Often I have asked myself: what do all forms of stupidity have in common?
I have concluded that despite its myriad forms, derp has but one source: lack of curiosity. This attitude is exemplified in the cliche “perception is reality,” a phrase which makes me wonder if the people who use it have ever seen a magic trick.
The whole point of thinking is to look past what is obvious. That’s why we say (and should say more often) “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Synonyms for “think” in English include words like “ponder,” “examine,” “consider,” all of these words are derived from Latin words that mean to weigh or look at closely. Thinking means to test ideas, not just have them.
Our natural instinct is to make quick decisions and judgements based on first impressions and to stick with them. This approach works in most but not all situations. Even when faced with disproving evidence, most people are much more likely to look for information that confirms what they believe than evidence which contradicts it.
My favorite example of this is the broken calculator experiment. In it, high schools students and adults who had passed a math test were asked to estimate the answers to some arithmetic questions and check their answers with a calculator. The calculator was rigged to give answers that were off by about 25% – a difference big enough that a numerate person would know something is wrong. Yet in the experiment, about half the participants at the end said they believed calculators do not make mistakes.
In an even more depressing example, 19 college professors with PhDs in sciences were asked to evaluate a geometry lesson on calculating the volume of sphere. First, they were given an orientation on finding the volume by calculation and by measurement. The next day, they were given an incorrect formula which gives a sphere a 50% larger than normal volume. Then they were given actual spheres which they filled with water and then measured the volume with graduated cylinders. Incredibly, none of the participants questioned the formula. They reasoned they must have measured wrong or the equipment was labeled incorrectly.
So why do people persist in error? For the same reason people do many other wrong things – because doing the right thing is uncomfortable. The good news is that false beliefs cannot outlive the people who hold them, and so they tend to die off eventually.
When the decisive facts did at length obtrude themselves upon my notice, it was very slowly, and with great hesitation, that I yielded to the evidence of my senses.
-Joseph Priestley
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
-Leo Tolstoy
The main hindrance for the search for truth is probably the inability to abandon a present belief and adopt a better one when it comes along.
-Peter Elbow
The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all counts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge.
-Willard V Quine and J. S. Ullian
Also worth reading on this subject
http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/chapters.htm
Saved it for later, I’ve got a trip coming up, and it appears to be some interesting plane reading.
The entire book is basically a response to a very short essay, which can be found here.
Bastiat ‘That which is seen and that which is unseen’.
Also, Rand – “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
BTW – I’m sure almost everyone here knows these already, but they are actually on topic, so…
I didn’t! Most of my libertarian philosophy is built on discussion here and (previously) at the other place.
It’s only now that I’m going through and reading actual philosophy, so… Thank you!
Sounds like you need another reading/audiobook list!
The list is already as long as my leg. Full of scifi authors (Philip K Dick, Robert A Heilein, etc) and libertarian philosophy (Bastiat, Paine, etc). Going to be fun. One day.
Many of them are available as audiobooks. I wouldn’t recommend Paine as an AB though, but I think it’s the only way to do Atlas Shrugged.
Then you can make it through the speech.
Mr. Riven listens to Atlas Shrugged about once a year or so on audible. Usually it just runs in the background while he cleans guns or does dryfire practice… But yeah, that’s the way to do that massive text.
What wonderful imagery.
Dry fire practice while Wesley Mulch is planning the nationalization of the US.
I might have a mancrush on Mr. Riven.
I won’t hold it against you, Number.6!
He’s worthy of being crushed upon.
I have a cunning plan to help you transition your whole household to the project:
1. Recruit some orphans
2. Get *them* cleaning the guns
3. Bring Mr. Riven here
Never arm your orphans.
*sigh*
Heh.
Now I can speak with authority. Never, NEVER have ammunition anywhere near your cleaning station.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
Yeah, yeah we can.
I love this post, stealing all these quotes.
Thinking means to test ideas, not just have them.
Also this one.
But 97% something something!
Nice one!
That’s my biggest beef with the current state of journalism, the almost complete lack of curiosity in today’s reporters. The profession used to attract people with a “natural sense of curiosity,” now it just attracts intelligent ignoramuses.
Current journalism is all about generating clicks and views. That’s achieved by appealing to people’s emotions, much like marketing a product is.
Journalism will not change until most people demonstrate they want something different. That they want analysis and evidence, long-form reporting, etc… Our sorry state of affairs is the result of the sorry preferences of the public.
I think the trend predates the “clicks and views” phenomenon. But obviously that only makes it worse.
problem is the lack of curiosity predates the advent of clickbait.
The real issue is J schools have been focused on putting out “reporters” who are going to push a progressive agenda and actively work to squash curiosity
It attracts those who previously would have found a career through secretarial school. Transcribing what people say and then unquestioningly typing it into a computer is the bulk of journalism these days.
And, like most incurious creatures, they have a tremendous herd mentality.
Almost everyone has a herd mentality. its just that some people think they’re herding with insiders, and others herd with people they think are outsiders. very few people are truly ‘independent thinkers’. And i think most people would find them to be gigantic assholes.
*an amusing footnote = most journalists (a hair more than 50%) describe themselves as political ‘independents‘
I think its reasonable to say that’s obviously not true. but the more interesting question – do they say that because its professional convenient? or do they say that to fool themselves? little bit of both most likely.
I get twitching when I find myself agreeing with a majority. Maybe I am just running with the “outsider” herd.
Get out of my head, you’re making me paranoid!
Does it make me a bad person for skipping all the “Peace” in “War and Peace”? Tolstoy was TMZ before the internet.
I read Anna Karenina for the first time last Fall.
My goodness, that was the best, most beautiful and most exactingly tedious story I’ve ever read. Was damn near exhausted by the end of it.
That last quote is spot on – derp = “The desire to have been right”
Seems to me that the biggest source of derp today is an overwhelming need to social signal and to be part of a consensus. Agreeing with others to fit in seems to far outweigh being right or wrong. This is why so many times when you see leftists challenged on their views or asked to explain those views, they seem utterly confused, nervous, and even angry. They aren’t prepared to defend something they’ve never actually given any thought to.
I think another huge source of derp is emotiveness. Both major parties are pretty much just selling easy solutions without recognizing that everything in politics is a trade-off. Libertarianism forces people to accept some hard truths:
– You can’t spend or tax your way into prosperity.
– As technology progresses, jobs will be destroyed, and the only thing to do is find a new job in a growing industry.
– You don’t have a “right” to any job except the one you negotiate on mutual terms or create for yourself.
– Some people are going to make idiotic financial decisions and throw themselves into poverty. Tossing free money at them will not solve the issue.
– Democracy brings about great problems of its own.
– Military intervention will not solve any problems in the Middle East. That region will settle down if and only if the conflicting individuals all agree that they’re tired of their kids growing up to be suicide bombers and cannon fodder.
These are not happy things, and most Democrats and Republicans will disagree with you on most if not all of them. I think that someone can be intelligent but also prone to emotional zeal which sometimes overrides their intellect. I know a particular person who is very smart on almost every subject, but when it comes to the poor, she almost gets in tears thinking about how bad they have it, and she’ll usually advocate the quickest and easiest idea to combat poverty (which is almost always some kind of forcible transfer payment).
