Play Nice Random Chat Thread VII

Remove this Banner Ad

Oh goody, here we go.

1733307927296.png


We only give back what gets dished out.

No, you all start things unprovoked, insofar as people disagreeing with you is not a provocation for abuse.

Nice try though.

You can't tell the difference between us so you blame every thing on all of us like we're one person.

No, I don't. Which is why I refer to you as the 'clique', or specifically spell out your individual names, as I do frequently. You don't like treating a group of different posters as if they're one person? Let's come back to that further below...

I think you think me calling you racist is abuse, even tho you will still use images of black people, especially african americans, to conveyt exaggerated emotional reactions while never using images of white people in the same manner. This is the textbook definition of digital blackface as you've been shown. No doubt you think that was abuse and the images you posted a few pages back are totally legit.

Hahahahahahahaha see this right here is where you lose the faux-moral high ground you so desperately cling to, because it's a blatant and easily disproven lie.

I use "images of white people" all the bloody time. You literally had to scroll past me using a reaction GIF of a white person to post this dumb reply of yours;


1733307956203.png


You either intentionally ignore these (many, many) examples because they undercut your nonsense argument that using reaction GIFs that have black people in them is "racist", or you are completely oblivious to them because you go looking for things to be upset about, and your brain can't internalise anything that doesn't fit the agenda you're pushing. Which one is it?

Just so we're clear, those Ukrainian war boards had rules made (at my insistence) because of the use of racist language and are the only boards where I've copped a homophobic slur in the entire time I've been on BF. Less than three months ago.

Cool! The only place (online or in real life) I've been called racist in... countless years? is in this thread. By you.

They're the sort of people you're trying to impress by posting the tweet Val linked to - homophobic racists.

Sounds like you're treating a group of individual posters as one person. How curious...

Oh, and before you have a sook at me about this response and try and accuse me of "getting threads locked", try and have a look in the mirror there champ.
 
Yeah, not all forms of libertarianism are Rothbardian wank fests.

I didn't say they were.
Ever hear of Gerrard Winstanley? You calling him a fascist now?

You're really using an historical figure from the 1600s to support your argument? LOL
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I didn't say they were.

Yes you did

...Libertarian/Fascist

Look the simple difference is that Fascism or fascism both require a state with which they can exert power whereas libertarianism, or more specifically the small branch of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism rejects the existence of a state.

Also the statement "if you haven't done anything wrong, then surely you have nothing to worry about?" is actually one that gets associated with/used by classical liberals with a strong law and order bent or conservatives with a strong law and order bent. Or are you suggesting all of those groups of people (conservatives, classical/Menzies libs, anarcho capitalist, all other libertarians and fascists) are the same?

I guess you also mean that civil libertarian = civil fascist yeah? RFK Sr, MLK and Medger Evers were all fascists as well.

You're really using an historical figure from the 1600s to support your argument? LOL

Yes, simply to illustrate that some libertarian movements have centuries of history behind them.
 
Oh goody, here we go.

View attachment 2181808




No, you all start things unprovoked, insofar as people disagreeing with you is not a provocation for abuse.

Nice try though.



No, I don't. Which is why I refer to you as the 'clique', or specifically spell out your individual names, as I do frequently. You don't like treating a group of different posters as if they're one person? Let's come back to that further below...



Hahahahahahahaha see this right here is where you lose the faux-moral high ground you so desperately cling to, because it's a blatant and easily disproven lie.

I use "images of white people" all the bloody time. You literally had to scroll past me using a reaction GIF of a white person to post this dumb reply of yours;


View attachment 2181811


You either intentionally ignore these (many, many) examples because they undercut your nonsense argument that using reaction GIFs that have black people in them is "racist", or you are completely oblivious to them because you go looking for things to be upset about, and your brain can't internalise anything that doesn't fit the agenda you're pushing. Which one is it?



