New revisionist history, “jeets built Silicon Valley”
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
That's the sad part; it clearly, clearly does. A bunch of "libertarians" are just the remnants of hippy leftists, who bought into all the anti-white, anti-West nonsense, but are less hateful about it than the leftists and progressives.
For the record, although I align with libertarians on a lot, it doesn't mean I think it's the perfect answer or anything; it's clearly not. Ideology should not supersede pragmatism, and a bunch of libertarians are either acting in bad faith, or get lost in the weeds. Doesn't help that libertarians are often super autistic, either. Like you said, if your movement/ideology/whatever can't protect your own country or people, there's really no point.
Again, just because I identify with and sometimes as "libertarian," doesn't mean I subscribe to everything. And, you always have to take into account that many ideologies are somewhat diverse, and you get infighting. There are "libertarians" who are leftists, some who are more centrist, and then the more pragmatic libertarians who, although they often wouldn't like the comparison, align much more closely with the right.
Basically, I'm not going to let retarded leftists ruin yet another thing. I'm libertarian-leaning, but staunchly opposed to open borders, mass migration, anarcho-tyranny, and all the rest. I don't view those people as libertarian (true communism has never been tried, no true Scotsman, etc., I know, but still.) A bunch of libertarians are just leftists or hippies wearing a skinsuit. That ain't me, obviously.
I want a system that protects liberty, and acknowledge that that does need to operate the lever of power, and even perhaps be somewhat authoritarian, in response to the current climate. You can't protect liberty by being soft, when society is overrun by a bunch of authoritarian commies who hold a bunch of power.
Anti-white is stupid, but frankly, a lot of the critiques of the so called 'West' are valid. The West has been making a total mess of things of many other places. People get it exactly wrong. They feign shame for the West's history and defend the West's present, while they should be ashamed of the West's present and be proud of the West's history.
You can make any ideology work if you're not autistic about it. Hell, I don't even have an ideology.
I think 'no true Scotsman' works well for ideologies. Scotsman is pretty open and closed. But the definition of libertarianism, or communsim for that matter, is and can be contested. Hell, after WW2, most Germans thought that national socialism was a good idea badly executed. Hitler and the Nazis had some good ideas that appealed to a lot of people - like transcending all minor German identities (like Bavarian or Hessian) and transcending class identities.
As you say below, modern West. I don't think most of the people talking positively about "the West" are referencing the modern version, and are instead lamenting what we lost.
Hey, no argument here. That's exactly correct.
And, thus, libertarianism fails. Alas, alas!
The point of 'no true Scotsman' as a phrase is that it's purity spiraling, though. The argument is that it's removing a bunch of Scots from being Scotsman, because you added random shit. So it's exactly like "true communism." Ironically, "true Scotsman" has nothing to do with Scotsmen, because it's just a style of argument.
I know, but I've long been annoyed by how that fallacy is used. Basically, at any point that you try to enforce any form of standard whatsoever, that claim will come out. Even for stuff that isn't "random". You get problems with that because you choose to adopt a label for your beliefs that is also used by others.
Imagine that you called yourself a Blerpian instead of a Libertarian - i.e., a label no one used before. Then some libertarians who don't fit your strict criteria also call themselves a Blerpian. Do you have more rights then to enforce your view of what a Blerpian is than you do now for libertarian?
I get what you're saying, and I get the point, but invoking "no true Scotsman" is almost never used to say someone isn't Scottish.
You can find the origin distasteful, sure. But the use is well established at this point, even if you don't like the name.
But, see...I didn't do that. I "joined" (or at least partially identify with) an existing movement, that already has different factions. So I can't claim to own the term. I can say what it means to me, and I can rationalize why I think other people might not meet my logical criteria, but we can both call ourselves liberaltarians. Some "fake" libertarians have used the label longer than I have.
In conclusion...I did have breakfast.
For the record, that's why I tend to say I align or identify with libertarianism, and couch it a bit. There are plenty of great libertarians I agree with on most things, but others who are utter shit. I've always said people should shape their party to their ideals, not vice versa. If I'd done the reverse, I'd be a retarded leftist trying to tell you why the Democrats are actually right about everything.
I like (my view of) libertarianism in principle. But even then it's not the solution, because it tends to be too hands off. Even the best versions of libertarianism struggle to get things done, so it's more of a guiding principle than a proposed solution. I still identify more with it than I do with many other movements.