Cards Against Humanity is like if I got control of a successful e-commerce site
-
@Intercourse said:
Absence of government and absolute freedom. What definition do you use?
Just absence of government, but remember the context:
@Intercourse said:
Libertarian does not mean anarchist. A libertarian errs on the side of liberty, that does not mean the liberty to shit all over minorities.
So I'm going to bow out and let you continue the argument with your shoulder aliens and anyone else who wants to participate.
-
So I'm going to bow out and let you continue the argument with your shoulder aliens and anyone else who wants to participate.
I am not trying to be obtuse, but I am really failing to see where my statements are at odds with each other...
-
@Intercourse said:
I am not trying to be obtuse, but I am really failing to see where my statements are at odds with each other...
For starters, what would be an example of the majority screwing over the minority that wouldn't be covered by laws against violence and supporting property rights? Note that no libertarian supports getting rid of those laws.
-
For starters, what would be an example of the majority screwing over the minority that wouldn't be covered by laws against violence and supporting property rights?
Employment laws...and that is all I can think of. I do not support "hate speech" laws or increased penalties for hate crimes, etc. Those things are already covered by existing laws against violence and I do not feel as though any speech (no matter how bigoted or hateful) should be legislated against.
There are still states in the union where a person can be fired solely for being gay. I am not OK with that.
-
@Intercourse said:
Employment laws...and that is all I can think of.
That's a pretty significant exception. As you said, one person's rights end where the another person's start. Libertarianism may have changed since I was a card-carrying member 20 years ago, but back then there wasn't a right to a job, at least not in the positive sense. There was a right to work for someone who agreed to hire you but that was just a subset of freedom of contract. Current employment laws do give a positive right to work, or at least a right that can't be taken away for certain arbitrary reasons, and the restrictions trump existing rights such as freedom of association and the employer's property rights in the salary he would be paying.
-
Libertarianism may have changed since I was a card-carrying member 20 years ago
Well, you are an antique.
I think it falls more in a difference in philosophy. There are very few people who fall completely in to a textbook definition of what an ideology is. Those who define themselves as liberal or conservative rarely fall 100% within those bounds. They usually have at least a point or two where they will differ with their party. Perhaps this is mine?
Those who just follow party lines are not thinking for themselves. I do not define myself by my aligned ideology, but libertarianism is the closest match. I am sure if you pick nits, you can find ways in which I differ from them. Oh well, I am OK with that. I am not going to argue with you about it.
Here is what I do know for certain: I am not a liberal. I believe too much in 2nd amendment rights, I believe in personal responsibility and I truly believe in capitalism. I am also not a conservative. I am very pro-choice. I find most conservative pundits to be complete and total fucking assholes.
There are other differences to be certain, but my mind is fatigued. This is our busy time of year and by the end of the day on Fridays my mind is pretty fried (deep fried, for my friend @boomzilla). I do know for certain that libertarianism fits my ideals most closely. Am I strictly party-line? Probably not. But that is the closest.
-
@Intercourse said:
Well, you are an antique.
Back when I was a Libertarian Party member, you had to sign a statement agreeing with the Non-Aggression Principle to join. I ended up leaving the party after concluding that the Non-Aggression Principle wasn't compatible with any government at all.
-
Non-Aggression Principle
Subtle difference, but I only capitalize libertarian when it comes at the beginning of a sentence. I believe in the ideals, but I have my differences with the party also. I am a little "l" libertarian.
-
And even the law changes we've had have lagged behind the social change. They have to, I mean I don't want to go all slippery slope, but if we start getting changes to the law that aren't supported by the majority of the population, we're on some incredibly unsure footing there.
