coming home from protesting them to have subpar framerates in games at max details. I think he would have made clear that once we turn the tide there would be a place for mutual aid. It seems like a powerful legacy to help me get a RTX5090 in his name.

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

I didn't mean to post this twice.   

There was a different tweet I wanted to post, but now I don't remember what it was. 

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

[HaughtyFrank]

[DavidCroquet]

Leftist genius: *creates a right-wing icon*

Stupid conservatives: *adopts the icon*

Leftist genius: “oi, wots all this then..!”

[TylenolJones]

[benji]

Leftist genius: *creates a right-wing icon*

Stupid conservatives: *adopts the icon*

Leftist genius: “oi, wots all this then..!”

I love the guy saying these Amelia videos are DEEPFAKES being generated by foreigners.

[HaughtyFrank]

Leftist genius: *creates a right-wing icon*

Stupid conservatives: *adopts the icon*

Leftist genius: “oi, wots all this then..!”

I love the guy saying these Amelia videos are DEEPFAKES being generated by foreigners.

You see, they made a whole gamey funded by the government, about British extremism, but there's no way anyone British would make those memes about a game that was aimed directly at them