LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Darussalam]

Me pointing out that the topic is about biological essentialism through the lenses of far right ideology was not an invitation to yet another anti-feminist screed, dude.


Get that word out of your mouth. You are not a biologist and your motivations are suspect.


Dude, seriously, this was not an invitation for you to go on a rant about your disturbingly specific pet issues in a (frankly awful) attempt to cover over the worldviews we are talking about, which have nothing to do with your own (unless you've been full of shit all along and you are, in fact, far right).


Meh.

I'm pointing out that the rejection of these kind of issues is driving people to the extremes as nobody takes a moderate position on them like I do in an increasingly polarized society.

Partly this, and partly positions that are moderate in the past (such as the infamous far-right doctrine of "gender binary") are being increasingly considered extreme.

[Liriena]

I'm pointing out that the rejection of these kind of issues is driving people to the extremes as nobody takes a moderate position on them like I do in an increasingly polarized society.

Partly this, and partly positions that are moderate in the past (such as the infamous far-right doctrine of "gender binary") are being increasingly considered extreme.

It's almost as if human society is not static, and the political stances of times past aren't eternally valid?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You said that private property was a statist construct using that logic. If private property is a statist construct, then so too is free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Yes? There is no argument here.

You state this, which I have never said:
"So then, you see how saying "private property cannot exist without being protected/enforced, therefore it is not worth supporting"".

The bolded, the conclusion derived from the former part of the argument, is something I have never said. I argued that property rights are a statist construct yes, because that is an argument for why libertarian perceptions of property rights are flawed (they require the very thing they are so against, a contradiction it would seem). Any argument I could make against private property would not be an attack on the idea of rights only existing in so far as they are concrete and enforceable.

You're just pulling things out of thin air. I have no idea why, because it came out of nowhere and strikes me as a rather bizarre misunderstanding.

Yes, you are saying that private property is a statist construct, and therefore the right-libertarian perception of private property is flawed. And I am saying, that by that logic the libertarian (left or right) perception of any rights are also flawed.

[Hanafuridake]

[Northern Davincia]

Care to point out where Rothbard favored selling children for sexual purposes?

He asserted that parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract in what Rothbard suggests will be a "flourishing free market in children". He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces—while "superficially monstrous"—will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing".[113][114]

In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights".[113] Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".[113]

Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, observes that Rothbard allows "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib".[115]

So, we have him openly saying that child abuse and selling children are both totally ok.

"BUT GREN" I hear you say, "None of that really is him advocating for child sex slavery."

To which, I will respond by pointing out that in that same chapter of Ethics of Liberty (Chapter 14), he says the following:

It has, indeed, been estimated that from one-quarter to one-half of "juvenile delinquents" currently incarcerated by the state did not commit acts that would be considered crimes if committed by adults (i.e., aggression against person and property).19 The "crimes" of these children were in exercising their freedom in ways disliked by the minions of the state: truancy "incorrigibility," running away. Between the sexes, it is particularly girl children who are jailed in this way for "immoral" rather than truly criminal actions. The percentage of girls jailed for immorality ("waywardness," sexual relations) rather than for genuine crimes ranges from 50 to over 80 percent.20

Which all but explicitly states that children should be able to have sex with anyone (and implicitly that anyone should be able to have sex with children).

So, there we have it. According to Rothbard, people should be able to buy and sell children, and people should be able to have sex with children.

Not really. We require a definition for the immoralities that Rothbard speaks of, otherwise he may be addressing laws on sodomy or fornication.

[Proctopeo]

Apparently Frenworld was warned two weeks prior that they were at risk for being banned due to "advocating violence", but no clarification on what that actually means was given.
Their moderators actively tried to remove content that advocated for violence but apparently it wasn't sufficient, in no small part due to Reddit moderators refusing to cooperate.

Since I brought them up earlier, I felt as if an update on the whole thing is appropriate.
Yes, they were deleted for "glorifying or encouraging violence", not being Nazis or whatever.

