Radical Centrist Liberal Conservative Libertarian

Alright, it’s been 27 hours, I’m going to bed. I’ll see if the hornets nest is still abuzz whenever I return.

Sound-condecening-and-make-opponent-angry skill is a legitimate skill and probably helps with winning arguments but not with ~discovering the truth~
Anonymous

Do people really think debates are about convincing your opponents?

When you discuss something, analytically, sure, you’re trying to sway each other. But when you get into it with someone, you’re not trying to convince them; you’re trying to convince the onlookers. I thought that was common knowledge?

As for discovering the truth: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

allcavesin:

objectivistnerd:

allcavesin:

objectivistnerd:

allcavesin:

allcavesin:

Everyone in my family thinks that the fact that I identify as a feminist is like the WORST thing ever because they all see the worst “feminists” and are like oh my gosh feminists suck and I’m just like no they don’t please listen to me and they don’t but oh well one piece of the…

Well, the patriarchy definitely does exist. That’s not an argument. They don’t like the term because, as my grandmother and aunt (both of whom I love very much) have told me before, “You’re only eighteen; you don’t know enough to have opinions.” I hold onto the term because it’s a central way for me to share my beliefs. I can say that I am a feminist, and hopefully people think, “Oh, she wants equality for women, who .” When people scoff or give me a weird look I can explain further what feminism means to me.

Okay, it’s your religion, got it.

No, my religion is based on Jesus Christ, but thanks for letting me clear that up for you.

Hmm, I suppose that makes sense. Considering you’ve presented no evidence for this patriarchy, I’m left to assume you accept its existence on faith. Just switch out ‘Satan’ for ‘patriarchy’ and ‘Christianity’ for ‘feminism,’ and you’ve got yourself one hell of a racket.

No, I accept its existence based on the fact that 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. I accept its existence based on the fact that when Nujood Ali was 10 years old, she had to fight to get a divorce from her husband who was three times her age. I accept its existence based on my experiences as a teenage girl, my being told by multiple family members that the dress I wore to the homecoming dance as a freshman was “too short,” as if that gave some reason as to why the senior who grabbed my ass that night felt that doing so was an acceptable way of treating a human being. So no, I don’t accept the existence of the patriarchy on faith, I accept it on proof.

The 1/4 statistic isn’t even true.

Is ‘the’ patriarchy a global unit? How are people in America liable for the backwards practices of other parts of the world? Anyone?

Moreover, how do the backwards actions of individuals people in America constitute proof of this nebulous ‘patriarchy?’ Can we really blame culture for the actions of individuals?

In short, what is ‘patriarchy’ other than people doing things you don’t like?

american-libertarian:

Boy y’know I see CommunismKills’ posts on my dash all the time and I like what she does, but I can’t look her up in the search function and the links go to a Facebook page. I don’t understand the logic behind this but apparently she doesn’t want followers on Tumblr. Which makes me wonder how anybody sees or shares her posts when it’s seemingly impossible to follow her blog. Could somebody shed some light on this?

You can click follow pretty easily through reblogs.

Anyway, I think it’s a self-defense mechanism. She got shadowbanned and probably set up the redirect to avoid being deleted entirely.

allcavesin:

objectivistnerd:

allcavesin:

allcavesin:

Everyone in my family thinks that the fact that I identify as a feminist is like the WORST thing ever because they all see the worst “feminists” and are like oh my gosh feminists suck and I’m just like no they don’t please listen to me and they don’t but oh well one piece of the…

Well, the patriarchy definitely does exist. That’s not an argument. They don’t like the term because, as my grandmother and aunt (both of whom I love very much) have told me before, “You’re only eighteen; you don’t know enough to have opinions.” I hold onto the term because it’s a central way for me to share my beliefs. I can say that I am a feminist, and hopefully people think, “Oh, she wants equality for women, who .” When people scoff or give me a weird look I can explain further what feminism means to me.

Okay, it’s your religion, got it.

No, my religion is based on Jesus Christ, but thanks for letting me clear that up for you.

Hmm, I suppose that makes sense. Considering you’ve presented no evidence for this patriarchy, I’m left to assume you accept its existence on faith. Just switch out ‘Satan’ for ‘patriarchy’ and ‘Christianity’ for ‘feminism,’ and you’ve got yourself one hell of a racket.

allcavesin:

allcavesin:

Everyone in my family thinks that the fact that I identify as a feminist is like the WORST thing ever because they all see the worst “feminists” and are like oh my gosh feminists suck and I’m just like no they don’t please listen to me and they don’t but oh well one piece of the…

Well, the patriarchy definitely does exist. That’s not an argument. They don’t like the term because, as my grandmother and aunt (both of whom I love very much) have told me before, “You’re only eighteen; you don’t know enough to have opinions.” I hold onto the term because it’s a central way for me to share my beliefs. I can say that I am a feminist, and hopefully people think, “Oh, she wants equality for women, who .” When people scoff or give me a weird look I can explain further what feminism means to me.