Well, the left has a guy with a fucking Nobel Prize who says you can do exactly that. And how can an economist with a nobel prize be wrong? If you have’t been around academia much, you might not realize how hung up on credentials these people are. To them, the person with the highest level credentials will always be right in an argument against some lesser credentialed person. Which is complete bullshit.
I cannot count the times that I’ve overheard discussions on climate change where someone pipes in and says ‘Well, I guess I’m going to have to go with the scientists’ *chuckle, chuckle, looks around like just said the most brilliant thing ever*
You just want to slap these idiots back into reality. ‘I guess I agree with’ fill in the blank is not a fucking solid argument.
‘Well, I guess I’m going to have to go with the scientists’ *chuckle, chuckle, looks around like just said the most brilliant thing ever*
Which is an answer that spurs what I can only call burning hot rage when I hear it.
Almost to a man, the person spouting this kind of garbage will tell you that they “fucking love science” (which usually consists of liking pretty space pictures on the internet). It’s like they don’t even know or care that their own response just took a massive dump on everything science is about.
“It’s like they don’t even know or care that their own response just took a massive dump on everything science is about.”
Exactly. Science is all about openness to criticisms of mainstream ideas. The ultimate anti-science attitude is “this is what scientists currently believe, so nobody should ever be allowed to question it”.
“To them, the person with the highest level credentials will always be right in an argument against some lesser credentialed person. Which is complete bullshit.”
It’ll be interesting if my family ever breaches the subject of the financial aspects of healthcare since I have college-level coursework in that field and none of them do.
EDIT: My family is mostly hard lefties.
EDIT 2: What, a completely new site and STILL no edit button?! (kidding)
I always like to think of the Millikan Experiment as an example of high-quality derp, confirmation bias and linear thinking.
For those readers who don’t know about it, and are too incurious to look it up, the experiment was designed to measure the charge on an electron, by charging an oildrop with electrons, and then suspending it in an electromagnetic field. On the basis that every electron had an equal charge, and that it is impossible to place a known number of electrons on the oildrop, with sufficient data points, of sufficient precision. So the idea was to undertake the experiment many times, and find the LCM of the data points.
In short, Millikan himself undertook the experiment and his calculations for the charge on an electron were a *bit* on the low side. Subsequent researchers found they couldn’t replicate Millikan’s value for e, their numbers being higher, but Millikan couldn’t *possibly* be wrong, could he? So they fudged their numbers to make them *closer* to Millikan’s. It took a number of ‘generations’ of scientific research for that error to be flushed out, and a reliable value for e to be established.
So, true derp lies in ignoring that we all derp.
Thank you.
You’re welcome!
Or.. SOME OF THEM HAVE TO WORK!!!
That’s what I have orphans for.
You just failed YOUR purity test!
More like: Modcloth releases new stuff at noon every day; I couldn’t miss that! Not for anything!
Teenage Libertarian Student Daughter loves Modcloth.
Everything I’m wearing I bought from Modcloth. Lol. I even got this sweater *just last night* in the mail.
I stopped watching that anime after Season 1. Once she’d beaten her archnemesis Teenage Socialist Student Daughter everything went downhill.
She’d love to be the heroine of an anime series. She’d be tickled pink at the idea.
I’m so damn glad that we’ve got some girl talk going on around here, replete with shopping and all. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And they thought there would be none of that on Glibertarians. Hah!
I’m thinking Kill la Kill and frankly I have to say that’s rather inappropriate, and I’d ask you not to bring it up again.
TLSD liked that series, actually.
I liked it for the absurdity. Other than GitS I can’t really do serious anime. And even with GitS I can’t watch certain episodes that get too far up its own ass.
But this… this is some fine stuff.
I just asked my girlfriend about Modcloth and she’d never heard of it. Her reaction after looking it up:
“it’s so hipster it’s burning my eyes
they also have obese “models” in swimsuits. no thanks”
My orphans are for hauling, stacking, mining and polishing things. Who has orphans who engineer software? If anyone has that, they’re not beating their orphans hard enough and not working them hard enough. Orphans should never have time to learn non-orphan skills. I may have to call a meeting or orphan owners and ask for an inspection of Number 6 orphans.
Something something consensus.
Sounds similar to climate change science, where early fudging with temperature data (by some very lousy scientists) has found its way into almost every study since.
This reminds me of this story about French scientist named Blondlot and his discovery of “N-Rays.”
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html
OT: In news from our loyalist counterparts:
prolefeed|4.6.17 @ 10:50AM|#
Yeah, that whole “Congress will be compelled” bullshit is an example of why most the commentariat bailed for the Glibertarian website.
log in or register to reply
jcw|4.6.17 @ 10:59AM|#
Reason criticizes people in power. The power switched hands (parties). Reason continues to criticize people in power. A portion of the commentators throw a shit fit. THE REASON EVERYONE LEFT MUST BE BECAUSE SOME COMMENTS BY CERTAIN REASON WRITERS MAY NOT PASS THE PURE LIBERTARIAN TEST.
Genius.
log in or register to reply
chemjeff|4.6.17 @ 11:02AM|#
From reading the posts at the other website, I would say a big reason many of the commenters left was because many of them view themselves as tribal allies with Republicans in the Great War Against The Left(tm). When Reason refused to get sucked into the Team Red/Team Blue tribalism, then they bailed. I think most of them are Anti-Left more than they are Pro-Anything.
log in or register to reply
Calidissident|4.6.17 @ 11:16AM|#
^This
log in or register to reply
Calidissident|4.6.17 @ 11:16AM|#
Congress has trouble cutting a single dollar from anywhere in the budget, and yet some people expect $500 billion in cuts overnight (and cutting taxes on top of that, so probably even more). I guess glibertarian is anyone not living in a fantasy land.
log in or register to reply
Hugh Akston|4.6.17 @ 11:34AM|#
“Spending is bad, let’s do Libertopia instead” is the only acceptable answer to any issue. Preferably in all caps.
log in or register to reply
“I think most of them are Anti-Left more than they are Pro-Anything.”
And?
I am sure the amount of Progressive and Cosmo derp spewed from a growing contingent of their writing staff had nothing to do with it.
I hope you aren’t acting like that’s a good thing.
Being anti-left, rather than pro-liberty, means blindly supporting anything a “right-wing” politician does as long as it tweaks a lefty’s nose.
If Trump issues an executive order disbanding congress and declaring all non-whites & homos to be rounded up and executed, the left would have a collective stroke. Being anti-left means you would support those measures just because it “makes progressives angry”.
Speaking for myself and (I believe) the others who run the site, we are not anti-left in and of itself. We are pro-liberty. That usually encompasses being anti-left, except in the few rare instances where they’re right about things (MJ for example, where my beloved governor Greg Abbott recently declared that it will never be decriminalized while he is in charge here, or introduced for medical purposes, logic be damned). Anti-lefties very much cheered this statement, because weed is seen as a creature of “the left”.
That’s pretty accurate for me. Being pro-liberty and pro-less-government (which I also distinguish from “anti-government”) tends to put me at odds with lefties. It’s not necessarily that I’m anti-left so much that it’s just a natural consequence of being a freedom-loving individual — and left-wingers tend to want more government (and fewer liberties).
I think the “pro-less-government” versus “anti-government” distinction is crucial. Their are some (very limited) legitimate functions of a state (my apologies to all you ancaps) and those functions should not be attacked for their own sake, simply because it is government doing them. It’s all the other stuff that is the problem.