[Conserative Morality]

Apparently Frenworld was warned two weeks prior that they were at risk for being banned due to "advocating violence", but no clarification on what that actually means was given.
Their moderators actively tried to remove content that advocated for violence but apparently it wasn't sufficient, in no small part due to Reddit moderators refusing to cooperate.

Since I brought them up earlier, I felt as if an update on the whole thing is appropriate.
Yes, they were deleted for "glorifying or encouraging violence", not being Nazis or whatever.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Torrocca]

Apparently Frenworld was warned two weeks prior that they were at risk for being banned due to "advocating violence", but no clarification on what that actually means was given.
Their moderators actively tried to remove content that advocated for violence but apparently it wasn't sufficient, in no small part due to Reddit moderators refusing to cooperate.

Since I brought them up earlier, I felt as if an update on the whole thing is appropriate.
Yes, they were deleted for "glorifying or encouraging violence", not being Nazis or whatever.

Huh, it's almost like Nazism naturally glorifies and encourages violence or something, and they were doomed from the start. Who'd'a thunk?

[Hanafuridake]

Apparently Frenworld was warned two weeks prior that they were at risk for being banned due to "advocating violence", but no clarification on what that actually means was given.
Their moderators actively tried to remove content that advocated for violence but apparently it wasn't sufficient, in no small part due to Reddit moderators refusing to cooperate.

Since I brought them up earlier, I felt as if an update on the whole thing is appropriate.
Yes, they were deleted for "glorifying or encouraging violence", not being Nazis or whatever.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Yeah, can't say that I'm sad to see Nazi infantilist scalies be banned from a platform.

I never believed that I would need to say those words.

[Conserative Morality]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Yeah, can't say that I'm sad to see Nazi infantilist scalies be banned from a platform.

I never believed that I would need to say those words.

Truly, we live in a brave new world.

[Proctopeo]

Apparently Frenworld was warned two weeks prior that they were at risk for being banned due to "advocating violence", but no clarification on what that actually means was given.
Their moderators actively tried to remove content that advocated for violence but apparently it wasn't sufficient, in no small part due to Reddit moderators refusing to cooperate.

Since I brought them up earlier, I felt as if an update on the whole thing is appropriate.
Yes, they were deleted for "glorifying or encouraging violence", not being Nazis or whatever.

Huh, it's almost like Nazism naturally glorifies and encourages violence or something, and they were doomed from the start. Who'd'a thunk?

If all that was necessary for a subreddit to be banned was espousing an ideology that "naturally glorifies and encourages violence", then many more large subreddits would be getting canned, too.
As it stands, the rules aren't being applied evenly from any perspective.

[Torrocca]

Huh, it's almost like Nazism naturally glorifies and encourages violence or something, and they were doomed from the start. Who'd'a thunk?

If all that was necessary for a subreddit to be banned was espousing an ideology that "naturally glorifies and encourages violence", then many more large subreddits would be getting canned, too.
As it stands, the rules aren't being applied evenly from any perspective.

You're right; r/The_Donald, its offshoots, and a lotta other right-wing subreddits in general gotta go. :^)

[Darussalam]

Partly this, and partly positions that are moderate in the past (such as the infamous far-right doctrine of "gender binary") are being increasingly considered extreme.

It's almost as if human society is not static, and the political stances of times past aren't eternally valid?

Well, although not by much - 99% of humans living on Earth today strongly believe in gender binary, after all. Giving all of them the Mark of the Nazi would be a complicated endeavor.

The objection here is that "biological essentialism", that is perfectly normal beliefs for a 21st century earth-dwelling normie plus perhaps some beliefs of their grandfathers and a dash of scientific autism isn't necessarily a path spiraling downwards to Nazism. You need something more than believing certain psychological traits are genetically heritable and immutable through social conditioning to be a Nazi, which is also infused by mystical thinking arguably more so than raw scientific materialism.

Re: the "libertarian pipeline to Nazism" has some validity, but maybe for different reasons than leftists think. People who have self-selected themselves into unorthodox/unacceptable ideas outside of the mainstream tend to be more likely to be drawn to other unorthodox ideas as well, as the perverse result of high open-mindedness/hipsterism(?). Of course this says nothing about the validity of the unorthodox ideas in itself - hipsters could be horribly right or wrong anytime.

