Fuck this place

[Rhywden]

@djls45 No, there's no way to ignore a person. You can only ignore categories.

And, secondly, yes, it's hard. I know that. But to throw your hands up in the air and say: "That's too hard!" is not a solution, that's surrender.

Thirdly, you'll note that I called for moderation (in case anyone does not know what that means, please look it up) and was immediately accused of wanting censorship.

[Rhywden]

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Is that really so hard to understand, the lot of you?

[Tsaukpaetra]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

Is that really so hard to understand, the lot of you?

I mean, if it's not obvious by now...

Though, to be certain, some may view moderation as a form of censorship.

[Rhywden]

@Tsaukpaetra If they really want to have a discussion then that's the way it has to be.

And by that I mean: A discussion where everyone can participate and not only those who have become calloused.

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

No, actually, I'm thinking that this is pretty much evidence of the big pendulum which is soooo en vogue with humanity all over the ages: "There's too much of A" => Backlash => "Let's do the opposite of A!" => Backlash => "The opposite is dumb, let's go back to A again!"

That's a problem that's going to plague us until the our extinction. People just put it too far and the consequences bite us in the arse. Try another idea and that bites us in the arse when it's pushed too far. People don't read history and learn from those mistakes. Socialism being the case in point. Everywhere it's tried it's failed, with over a hundred million deaths to its name, yet there a lot of people that still try to push it. There are still some countries that push it but oddly enough there isn't a mass exodus to go live in them. Nice places to visit but people probably won't live there.

Instead of trying to find a middle ground in the first place. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Free speech can be very dangerous - if you cannot recognize that then there's no further point in discussing this.

And it's language like that kills debate. It comes off as sounding like you think you're completely right and there is no room for discussion. We know that it can be dangerous. We just don't feel the need to legislate for it with nebulous hate speech and obsinity laws. Those lead to compelled speech laws in Canada and someone being brought to court for a joke in Britian.

I mean, just look at the lawsuit against Alex Jones from the parents of Sandy Hook. Jones actually argues that he had "psychosis" - he clearly recognizes that his statements were morally wrong (even if he later continued to peddle his conspiracy theories in the deposit!)

Funnily enough that makes my argument. He has the freedom to say those things but has the responsibility to deal with the repercussions of his speech. He has being sued many times and he's being kicked off the major platforms. Freedom to say those things but responsible for the fallout.

And then he promptly once again tries the 1st amendment as his defensive shield.

He has a terrible solicitor if that is true. The government wasn't trying to restrict his speech. He was probably being sued in the civil courts for defamation. If the government did try to restrict his speech that's a problem for us all to get involved in.

Or take the anti-vaccination crowd. Another example where absolute free speech has shown to be an actual killer. Not to mention my own country's "glorious" past - Goebbels fascinated the crowds with his speech.

And we should over legislate because of a couple outliers? The antivaxxers are slowly being banned from schools and colleges. This will probably expand to work places soon because they are a danger. A problem that is taking care of itself. Goebbels I don't know enough to comment on but I sense the problem there was no dissenting voices.

Basically, speech is a tool. It is not an end in and of itself - and it matters what you use it for. Too few or no rules - and you've got a problem because the "marketplace of ideas where the best one wins out" simply does not work. Too many rules and you have another problem, of oppression this time.

This is why I think the American system is better. The government doesn't get involved but there is scope in the civil courts to sue for slander and defamation. It's the responsibility of the people to take care of themselves.

That goes for everything else as well. You've got freedom of movement - but that doesn't mean you can simply go everywhere you like. And so on and so forth. There's a limit to everything.

Funnily enough one of the biggest issues for Brexit was border control. Nice that you can see their point of view on that one.

I mean, it's funny how "not being allowed to say something" and "being allowed to say something but immediately being insulted, shouted at and receive death threats over" look very similar. Both make most people shut up, after all.

There's a very big difference though. In one of those scenarios you have the option to speak but choose not too. Choice is the operative word here. Once you see the difference you'll understand how important that Free Speech is.

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Is that really so hard to understand, the lot of you?

More moderation would help but you're running into two problems. There is one or two active mods and we produce north of 1000 posts a day. There isn't enough time for them to read and jeff everything. The users would have to be more proactive in notifying them.