Of course, it’s easy to see why even a “pro-less-government” libertarian would be disproportionately opposed to the left, in my opinion. Many progressive types are not just “pro-more-government” they are full on “pro-government”. They tend to think that all good things should be done by the state, often even exclusively by the state. This view is the exact antithesis of Bastiat and his warning not to confuse not wanting government to do a thing with not wanting that thug to be done at all. To someone with this mindset, the government IS society, and society is government. Thus is what leads to people howling that cuts to NEA=the death of art in culture in American society. So while I agree hating everything government does simply because government is doing it is dangerous, I think the latter mindset is much worse in the long run, since of course, the ratchet of power only goes one way, there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government program, yada yada
Heh.
Your sarcasm meter need a tunin up, Gojira? Leftists are nearly the exact opposite of Libertarians. So while I dislike conservatives a lot, I hate leftists. Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats. Ok, not really almost as bad, but bad in their own special ways.
Sarc meter duly calibrated.
I do think that in practical terms the two parties are closer than you seem to give them credit for, but that’s a minor quibble of pure opinion.
The establishment of both big tent parties are basically the same, only their rhetoric is different. But I hold out some hope for the GOP, who does actually have 3 libertarians in Congress. There’s no way the Democrats would let a libertarian among their ranks in Congress. I know the GOP establishment does not want the libertarian wing, but they at least tolerate it to some degree.
There’s certainly a danger in supporting anti-libertarian policy as a product of anti-left alliances. However, I argue, as a former member of the far left, that you are a collection of Bezmenovian useful idiots if you see the left-wing as an ally for anything. Libertarians need to be willing to be strongly anti-left and stop pretending that the few points of vague similarity they have with some left-wing views are one and the same. Because they’re not.
Even with areas where we ‘agree’ with the left, what do we get? Taxed and regulated marijuana schemes, a police reform movement that dissolved into a childish screaming about racism that achieved almost nothing, gay marriage and transgenders used as a way to force businesses and individuals to socially conform. Because these aren’t libertarian victories, they are left-wing victories that libertarians are trying to latch onto and claim some sort of idiotic relevancy. The ‘agreement’ you have with the left on some issues are absolutely superficial, and in reality the divergent ideals of your philosophies means that your answers to them are not the same. And the left is more likely to enforce theirs, because they outnumber you. You’re being used to enforce left-wing dogma.
It’s why Gillespie’s ‘Libertarian Moment’ is such a joke, people aren’t becoming more libertarian, they’re allowing people to engage in behaviour they already approve of. Controlled and regulated, of course, while behaviour they don’t like is punished.
This is gospel right here. We are fundamentally opposed to the ideologies of the left, even if their achievements manifest themselves symptomatically as libertarian wins. They make look libertarian but they are products of government intervention and forced upon people at gunpoint.
So, point blank, would you rather keep weed illegal and maintain the status quo of people’s lives being fucked up over it, out of fear that any solution would involve taxes & regulation and be a victory for the left?
I would rather see libertarians disagree loudly and strongly with left-wing platforms in regards to, say, marijuana and articulate their own alternatives rather than ‘ally’ or throw their support behind left-wing ‘imperfect’ solutions to problems. Somehow libertarians are able to do this with, say, shitty Republican healthcare bills.
But many prefer to preen themselves on how great it is to have scored a victory for liberty. And that’s just delusional nonsense.
Also, this assumes that throwing in with the left is actually a beneficial tactic. The left-wing has absolutely poisoned the discussion around police reform for at least a decade. That’s the kind of ally you want when trust in police is lowering dramatically, one who obliterates the opportunity to actually do something and completely reverses the trend.
I don’t think everyone is consistent about their “be realistic” vs. “be idealistic” goals.
Of course libertarians should forcefully articulate their alternatives. But being real, those alternatives are not going to happen. Most people are not libertarian. The choice you have is 1) taxed legal weed, or 2) WoD. I choose number one. Call it moral preening if you will.
There is a point at which I wouldn’t condone it. If, for example, it was legalized but everybody had to register or some such…then it’s going too far for me and I’d rather keep it illegal. The point past which something becomes simply too impure is up to each individual, but I don’t think anyone has any ground to stand on to lob grenades and accuse those who disagree with them on their completely subjective point of no return as being “wrong”.
The choice you have is 1) taxed legal weed, or 2) WoD.
No, instead you’ve chosen both, and had the good sense to provide the state with another revenue stream.
It’s not a matter of ‘impure’, it’s a matter of libertarians throwing support behind ‘imperfect’ solutions that are beneficial towards left-wing goals. Marijuana legislation is a ‘weak’ example, a ‘strong’ example is the left-wing using gay marriage as a way to harass businesses and expand anti-discrimination laws to further persecute individuals for wrongthink.
If you want your imperfect solutions, that’s fine, but don’t pretend they’re libertarian, they’re left-wing and happen to have a few things you like. That is not a victory.
Never said they were libertarian.
But I think their status quo beforehand was far less libertarian, so I’ll take it.
I think you’re very much making an “impure” argument. You want the WoD ended, right? So your argument is, don’t accept anything short of full legalization because THE LEFT!!!
That’s how it reads to me. If that’s not your intent, I’m happy to be corrected.
Gojira: For an example of a bill that went too far on the regulation side, look no further then Ohio’s Issue 3 from 2015. It got slammed for setting up a “monopoly” (actually an oligarchy of 10 people) that would be the only ones able to grow or distribute marijuana in the state. It failed to pass, getting only about 33% of the voters in favor of it.
Good example, Neph. Without researching, I believe I’d have voted against that, as well.
But I think their status quo beforehand was far less libertarian, so I’ll take it.
Qualify how ‘far less libertarian’ it was for people having civil unions instead of marriages because of homosexuality, and harassing and suing businesses due to anti-discrimination laws.
I think you’re very much making an “impure” argument. You want the WoD ended, right? So your argument is, don’t accept anything short of full legalization because THE LEFT!!!
My argument is refuse to ally or work with the left to support left-wing causes. It’s not an ‘impure’ argument to point out that ‘your solution’ doesn’t work and only serves to benefit the left-wing.
You think the WoD is just going to end because of taxed and regulated pot? The black market will still exist, you will still have arrests, you will still have people going to jail over failing to follow the state’s whims. This solution does not ‘end the WoD’, it buries it under compliance with state degree. You are not promoting a ‘more libertarian solution’ you are promoting a more comfortable one.
The WoD is not likely to end in our lifetimes in a fashion satisfactory to libertarians. It just isn’t. If the opportunity to do so actually arises, I’ll jump at it. I do believe it will end, completely, some day. But not soon. In the meantime, it can only be made to be more comfortable and tolerable.
I’m willing to do that. You aren’t. It’s simply a difference of opinion, as is how you define “victory”, which we cannot do objectively.
I believe you are more willing to support a non-libertarian status quo wrt drugs than to give “the left” anything that you define as a “victory” for them. But again, that depends on how you define “non-libertarian” and “victory”, which I doubt we’ll agree on, making the conversation pointless.
I believe you are more willing to support a non-libertarian status quo wrt drugs than to give “the left” anything that you define as a “victory” for them.
And your comfortable non-libertarian status quo is so much better, of course.
Again, marijuana legislation is one of the ‘weak’ examples that is relatively minor, I’m willing to support weaker statist policies against it, but I’m also willing to recognize that it is not a libertarian solution and it is sometimes not worth the other possible problems that will emerge (namely the left’s ceaseless expansion of power and control).