So, there we have it. According to Rothbard, people should be able to buy and sell children, and people should be able to have sex with children.

Baby market always exists, it's just that the price is capped at zero. People sell children all the time legally - they just gauge value from other means, which raises the transaction cost and reduces demand of adoptees. What Rothbard proposes is that this price-cap is lifted to alleviate other problems. I'm not a libertarian, but I'm unironically for deregulated baby market all the way.

His childrearing theory might be weird but it's a natural conclusion of the same principle that leads him to support abortion: the principle of absolute individual autonomy. Unlike other leftists (I place Rothbard on the left), he applied his principles fairly consistently. If this sometimes comes off as unsettling, this is because most moral fundaments tend to have unsettling implications, even (in Rothbard's case) something as innocuous as autonomy and consent.

He also has some weird ideas about the age of consent, but this is because Rothbardian propertarianism dislikes arbitrariness - i.e just as property is only legitimate because it's homesteaded, the recognized age of consent should be an actually legitimate one, derived from other principles instead of arbitrary number "just because". Your source doesn't actually substantiate that, though. It's him complaining about unjust juvenile incarceration, which for you is bad because.... reasons?

[Proctopeo]

If all that was necessary for a subreddit to be banned was espousing an ideology that "naturally glorifies and encourages violence", then many more large subreddits would be getting canned, too.
As it stands, the rules aren't being applied evenly from any perspective.

You're right; r/The_Donald, its offshoots, and a lotta other right-wing subreddits in general gotta go. :^)

I was thinking more FULLCOMMUNISM, Latestagecapitalism, and Shitredditsays.
Dishonorable mention to ageplaypenpals, a subreddit full of pedos that from what I've heard, isn't even on thin ice.

[Torrocca]

You're right; r/The_Donald, its offshoots, and a lotta other right-wing subreddits in general gotta go. :^)

I was thinking more FULLCOMMUNISM, Latestagecapitalism, and Shitredditsays.
Dishonorable mention to ageplaypenpals, a subreddit full of pedos that from what I've heard, isn't even on thin ice.

>Not even considering r/The_Donald on the list of subreddits to purge

no wonder you came to the defense of infantile Nazi amphiphiles by downplaying their Nazism earlier, smh my head

[Duvniask]

Yes? There is no argument here.

You state this, which I have never said:
"So then, you see how saying "private property cannot exist without being protected/enforced, therefore it is not worth supporting"".

The bolded, the conclusion derived from the former part of the argument, is something I have never said. I argued that property rights are a statist construct yes, because that is an argument for why libertarian perceptions of property rights are flawed (they require the very thing they are so against, a contradiction it would seem). Any argument I could make against private property would not be an attack on the idea of rights only existing in so far as they are concrete and enforceable.

You're just pulling things out of thin air. I have no idea why, because it came out of nowhere and strikes me as a rather bizarre misunderstanding.

Yes, you are saying that private property is a statist construct, and therefore the right-libertarian perception of private property is flawed. And I am saying, that by that logic the libertarian (left or right) perception of any rights are also flawed.

Yes? I'm ambiguous to the existence of the state, as regards the commonly understood Weberian definition of state as being the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. As for the Marxian definition, it's not really relevant, I feel. The implications of this reasoning are not my problem.

[Cekoviu]

It's almost as if human society is not static, and the political stances of times past aren't eternally valid?

Well, although not by much - 99% of humans living on Earth today strongly believe in gender binary, after all. Giving all of them the Mark of the Nazi would be a complicated endeavor.

Fucking MASSIVE citation needed.

The objection here is that "biological essentialism", that is perfectly normal beliefs for a 21st century earth-dwelling normie plus perhaps some beliefs of their grandfathers and a dash of scientific autism isn't necessarily a path spiraling downwards to Nazism.

What the fuck even is "scientific autism"?

You need something more than believing certain psychological traits are genetically heritable and immutable through social conditioning to be a Nazi, which is also infused by mystical thinking arguably more so than raw scientific materialism.

That's a pretty clever dog whistle for racialism.