Second problem :

[Rhywden]

@DogsB I'm not responding to all of this, sorry. I really dislike this "pull apart single sentences instead of replying as a full paragraph".

As such, I'll only reply to the last part: Sorry, I don't see much of a "choice" there - if you want to frame one of the two as inherently better somehow, I see that as a rather dishonest tactic. The endresult is the same. Only the actors are different - in one it's the government, in the other case it's a howling mob.

[Rhywden]

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Is that really so hard to understand, the lot of you?

More moderation would help but you're running into two problems. There is one or two active mods and we produce north of 1000 posts a day. There isn't enough time for them to read and jeff everything. The users would have to be more proactive in notifying them.

And? Again, that's the "But it's tooooo hard!" argument.

[Gąska]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Well, you literally used the word "censorship" in the post I was replying to It was more of an essay on the topic of not all speech being good, not really related to the situation on this forum or any of the proposed solutions.

[Rhywden]

@Gąska said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Well, you literally used the word "censorship" in the post I was replying to It was more of an essay on the topic of not all speech being good, not really related to the situation on this forum or any of the proposed solutions.

Okay, please show me where I asked for actual censorship. Until you can do so (and it'll be a long wait) I think I'll take your posts with a big grain of salt since you clearly don't read what I write.

And please, the opposing arguments are not any better. It's always a high-minded appeal to the 1st amendment and stuff. Which also isn't really related to the situation on this forum if we apply the same qualifiers you're using right now.

[marczellm]

I considered opening a topic in the Salon asking "What ideas constitute right-libertarianism in simple terms?"
as I'm Hungarian and I've never even heard the word "libertarian" used by anyone around here much less defined, but I can see that in the US this is sort of important.

Then I decided that I don't care.

[Gąska]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Well, you literally used the word "censorship" in the post I was replying to It was more of an essay on the topic of not all speech being good, not really related to the situation on this forum or any of the proposed solutions.

Okay, please show me where I asked for actual censorship.

Please show me where I accused you of that.

[Rhywden]

@Gąska said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Well, you literally used the word "censorship" in the post I was replying to It was more of an essay on the topic of not all speech being good, not really related to the situation on this forum or any of the proposed solutions.

Okay, please show me where I asked for actual censorship.

Please show me where I accused you of that.

Okay, your argument does not make any sense:

Me: "I don't want A but I want B"
You: "Blah Blah blah A is blah blah You and A blah blah"
Me: "I don't care about A and in fact don't want it."
You: "But you used the word A!"

This is, in fact, a perfect example of what I was talking about: Me calling for moderation not censorship and the rest getting all hung up on the word censorship despite me repeatedly stating that this is not what I'm talking about.

[boomzilla]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

I myself am not receptive to any arguments by boomzilla or anyone else of his ilk anymore - his willful ignorance, his petty cherry-picking and his superiority complex don't really show me that his arguments are anything worth listening to.

Eh, the feeling is amusingly (and probably predictably) mutual.

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

As such, I'll only reply to the last part: Sorry, I don't see much of a "choice" there - if you want to frame one of the two as inherently better somehow, I see that as a rather dishonest tactic. The endresult is the same. Only the actors are different - in one it's the government, in the other case it's a howling mob.

So you see no distinction between a government using its power as a cudgel to prevent speech over someone choosing not to say something because of a howling mob?

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Is that really so hard to understand, the lot of you?

More moderation would help but you're running into two problems. There is one or two active mods and we produce north of 1000 posts a day. There isn't enough time for them to read and jeff everything. The users would have to be more proactive in notifying them.

And? Again, that's the "But it's tooooo hard!" argument.

So you expect someone else, at the expenditure of their own time, to moderate the forums to your satisfaction? Do you at least inform the mods when something needs their attention?

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

And please, the opposing arguments are not any better. It's always a high-minded appeal to the 1st amendment and stuff. Which also isn't really related to the situation on this forum if we apply the same qualifiers you're using right now.

I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read the 1st amendment nor do you know what it actually protects.

[Rhywden]

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

As such, I'll only reply to the last part: Sorry, I don't see much of a "choice" there - if you want to frame one of the two as inherently better somehow, I see that as a rather dishonest tactic. The endresult is the same. Only the actors are different - in one it's the government, in the other case it's a howling mob.

