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:
Actually, I don't care about the origin at all. I just think that it's more applicable to something that's very open-and-shut compared to something that can be contested. It's not contested what a Scotsman is (well, now that we get African actors called 'Scottish actor'), but it is contested what political movements stand for.
Even if you look at very early communism, there are enormous differences, and not all of them were Stalinists. Unfortunately, the nicer sort of self-proclaimed communists predictably lost out to the nastier ones.
I dislike that people feel like they have to adjust their views to be a "real libertarian" based on nebulous ideas of what "the movement" believes. I don't think you're influenced by that, but many people are - Chekhov even remarked how contemptible he finds people whose views are determined by whether or not they will be considered a good liberal.
I guess I'm arrogant enough to create a definition of conservatism that I find congenial, even though I don't even call myself a conservative. It's what I think should exist. Of course, I can't enforce that, but I can use it in arguments.
You were a Democrat? Many such cases. I've also changed my views on very few to no things - but I went from viewing Obama positively to viewing Trump positively.
A common problem with modern states.
But that means you're focusing on the name/origin. "No true Scotsman" is not about the Scots at all, it's about purity spiraling, and is just a name for a particular style of argumentation.
I know, I know, citing Wikipedia, but...
The whole point is the absurdity. It has nothing to do with what a Scotsman is. You can say the name is wrong, but plenty of things have names that don't make sense. Just how language works.
As I said elsewhere, I explicitly don't do that. But I'll still identify with a label I feel like I share the most in common with, for ease of use. I do not shape my opinions based on what a True Libertarian should believe. I'm willing to call myself something of a libertarian because I see value there, and align with a lot of those beliefs. But I don't let that shape my opinions, not do I think it's the prime solution.
Absolutely. And that fucking sucks. But that's not really here or there. I can't change how people are.
No argument. People who go along to get along are weak bitches.
Sure, and that's kind of what I've done here. I don't think the "leftist libertarians" are libertarians. They don't believe in liberty, they believe in leftism and wear the aforementioned libertarian skinsuit. Many such cases, sadly.
If you want to know my history...technically, yes. I was a registered Democrat for a few months, I believe. Ironically, that was when I was least aligned with them, and was already going to vote for Trump. Before that, I was more aligned with them, but (rightly) hated both parties. I was one of those "independents" who voted straight Democrat, because I didn't know better.
But, I was always always coming at it from a libertarian angle, but thought the Dems were better at the time, mostly due to my environment. I grew up in one of the most liberal areas in the US, so "left/Dem leaning" was the default, and I was young. I'm proud to say I always valued freedom, and less proud to say that I bought into the narrative at the time and thought Republicans were Absolute Evil.
Why was I ever a registered Dem? To vote for Bernie...not even because I liked him (went to a rally once to sightsee, was actually creeped out), but because I thought he deserved the Dem nomination more than Killary. I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary, but always intended to vote Trump in the General.
So, while I was never exactly Democrat, I did vote for them, way, way back in the day.
I never liked Obama. I did vote for him, due to the aforementioned thinking Republicans were worse at the time, but I never liked him.
It's name is for something that is uncontroversial and uncontested (with the provisos earlier). Its application is normally to things that are very much contested.
The name is fine. It's absurd because "Scotsman" is uncontested. When people broaden it to things that are much more contested, you are in different territory. I think it's much more fair to say "a libertarian who doesn't support liberty ain't one" than "a Scotsman who doesn't wear a skirt ain't one".
And I hated Donald Trump because I thought he was a racist birther, a vulgarian and someone who would start a nuclear war (had no idea that he was anti-war, I followed the media despite their lies about GG).
Based.