You mean how a majority of people disapproved of interracial marriage until the mid 90s even though laws prohibiting it were declared unconstitutional in 1967? (Graph of support over time, according to Gallup polls. That's not the same as asking about approval of laws, but considering (1) the opinion difference was extremely large and (2) even in 2011, 40% of Alabama voters voted against repeal of their invalid law prohibiting it, I think it's a very reasonable assumption that decision lead public opinion by a significant margin even at a national level and certainly at a regional one.)Or how quite possibly a majority of people nationwide believed in segregated schools at the point of Brown v Board? And a majorly significant regional majority in the South? (I looked around for a bit; the best polling information I found was the following from the NY Times: "1942, 40 percent of white people in the North believed that "white students and Negro students should go to the same schools"; by 1956, 61 percent thought so. (In the South, 2 percent of whites thought so in 1942, 15 percent in 1956.)" If the populations of northern vs southern were, say, 2:1, that would be about 55% of whites in favor of segregated schools. According to the Census Bureau, the non-white population in 1960 was about 11%; if we assume they are unanimously opposed, that would put the proportion of Americans against segregation at only 51%. There are a lot of guesses going into that, and the majority swinging the other way is entirely possible. (Perhaps someone else will find better polling data to support or refute my point.)
-
You mean how a majority of people disapproved of interracial marriage until the mid 90s even though laws prohibiting it were declared unconstitutional in 1967?
Well shit, that's a tough one. Thank god for the constitution, I guess?
A big problem with this sort of thing is those people telling me what could be hurting them isn't that they're talking about what hurts them, but telling me how awful I am because of some hypothetical offense taken by a fictitious person based on a tendentious interpretation of something I didn't even say.
Are these real people that are doing this, or hypothetical people
? Getting back to the original topic for a moment: did you think the people complaining about Cards Against Humanity were real people, or hypothetical people? I felt that the details of the article sounded more like actual fans of the product complaining about a specific problem they had with it, rather than people going out of their way to get offended about something that didn't affect them.>Since when did it become a crime just to say what people are like?
+
Sometimes I like to conspiracy-theorize that political correctness was actually invented by forward thinking white men “if we can just get everyone to stop talking about race and sex and whatever, we'll never get our come-uppance.” Think about it: who does banning all realistic depictions of slavery really benefit?In South Africa, anyway, they needn't have bothered. The good team was more concerned about reparations than retribution, although of course you still got the people complaining that the reparations themselves were racist, like “where's my reparations, then?”
Edit: And of course, real people getting their voices silenced by the backlash against PC is just the icing on the fucking cake.
-
Are these real people that are doing this, or hypothetical people ?
Hypothetically? I don't know, you're the one talking about hypothetical people, so you tell me if you think they exist.
Getting back to the original topic for a moment: did you think the people complaining about Cards Against Humanity were real people, or hypothetical people?
Are you drinking? You're making up strawmen now that use some of the words that I used, but in different orders that make it important.
I felt that the details of the article sounded more like actual fans of the product complaining about a specific problem they had with it, rather than people going out of their way to get offended about something that didn't affect them.
The guy who burned the card in his sink wasn't a transvestite, passable or not, as I remember the article. I think you're thinking of something I didn't say.
Think about it: who does banning all realistic depictions of slavery really benefit?
I have no idea. Maybe modern slavers?
And of course, real people getting their voices silenced by the backlash against PC is just the icing on the fucking cake.
Who are these people, and how are they being silenced?
-
Goddamned, another "There ought to be a law" mouth breather.
And I know how naïve I sound with the whole “everyone just be nice to each other” deal, but I honestly believe that if people could just get where each other are coming from, that their natural human senses of empathy would be enough for us to not see people being fired just for who they are.
There are two types of people in the world: people who are nice to each other and follow the Golden Rule, and people who are the reason why we have laws.
-
if people could just get where each other are coming from, that their natural human senses of empathy would be enough
Perhaps, but "get[ting] where each other are coming from" can only be the result of a well-developed "natural human sense of empathy," and it is obvious that the lack of such a sense is widespread among humanity.
-
@Intercourse said:
Meh, I did not spell it out well before. I believe in always erring on the side of personal liberty, but my liberty ends when I impede on the liberty of someone else.
And thus we have a paradox where restricting some freedoms makes us more free.
@Intercourse said:
I would agree with that. Also, a very limited government. A libertarian believes that the power of government lies in the consent of the people to be governed. Too many people today believe the opposite of that. It seems like people do not question their government because they believe that is where the power comes from and that our rights are given to us by the government. That annoys me as a person who loves liberty.