Okay, it’s your religion, got it.

allcavesin:

Everyone in my family thinks that the fact that I identify as a feminist is like the WORST thing ever because they all see the worst “feminists” and are like oh my gosh feminists suck and I’m just like no they don’t please listen to me and they don’t but oh well one piece of the patriarchy at a time I guess

This raises some questions:

  • Why do they dislike feminists? Could it be they’re right?
  • If they’re so phased by feminism, why do you hold onto the term?
  • How are you going to take apart something that doesn’t exist?

anarcutie:

anarcutie:

objectivistnerd:

anarcutie:

objectivistnerd:

http://anarchoanarchism.tumblr.com/post/83114252009/kropotkink-objectivistnerd-if-communists

anarcutie:

kropotkink:

objectivistnerd:

If communists were content to just have their own communes, off…

I’m looking at your linked materials but finding nothing new. If anything you don’t seem to understand what capitalism actually is.

I suggest you start a new thread to lay out your stall, a whole post just focused on your position, and tag me in it. You do that and I’ll do the same back with my own position on anarchist communism. Each thread will stay focused on the proposed political and economic system. We can keep both threads going until it becomes clear that someone is either not addressing points being made or that someone is ignoring the other, at which point we just go our separate ways.

Sounds better to me than bullshit posts going nowhere.

We don’t need a new thread. You need to think for about five seconds, and then we’ll be done here.

Do you realize why my point is? Have you made any effort in that direction whatsoever? It’s pretty simple, really: I don’t buy into your schema.

What you call capitalism, I don’t advocate. I’m perfectly willing to abandon the term if that will make communication easier. I’m not going to lay out here what I advocate—you can find that readily enough if you look around.

My goal here wasn’t to convince you of my ideology. My goal was to illuminate a particular failing in your terminology, but apparently that is beyond my powers of communication.

leah’s usernames

conservativeroyalist:

thisisnotlatino:

This is pretty disgusting. I disagree with this girl’s views, but there’s no reason to ruin someone’s life just because they hurt your feelings. And why go after her sister as well?

Reported for harassment, and I recommend everyone else do the same.

Why do so many people dislike libertarians? I'm not american, so I am not certain of the meaning of the term over there, but I've read Rotherbard, and well, i dont understand why many freeblrs seem to dislike libertarians

It’s a complicated thing. I think it comes down to one’s opinion of social order: hierarchical or egalitarian.

Libertarians (in the broad definition, I’m including many of the people you’re talking about it this) generally fall into two categories: deontological and consequentialist. More colloquially, natural rights and utilitarian, respectively. There’s a good deal of overlap between the two.

In addition to this, I posit the division above, those who advocate an egalitarian society, and those who advocate an hierarchical society. You and I, being Objectivists, are hierarchical deontologists.

There are, of course, hierarchical consequentialists, and egalitarian deontologists, and so on. Generally speaking, I think this conflict is between the two types of deontologists. Some of us see natural rights as a starting point, and others as a finishing point. Essentially, it’s the question of positive and negative rights.

Returning the the question, many of the HDs see the ECs and EDs as prototypical libertarians, and so dissociate from the label. Others, such as myself, choose to use it as an umbrella category, and define our own views in more detail.

That’s a terrible oversimplification, but I think it’s still insightful.

anarcutie:

objectivistnerd:

anarcutie:

objectivistnerd:

http://anarchoanarchism.tumblr.com/post/83114252009/kropotkink-objectivistnerd-if-communists   

anarcutie:

kropotkink:

objectivistnerd:

If communists were content to just have their own communes, off on their own, I wouldn’t give a damn.

Unfortunately, they want to make it mandatory.

If capitalists were content to just have their own businesses, off on their own, I wouldn’t give a damn.

You totally miss what capitalism actually is. It isn’t a system which people freely enter, but is a systemic violent cohesion in order to maintain a class system favoring a ruling class on the exploitation of a working class. Anarchist communism is completely at odds with this.

How many fucking times are we going to have to explain this: we use the word ‘capitalism’ to indicate a voluntary system of production and exchange. You use the word to indicate something else entirely. The practicality and efficacy of both up is for debate, but at least define your terms.

U MAD BRO?

Not really. This is fun!

image

Capitalists don’t even agree with what you are saying.

Composition/division fallacy. Amateur.

They understand that capitalism is based upon the extraction of labour value and the maintenance of a class system.

Congratulations, you finally defined your terms. Notice that this is not my definition, as stated above. (We’ll ignore your laughably wrong cartoon; that’s another argument.)

There is nothing voluntary about a market system. 

'Market system' is a conflation of about a dozen different possible economic arrangements.

If you have to go to the market to get your needs met then it isn’t a voluntary system of production and meeting needs.

>”If you aren’t given everything you need to survive it’s not a choice!”

Get over the poisonous idea of exchange.

Because fuck choices, amirite?

Communism with free association to the means of production

>’Free association’

*Cough*

is the voluntary system of ensuring that there is wellbeing for all.

We’ve discussed this before…

Your proposition is more horrific than what we have in most of the world today

Nice assertion. Care to support it?