Cool! The only place (online or in real life) I've been called racist in... countless years? is in this thread. By you.



Sounds like you're treating a group of individual posters as one person. How curious...

Oh, and before you have a sook at me about this response and try and accuse me of "getting threads locked", try and have a look in the mirror there champ.
Yes, you're right.

I'm sorry, we don't need to go on about it any more.
 
Hmmm

Doesn’t seem fascist at all. Probably the opposite.
noun
  1. 1.
    an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
    "no true libertarian would ever support a culture where citizens must show their papers to travel"

  2. 2.
    a person who advocates civil liberty.

adjective
  1. relating to or denoting a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
    "he holds libertarian views on most social issues"
 
Look the simple difference is that Fascism or fascism both require a state with which they can exert power whereas libertarianism, or more specifically the small branch of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism rejects the existence of a state.

Yes, which the article I linked acknowledged, explained, and expanded on significantly. Did you read it?

Also the statement "if you haven't done anything wrong, then surely you have nothing to worry about?" is actually one that gets associated with/used by classical liberals with a strong law and order bent or conservatives with a strong law and order bent.

It's the 'nothing to hide' socio-political concept, and it is famously linked to attempts by conservative politicians to eliminate the right to privacy and expand the surveillance state. The largest and most famous examples in the last 20~ years are of course things like the Patriot Act in the US, as well as the use of technology to suppress the protests in Hong Kong by the Chinese government, etc.

I'm sure there probably have been "liberal" politicians who have pushed the same concept on the same level... but I'm struggling to think of any?


I guess you also mean that civil libertarian = civil fascist yeah? RFK Sr, MLK and Medger Evers were all fascists as well.

No, but they weren't "libertarian" either. The MLK example there is especially hilarious, considering Libertarians in the US staunchly opposed the Civil Rights movement...
 
Hmmm

Doesn’t seem fascist at all. Probably the opposite.
noun
  1. 1.
    an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
    "no true libertarian would ever support a culture where citizens must show their papers to travel"

  2. 2.
    a person who advocates civil liberty.

adjective
  1. relating to or denoting a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
    "he holds libertarian views on most social issues"

So you didn't read the article I linked either.

Is it really breaking news to you guys in here that there's a substantial and increasing link between 'libertarians' and 'fascists'? Especially in the US and UK? Are you guys really that disconnected from current events?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So you didn't read the article I linked either.

Is it really breaking news to you guys in here that there's a substantial and increasing link between 'libertarians' and 'fascists'? Especially in the US and UK? Are you guys really that disconnected from current events?

Meh I’m not interested in people changing the meaning of words because it fits their agenda.

Libertarians are all about individual autonomy, fascism is all about removing self autonomy. Couldn’t be any more different.
 
Libertarians are all about individual autonomy, fascism is all about removing self autonomy. Couldn’t be any more different.

I agree, and yet here we are.
 
Libertarians are fascists who’ve been pinched for kids or drugs stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
No they aren't.

You used to be smarter than that.

For example that article that Chad posted is conflating the ideas of neo liberalism with libertarianism so it can say both things equal fascism. This is a poor way to understand the situation and develop strategies to deal with it.

The incorrect use of language can interfere with people's ability to understand what they are talking about and to understand the world.

Free market fundamentalists use all these inaccurate terms to describe themselves in order to hide the fact that they are fundy's who believe in this mythological diety called the "free market" that is invisible, non existent, and has magical powers to manage the chaos that is humanity.

They're basically using the same structure that churches and monarchies used to justify their oppressive rule over most people. Some sort of "divine" justification based on the will of an illogical, unquantifiable entity that only they can truly understand and are truly chosen by. The proof of them being truly chosen was their positions of power.

Fundy's of any sort are dodgy, whatever religion they have - Christianity, Islam, Hunduism or economics.