For example, last election I had a choice to support heavily regulated, tax marijuana access on a federal level. It would have required that I vote for the Liberals and Prime Minister Zoolander. Somehow I didn’t see giving them a cash grab and throwing them into power so they could enforce other policies like a carbon tax as the ‘libertarian solution’ to anything. Would you vote for Zoolander for taxed and controlled pot? No? Then clearly you’re also willing to draw lines where you don’t want ‘the left-wing to have a victory’.
Obviously I’m willing to draw those lines.
In fact I explicitly said so in an earlier comment in this conversation, right here:
Nor would I vote for Bernie Sanders solely on pot.
However, I do not consider it a minor issue, and I will absolutely vote for local or state-level policies that decrim/legalize, provided they aren’t too fucked up (like the Ohio one), even if, horror of horrors, those bills were introduced by or supported by democrats.
I would rather weed be ‘decriminalized’ rather than ‘legalized’.
its not out of any fear – its just out of a practical belief that “less laws” are better.
– is “legalization” somehow ‘almost as good’?
i think its hard to say because the net-net of “more laws” means more people arrested/fined/circumscribed for behavior that in the past wouldn’t necessarily have been prosecuted.
e.g. smoking in the parking lot of a school? what before might have been mere misdemeanor possession might now have all sorts of regulatory-punishments added, like using the stuff in the presence of minors, etc.
i also think
is a false choice. simply ‘doing nothing’ is a policy many localities have done for many years. In some cases it might be better to remain ostensibly illegal, albeit simply non-prosecuted.
I’ve not seen any evidence that mere legalization of weed in a few states has done anything to really dismantle the wider WoD.
The distinction between decrim and legalization is an interesting point that I haven’t given much thought to, so I’ll have to think on that a bit more. Thank you for bringing it up.
Replying to your other comment would open up another half hour debate that I no longer have the time for, but perhaps another time : )
its ok i didn’t really want to interrupt your discussion w/ john, i was just throwing that in there as an aside.
BTW, aside from strongly disagreeing about it being “minor”, this paragraph reveals that there is essentially no difference between us whatsoever except in where we personally draw the line.
“The ‘agreement’ you have with the left on some issues are absolutely superficial”
This x1000. I have some leftist friends who try to convince me that I have so much in common with them. They never understand why, even though we both like weed, Mexicans, and butt sex, we never seem to agree on anything. They accuse me of just being a contrarian asshole (I am, of course, but that’s not why we disagree in these cases).
I don’t really have all that much in common with your typical republican either, but its at least a bit more, even if only as a matter of degrees.
At the risk of being redundant, I’ll say it again. The left are the mortal enemies of libertarians.
Speaking for myself and (I believe) the others who run the site, we are not anti-left in and of itself. We are pro-liberty.
I like to think I fall into the same camp. That said, I live in NYC. The actual anti-liberty efforts I encounter are from the left. The right knows it has to tread lightly and pushes very little in the way of unreasonable crap. They know it won’t fly.
I’m sure if I lived in Texas, I’d probably have a very different perspective.
I think this is a good point.
I think a lot of the people who are less inclined to see themselves as “anti-left” might actually come from parts of the country where they are facing less daily-harassment from progressive govt.
meaning, i think you probably find more of these ‘anti-left attitudes’ coming from people who live in very-deep-blue places like NY, CA, or perhaps Canada.
I think if you live in more reddish-places, there might be an entirely different perspective on things.
That’s been my experience.
It’s because whatever dominates the culture where you are, that’s what unthinking people think. I grew up in Orange County CA in the 1970s-80s when it was strongly Republican, strongly conservative Christian. Lots of mindless flag-waving and hypocritical Christians condemning anyone and everyone with all kinds of empty platitudes. In the 1980s I very much saw Republicans as the primary threat to liberty, and just didn’t even think about Democrats very much.
In the early 90s I moved to the Bay Area, and ever since I’ve been exposed to non-stop mindless left-wing platitudes, such that where there’s grief in my life there’s often a Democrat causing it, and I hardly ever think about Republicans.
“whatever dominates the culture where you are, that’s what unthinking people think”
Amen.
It isn’t even so much the culture. It’s whose pointed stick do I need to be afraid of? I don’t need to be afraid of all thirty social conservatives in Manhattan. Even if they wanted to take me to church in handcuffs, they wouldn’t be in a position to force me to. The proggies have the power to make me do what they want or suffer the consequences. And that’s what I have to be afraid of.
I’ve never been more “anti-left” than the two years I spent working for a company that was crawling with young (and I was only 26, so it’s not a generational thing), politically active, virtue-signaling far left types. I was physically ill somedays watching those people work.
Exactly. Every war has allies and enemies. Who is our more likely allies? The people at least signaling they want to reduce the deficit and uphold the core tenets of civil rights, or the ones attempting to demolish the middle class and the bill of rights along with it? Gee… tough choice…
Also, you just might be able to reach a conservative and get them to adopt at least some libertarian ideals. I mean most of them are already with us on economics. The hardest thing I’ve experienced in trying to reason with them in on the drug war. Most of them seem to think it’s a good idea to keep even weed illegal. But it seems that’s mostly because they think progs are pro-weed. I try to explain to them that libertarians are also pro ending the war on drugs and even more so than most on the left. They seem very wary of this idea, while they drink their nightly 12 pack, which I tell them is also a drug. But they are definitely not buying into that, they don’t use drugs like those damn hippies!
One big problem that the left has caused is that criticizing the war on drugs is now conflated with being anti police, so now if you even broach the subject you’re one of those damn black block/BLM thugs.
I don’t see that as being a problem the left created, it’s a problem created by people who are ideologically anti-left rather than pro-liberty and so tie everything the left is in favor of together in their minds and oppose it.
Not to mention that being reflexively pro-police is not an admirable trait of many conservatives, and they should be disabused of such whenever possible.
This is a constant source of tension between my father and myself. Drives me up a wall
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be philosophically pro-police – indeed, these people are meant to act as a constraint upon the antisocial and law breakers.
The reality however, is that the police are not incentivized – indeed, they’re encouraged to indulge in behaviors which would be considered criminal acts by non-police.
The solution to this problem lies not with the police themselves, but with the society that has empowered them.
I think it’s both. I don’t think thugs get an out on acting like thugs just because society enables it. That’s denying them agency, IMO.
I don’t know if this is as set in stone as people think. I am very active on a lot of gun boards, and many of those people are just as afraid of police brutality as the far left. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of gun people consider themselves hardcore conservatives. There is definitely room for common ground. The big problem is that the left held up people like Mike Brown as saintly martyrs when in reality he was a giant shitheel, as were most of the big story police brutality victims. As JT said somewhere else in on this page, the left has completely poisoned the debate on police reform with their autistic screeching.
Not to mention that there’s a world of difference between having a thoughtful pro-public order philosophy of which police are a part, and what you see in the conservative public which usually amounts to declaring that everybody had it coming for some reason or other.
Then I’m on the wrong gun boards, because at the range I go to and among the gun guys I talk to, it’s nothing but cop cock-sucking.
My club has a fair number of LEOs and former LEOs in there, and a couple of them are quite critical of current police doctrine.
