Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Look, I didn't like the guy. He was a snob, a prig, and not as sharp as he pretended. But throwing parties to celebrate his death?

I thought only his brother did that.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

As long as you phrase it in the positive ("generations of immigrants have brought their energy and work ethic to this country"), instead of the negative, you're ok.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The CEO of 23andMe tweets:

I wonder how many people would be healthier if 23andMe gave free genetic testing to all comers.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I have been offline for happy, family related reasons. Upon my return, I see a topic about which I can speak with some authority: The killing power, and other attributes, of what I came to know as an M-16.

I challenge anyone here to find a post of mine calling out a fellow poster. Disagree? Absolutely. But I've never said anything like this:

Slave is absolutely full of shit.

I carried, and fired in anger and with effect, an M-16 for my first two months in combat. No one in my platoon, other than whoever was walking point at the moment, ever kept their rifle on automatic. Because after you've emptied the clip in a few seconds, you would be fumbling around with an empty magazine. Or your dick in your hands, which is generally combat ineffective. So most of the time, the preferred combat mode for the M-16 was semiautomatic. The high speed tumbling bullet inflicted hideous wounds. This was before 30 round magazines; ours were twenty. (This was a factual flaw saw in "We Were Soldiers", which was my unit, albeit I was there later in time.)

I was then trained, in-country, as a sniper with a balanced M-14 and match grain ammunition. (I did not have extensive Carlos Hancock type training; I shot the thing for three weeks in Bien Hoa and returned to my platoon) It did not. I say again not... have an automatic capability. Yet when my turn came, as it did regularly, I walked point with that rifle. Armed with 20 rounds and 7.62mm bullets, I could get off a ferocious field of fire when I had to do so.

Both of those rifles were indisputably weapons of war. I had four kills with the sniper rifle for ambush positions.

The AR15 is not a goddamn "fun" weapon. It was designed to kill people. I would ban it if I could. If not, I would take the following steps:

1. Many gun devotees, members of my former platoon among them, say gun control should be "You control your gun and I'll control mine." I say fine. But if your gun is used in a crime, then you should go to jail for not securing it. If you sell it to someone who has not passed a background check, the same thing goes. If it is stolen from anyplace other than a government certified location, and used in a crime, you go to jail.

2. You may only transport your rifle from one private property to another in a disassembled state.

3. Possession of magazines in excess of ten rounds is hereby illegal.

4. Other thoughts on this can be found on a long ago post where I drafted a "Well Regulated Militia Act."

Saying that an AR15 is not a weapon of war because it has no automatic capability is simply moronic.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I think Slave's point was that other weapons are equally deadly or moreso, including large-caliber handguns and shotguns. I disagree, but I don't think he was confusing an AR-15 with a Nerf gun.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Slave's devotion to the AR15 is religious, not logical. You will not convince sway him with reason, knowledge or experience.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Hence the magazine restriction. You know porn when you see it. You can apply my sentiments about the AR 15 to any weapon with the same semiautomatic capability.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Agreed. Semiautomatic pistols have smaller magazines (and more recoil for larger caliber weapons). Shotguns are arguably deadlier at close range, but not semiautomatic.

It turns out that there is a reason that the Army issues soldiers AR-15s instead of handguns and shotguns. Who woulda thunk it?

eta: Apparently there is a mass shooting going on at YouTube's offices in San Bruno. Ugh.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...ce-say-1099410

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital? Seriously?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

We're supposed to be grateful that he left "San Francisco General" in the name.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

can you like/not-like the name?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It's the only hospital in town, so you have to be OK with the fact that they share all of your medical information.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

My sister used to live across the street (back when it was just San Francisco General Hospital). One of her bikes lost its life to a driver who was trying to get himself there after being shot.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Two authoritarian parties... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...efused/556934/

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Is there any self-described "libertarian" who doesn't write with a nasally whine?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I believe it's a consequence of knowing your ideology is flawed, and that the human condition is such that men will always seek to inflict their personal preferences regarding how they'd like people to behave upon other people. You get a little bitchy.

At its core, libertarian thinking comes down to "leave people alone to do as they will." But then, some people will engage in slavery, sex trafficking, murder, etc., so you can't really follow that rule. So that leads you to putting limits on what's acceptable and what's not. And once you do that, you can't really call yourself a pure libertarian anymore. You've now become someone picking and choosing what other men should and shouldn't be allowed to do.

Libertarians like to think of themselves as enlightened and liberated from the controlling mentalities of conservatism and liberalism. But if they think hard for thirty seconds, they realize they're just another fucked up ideology, an Option C not much unlike A and B.

This is why I have now embraced Anarchism. Say what you will, it's an abstractly defensible ethos.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Usually, libertarianism is just the belief that you should be free to engage in your own forms of bigotry, but not subject to anyone else's.