This sounds like a fairly moderate position. When I hear "libertarian," images of anarcho-capitalists, collectors of shiny yellow metal, Freemen on the Land, and that Social Security recipient pop into my mind.
-
And thus we have a paradox where restricting some freedoms makes us more free.
Yeah, I am not really a "frothing at the mouth libertarian".
This sounds like a fairly moderate position.
But this is the first time in my life that I have been called a "moderate" about anything.
anarcho-capitalists
I am to some degree.
collectors of shiny yellow metal
Not at all. Gold is a shitty investment vehicle and the primary reason that it is at such high value right now is because of the artificial demand produced by those who push it as some sort of doomsday investment (you hear these adverts a lot when listening to conservative radio). Do you want a real "doomsday investment" in case we all descend in to some sort of Mad Max style of apocalyptic future? Stockpile bottled water. If society ever collapses, gold will be worthless, but clean drinking water will be priceless.
Freemen on the Land
Those guys are just loons. They think they found some sort of Konami code for real life.
that Social Security recipient
I agree with a few of her points, but overall she was a hypocritical loon.
-
you're the one talking about hypothetical people
Is that what you honestly believe? Because the way I remember it, you were the first to hypothesize about the existence of people who identify as transvestites, back atprobably find the card hilarious and feel marginalized because a card about them got taken out.
after which I linked to an organization that represents the actual people in question, clarifying their feelings on the matter, at which I got accused of being politically correct, which, frankly, is fucking bullshit; I wasn't politically correct, I was factually correct.Anyway, as for the kids on tumbler, you seem to be assuming that they were upset on behalf of some unknown third party, whereas I see no evidence that they weren't personally upset. Now we could sit here and hash out what we think their motivations were, or whether or not they are allowed to be upset by something like that, but all I'm saying is: that sounds more like something a feminist would do, than what someone who values personal freedom would.
-
Perhaps, but "get[ting] where each other are coming from" can only be the result of a well-developed "natural human sense of empathy," and it is obvious that the lack of such a sense is widespread among humanity.
LA LA LA LA l CAN'T HEAR YOU
-
Anyway, as for the kids on tumbler, you seem to be assuming that they were upset on behalf of some unknown third party, whereas I see no evidence that they weren't personally upset.
As I recall, the guy had friends who might have been described by the card, but not him.
after which I linked to an organization that represents the actual people in question, clarifying their feelings on the matter, at which I got accused of being politically correct, which, frankly, is fucking bullshit; I wasn't politically correct, I was factually correct.
OK. I remember you saying that. I was specifically referring to the guy who supposedly got it all started (plus other people in other instances not at all related to this).
Now we could sit here and hash out what we think their motivations were, or whether or not they are allowed to be upset by something like that, but all I'm saying is: that sounds more like something a feminist would do, than what someone who values personal freedom would.
The troll is strong in this one. I dunno, maybe you think valuers of personal freedom have terrible senses of humor that don't find derogatory jokes funny.
-
@Intercourse said:
Not at all. Gold is a shitty investment vehicle and the primary reason that it is at such high value right now is because of the artificial demand produced by those who push it as some sort of doomsday investment (you hear these adverts a lot when listening to conservative radio). Do you want a real "doomsday investment" in case we all descend in to some sort of Mad Max style of apocalyptic future? Stockpile bottled water. If society ever collapses, gold will be worthless, but clean drinking water will be priceless.
That was pretty much my point. Non-perishable food, water, ammunition, etc. are going to be infinitely more useful should we ever see true anarchy.
-
The troll is strong in this one.
Yeah, I just realized that a much better punchline would have been “...but then we really are getting into hypotheticals”.
Anyway, I don't really know why that guy got so upset, I can't speak for him, I can't say who's actually wrong or who's right. What I am really worried about though, is a system where one person or group gets upset, then someone else gets upset that they're upset, and things just kind of spiral out of control.
-
What I am really worried about though, is a system where one person or group gets upset, then someone else gets upset that they're upset, and things just kind of spiral out of control.