On one occasion, it got to a “let’s agree to disagree” moment – I was glad that I have been, and will remain – somewhat detached from the conversations. I figure that criticism from within the brotherhood is far more effective than some punkass furriner with weird ideas about politics interfering.
I’m glad to hear those people exist.
In public (especially at a gun range) it might sway towards cop sucking because there might actually be one or more cops in ear shot. I know if you look on Thetruthaboutguns.com they’re pretty libertarian in general. There are a few cop suckers but in general they do a lot of police behaving badly stories. The people that run ttag actually started another site dedicated to marijuana news stories but it looks like that went under.
I’m not sure I’d agree that most on the right are truly with us in terms of economics. They certainly love to use the rhetoric of the free market, but in my experience when you get into the nitty gritty details of policy, they balk. They end up being little more than protectionists who want other people’s goodies taken away but noir their own. And I’ve never met a 61 year old, lifelong- wage-earning Republican who would advocate ending social security. At least i will agree that because they use free market rhetoric, they don’t immediately tune out of the conversation or fly off the rails when you bring the subject up, so there is at least a better chance of reasoning with them over the long term.
Other than that, I wholly agree with your point.
One good test is to ask what they would do – if anything – about the Mortgage Deduction.
Flat tax or gtfo 😉
What is important right now is preserving individual rights. There is a concerted effort, which is primarily coming from the Left, to completely alter the Bill of Rights, from speech, to guns, to religious liberty, to even the right to confront your accuser in court. I would sooner ally with a socialist that vociferously defends individual rights (like David Rubin or Spiked.com, for example) than I would join with a pro-free markets advocate who cares nothing about the ever expanding ‘culture war’ (which now apparently includes ‘free speech’).
Reason lost me when they were more than willing to ignore blatant attacks on ‘free speech’.
You are 100% correct. Civil rights absolutely trumps fiscal policy, at least in the current political climate. Once the constitution is mostly safe from the progs attempting to butcher it and wear it’s carcass like a fucking suit we can focus on economic issues.
Of course you will never find a true socialist that defends individual rights, because individualism and socialism are diametrically opposed. If you grant individual rights then you concede individualism which completely undermines the collectivist state.
What about the civil right of not paying 40% of my paycheck to various fiends of taxation, to fund programs i oppose pragmatically as well as morally? What about the fact that the biggest infringements of civil liberties (WOD, drone strikes, NSA) would not even be possible without large- scale, systematic taxation of such proportions? I agree civil liberties are hugely important, but I don’t believe you can ever have civil liberty if you don’t also have economic liberty.
In the political hierarchy of needs, the right to not be put in prison for various victimless vices is more fundamental than people helping themselves to an extra 10% of your paycheck. On principle you are 100% correct, but we need to pick our battles and protecting civil rights supersedes all. It doesn’t matter how low your taxes are if you’re in jail or afraid to leave your house.
Right. Without a thriving economy, you wind up with everyone dependent on the state. Which is exactly what leftists want. So along with economic liberty, you also lose civil liberties.
Vhyrus-Well said. In practical terms, yes I would concede that point. I would also agree that with the degree of government interference we’ve allowed into our lives, picking battles and being pragmatic trumps pure ideology.
That’s something I’ve been working on in my own views lately. I’ve traditionally been a hard liner purist type, but God damn it if I wouldn’t rather see a little less government intervention in my life, even at the cost of compromising a principle or two (especially since those principles are already being compromised against my will anyway).
Except how many of those Culture War conservatives are there out there anymore? Honestly, I’m far more likely to hear damnations of free speech from progressives than I am from conservatives.
I’ll add that we’ve seen how that distinction plays out. And it’s not on the side of liberty. “Oh, we’re not violating their free speech rights or freedom of worship, we’re just demanding they comply with our regulations!”. They’re icky old businesspeople. Who cares about them. Or, they’re not going after prostitutes. Just the customers who are “obviously” victimizing them.
Being pro-liberty and anti-left are two terms for the same thing. Oppose any leftist position and you find you are advocating liberty.
Well, the “Great War Against the Left” point has some merit.
Sometimes, you have to prioritize your enemies list, and I don’t think many of us disagree that the proximal threat is from the left.
I’ve never hesitated to state my position that the left are the mortal enemies of libertarians. Also, Hugh has always been an annoying asshat.
Yep. I disagree with much of what Trump says and some of what he actually does, but Clinton was infinitely more dangerous. We are in a fight to the death against the Left. Actual conservatives are our allies. The McCains and Grahams are either allied to the enemy or too stupid to realize what’s happening.
I quote the Z-Man I can’t say it nearly as well.
Related: Wilson was the most dangerous man of the twentieth century, and Congress sucked too.
Some of the things that Trump is doing… oh wait, I forgot … while Trump is clearly worse than Hitler…
Anyway, some of the things that Trump is doing are more libertarian than I can remember any president doing during my lifetime. I’m talking about the assault on the regulatory state. There is nothing there that is not good news for libertarians. Now I’m sure that Trump is going to do things that libertarians will hate. But so far, so good.
The worst thing Trump is doing right now is trusting Paul Ryan to write decent legislation on healthcare, taxes, spending, anything.
Yeah. I’d love to see them dispose of Eddie Munster and give Amash the speaker role. At least Trump has been seen golfing with Rand, so he’s apparently at least aware that negotiation with the libertarian wing is a good idea. And Rand has his version of healthcare repeal.
I just listened to Massey say that things are actually worse under Ryan than Boehner.
I’m assuming Ryan is going to float some kind of VAT as “tax-reform”. He’s that kind of wonk asshole.
Sessions was a garbage pick for Libertarians. DeVos, not so much.
My take has always been that conservatives can ultimately be reasoned with. At some point, if they believe what they claim, they have to admit the libertarians are right (I speak from experience here). For them, opposing libertarianism is a weakness.
Progressives on the other hand, disagree with libertarians on the fundamental issues. If they believe what they claim, they have to oppose libertarianism. For them, opposing libertarianism is a strength.
I think that depends on whether you are more worried about social libertarianism or fiscal.
Well, economically,the left are absolutely enemies. They want to steal our Lucky Charms.
On social issues? I don’t think we’ve had much to fear from the Christfags for a very long time. Again, my concern is that we all have to conform to some “grey social goo” where to choose anything is to be discriminatory. To express preferences is seditious.
The problem with that is that large swaths of the right clearly want our lucky charms too, in practice, if not in theory. They just want to use those lucky charms for different things.
Overall, I agree with your points, though.
Yeah – I think in the 80s you could say there was something of a balance in which Democrats were just awful on economics and Republicans were just awful on social issues.
The Democrats got less awful on economics in the 90s, and the Republicans got less awful on social issues in the 2000s. Unfortunately, the Democrats lurched back toward awful on economics, and got worse on social issues as multiculturalism morphed into a sort of neo-fascism.
The Republicans are getting bad on economics, but they’re not yet as bad, while still lightening up on the social issues. Democrats, however, are getting less and less socially tolerant and more and more economically ignorant. This is part of why I think the Democratic Party in its current form is doomed.
This is part of why I think the Democratic Party in its current form is doomed.
I don’t know. It is an entity sustained by rabid emotions, and the vast majority of our populace isn’t exactly “honed” when it comes to critical and analytical thought processes.
The Games Theory part of me identifies the *kind* of policies the left are pushing as needing more timely intervention.