I wrote about this some time ago, and the invitation I made still stands.

Why do I care about some post on your blog? Hardly the time to self-promo….narcissist.

You are reading and replying to one of my blogs now. Why not try answering the point being made rather than getting hung up if it was written on a .tumblr or a .wordpress url?

Capitalist relations, as defined by capitalists, are exploitative. Capitalists themselves have no problem wit this. It is the fundamental basis of a capitalist economy: the systemic withholding of needs by one class of people in order to allow the extraction of value through the cohered labour of another class of people. I’ll paraphrase the end point of the post here seeing as that makes you more comfortable:

"[If you can] show a way in which capitalist relations will not be inherently exploitative or rely on forms of oppression […] then I’ll be happy to make a full post apologising for my mistaken position."

If you can’t do that then at least have the academic integrity to say so and re-evaluate your position.

Not my problem.

As we’ve seen, you’re married to your definition of ‘capitalism.’ I’m not. The philosophy I espouse doesn’t conform to what you’ve described. I have neither the obligation nor the desire to defend it.

Find someone who actually advocates those beliefs, and ask them. Chances are you won’t.

Now, if you want to attack my beliefs, that’s an entirely different ball game. But so far, you actually haven’t.

anarcutie:

objectivistnerd:

http://anarchoanarchism.tumblr.com/post/83114252009/kropotkink-objectivistnerd-if-communists   

anarcutie:

kropotkink:

objectivistnerd:

If communists were content to just have their own communes, off on their own, I wouldn’t give a damn.

Unfortunately, they want to make it mandatory.

If capitalists were content to just have their own businesses, off on their own, I wouldn’t give a damn.

You totally miss what capitalism actually is. It isn’t a system which people freely enter, but is a systemic violent cohesion in order to maintain a class system favoring a ruling class on the exploitation of a working class. Anarchist communism is completely at odds with this.

How many fucking times are we going to have to explain this: we use the word ‘capitalism’ to indicate a voluntary system of production and exchange. You use the word to indicate something else entirely. The practicality and efficacy of both up is for debate, but at least define your terms.

U MAD BRO?

Not really. This is fun!

image

Capitalists don’t even agree with what you are saying.

Composition/division fallacy. Amateur.

They understand that capitalism is based upon the extraction of labour value and the maintenance of a class system.

Congratulations, you finally defined your terms. Notice that this is not my definition, as stated above. (We’ll ignore your laughably wrong cartoon; that’s another argument.)

There is nothing voluntary about a market system. 

'Market system' is a conflation of about a dozen different possible economic arrangements.

If you have to go to the market to get your needs met then it isn’t a voluntary system of production and meeting needs.

>”If you aren’t given everything you need to survive it’s not a choice!”

Get over the poisonous idea of exchange.

Because fuck choices, amirite?

Communism with free association to the means of production

>’Free association’

*Cough*

is the voluntary system of ensuring that there is wellbeing for all.

We’ve discussed this before…

Your proposition is more horrific than what we have in most of the world today

Nice assertion. Care to support it?

I wrote about this some time ago, and the invitation I made still stands.

Why do I care about some post on your blog? Hardly the time to self-promo….narcissist.

ancap-princess:

communismkills:

theobjectivist-laciar:

communismkills:

"IT MAY BE A POST-SCARCITY WORLD FILLED WITH ABUNDANCE."
THIS IS A FUCKING “LIBERTARIAN ICON” SAYING THIS.

OKAY, I FINALLY RELISED WHY PEOPLE NOW DISLIKE MODERN LIBERTARIANSWHENEVER I SAID I WAS A LIBERTARIAN, I MEANT IT IN THE ROTHBARD MEANING OF THE WORD

THANK YOU.

"Ancap" or "Minarchist" is the new "Libertarian".

'Radical centrist' is the new 'small-l'

ancap-princess:

communismkills:

theobjectivist-laciar:

communismkills:

"IT MAY BE A POST-SCARCITY WORLD FILLED WITH ABUNDANCE."

THIS IS A FUCKING “LIBERTARIAN ICON” SAYING THIS.

OKAY, I FINALLY RELISED WHY PEOPLE NOW DISLIKE MODERN LIBERTARIANS
WHENEVER I SAID I WAS A LIBERTARIAN, I MEANT IT IN THE ROTHBARD MEANING OF THE WORD

THANK YOU.

"Ancap" or "Minarchist" is the new "Libertarian".

'Radical centrist' is the new 'small-l'

moonlightonvienna:

buzzfeed:

hello friends live your dreams this weekend

LAWN MOWER AYN RAND!!!!!!!!!!!!

moonlightonvienna:

buzzfeed:

hello friends live your dreams this weekend

LAWN MOWER AYN RAND!!!!!!!!!!!!

craiganthonywells:

objectivistnerd:

craiganthonywells:

Sometimes I cry because objectivistnerd doesn’t follow me

Tbh I’ve been thinking about it.

I was referring to you rather than your blog though. In my head your name is actually objectivistnerd.

That’s gonna be an issue once I finally get around to my url change.