Re: the "libertarian pipeline to Nazism" has some validity, but maybe for different reasons than leftists think. People who have self-selected themselves into unorthodox/unacceptable ideas outside of the mainstream tend to be more likely to be drawn to other unorthodox ideas as well, as the perverse result of high open-mindedness/hipsterism(?). Of course this says nothing about the validity of the unorthodox ideas in itself - hipsters could be horribly right or wrong anytime.

Right-libertarianism is the mainstream right now in America and some other first-world countries. They like to pretend the Leftist Cabal^TM is in control of everything, but Enlightened Centrism and its corollary right-libertarianism are insanely popular among young people in the aforementioned countries. Being one is the most conformist you could possibly be politically.

[Cekoviu]

You're right; r/The_Donald, its offshoots, and a lotta other right-wing subreddits in general gotta go. :^)

I was thinking more FULLCOMMUNISM, Latestagecapitalism, and Shitredditsays.
Dishonorable mention to ageplaypenpals, a subreddit full of pedos that from what I've heard, isn't even on thin ice.

SRS doesn't advocate violence any more than the average essjay subreddit to my knowledge (might be a bit dated tho), they're just a really dumb community. Not enough to ban them really.

[Proctopeo]

I was thinking more FULLCOMMUNISM, Latestagecapitalism, and Shitredditsays.
Dishonorable mention to ageplaypenpals, a subreddit full of pedos that from what I've heard, isn't even on thin ice.

>Not even considering r/The_Donald on the list of subreddits to purge

no wonder you came to the defense of infantile Nazi amphiphiles by downplaying their Nazism earlier, smh my head

They're on the list, certainly, but not of high priority.
They'll shit up the entire rest of the site even more than it already is if T_D gets deleted.

Also, don't forget "AgainstHateSubreddits", who've organized brigades against their ever-increasing hitlist to try and get subs they deem """"hateful"""" deleted, through mass reporting and false flags. Some of them are indeed truly "hateful", but many aren't (like WatchRedditDie or Catholicism).

[Hanafuridake]

It's almost as if human society is not static, and the political stances of times past aren't eternally valid?

Well, although not by much - 99% of humans living on Earth today strongly believe in gender binary, after all. Giving all of them the Mark of the Nazi would be a complicated endeavor.

Ummm...

[Torrocca]

>Not even considering r/The_Donald on the list of subreddits to purge

no wonder you came to the defense of infantile Nazi amphiphiles by downplaying their Nazism earlier, smh my head

They're on the list, certainly, but not of high priority.
They'll shit up the entire rest of the site even more than it already is if T_D gets deleted.

>Putting r/T_D on low-priority for purging from Reddit

Easiest way to make your opinion laughable as hell tbqh.

[Cekoviu]

They're on the list, certainly, but not of high priority.
They'll shit up the entire rest of the site even more than it already is if T_D gets deleted.

>Putting r/T_D on low-priority for purging from Reddit

Easiest way to make your opinion laughable as hell tbqh.

High-priority vs. low-priority isn't a binary, it's a spectrum.
You of all people should know that, Torra.

[Torrocca]

Well, although not by much - 99% of humans living on Earth today strongly believe in gender binary, after all. Giving all of them the Mark of the Nazi would be a complicated endeavor.

Ummm...

If you exclude enough people from being "humans living on Earth", then there's absolutely 99% of people who strongly believe in a gender binary, duh.

Either that or Darussalam's just hardcore yoinking percentages out of their ass.

[Torrocca]

>Putting r/T_D on low-priority for purging from Reddit

Easiest way to make your opinion laughable as hell tbqh.

High-priority vs. low-priority isn't a binary, it's a spectrum.
You of all people should know that, Torra.

Oof, but true.

[Proctopeo]

They're on the list, certainly, but not of high priority.
They'll shit up the entire rest of the site even more than it already is if T_D gets deleted.

>Putting r/T_D on low-priority for purging from Reddit

Easiest way to make your opinion laughable as hell tbqh.

As I said, best to keep the containment subreddit up.
Also, it's not "low-priority", it's just not "high-priority". There's bigger fish to fry.