Good luck with the Anarchism, it is indeed several steps up on the hierarchy of intellectual conceits.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Well, Dadaism generally squares up for me, but it's a lot of work. And I don't own turtlenecks, so Nihilism was out. Universal Agnosticism was interesting, but ultimately puts one in the Apathy camp. That's so '90s.

If Trump is the new Nixon, Anarchism seems the most likely ethos to re-emerge in the near future.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I'm curious why you say so, as I recall her spewing vile homophobic and racist stuff long before Trump became politically relevant.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I saw based on extensive video game experience: there are semi-auto shotguns.

But as you say, there are reasons these are not the primary weapons issues to our soldiers, and the more typical type of shotgun has non-human-killing uses.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

IIRC, she had someone go to LGBT groups at Dartmouth in the 80s and then published the names of other people attending, outing them.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

"The gays":

1. Predate "traditional marriage" by millennia;
2. Have been with us since there's been an "us;"
3. Are found in almost all mammals (i.e., are more "natural" than monogamy);
4. Have sought no societal change except their acceptance;
5. Historically did not tax the safety nets as much as excessively breeding hetero "traditional families;"
6. Often maintained the nicest and safest neighborhoods (frequently rehabbing previously bad neighborhoods); and,
7. Tended to support higher brow arts and cultural institutions.

How is fucking with these people conservative? I think even Buckley had a hard time with this, lazily personifying Vidal as representative of all gays, and otherwise using preposterous Catholic Doctrine to justify their marginalization.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Fair point. I suppose it would be more accurate to say she is capable of doing better, if she were so inclined. Hannity, OTOH, simply isn't that bright.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I like the way that Williamson waits until the very end to make it clear that no matter how libertarian he says he is, he is a conservative at heart. A whole litany of Republican offenses against libertarianism, but with one throwaway phrase, a hyperbolic overriding of a single op-ed, he manages to equate the two parties. No matter how bad the Republican Party gets on his issues, he's not willing to cross over.

You and Williamson share a pathological need to find some excuse to never admit that Democrats are better on important things you profess to care about.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

this is how to deal with a grammar Timmy:

https://i.imgur.com/Gke0Ye6.jpg

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

He does admit earlier that the Democrats are now the party of free trade. It's a start.

Democrats are better on a number of issues. I've never argued otherwise:

1. Almost all social issues;
2. Justice reform (except when they cave to the tough-on-crime crowd a week before voting day, as often seems to be the case);
3. Environment

I cross over. Hell, I voted for John Kerry.

But this doesn't undo the fact that, in aggregate, in general character, both parties are defined by and filled with groups of people who wish to compel others to live as they want them to live. That's authoritarian.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

His piece is a complaint about what has happened to his party, and it's clear that it's still his party.

Libertarianism isn't a substantive philosophy. It's a preference for having unelected judges make law, law which tends to favored moneyed interests, rather than having the law made by elected legislatures, which tend to support things that the masses like. The reason why it appeals to so few people is that not many people are both rich and feel a need to dress up their self-interest in a purportedly abstracted set of ideals. Many rich people are perfectly happy to act out of naked self-interest instead of veiled self-interest. What's the point in being rich if you can't be clear about who you're sticking it to, and why?

First, that's not really what "authoritarian" means. Second, to say that either party is "defined by" people "who wish to compel others live as they want them to live" is tripe. I mean, it's just complete nonsense.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I think Libertarianism appeals to people who see the masses as fools who'd vote themselves into bankruptcy if allowed. In this regard, I tend to see a lot of merit in Libertarian arguments. We're a Republic and not a pure Democracy for a reason. A true Democracy would be a disaster.

But this lesson cuts both ways. Those "fuck the poor" sorts you describe, and the merchant class strivers behind them, have been pigs. They've taken too much for too long, and insulated themselves from the risk of their behaviors (Hi, Wall Street) to such an extent the statement, "the system is rigged" holds a lot of credibility.

In this regard, Libertarians are aligned against much of what the rich rely on to remain rich today: Rentier and Crony Capitalism. Libertarians don't care about you, or your family. But they don't desire to find a way to fuck the poor over and make them their debt slaves. There is a fairness to libertarians. It's the coldest of comforts, but it's there.

Regarding the meaning of authoritarianism, I know. I apply a broader meaning. I think anyone who thinks he knows what best for his fellow man and therefore thinks he has the right to enforce rules against his fellow man has authoritarian tendencies. He may couch his position as benignly as he likes, but at core, he's a dangerously arrogant person.

I think most people would do better to behave a lot differently than they do. But I feel much more strongly that they have the right to succeed or fail doing as they like, and I have no right to try to enshrine my personal tastes on how one should live in code or regulation of any kind. The right to free speech, where I might convince, cajole, manipulate, insult, or beg people to do as I think they should is all the right I have, or should have, over them.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

What you mean is, it appeals to people who don't want to pay taxes for redistribution and/or government services that they can just buy private alternatives to. In other words, rich people.