So you see no distinction between a government using its power as a cudgel to prevent speech over someone choosing not to say something because of a howling mob?

Just today there was an article about someone being driven to suicide by the conspiracy theories around Sandy Hook peddled by the vile Alex Jones. Who promptly proceeded to make this suicide another conspiracy theory.

There may be a difference in scale - but the quality certainly is not different.

[Rhywden]

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

Do you at least inform the mods when something needs their attention?

Why should I bother in this place? What for? We are having this discussion here precisely because of there being no rules.

[Rhywden]

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

And please, the opposing arguments are not any better. It's always a high-minded appeal to the 1st amendment and stuff. Which also isn't really related to the situation on this forum if we apply the same qualifiers you're using right now.

I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read the 1st amendment nor do you know what it actually protects.

Free speech arguments / 1st amendment / blah. Amounts to the same level of arguments - it's a holy cow and somehow that is the hill they want to die on.

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

As such, I'll only reply to the last part: Sorry, I don't see much of a "choice" there - if you want to frame one of the two as inherently better somehow, I see that as a rather dishonest tactic. The endresult is the same. Only the actors are different - in one it's the government, in the other case it's a howling mob.

So you see no distinction between a government using its power as a cudgel to prevent speech over someone choosing not to say something because of a howling mob?

Just today there was an article about someone being driven to suicide by the conspiracy theories around Sandy Hook peddled by the vile Alex Jones. Who promptly proceeded to make this suicide another conspiracy theory.

There may be a difference in scale - but the quality certainly is not different.

You appear to have gone off on a tangent about Alex Jones again. Can you explain how Alex Jones figures into government putting controls on speech Vs someone choosing not to speak for fear of mob reprisal? Or is Alex Jones an example of speaking out despite mob reprisal?

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

Do you at least inform the mods when something needs their attention?

Why should I bother in this place? What for? We are having this discussion here precisely because of there being no rules.

So you want the place to improve to you're liking but you're not willing to put in the effort to help? Someone else should do it? Is it too hard?

Most of regulars are fine with the status quo except for the leakage.

[Rhywden]

@DogsB Seriously, dude, you're just being contrarian now. Read my posts. And don't bother replying until you've read and understood them.

Also don't bother slicing them and replying to each individual sentence. Either write a coherent text or be quiet.

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@DogsB said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

And please, the opposing arguments are not any better. It's always a high-minded appeal to the 1st amendment and stuff. Which also isn't really related to the situation on this forum if we apply the same qualifiers you're using right now.

I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read the 1st amendment nor do you know what it actually protects.

Free speech arguments / 1st amendment / blah. Amounts to the same level of arguments - it's a holy cow and somehow that is the hill they want to die on.

I take it you haven't read and can't be bothered understanding what they're arguing for then.

[DogsB]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@DogsB Seriously, dude, you're just being contrarian now. Read my posts. And don't bother replying until you've read and understood them.

And from where I'm sitting it looks like you've realised your arguments have run flat and now your running. I'm not being a contrarian. I just want to know your line of reasoning for curtailing speech and how you prevent that from becoming a tyranny?

Also I mentioned a mirror recently. You're behaving in exactly the same way that you accuse boomzilla of behaving.

Also don't bother slicing them and replying to each individual sentence. Either write a coherent text or be quiet.

If you don't like your rambles dissected then be more coherent and holistic.

[djls45]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@djls45 No, there's no way to ignore a person. You can only ignore categories.

I was thinking of using CSS to hide posts by certain people or something like that. I've not looked into it, but I recall reading some posts claiming that people have done that. Maybe I'm wrong and they were just choosing to skip over their posts.

And, secondly, yes, it's hard. I know that. But to throw your hands up in the air and say: "That's too hard!" is not a solution, that's surrender.

Thirdly, you'll note that I called for moderation (in case anyone does not know what that means, please look it up) and was immediately accused of wanting censorship.

Do you mean self-moderation (being careful to avoid antagonism in one's own posts) or moderation enforced by others (e.g. editing or deleting other people's posts, or banning antagonistic individuals)? The latter is censorship, which a private entity (like WTDWTF), but not the (US, at least) government, does have a right to enforce on its userbase. But that would very likely drive away a large number of participants, because they would not be able to express their own thoughts; they would be filtered through someone else's personal opinions.

