The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 26 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Decon Black
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,988,697 Trump card
1,324,443 Picture Thread
474,043 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 13 of 22 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 21 22
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Libertarians have more in common with the alt-right than they want you to think

Quote
It was the very bareness of the idea of self-interest and liberty as such that allowed Chris Cantwell, the weeping neo-Nazi made infamous in Vice’s coverage of Charlottesville (and avid reader of Hoppe and Rothbard) to make conceptual space for racism: “People should be free to exercise complete control over their own person and property. If blacks are committing crimes, or Jews are spreading communism, discriminating against them is the right of any property owner.”

It’s a quick step from here to full-on white nationalism, which interprets history and politics as the story of different races pursuing their collective self-interest. It shouldn’t come as a great surprise that enshrining self-interest as the core of morality would lead to a cynical worldview that takes all action to be struggle or manipulation. The “liberty” of libertarianism is merely negative; and a mind guided with the mere concept of its own interest can be led to anything or to nothing. For this reason, the intellectual wasteland of libertarianism continues to provide a safe space for fascists: It simply has philosophical room for them, and no particular injunctions to turn them away.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 637
KGB Knight
*****
Offline
KGB Knight
*****
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 637
Originally Posted by WaPo
The problem is that libertarian principles, which revolve the abstract notion of self-interest, are really not principles at all; they have no content and allow anything to be attached to them.
The core philosophical principle of right Libertarianism is Liberty. It's interesting to me that this writer conflates this with "abstract self-interest."

Aside from that, I'm not sure what to take away from this article, or what it has to do with this conversation.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
There's your relevancy. Your cynical self interest and denial of reality is leading your fellow ideologues to misogyny, racism and fascism. Edit: Not you, Brutal

Last edited by rhaikh; 09/22/18 11:33 AM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by rhaikh
cynical self interest and denial of reality is leading your fellow ideologues to misogyny, racism and fascism


Personally, I think that anyone who disagrees with me is a latent rapist, but good old "misogyny, racism and fascism" works just as well.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
The Atlantic's excellent Conor Friedersdorf wrote about Gomeshi's essay and The New York Review of Books scandal.

Quote
The mere possibility that the editor of a prestigious intellectual journal resigned under pressure from advertisers would normally provoke widespread attention and concern from mainstream publications––especially upon confirmation that a major advertiser issued a complaint––given the implications for journalistic independence.


Note that in the case of NYRB, advertisers are university publishers.

Quote
What would happen if the standards invoked by Buruma’s critics were applied universally? I suspect that some of those critics would come to regret their positions.


An excellent question that goes to the core of why "censorship for the right reasons" is just "censorship".


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
While Friedersdorf tilts at censorship windmills, the NYRB itself issued a statement suggesting that his ouster was because he was a bad editor and subsequently lied about it.

[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 637
KGB Knight
*****
Offline
KGB Knight
*****
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 637
Originally Posted by theatlantic
In contrast, Constance Grady of Vox rejects the notion that exposing readers to a new perspective can justify an essay like the one the NYRB published, arguing that to promote an essay like that “is not a harmless intellectual enterprise in free speech hypotheticals. It has real consequences” because such essays include ideas “fundamental to the widespread narrative that the #MeToo movement has gone too far.” (How curious for a journalist to imply that exercising free speech is most defensible when the attendant ideas have no larger consequences.)

In Grady’s telling, spotlighting such perspectives reinforces “a system in which men’s social status is considered to be more valuable than women’s bodily safety … in which accusations of sexual violence are brushed aside as so much shrill hyperbole, and in which powerful men are able to hurt those they have power over with impunity. It’s difficult to understand how these essays are doing anything more than striving to return to the system that necessitated the birth of the #MeToo movement.”
These two paragraphs are pretty damning. This is supposedly a journalist (I honestly have no idea how people perceive Vox as a journalistic publication, so I just assume this person is a respected journalist) who is willing to throw another journalist under the bus simply because he had the gall to publish a piece that she thinks has no business in the public sphere. Fuck off.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Brett Kavanaugh and the Information Terrorists Trying to Reshape America

This article describes in historic detail the political infrastructure which takes people from "political correctness has gone too far" to issuing death threats on Blasey Ford.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Brutal
because he had the gall to publish a piece that she thinks has no business in the public sphere. Fuck off.


Do you think the essay has intellectual value? Even Friedersdorf doesn't defend the essay itself. He is simultaneously trying to defend the right of the editor to publish garbage and the right of the editor to face no consequences for publishing garbage.

Edit:
To put this another way, I think most people would agree that the essay itself is self-serving and intellectually vacant noise that would fit best on Ghomeshi's livejournal.

The fact that he is able to write it is the extent to which his exercise of free speech is guaranteed.

I think it's a completely valid opinion that the act of publishing something so inherently worthless in a widely circulated format without "editing the article more thoroughly, commissioning another piece to run alongside, or framing it with some form of editorial comment" is implicitly agreeing with the author's premise; and does, in fact, have real consequences by implicitly supporting the narrative that MeToo movement has gone too far.

Last edited by rhaikh; 10/05/18 09:11 AM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by rhaikh
To put this another way, I think most people would agree that the essay itself is self-serving and intellectually vacant noise that would fit best on Ghomeshi's livejournal.


You are capable of criticizing speech with more speech, why does it have to go any further? Why do you and your fellow regressives feel the need to destroy the person to prevent any further speech? What do you find so threatening in bad ideas, unless your ultimate goal is to prevent your own bad ideas from being questioned?

Originally Posted by rhaikh

I think it's a completely valid opinion that the act of publishing something so inherently worthless in a widely circulated format without "editing the article more thoroughly, commissioning another piece to run alongside, or framing it with some form of editorial comment" is implicitly agreeing with the author's premise; and does, in fact, have real consequences by implicitly supporting the narrative that MeToo movement has gone too far.


First, "publishing is agreeing" is utter nonsense that doesn't survive even superficial examination. However, it is a convenient censorship argument/tool.

Second, how can you be sure that MeToo didn't go too far if questioning it verboten? Oh wait, I forgot, you can't discuss it.

Third, what are the real consequences you dog-whistling about? Are you trying to sneak in speech is violence trope?


[Linked Image]
Page 13 of 22 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 21 22

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5