Until recently, you knew pretty much where the right were – they had their positions, entrenched, attempting to advance their agenda in a reasonably predictable, reactionary manner, as though they were conducting a siege. Talk to a connservative republican and you could pretty much predict the policy proposals in detail.
The left are more like cavalry. Much more dynamic, much less predictable, and far more capable of exploiting political opportunities to their advantage, which to my mind means that we need to keep a far closer watch on them.
Both sides can be tactical allies in differing theaters on specific issues, but in general – at the moment – the majority of the issues *I* am concerned with require opposition to the left. I might change that balance of attention when and if Trump gets up a head of steam and starts implementing things with the GOP (such as the recent ISP legislation).
Right now, my biggest fear is that Ryan will team up with that shit weasel Schumer and push some seriously horrible stuff through Congress. If that happens, we’re totally dependent upon Rand to save us, like he did with Ryan’s shit healthcare bill.
I don’t think Ryan is ready to out himself quite yet. If that actually happened a lot of currently complacent flyovers would get red pilled and Ryan isn’t ready to fight that battle yet.
I think it would be stuff that those complacent flyovers would care about. They would just dress it up as being something to save the children and then load it up full of nasty civil liberties killing stuff. Sure libertarians would know and would sound the alarm. But then people will be as dumb as they’ve always been and say ‘well, who’s against saving the children?’. This has worked time and time again.
It’s not anything the democrats want to do that worries he, they don’t have the power. It’s not anything the GOP wants to do that worries me, they’ll in-fight and if it’s bad enough, it won’t pass.
It’s when I see dems and the GOP working together, that’s what will worry me.
Just to back up what I just said. Ryan’s healthcare bill failed because it couldn’t get past the freedom caucus. But ALL of the Democrats were against it also. If the RINOs come up with something truly horrible that gets a lot of dems onboard, the freedom caucus will not be able to stop it. And I don’t see Trump vetoing much of anything, he’s a guy who wants to be seen as getting stuff done.
The pressure to “Reach across the aisle and broker a bipartisan agreement” is up there with the inscription in Sauron’s Ring.
I never want to have to hear that ever again. EVER.
Bipartisan = the people getting screwed again
From both ends, though.
If you’re get ass raped, do you really care that the dude coming to your rescue illegally downloaded some music? There may be a fight among the temporary allies if the left gets defeated, but until then I’m not spending my time going after non libertarians that hate the left.
Chemjeff, however, is not the person to be making that argument, considering he clearly has mommy and daddy Republican issues. He’s shown multiple times that he has a bias towards crediting or accepting the argumentation of the left, while then turning around and screaming Nazi. He screams and bellows about ‘tribalism’ while openly throwing irate temper tantrums because people won’t shit on the tribes he doesn’t like enough.
Well, exactly. My immediate response to his post there was scoffing derision. Pretty rich.
Silly me.
I was a crypto-republican all along… despite arguing at length with John on the question of whether Trump was a fascist.
And here I thought I stopped reading it because the articles were becoming embarrassingly shitty. That they focused on pretty minor curiosities such as Gary Johnson’s vanity campaign while ignoring serious issues pertaining to civil liberties. That their coverage of immigration was cringe-inducingly awful (and I am an open borders absolutist). That their articles were almost entirely devoid of economic analysis. That Ron Bailey’s coverage of the Exxon Knew campaign always obfuscated rather than illuminated the moral and legal bankruptcy of the campaigners and I was tired of having to copy and paste the same info into the comments section of his articles to make up for the stuff he kept forgetting to include in his essays.
I guess I just didn’t realize that I, like Sugarfree, am a partisan hack that just can’t stand to see Trump dissed.
And at last, you gazed up at that enormous face … but it’s alright, everything is alright, the struggle is finished. You have won the victory over yourself.
You love Donald Trump.
Sure. Myself, SF, HM…all notorious Trumpsters.
I just can’t stand to see the man criticized. There is absolutely no meaningful distinction between thoughtful criticism of policy, and making 15 posts in all caps screaming about how if you parse the wording of some tweet a certain way, it might reveal possibly potential crypto-authoritarian tendencies that may manifest someday under certain circumstances. That’s totally legit and on the level.
I replied. A couple times, because crap website.
“Yup, nothing to do with one of the writers here literally saying that speech compelled violence, nothing to do with much of the criticism of Trump here being the same shallow, vapid bullshit that the MSM is dishing out. Nothing to do with the shitty experience of posting 6 times to get one comment.
I was often defending individual writers here by pointing out that some articles were straight news, pointing out that interviews with outside people were not blanket acceptance or editorial endorsement of those points of view. Or at least I was when I could actually post.
Nope. We’re all secret Trumpistas in our MAGA hats. I mean, you can tell I love the guy.
But, by all means, keep on sniffing each other’s asses and saying it’s perfume.”
Hell, the new intern was writing better content that most of their pimped writers. The barrage of shallow hit pieces that came out right after January 20 was the absolute worst tactic imaginable, but Gillespie seems obsessed with being the ‘vanguard of the Trump resistance’ (by the way, the guy who coined the concept of the ‘Libertarian Moment’ during the one of most left-wing shitbag Presidencies, followed by a populist shitbag Presidency? Shouldn’t be listened to for strategic advice). Their clicks plummet right afterwards for a reason.
Cheetos Mussolini!
Now I’m hungry
“TRUMP ADMITTED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT” and “TRUMP KILLED THIS GRANDMA” were pretty big lines in the sand for me. And it had nothing to do with it being about Trump, it has to do Reason now pimping disingenuous unsupported lies as stories without any fact checking whatsoever. They’ve flushed their journalistic credibility down the toilet so they can join in on the journalism crowd’s Two Minutes of Hate. This wouldn’t change until a lot of their writers realize they’re in a shitty DC journalism hugbox and need to pull themselves out.
^This. It just got to be so tiresome seeing article after article about how the Trumpian End Times were upon us, bracketed by fluff pieces, or Dalmia being Dalmia, or Robbie “To Be Sure” Soave.
“Trump killed this Grandma” was a catalyst for a lot of people. It was so National Enquirer bullshit. I found it especially irritating coming from Fisher who usually has his own remit which had nothing to do with immigration.
I also think a lot of the exodus had to do with relationships (as my wife continues to remind me, most of life is relationship). It’s not the usual face-to-face thing but, commenters at Reason had a daily relationship with one another. Most of us don’t have time to snark up more than one website so, when a lot of people moved elsewhere, the relationships brought others over. That was assisted by the reality that this is a well done website with excellent content.
To be sure.
This is interesting. Dozens of postings, and nobody’s invoked a purity test.
Minarchists and Ancaps, living together, in Harmony!
fx: wipes tiny tear from eye, sniffles
Crying? Only a cosmo would do that!
I’m not crying, I have something in my eye, YOU MONSTER!
I almost did in response to Steve Son of Steve above, but in the end it’s such a pathetically minor, purely philosophical distinction that’s so damn far from ever mattering that what’s the point? It’s not like I think any less of people for being minarchists as opposed to ancaps. I assume they have good reasons for doing so, which it would behoove me to listen to, in order to test and refine my own beliefs.
Government is an emergant property of human interaction. Fighting for an anarcho-solution just means you don’t have any way of steering the government that emerges. A minarchist methodology has a better chance of forestalling negative outcomes and mitigating the impact of what structures are in place.
I strongly disagree, but as stated, there is no point rehashing tired old arguments that only ever boil down to utilitarian vs. deontological opinion wank-fests.