[djls45]

@marczellm said in Fuck this place:

I considered opening a topic in the Salon asking "What ideas constitute right-libertarianism in simple terms?"
as I'm Hungarian and I've never even heard the word "libertarian" used by anyone around here much less defined, but I can see that in the US this is sort of important.

Basically it comes down to the idea that individuals should be allowed to do almost anything they want (along with the accompanying responsibility for those actions), as long as it doesn't directly negatively impact anyone else. In effect, it means that they believe that government should be as small as possible.
I think it sorta corresponds to the European idea of "liberal."

Then I decided that I don't care.

Too late. I answered anyways. :D

[Cursorkeys]

@djls45 said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@djls45 No, there's no way to ignore a person. You can only ignore categories.

I was thinking of using CSS to hide posts by certain people or something like that. I've not looked into it, but I recall reading some posts claiming that people have done that. Maybe I'm wrong and they were just choosing to skip over their posts.

What's wrong with Blocks? Do you only want to hide their posts in certain places or something?

Go to Profile->Triple-dot-menu->Blocks, search for their username and add it to the list.

Worked just fine when I tried it.

[djls45]

@Cursorkeys said in Fuck this place:

@djls45 said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@djls45 No, there's no way to ignore a person. You can only ignore categories.

I was thinking of using CSS to hide posts by certain people or something like that. I've not looked into it, but I recall reading some posts claiming that people have done that. Maybe I'm wrong and they were just choosing to skip over their posts.

What's wrong with Blocks? Do you only want to hide their posts in certain places or something?

I think that was the goal. I don't have anyone blocked, nor do I wish to, but I can see the point in partial-blocking certain people who are inflammatory in the Garage, but have interesting comments in other categories.

[topspin]

@djls45 said in Fuck this place:

@marczellm said in Fuck this place:

I considered opening a topic in the Salon asking "What ideas constitute right-libertarianism in simple terms?"
as I'm Hungarian and I've never even heard the word "libertarian" used by anyone around here much less defined, but I can see that in the US this is sort of important.

Basically it comes down to the idea that individuals should be allowed to do almost anything they want (along with the accompanying responsibility for those actions), as long as it doesn't directly negatively impact anyone else.

Is that really different from any other ideology? It’s really a matter of where you draw the line of what does impact anyone else which is different.

[djls45]

@topspin said in Fuck this place:

@djls45 said in Fuck this place:

@marczellm said in Fuck this place:

I considered opening a topic in the Salon asking "What ideas constitute right-libertarianism in simple terms?"
as I'm Hungarian and I've never even heard the word "libertarian" used by anyone around here much less defined, but I can see that in the US this is sort of important.

Basically it comes down to the idea that individuals should be allowed to do almost anything they want (along with the accompanying responsibility for those actions), as long as it doesn't directly negatively impact anyone else.

Is that really different from any other ideology? It’s really a matter of where you draw the line of what does impact anyone else which is different.

I suppose:
"directly, negatively" vs. "indirectly, negatively" vs. "directly, non-positively" vs. "indirectly, non-positively"

And yes, how it impacts is relevant. I think the libertarian position is that laws can be against only direct physical harm; indirect harm, psychological harm, and arbitrary harm to a class (instead of to individuals) ought not have laws against them, because they would encroach on direct, personal freedom.

[Groaner]

@marczellm said in Fuck this place:

I considered opening a topic in the Salon asking "What ideas constitute right-libertarianism in simple terms?"
as I'm Hungarian and I've never even heard the word "libertarian" used by anyone around here much less defined, but I can see that in the US this is sort of important.

The goal is the smallest government possible, usually only enough to enforce contracts and maintain an active military. At the same time, this government would also stay out of bedrooms and not regulate drugs.

There is, of course, a spectrum of more government <-> less government along which libertarians will fall, with the extreme resembling something like anarcho-capitalism. Such extremes are frequently invoked as criticism of libertarianism and employed as parodies, with notable examples including the Ferengi in Star Trek, the Libertarian Police Department, and Somalia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ul-Efi1Xys

[admiral_p]

@Groaner thanks, I now have cholera.

