News

Loading...

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Oh My God!

The wingnuts have come out in force to congratulate the American soldier who murdered all of those Afghanis. Read the comments here, but only if you have a strong stomach. They are disgusting. I might even go so far as to say they are objectively disgusting.


13 comments:

  1. Other words come to my mind: "unacceptable, dreary, ugly, wrong and wicked"...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope that I have the guts to punch anyone in the face who says anything along those lines in my hearing.

    Skylien, did you happen to see your boy's response to Steve Sailer? I have to say, I don't know if I've ever seen a prominent writer and thinker get pwned by his commentariat that soundly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Gabe

    Well, unfortunately I have read it. I guess you mean his argument that you are not allowed to dislike your society because it is defended by people of your society? Really? Actually for which society is or was this not true? Nazi Germany, USSR etc? Does Bryan not pay his taxes with which those soldiers are paid? Does he force anyone or even demands that someone has to defend him without giving just compensation for it? Are you even sure that Bryan condemns the services performed by the common soldier, or are you maybe projecting his hatred for the war games played by politicians on the pawns used by them?

    Bryan made a general statement about his society, also saying that not everything is bad, else he could not hunt for “truffles”. Now someone like Steve comes along and asserts that Bryan despises being defended out of nothing... And you think that’s a good argument?

    When someone makes arguments that only through weak implications displays other people as “evil” I normally switch off, and do not take the arguments brought forth serious any more. For the overwhelming part of cases this a weak attempt to intentionally or unintentionally shut other people out of the debate, also called “smear”. I am very sad that also Gene does that, although I am sure he doesn’t think he does... Of course if he would, he would be “evil” in my definition. No he isn’t, but he, you and Steve aren’t fair IMHO... Try answer my questions above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Does Bryan not pay his taxes with which those soldiers are paid?"

      Bryan is a government employee. He is a net tax collector.

      Delete
  4. First, who said anything about Caplan being evil? I called him a teenager, and his writings of late have only strengthened that impression. He called people who want border enforcement white supremacists (with some arse covering caveats thrown in at the end, which don't excuse the headline). Second, taxes are not the only thing you owe to other people. If you think this is not true and relevant to this discussion, there is no reason for either of us to even try to understand the other.

    Your questions:
    - Didn't see that argument, and if you did you misunderstood (BTW, Godwin's law is still in effect, sorry).
    - I'm sure Caplan would have wanted to build his bubble in any society that has ever existed. However, in those you mentioned agitating for open borders wouldn't have been the only luxury he missed. He's allowed to say whatever he wants, feel contempt for anyone he wants, etc. But his predictions for the effect of open borders are pretty funny, and his claim to moral superiority on this issue is irritating. And this is not as widely appreciated as it should be, which is why I, for one, am concerned.
    - I'm sure he does.
    - I'm sure he would be pissed if his defenders decided they deserved a raise. Do you think the free market would give it to them? Probably more pissed than he is about border control, even.
    - There you've hit on a good point: the contemptible policies of our government are not completely the fault of its pawns. I'm sure he appreciates this, but that doesn't stop him from conflating the evils of imperialism with the delusions of the average American and thinking himself morally superior to them, and thus fit to influence policy decisions that his bubble and age will shield him from the consequences of.
    - I'm not particularly interested in whether Caplan despises this or that and whether that makes him a bad person. I enjoyed the comments because the original post was so pompous and humans take pleasure in seeing the pompous taken down a notch. The debate is occurring on Caplan's blog. It would take some good hacking to shut him out of it.

    I really don't think he's evil. I agree with him on some things. (Not this though: "He has described role-playing games as 'an art form, on par with novels, or movies, or comics'". I hold this attitude in contempt.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To your answers:
      - It was the very first comment in the my beautiful bubble post of Bryan
      - Since we have a misunderstanding about Steve's argument this point is void, although I am not sure then which argument Steve made that impressed you so much.
      - ok
      - That is a pure assertion and has nothing to do with the issue. I mean what is a fair salary for a soldier anyway? The private market thinks it should be more, it pays mercenaries much better than the government.
      - About the morality point. What is moral and what is not is quite debatable, and I am sure you will hear many different takes on this. What made me mad here wasn't that Gene or you disagreed about morality, it was because at least Gene suddenly comes along with his "open border" conspiracy to take the US down and that Bryan wouldn’t give a damn if the Klingons would come... That really doesn't follow in any way. Not from what he said in one of his bubble posts nor from his Cato paper.

      And if you do not argue in this line then I am happy that it is possible to have a grown up disagreement with you about whether "open" borders are good or moral superior without implying weird things.

      Delete
    2. BTW: Where did he call people who want border enforcement white supremacists? I would like to see the context.

      Delete
    3. "Gene suddenly comes along with his "open border" conspiracy to take the US down"

      I proposed no such thing. To say that someone who hates the society he lives in doesn't give much thought to what is good for it or not is very different from claiming that he is "conspiring" to bring it down.

      Delete
    4. 1:
      "And that [end of US], I suspect, is what Caplan is actually after: as an anarchist, he doesn't believe there should be any entity such as the United States, and, as such, he wishes to wipe out any boundaries between being an American and not being an American."

      2: I asked you specifically: "Gene, are you saying that, he has an evil hidden agenda to destroy/dissolve the US via uncontrolled open borders?"

      You said:"After reading that post, I truly think that he has no concern over what effect his policy might have on "his" society, because he doesn't consider it his anyway."

      Then I repeated that because you were so vague in your answer. Then you made your Klingon statement. And finally now that I spell it out a third! time you suddenly say that you never said such a thing. Why not doing it when I ask you specifically about that the first time? One might think that you are now back paddling.. Whatever...

      Delete
  5. Skylien, I very clearly said "I think he has NO CONCERN over the impact of open borders."

    If one has NO CONCERN about something, one is clearly NOT engaged in an evil conspiracy to destroy that thing.

    So I did try to explain this the first time you asked.

    Oh, and it is "back peddling," not "back paddling."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, clear.

      "Oh, and it is "back peddling," not "back paddling.""

      Thanks

      Delete
  6. Jim Crow = (or >) immigration laws

    white supremacists : Jim Crow :: immigration restrictionists : immigration laws

    white supremacists = (or >) immigration restrictionists

    He may be conspiring for the end of the US, but the thing I object to is his publicly pushing a policy position that could have that effect and acting like anyone who opposes that policy is a moral monster. To clarify, there is nothing inherently moral about wanting border control. It is a preference, sort of like wanting to live in a bubble. But you can't brag about your awesome bubble and then say the commoners are monsters because they would like something similar.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah ok, its implied. But white supremacist is wrong, since in this case you would have to say "American supremacist", since it doesn't discriminate against race but against citizenship. Now would you deny that immigration restrictions are in place to secure current American supremacy within the territory of the US? I think they per definition do. Now if that is morally as condemnable as discriminate against race was subject of your disagreement with Bryan.

    I am honestly not decided about this yet, but I would tend to say no.

    ReplyDelete