All this arguing over names and definitions doesn't matter in the face of the implications of what economic fundamentalism will do to most humans on earth. Altho he didn't mean it that way, Hayek was right when he called neo liberalism/free market fundyism the Road to Serfdom.
 
Last edited:
Yes, which the article I linked acknowledged, explained, and expanded on significantly. Did you read it?

Of course I read it, it was garbage. It was pooorly written and didn't make a proper argument. it started with an idea and tried to weave words to fit that idea.
It's the 'nothing to hide' socio-political concept, and it is famously linked to attempts by conservative politicians to eliminate the right to privacy and expand the surveillance state. The largest and most famous examples in the last 20~ years are of course things like the Patriot Act in the US, as well as the use of technology to suppress the protests in Hong Kong by the Chinese government, etc.

Yes, these ideas aren't libertarian. If you think they are you have lost the ability to understand what words mean.

I'm sure there probably have been "liberal" politicians who have pushed the same concept on the same level... but I'm struggling to think of any?

Would you call Obama a modern liberal? He expanded the surveillence state. Liberalism is a right wing philosophy concerned with individual rights and responsibilities in the context of a strong state. Its a centrist philosophy compared to modern conservatism but still on the right - ie the side of individualism and individual rights governed and protected by a strong state.

No, but they weren't "libertarian" either. The MLK example there is especially hilarious, considering Libertarians in the US staunchly opposed the Civil Rights movement...

The Libertarian party was founded in 1971 and opposes any attempt by government to limit people's rights. It supports civil liberties for minorities and people of divergent sexualities. The Libertarians of the time opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds, not ethical or political ones. They were supportive of the principles but not the use of executive federal power to uphold those principles. They felt it would be more appropriate to use the judiciary to attack Jim Crow laws for their lack of constitutionality.

Personally I think that's a naive view but I don't think it malicious.
 
Moldbug (who's a libertarian) has actually made really interesting arguments that libertarianism necessitates authoritarianism because the only way of achieving a minimal state is with a strong government that enforces a strict hierarchy. Not all libertarians are authoritarians, but the two ideas are hardly incompatible and there are a lot of libertarians who have authoritarian and fascistic streaks (as evidenced by Moldbug's significant online following).
 
The shooter was very calm, used a silencer. Looks like he (assuming it’s a male) even picked up the casings.

Edit- didn’t exactly pick them up but withdrew them as he was using some sort of weapon and ammunition along with the silencer that causes the gun to jamb, but it’s pretty clear he knew what he was doing…according to us gun dorks discussing the hit.
 
Last edited:
Moldbug (who's a libertarian) has actually made really interesting arguments that libertarianism necessitates authoritarianism because the only way of achieving a minimal state is with a strong government that enforces a strict hierarchy. Not all libertarians are authoritarians, but the two ideas are hardly incompatible and there are a lot of libertarians who have authoritarian and fascistic streaks (as evidenced by Moldbug's significant online following).

Spot on.
 
Moldbug (who's a libertarian) has actually made really interesting arguments that libertarianism necessitates authoritarianism because the only way of achieving a minimal state is with a strong government that enforces a strict hierarchy. Not all libertarians are authoritarians, but the two ideas are hardly incompatible and there are a lot of libertarians who have authoritarian and fascistic streaks (as evidenced by Moldbug's significant online following).
Why the hell do people follow alt-right ideology, he aint libertarian.
he is just using a collection of terms or word salad, to entice people into techno feudalism, don't believe me look up his ties to Thiel.
 
Moldbug (who's a libertarian) has actually made really interesting arguments that libertarianism necessitates authoritarianism because the only way of achieving a minimal state is with a strong government that enforces a strict hierarchy. Not all libertarians are authoritarians, but the two ideas are hardly incompatible and there are a lot of libertarians who have authoritarian and fascistic streaks (as evidenced by Moldbug's significant online following).
He's not a libertarian and has written essays pointing out why. He's a bit of a nutter but well read.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Random Chat Thread VII

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top