[admiral_p]

@djls45 European liberals do not go as far as libertarians. No European liberal party (not even those in the fringes, AFAIK) calls for a shift to non-universal healthcare, for example. American libertarians (and the Polish retroguard here on WTDWTF) tend to have very intransigent views on personal freedom.

[MrL]

@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:

@djls45 European liberals do not go as far as libertarians. No European liberal party (not even those in the fringes, AFAIK) calls for a shift to non-universal healthcare, for example. American libertarians (and the Polish retroguard here on WTDWTF) tend to have very intransigent views on personal freedom.

What do you mean by "European liberal party"? Parties that are in EU Parliament?
Or all parties in all european countries? I don't think you know all of them.

In Poland we have WiP that proposes that. They got to EU Parliament in last elections.

[antiquarian]

@djls45 said in Fuck this place:

I suppose:
"directly, negatively" vs. "indirectly, negatively" vs. "directly, non-positively" vs. "indirectly, non-positively"
And yes, how it impacts is relevant. I think the libertarian position is that laws can be against only direct physical harm; indirect harm, psychological harm, and arbitrary harm to a class (instead of to individuals) ought not have laws against them, because they would encroach on direct, personal freedom.

A big part of Libertarianism is the idea that you don't get more rights just because you're part of a large group. If government derives its power from the consent of the governed, then it really only has the right to do things the people it governs have the right to do. For example, government has the right to make laws against violent and property crimes because people have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Whether the above is realistic is a question I leave to the reader. As for my personal opinion, I'll just say that I'm no longer a Libertarian Party member and leave it at that.

[pie_flavor]

@antiquarian said in Fuck this place:

Libertarian Party

Little-l libertarianism is noble and all, but the Libertarian Party is essentially "weeeeeeeeed"

[MathNerdCNU]

@pie_flavor I mean, obvious vice-tax is obvious but that good ol' "Taxation is theft!!!11ExclamationEmphasishs!!111OneoneBang" seems to be a hard line some people can't give up on.

[Gąska]

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska said in Fuck this place:

@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska Again, for the n-th time I'm not calling for censorship I'm for moderation.

Well, you literally used the word "censorship" in the post I was replying to It was more of an essay on the topic of not all speech being good, not really related to the situation on this forum or any of the proposed solutions.

Okay, please show me where I asked for actual censorship.

Please show me where I accused you of that.

Okay, your argument does not make any sense:

Me: "I don't want A but I want B"
You: "Blah Blah blah A is blah blah You and A blah blah"
Me: "I don't care about A and in fact don't want it."
You: "But you used the word A!"

Not quite. For one, I didn't even mention you once in my entire post (anti-: except for the @mention before quote, but that's different kind of mentioning - I mean I haven't talked about you at all). I just used your sentence about how mandating people avoid some style of talking and instead use another one isn't censorship, to post my thought on a vaguely relevant topic. There was no "you and A". There was no accusation of wanting censorship. And to my surprise, I didn't even use the word "censorship" in my whole post (anti-: except in quote of your post, but that's not really my fault). It was about the risks of taking out some phrases out of public discourse and accepting this as normal - no matter how formal or informal the taking out is.

This is, in fact, a perfect example of

...you seeing things in people's posts that aren't there.

[Gąska]

I recommend reading the post above tomorrow - the parenthesized part will make more sense.

[admiral_p]

@MrL I said AFAIK. I suppose I stand corrected.

[Gąska]

@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:

@pie_flavor I mean, obvious vice-tax is obvious but that good ol' "Taxation is theft!!!11ExclamationEmphasishs!!111OneoneBang" seems to be a hard line some people can't give up on.

An overdose of Occam's razor has led me to believe that taxation is indeed theft (actually extortion), but theft (and extortion) is sometimes socially acceptable and there's nothing wrong with that.

[admiral_p]

@MrL actually, my dear boomzilla alt, according to Wikipedia WiP only lasted less than a year. It was a weird mix of monarchists, libertarians and otherwise conservatives. The party then morphed to another called "Congress of the New Right" (take that, @Gąska!) which, according to Wikipedia again, got no seats anywhere in the Polish parliament and managed to get two seats in the EU Parliament, that's true. But their positions are still weird. They are for decriminalisation of drugs but they oppose same-sex marriage. They are against the parliamentary system and for a presidential system (which in my opinion should be against the ethos of a libertarian, as it makes government power more concentrated in the hands of one person). They are libertarian on economics but I can't see whether they've got rid of the monarchists (and again I can't see a libertarian espousing monarchism in any way really).

