Moms for Liberty shows it's true colors

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"They have a hispanic as a leader so they can't be Nazis!!!!1111oneone"

Sure. And the actual Nazis had a short dark-haired Austrian as leader, so they couldn't possibly have believed in the innate racial superiority of tall blond Germans.

You do realize you were just replying to a straw man, don't you?

Of course. We all know you don't actually present your positions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

And it is odd how silent you are regarding laws of oppression. Oh... I'm sure you are against them, it is just that you never seem to discuss them. Your posts seem exclusively about claiming liberals are tyrants.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"They have a hispanic as a leader so they can't be Nazis!!!!1111oneone"

Sure. And the actual Nazis had a short dark-haired Austrian as leader, so they couldn't possibly have believed in the innate racial superiority of tall blond Germans.

You do realize you were just replying to a straw man, don't you?

Of course. We all know you don't actually present your positions.

He was replying to Patooka's creative interpretation of my opinion, not my actually presented opinion.

I think it is useful that I pointed out it was a straw man, because you fell for it even after I pointed it out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"They have a hispanic as a leader so they can't be Nazis!!!!1111oneone"

Sure. And the actual Nazis had a short dark-haired Austrian as leader, so they couldn't possibly have believed in the innate racial superiority of tall blond Germans.

You do realize you were just replying to a straw man, don't you?

Of course. We all know you don't actually present your positions.

He was replying to Patooka's creative interpretation of my opinion, not my actually presented opinion.

Indeed! This is why we know they were responding to a strawman about your positions... because we know you never actually present your positions. So any statement on your position is likely to be a strawman.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?



Of course you won't answer, and your refusal to answer will be proof that I don't answer questions.

 

[Rhea]

What’s in a symbol?

If a hand-sign is used almost exclusively by the members of a certain gang, doesn’t that make it a gang symbol?
There are millions of red handkerchiefs out there. Does that mean that no red scarf/rag/hankie is a gang symbol?

I thought it was pretty well known that a red handkerchief was a gang symbol?

 

[ZiprHead]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

What is the criteria to determine if a law is opressive or not?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?

Well, I suppose we could consider that a position, though I was actually talking about things that weren't quite as trite.

I think we all can mostly agree that the OK symbol used by white supremacists isn't a symbol for white supremacy. There is nuance there, which I understand can be confusing for some.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's almost like you have to have some sort of context to understand how a symbol can stand for one thing or another. In this case, we have absolutely no idea what ideological beliefs the people have, who they associate with, if they hang with white supremacists, or anything else. Maybe, they were all just deaf and flashing the letter F. HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY KNOW??!11

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?

Well, I suppose we could consider that a position, though I was actually talking about things that weren't quite as trite.

I think we all can mostly agree that the OK symbol used by white supremacists isn't a symbol for white supremacy. There is nuance there, which I understand can be confusing for some.

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

 

[Jarhyn]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?



Of course you won't answer, and your refusal to answer will be proof that I don't answer questions.

No symbol is necessarily a symbol for anything. That's why we use them as symbols: they are not actually correlated to the thing they represent. There are in some cases relative onomonotopiae, but even these have no real necessity to be so; it is suitably accidental.

Symbols are given meaning through association, and what is clear is that white supremacists associate using this hand gesture.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

What is the criteria to determine if a law is opressive or not?

I bet I know.

The Cato institute, a libertarian 'thinktank' ranks the 50 states' on a freedom index. It does a pretty good job of breaking down the various metrics they use to measure freedom in this case, and then breaks them down into 2 large categories: personal freedom, and economic freedom.

Personal freedom is largely what you think of, with a bit of a libertarian slant...they think gun rights are a good thing and don't consider how lax gun laws impact others' freedom, for instance.

Economic freedom is largely what your boss, or large business, would consider freedoms to fuck over their employers, pollute, not pay taxes, etc. Again, "good" libertarian ideals.

Ironically, all the states that the rightwing, and libertarians generally describe as liberal, socialist, or any other number of 'bad' words they don't understand, all have higher ranking in the personal freedom category, and tend to lower freedoms in the economic category.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

What is the criteria to determine if a law is opressive or not?

I bet I know.

The Cato institute, a libertarian 'thinktank' ranks the 50 states' on a freedom index. It does a pretty good job of breaking down the various metrics they use to measure freedom in this case, and then breaks them down into 2 large categories: personal freedom, and economic freedom.

Personal freedom is largely what you think of, with a bit of a libertarian slant...they think gun rights are a good thing and don't consider how lax gun laws impact others' freedom, for instance.

Economic freedom is largely what your boss, or large business, would consider freedoms to fuck over their employers, pollute, not pay taxes, etc. Again, "good" libertarian ideals.

Ironically, all the states that the rightwing, and libertarians generally describe as liberal, socialist, or any other number of 'bad' words they don't understand, all have higher ranking in the personal freedom category, and tend to lower freedoms in the economic category.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

Careful... positions of Libertarians is a like a box of chocolates.

Goodness, libertarianism is so much like high school liberalism. Steeped in a mountain of naivety and ignorance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?

Well, I suppose we could consider that a position, though I was actually talking about things that weren't quite as trite.

I think we all can mostly agree that the OK symbol used by white supremacists isn't a symbol for white supremacy. There is nuance there, which I understand can be confusing for some.

Woah, I think Jimmy just admitted I stated a position.

Mark this day as historic.

You do realize actually doing it once doesn't make it a retro-active habit, right?

 

[Patooka]

Careful... positions of Libertarians is a like a box of chocolates.

A better analogy would be "positions of Libertarians are like the sheds that don't get shown in episodes of Storage Wars".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You can picture all kinds of things in there like unsold copies of The Art of the Deal, broken guitars, dead girls, autographed pictures of Murray Rothbard, bowties from the 90's, ...

 

[Patooka]

*shameless plug*

 

[JohnG]

When I state quite clearly that the okay symbol isn't a white power symbol, why do you respond by saying I don't state my position?



Of course you won't answer, and your refusal to answer will be proof that I don't answer questions.

Firstly, your position is wrong. Secondly, If it didn't mean anything before, it does now. I'm not going to bother posting pictures of self-identified "racial purity" groups using that symbol. Someone already posted one,

But you should inform yourself about how this stuff works

This
or
This
or
This

etcera

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personal freedom is largely what you think of, with a bit of a libertarian slant...they think gun rights are a good thing and don't consider how lax gun laws impact others' freedom, for instance.

How can you measure such secondary effects? It's so sensitive to assumptions about feedback that it's meaningless.

Ironically, all the states that the rightwing, and libertarians generally describe as liberal, socialist, or any other number of 'bad' words they don't understand, all have higher ranking in the personal freedom category, and tend to lower freedoms in the economic category.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

Do as I say, not as I do!