Yes. It seems like people get upset just that a particular topic is brought up. It doesn't even matter what was said. Case in point:
I've seen this story all over the place. OK, the guy should have gotten permission, but the reaction of the students seems pretty silly to me. If this thing had been put up 50 years ago, then their reaction makes sense. But I'm pretty sure there's no really active KKK in Iowa right now, so it's appearance shouldn't have provoked a fight or flight reaction among 20 year olds.
It's pretty sad how insular a lot of college kids seem to want their college experience to be these days.
-
There is a difference between being offended by actual words with context and being offended by an interpretation of what an art piece is supposed to be conveying. Whether or not there is an active klan in Iowa is completely missing the point.
-
I've seen this story all over the place. OK, the guy should have gotten permission, but the reaction of the students seems pretty silly to me. If this thing had been put up 50 years ago, then their reaction makes sense. But I'm pretty sure there's no really active KKK in Iowa right now, so it's appearance shouldn't have provoked a fight or flight reaction among 20 year olds.
It's pretty sad how insular a lot of college kids seem to want their college experience to be these days.
I think it's partly just a power trip. They get to punish people for being unorthodox or 'offensive', which means they get to punish people. So there you are, as an otherwise unremarkable 20-year-old, chasing a professor off campus and toppling artworks. If you've just come from suburbia, that must feel thrilling.
-
There is a difference between being offended by actual words with context and being offended by an interpretation of what an art piece is supposed to be conveying. Whether or not there is an active klan in Iowa is completely missing the point.
Being offended at something shouldn't give you any extra rights to begin with.
-
Being offended at something shouldn't give you any extra rights to begin with.
What do your words have to do with my words?
-
In other Cards Against Humanity news:
The companion video to the 2014 Holiday deck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI5qvjXbMp8The postal service needs to hurry the hell up.
Also, Taylor Swift music backing race riots and police oppression? Perhaps the best god damned thing I've ever seen.
-
If they think so, they are bigots, and I don't read articles by bigots.
Are "bigots" those little tufts of grass golfers knock out?
-
Being offended at something shouldn't give you any extra rights to begin with.
I agree with this, and I sometimes wonder what that type of “getting offended is always right” puritan would feel about the other type of puritan, the type that gets offended by different people's sexuality. Only for seconds at a time though, because duh.
The trouble is it's really hard to tell the difference between someone who's legitimately hurt and someone who's just trying to enforce some made-up morality.
-
Well, this article says that the artist removed it voluntarily after being asked to, and explains that the reason the students were upset is that this:
was displayed in the same place that they had held a Ferguson protest, just the night before.
-
The trouble is it's really hard to tell the difference between someone who's legitimately hurt and someone who's just trying to enforce some made-up morality.
That's because at a deeper level there really isn't a difference. If someone says something you feel hurt by, but you honestly feel you deserve it, or that they're trying to help you in some way, you don't complain. You complain when you feel you didn't deserve it. So there's morality built in.
-
That's because at a deeper level there really isn't a difference.
Not necessarily. The "someone who's just trying to enforce some made-up morality" may be complaining on behalf of someone else whom they think might be hurt, whether they are or not.
-
And that isn't trying to enforce some made-up morality?
Filed under: it's morality all the way down
-
And that isn't trying to enforce some made-up morality?
Sure it is, but it's different from a complaint by someone who is legitimately hurt. I don't think that's "some made-up morality."
-
There is a difference between being offended by actual words with context and being offended by an interpretation of what an art piece is supposed to be conveying
Yes, and these people didn't even try.
Whether or not there is an active klan in Iowa is completely missing the point.
Not really. At least, not the way I've interpreted what happened. This piece seems pretty obviously anti-KKK / racism / racist violence. But the robe appears to have required a trigger warning, which is just stupid in this case. If there were active KKK stuff in the area, it's legit to see it as a warning or a threat. But it's an anachronism, which should make one curious as to WTF is going on.
Unless you're a modern college student who requires a fainting couch in case something unpleasant might be glimpsed.