[admiral_p]

@Gąska is Robin Hood "fought against oppression and tyranny" or "entitled libtard, fuck you, give me money"?

[Gąska]

@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:

@MrL actually, my dear boomzilla alt, according to Wikipedia WiP only lasted less than a year.

They're rebranding a lot, but it's still the same people.

The party then morphed to another called "Congress of the New Right" (take that, @Gąska!)

Dunno what that's supposed to mean, but "new right" would be the best name for that libertarian-ish-y patriot-ish-y movement that spread across Europe a few years ago. Too bad it never caught on.

[Gąska]

@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:

@Gąska is Robin Hood "fought against oppression and tyranny" or "entitled libtard, fuck you, give me money"?

Depends on who you ask. What's socially acceptable depends a lot on what's society like.

[admiral_p]

@Gąska so libertarians ≈ new right = alt-right confirmed.

[Gąska]

@admiral_p <trump_wrong.gifv>

[MrL]

@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:

@MrL actually, my dear boomzilla alt, according to Wikipedia WiP only lasted less than a year. It was a weird mix of monarchists, libertarians and otherwise conservatives. The party then morphed to another called "Congress of the New Right" (take that, @Gąska!) which, according to Wikipedia again, got no seats anywhere in the Polish parliament and managed to get two seats in the EU Parliament, that's true. But their positions are still weird. They are for decriminalisation of drugs but they oppose same-sex marriage. They are against the parliamentary system and for a presidential system (which in my opinion should be against the ethos of a libertarian, as it makes government power more concentrated in the hands of one person). They are libertarian on economics but I can't see whether they've got rid of the monarchists (and again I can't see a libertarian espousing monarchism in any way really).

You asked for a liberal party in EU, which goes as far as proposing private healthcare - there you have it.

[admiral_p]

Hohoho, the guy (up to four years ago) behind the Polish "New Right" is a real character:

Janusz Korwin-Mikke - Wikipedia

Korwin-Mikke is a self-declared monarchist and thinks that democracy is the "stupidest form of government ever conceived" where "two bums from under a beer stand have twice as many votes as a university professor".

How does hereditary nobility enter the equation? I have about 3000 years of history to show him, including exhilarating Imperial Rome. (To be honest I see the latter proclaimed by many "progressives" too though).

One of Korwin-Mikke's idiosyncratic claims that caught public attention was him denying the basis for women's suffrage, as according to him most women were not interested in politics anyway and would more often vote for a welfare state. He also claims that women are generally less intelligent than men.

However, he also makes it clear that he perceives intelligence as a very specific criterion and that on average, women have better memory and are generally wiser and more patient than men.

That's nice of him.

To back up his claims, he pointed out that in the top 100 chess players there is only one woman.

Chess skills are not an indicator of intelligence, "you retard" (wink wink).

On the other hand, he does not deny women the passive right to vote

That's nice of him².

and he claims that Margaret Thatcher is his political authority; he attended her funeral.

I have many black friends.

Other provocative statements include his claim that there is no written proof that Adolf Hitler was aware of the Holocaust.

Woooah!

He also stated that the difference between rape and consensual sex is very subtle.

I sort of see his point ("no" and "stop" is just one syllable after all, innit?!), but if the translation is correct and he didn't use any qualifiers at all, he's still retarded (wink wink). Also because at most the border between the hardest forms of consensual sex and the mildest forms of rape won't be of infinite thickness, but rape, like everything else these days, is a spectrum.

He further claimed that: "there is a hypothesis that the attitudes of men are passed to women by way of the semen which penetrates the tissue... now when contraceptives are much more in use, the women become much more independent".

<Jackiechan.jpg>

In July 2015, Korwin-Mikke was suspended from the European Parliament after giving a Nazi salute and saying "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein ticket" during a speech to protest against a uniform EU transport ticket.

Epic moustache though. I have the same, but I accompany it with epic sideburns too, and mine's not white.