More significantly, we’re so goddamn far from that distinction mattering, that I see it as a waste of time to argue.
SO HELP ME GOD I’D RATHER SEE COMMUNISTS TAKE OVER THE WHOLE PLANET THAN ENTERTAIN ANCAP SOCIETY AS A POSSIBILITY.
/sarc
Thanks for not blasting me in the previous convent fyi. I’d you’re referring to my comment that gov has some legit functions and the parenthetical aside, i should have said “i believe gov has some legit…” and the aside was meant to be flippant, not dismissive or dickish. In truth, I have a great deal of respect for the ancaps of the world, and I don’t think a stateless society would be anywhere near as bad as many other possibilities I could think of.
Like I said, there’ll be plenty of time for us to have knives to each other’s throats in the year 30999, when this distinction might actually matter. I never understood people who are so passionate about it.
The smaller the stakes the more vicious the arguments, indeed.
I don’t believe a stateless society to be possible. If even attained, it would revert to norm very, very quickly. Simply because all of the structures that it relies on require humans to start acting in ways inconsistant with their record.
Which has happened before.
Constitutional republics didn’t spring out of the ground when the first cavemen formed societies. It requires evolution.
But now you’ve gotten me arguing what I didn’t want to argue : P
More significantly, we’re so goddamn far from that distinction mattering, that I see it as a waste of time to argue.
+1 Arguing whether olive green or avocado green would make for a better color for the guest room while the house is burning to the ground
I think a part of the issue too is how realistic you are with yourself about the feasibility of a functioning libertarian society, given the crooked timber that is mankind.
If I had to characterize myself, I think I’d cop to “Rational Anarchist”, but I tend to argue from a Minarchist standpoint. I don’t see a Libertarian Revolution as ever happening, certainly not in my lifetime, and so my ambitions are limited to libertarianism growing popular enough that we can hold politicians’ feet to the fire on a regular basis, and rolling back the oppressive state whenever opportunity arises.
I need a Glibertarian Approved purity test that neatly categorizes me.
You have failed the lack of purity test test.
i came here to get away from those conversations.
* by which i mean, the “people on the left accusing everyone else of being on the right”
Hey, I’m just happy that they stopped blaming what happened to my mother.
Also, fuck the left. Team Red has a lot of flaws. A lot of them. But they aren’t trying to abolish free association, take away the RKBA, force me to pay for abortions, eliminate the 4A and enslave people that don’t want to buy insurance.
That’s all well and good, but as I said to Ken Shultz once (and got a verbose reply, shocker), there needs to be some distinguishing characteristic to that sentiment to differentiate it from an argument that is to simply vote straight-ticket republican all the time, because they’re “less bad”.
Unless you really are advocating that people do that.
Of course I’n not advocating that. But I can assure you I will always look to ally myself with the political right before the left because the left despises the individual while the right at least pays lip service to him or her.
One of the most despicable traits the left has is their tendency to lockstep.
On the Republican side one can find many variants of Team Red: so-cons, alt-righters, establishment Rs, liberal Rs, the Freedom Caucus…how many variants can we find on Team Blue?
You’ll find many more pro-choice, pro-gun control Republicans than you will pro-life, pro-2nd amendment Democrats, that’s for sure.
Their reaction to what happened to your mother was what crystalized everything in my mind.
That statement, “it’s not quite right for Reason”, blew me away. It is right for any magazine supporting classical liberalism! A few months back, I had berated Matt Welch for wasting numerous reporter hours covering the very inconsequential presidential campaign of Gay Jay. I felt it was a story that did warrant having one reporter cover it full time, but no more. And I asked, “how many Cory Maye’s are languishing in prison for lack of someone to tell their story?”. The one time Matt Welch deigned to reply to me, he huffily told me that readers and other media outlets were interested in Gay Jay and that Reason was responding to their demand.
The scales fell from my eyes, and I discovered that Reason’s focus had entirely become political base-ball. Their writers may write articles on important things for their print magazine. But their passion will be the fart-sniffing going on inside the belt-way. I saw the reason for the shallow coverage; the lack of scepticality; the jumping-on-bandwagons etc. I realized why the philosophical discussions in the comments had been replaced with garbage social signalling.
I don’t think I am alone. My feeling was that the business with your mother had the same effect on a large number of people. They can blame it on your mother, if they like. But it was really their poor reaction to what happened to your mother that catalyzed the exodus, and their poor reaction was really quite typical how terrible they have been for quite some time.
Thanks. I appreciate hat and I tend to agree with you. Although I am a lot closer to the situation than anybody else, the situation with my mom was merely the final straw. I had bailed out a couple times earlier in the fall with their extremely slanted coverage and excessive pants-shitting about Trump while ignoring the worse warts Hillary had from a libertarian standpoint.*
*He had at least proposed some rollbacks of federal programs, oversight of the private sector and spoke of reinstating private property rights and free association while she was explicitly trying to overturn Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, spoke out regularly about hating guns and pandered to every single social program recipient she could.
I agree, the issue with your mom, combined with the pants-shitting, was what did it.
Hell, I’m the one arguing against republicans here, and I thought their criticisms were retarded to 11. Tells you how bad it must really be.
Yeah, I was shocked to see a cosmofag like you come out against them.
/sarc
Cosmofag *minority species* too.
I felt that way on immigration.
I’m an open borders absolutist. It does the argument for our cause no favors when Reason writes bullshit stories about how immigrants are less of a problem than native born people with respect to welfare/crime/rape etc.
Their easily debunked arguments undermined our cause immensely. And from climate change to the “rape epidemic on campus” to police brutality etc, I saw similar crap articles that sought to convince by confusing or confounding the reader rather than by illuminating them.
If I want lying bullshit in service of a political cause, I can always switch to vice. At least they have the courage to go to dangerous places.
If you don’t mind me asking, what happened, regarding your mother and TSTSNBN? I can remember logging in over there one day in February, noticing a shortage of comments, and reading a bunch of people refer to an ‘exodus’ and seeming to imply that there was some specific incident that had prompted many commenters to leave at around the same time. I know at the time a few people mentioned your mother, but then a day or two later I discovered this site, made the switched, and just sort of assumed that the ‘incident’ was really just the creation of this site and people being fed up with the old place.
It goes without saying, but feel free to ignore if it’s none of my damn business.
Without going into too many details:
My mom got the shit beat out of her by a cop while trying to intervene on behalf of a semi-conscious kid at a basketball game that they had moved to the bench (She is a nurse). She went out on the court to try and stop the game so EMS could access him and got slammed and cuffed and taken to jail. It was an obvious case of excessive force, at a minimum.
I’ll let a less-involved party explain the aftermath. It wouldn’t be fair for me to.
Jesus. That’s terrible. Very sorry to hear that, man. I certainly hope she has fully recovered. My utmost respect to her for putting herself out there on that kid’s behalf.
And I kind of get the feeling that if/when the aftermath is explained to me, I am going to be very, very pissed off. And even more glad than I already was that I switched from that old site to this superior one.
She’ll probably never get over it, to be honest. She said she’s afraid every time she leaves the house because she thinks that cop or one of his buddies will try to do something to her because he’s gonna be in a world of shit if/when this gets to the civil trial.
Its a fucking shitshow. I’m just glad I’m over 1000 miles away.