-
Well, that leads into a question that people have been arguing about for thousands of years: is morality objective or subjective? In other words, is it just there or was it made up by someone or something (and $DEITY counts as a something for this purpose)? "Legitimately hurt" implies an objective morality.
-
was displayed in the same place that they had held a Ferguson protest, just the night before.
Expecting reason from the irrational is going to disappoint. People protesting about Garner have a point. People protesting about Ferguson are idiots or people looking to cause trouble.
I hope that at least when someone whines after I point out that taxes are enforced by lethal force, mentioning Eric Garner will shut them the fuck up.
-
"Legitimately hurt" implies an objective morality.
That was poor wording on my part then. What you're saying about how feelings always gets tangled up in morality is true, and relevant; taking that into account I'd say that the two kinds of hurt I meant to distinguish between are the case where the hurt precedes the moralizing, and vice versa.
-
So I came up with a white card that I want made, that may result in me getting divorced. Who wants to hear it?
-
more importantly, how much will you pay us to not reveal who came up with the idea?
:evil:
-
-
Not really. At least, not the way I've interpreted what happened. This piece seems pretty obviously anti-KKK / racism / racist violence. But the robe appears to have required a trigger warning, which is just stupid in this case. If there were active KKK stuff in the area, it's legit to see it as a warning or a threat. But it's an anachronism, which should make one curious as to WTF is going on.
Unless you're a modern college student who requires a fainting couch in case something unpleasant might be glimpsed.
I think it's more that KKK robe is still a symbol of hate; it shows up without any context in the middle of a campus and people don't know how to interpret it.
If I go to a WW2 museum or an art exhibit and see a swastika, I have context. If my neighbor puts up some nifty swastika art in his front lawn, my first reaction wouldn't be "well there isn't an active Nazi party that I'm aware of around here, so it's obviously meant to be an artistic statement on the evils of genocide." And even if that were the case, I still don't want a fucking giant swastika next door to me.
I agree that some people over-reacted to the situation, but I can understand how that could happen.
-
If I go to a WW2 museum or an art exhibit and see a swastika, I have context.
I think there was some context, namely the "fabric" of the robe. Also, it's a known "art display" area. I'm also putting this into a context of universities being fairly hostile to all sorts of speech that doesn't pass the bien pensant sniff test.
I agree that some people over-reacted to the situation, but I can understand how that could happen.
Oh, yes, I understand how that can happen, too. Too bad the artist didn't put something in a jar of piss, or something.
-
What I am really worried about though, is a system where one person or group gets upset, then someone else gets upset that they're upset, and things just kind of spiral out of control.
No Exam Delay for Oberlin Students 'Traumatized' By Grand Jury Decisions
baslow/Flickr Last week, Robby wrote here about how "students are so coddled by the feelings-protection regime at university campuses that...
ZOMG, the prof said, "No."
Black students [at Oberlin] and other students of color have to focus on their survival and are expected to put energy into finals...
Apparently, Oberlin has The Most Dangerous Racist Game as part of intramurals.
-
So I came up with a white card that I want made, that may result in me getting divorced. Who wants to hear it?
Don't leave us hanging. Do tell.
-
Yeah, this one seems like a pretty clear example of someone using hypothetical suffering to try and get what they want. I don't know about you, but during my degree the student reps used every trick in the book to get stuff pushed back. The words ‘due date’ essentially lost all meaning.
-
the student reps used every trick in the book to get stuff pushed back. The words ‘due date’ essentially lost all meaning.
Could work if they were trying to get a midwife degree.
-
@Intercourse said:
Don't leave us hanging. Do tell.
I was only curious in how curious other people are.
-
>every trick in the book to get stuff pushed back
Could work if they were trying to get a midwife degree.
I am trying to picture this.
-
OffByOne:
every trick in the book to get stuff pushed back
Could work if they were trying to get a midwife degree.
I am trying to picture this.
Screw the broken quoting; there's only so far I willing to go to try to fix it.
Anyway, I think that comment was referring to
The words ‘due date’ essentially lost all meaning.
rather thanget stuff pushed back.
Although that does produce an interesting mental image.
-
I was only curious in how curious other people are.
Come ON man! The suspense is nearly killing me...
