Cultural Libertarianism

[Dev]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ertarians/

[Dev]

[BurtReynolds]

.

[Dev]

[Dev]

I don't think I can handle anything rated "rebellious".

just watch it.

[Green Habit]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ertarians/

I interpreted this as "I want to be able to express whatever I want without anyone ever calling me out". That's not how true freedom of expression works.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[4/5]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ertarians/

I interpreted this as "I want to be able to express whatever I want without anyone ever calling me out". That's not how true freedom of expression works.

then you interpreted it wrongly.

This response is rated "R" for Rebellious.

[Green Habit]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ertarians/

I interpreted this as "I want to be able to express whatever I want without anyone ever calling me out". That's not how true freedom of expression works.

then you interpreted it wrongly.

It just seems to me that so many people along this line of thought can dish it out but can't take it. When one person criticizes another person's statement as offensive/bigoted/whatever, they're using their own right of freedom of expression to build their case to the general public.

I also got a chuckle that two of their manifesto points were "An end to nannying and “safe space” culture" and "Defending spaces for uncomfortable opinions." Seems to me that they want their own "safe space" to themselves.

[Dev]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ertarians/

I interpreted this as "I want to be able to express whatever I want without anyone ever calling me out". That's not how true freedom of expression works.

then you interpreted it wrongly.

It just seems to me that so many people along this line of thought can dish it out but can't take it. When one person criticizes another person's statement as offensive/bigoted/whatever, they're using their own right of freedom of expression to build their case to the general public.

I also got a chuckle that two of their manifesto points were "An end to nannying and “safe space” culture" and "Defending spaces for uncomfortable opinions." Seems to me that they want their own "safe space" to themselves.

Interesting critique, but I'm not sure it works. We are attacking the function of and rhetoric behind the safe space, but also protesting the fact the people are unfairly demonized as bigots constantly(which I guess is why you say we are creating a safe space for those being demonized).

I didn't put much effort into finding a great introductory article, but I feel like that one made many of the major points.

[Green Habit]

While I'm at it, another one of their bullet points has the term "identity politics", a term that I'm really growing to hate on the basis of redundancy. The very nature of politics is for people with similar viewpoints to group together and advocate for something. Everyone has an "identity" when they participate in politics, but only certain political groups get tarred with the term.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[Dev]

While I'm at it, another one of their bullet points has the term "identity politics", a term that I'm really growing to hate on the basis of redundancy. The very nature of politics is for people with similar viewpoints to group together and advocate for something. Everyone has an "identity" when they participate in politics, but only certain political groups get tarred with the term.

fair enough but it's frustrating how progressives have mobilized the left in general. If people really understood the more extreme points of their platform, they probably would be more weary about supporting it.

I noticed something funny in a Bernie Sanders ad the other day. The narrator said that they would work on fairer wages, and smaller text on the screen mentioned fair wages for women. The spoken comment has broader appeal, but then there is also the small addendum made for the morons who believe there is actually a wage gap.

[Green Habit]

No it doesn't. Why do you think they can't take it? Bill Maher seems to love it.

Perhaps "would rather not want to take it" is a better wording there.

This has nothing to do with "being offended that someone is offended" or other circular nonsense. One can point out that offense is often meritless and based on unthinking dogmatic political correctness (or worse: purposefully deceptive political opportunism). It's often misguided, destructive, counter-productive, and anti-liberal. Its made worse by the fact that there is little scientific evidence to support bullshit like "microaggressions" at all.

The only person that gets to decide what's offensive to themselves is that person. Others can try to make a constructive case to them to change their minds, but simply declaring offense as meritless strikes me as what's counter-productive and anti-liberal.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[Green Habit]

I'm not declaring all offense as unequivocally meritless. Neither is anyone else. If a person decides they are offended without actually thinking about why they are offended and what other possible root causes there could be for that offense (PC dogma, oversensitivity, etc,) then they are being idiotic, and they can be called out for it. All reasons to be offended aren't equal, and if you are offended for irrational reasons, you should look in the mirror for the root cause of that offense rather than slinging labels and shaming people who aren't even your enemies. That is counter-productive and anti-liberal.

And that's fine, there will always be bad faith actors that we can deal with on a case to case basis. But as a general rule of thumb, when someone's offended by something the healthy response should be to try to understand where that offense is coming from and talk through it to a possible resolution.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[Dev]

[The Argonaut]

lookin' good, dev