I don’t blame her. I get a little nervous every time I see cops, and I don’t even have any reason for any one among them to have a personal stake in harming me.
I certainly don’t have much faith in our criminal defense system holding one of their own accountable, but I sincerely hope I’m wrong in this case. It would be a fucking shame for your mother’s genuinely selfless good deed to be rewarded that way, only for that asshole to get off scott free. If she does win out, I hope for her sake she uses some of the money to move away to a place where she would be away from this guy. Living in genuine fear of someone with that amount of authority and immunity would have to be a nightmare.
P.S. Have you guys done any kind of GoFundMe for legal/medical bills? If so, point me in the right direction.
Nope on the GoFundMe. She doesn’t want to be very public about it. Plus their attorney is working it the right way.
Its going to be a lengthy process, it looks like. Her attorney requested a jury trial (even though the max penalty is like $200), which they want to conclude before moving on to the next phase. They expect the municipality to try and drag the case out for as long as they can to try and wear her will down. And the judge handling it is a former cop from the area and is apparently quite the dickhead, so she expects him to grant every continuance the DA asks for.
Fucking hell, every single sentence in that 2nd paragraph pisses me off more than the last. My heart goes out to you and your family in all of this. I sure as hell hope justice will be served.
Justice will be served. Of that I’m certain.
“Synonyms for “think” in English include words like “ponder,” “examine,” “consider,” all of these words are derived from Latin words that mean to weigh or look at closely. Thinking means to test ideas, not just have them.”
Very well said. I’d add to your quotes one of my favorites by Thomas Sowell…
“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”
I am, at any given time, typically NOT the smartest guy in the room, in a purely ‘computational’ sense, but I am often able to outperform people who are in many ways much brighter than I am, because I have spent a large share of my time testing and challenging my own ideas. In essence, I’ve “trained” myself to think better, to punch somewhat above my intellectual weight class.
It’s hard to say that without sounding like a pretentious dick hole, but what are ya gunna do.
P.S. before all you smart people in the commentariat jump all over me, half the reason I lurked here (and Over There) as long as I have is precisely because you fine folks do such a wonderful job of challenging my ideas and reminding me how little I know. So, a heartfelt thanks for that.
Hey, if you weren’t a little prideful, you wouldn’t be here! 😉
Also, kudos on being a thinker (instead of a feeler).
Thanks, that made me feel good about myself.
… Wait…Shit.
We’re all pretentious dickholes here.
You pretentious dickhole.
Amen to all that. Lurking over yonder, in the gallery, has been quite a learning experience. The problem is that I learned more from commentariat than from the actual articles. Now I actually learn something from the articles AND the gallery.
And to think, I almost donated and registered there last year. But then, TDS set in…to be sure.
“Thinking means to test ideas, not just have them.”
666) I haz a sad
I like Dan Simmons’ corollary to Occam’s Razor:
All other things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity.
Edwin Land: “Insight is the sudden cessation of stupidity.”
Required reading: Feynman’s essay/talk on Cargo Cult Science.
+10 Thumbs Up
Except in climate science.
In climate science we know everything there is to know, and what’s more, we know how to fix it.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
One of the things the mind is best at is self-deception.
I don’t know who this guy is, but I think this quote is pretty spot-on. Sort of in line with self-deception. Ish.
He’s a motivational speaker and author of “7 habits of Highly Effective people”
Huh! I would never have known! Because I’m too lazy to google!
“Googling is HARD!”
Yes it is. I had my incognito mode on when I found a site with a number of theories for the great wage compression and can’t find it again. Also if anyone sees anything like that. Let me know.
That’s what lmgtfy.com is for!
And was a pretty savvy guy
Herbert Spencer pointed out in his book Social Statics that politicians are the only people in the world who get off the hook for doing a shitty job because they are presumed to have good intentions. I don’t remember his particular examples, but think about if your auto mechanic fucked up your car. Would you take “I had good intentions and just wanted to help” for an answer?? Hell no! You’d say, “well if you don’t know what the fuck you’re doing, why did you tell me that you had all the solutions?? Why did you promise that my car would be good as new in a few days?”
Bush appropriated that quote at the Dallas police funeral along the lines of “We judge ourselves by our best intentions and those we oppose by their worst actions.”
hrm… they just voted to end the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
Good. Reap the whirlwind, fuckers. Better get your ponchos on boys, it’s gonna be a monsoon of liberal tears.
I would love for some R (even Mitch) to stand up and say, “Elections have consequences, motherfuckers!”
Send an email to Rand Paul. He’s got the juice to do it at the moment.
For two pins and a kiss on the lips from Margot Robbie he’d spit in DiFi’s eye.
Oh, sorry, that’d be me, but make him the offer. See if he bites.
Since you mention it… lemme just drop this here (because I probably won’t have time later to post it on a less-dead thread):
100 Years Ago Today: the United States declared war on Germany.
…which, if had arsed myself to follow your link first, is exactly the topic of the article. I think the author is a little unrealistic in his assertion that the war would have “ended in a negotiated peace at some point soon,” as by this point, there had already been numerous offers of negotiated peace floated from the Central Powers, all of which had been rejected by the Entente powers. France and Britain were not inclined to accept a peace that felt like a loss when Germany, in particular, clearly thought it had won. Germany was unrepentant, still claiming that it had been forced to war; if they rolled through Belgium, well, it was a military necessity, they shouldn’t be held responsible. Even if a negotiated peace had been arrived at, it’s naive to breezily claim that there would have been no follow-on war without considering what the terms of that peace must have been. France had, in living memory, lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1870; if the terms of a 1917 peace involved the loss of more territory, that’s a bitter pill for French national pride to choke down. And I totally do not see how a negotiated peace necessarily prevents the Bolshevik’s rise to power, the seeds of that toxic vine had already sprouted.
I was going to post the standard off-topic disclaimer, but then I realized that this absolutely is on-topic. Incumbents trounced in local mayoral contests, left scratching heads:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-suburbs-mayor-elections-met-20170405-story.html
It’s a lot to wish for, but I have a smidgen of hope that this trend steamrolls its way into Chicago proper.
I live in Chicago, and it’s not even worth me going to the polls. But it is encouraging to see that the suburban residents are fighting against the incumbents.
You’re wrong. At least that’s my first impression and I don’t want to think about it.
Unfair! He has a magic bacon wand and can just wave it instead of thinking! I WANT A MAGIC BACON WAND TOO!
Bacon doesn’t need a wand to be magic. Bacon is magic. The wand is just for show, like the hat.
You got it. The wand is just for pleasure.
Hitachi intended that thing to be aback massager!
they just voted to end the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
OMG TEH DEATH OF DEMOCRACEEEEEEEEE!
Something something salty ham tears …
Clears throat:
Elections have consequences, motherfuckers!
Gotta say I’m pretty excited about Gorsuch on the SCOTUS. How old is he? How many years of sound judicial reasoning can we look forward to?
Next: Willett!!
Literally fascism
I have mixed feelings about the nuclear option, for the same reasons as progs should have had reservations about the mad power grabs made under Obama.
Anything power you grant (or in this case, take away from) government will eventually be used by the party you like less.
The Jeff Jacoby suggestion was the best I have seen:
Keep the filibuster but change the rules back to the pre 1970s rule — you have to literally filibuster, not just declare it. You have to keep talking.
Everything is related to Parks & Rec
I’m always right.
^this
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
Herbert Spencer