One of the rules of libertarian self-interest is to cloak it in some high-minded principle. Like, "democracy would be a disaster," rather than "democracy would be a disaster for me."

"aligned" in the sense of, "willing to occasionally say something high-minded and critical about but not interested in otherwise addressing in any way"

The sort of majestic fairness that lets both rich and poor sleep under bridges, and leaves us all free to have armed guards who will shoot those who climb into our gated compounds.

"broader" in the sense of, "entirely different"

I don't really think there are that many people who believe they think they know best for their fellow man and therefore think they have the right to enforce rules against them. I think people have complex ideas about what harms them, and seek to use politics to address what they see as externalities. For lefty environmentalists, they worry about pollution and seek to use government regulation to reduce it. For right-wing pro-lifers, they worry about modern culture's degradation of the traditional role of women and its endorsement by the government, and seek to use government regulation to outlaw abortion. In either case, they really think they are at risk of harm and are trying to use the government to protect themselves. If you don't care about the environment and are not sympathetic to environmentalists, then you discount the harms they see and complain that they are trying to control your life. If you don't care for traditional gender roles and want to treat women as equal to men, then you are not at all sympathetic to the harm seen by many social conservatives.

That, and you want the state to protect your money and and ability to use it to preserve a variety of benefits you have that others don't. Which seems like such a natural state of affairs to you that you don't even see it as an open question.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I've always thought of her as one of the worst of the worst, myself.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I was going to go with, "I would tell you how this is ridiculous, but Ty yells at me when I'm too dismissive."

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Especially when conversing with Sebby, it is important to stress that the lefty environmentalist may also think that others are at risk of harm and trying to use government to protect others.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Wow, this post made me unexpectedly happy.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I'm out of here for a while.

Your collective casual ignorance of the motivations and reasoning behind conservative thought has grown tiresome.

If I'm going to be insulted by idiots, I'd rather be on Twitter.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Sorry to see you go, and I thought I'd been clear (at least on my own behalf) that I was describing the people who now support Trump and call themselves conservatives, not you and people who don't.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

To be clear, motivations and reasoning I'm interested and sympathetic to, especially historically. Limited government, role of free market, personal versus collective rights - these are all themes that conservatives have thought on and that need to be reflected in some way in any reasonable person's thinking about the world.

Conservatives themselves, however, I'm done with. Fuck the whole hypocritical lot.*

* with a handful of exceptions, Ingraham definitely not among them, you, however, are among those exceptions. Probably some other company you feel half-ok about. Who are you on twitter, I'll follow and you can harass me there.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Oh, and by the way, in particular, Fuck Ted Cruz.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You've got to lift your game, Hank.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Bob Mankoff has me on ignore?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

That's not what I mean at all. I mean, if you create a system where people vote themselves benefits, they'll do so until the system collapses. We're seeing a variant of that right now in the 1-10%'s capture of the system. People will take until there's nothing left to take. True democracy doesn't empower the aggregate underclasses. It allows more people to vote themselves wealth transfers in smaller increments.

Rich, poor, middle - you can't allow people to grab economic benefits at the ballot box without causing dysfunctions and warped allocations.

True democracy is a universal disaster. No exceptions. Do I think smarter redistribution would lift more boats over the long term than this short term rentier/crony/financial engineering economy we have right now? Yes. That's why I'm not a serious libertarian. I think universal income is a solid economic/society-preserving idea. Libertarians who'd rather see us turn into Brazil demonstrate the limits of the ideology.

As opposed to the affluent Democrat ideal of redistributing so long as it doesn't hurt their bottom line? Say what you will of Rockefeller Republicans; they never felt the need to plead charitable bona fides while protecting their revenue streams. And Libertarians, of course, just don't give a fuck.

If you're telling someone what you believe they should do, and trying to pass rules to make him do it, for any reason, you've authoritarian tendencies. That you're a micro tin pot variety inflicting his will by encouraging others to vote a certain way just means you've less power and effectiveness than an actual one. If put in power, you'd try to compel people to act as you like. And that's on a continuum with Trump.

Sure there are. This place is littered with them. I even fall into it. Are you serious?

I'd trade it all to see true creative destruction of the kind we prevented in 2008. And I mean that with every fiber of my being. The stretch from 2008 through 2010, when it was seriously hairy, was the most fascinating set of events. That's how the system is supposed to clear out the dead weight. That should have been a reset that gave the little guys a chance. Instead, we allowed it to more aggressively entrench a very fragile and cynical system no one trusts anymore. Hence, populism.

Wait 'till it goes next time. Will you argue for fairness then, or will you do what so many charitable Democrats and Republicans do in those circumstances: Plead for the fix that protects your retirement?