https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarians-press-congress-on-doma-dont-ask-dont-tell/

With them electing a non Mises candidate, I thought I would dig for their official stance on an issue that had a very socially engineered public discourse surrounding it. Ron Paul was right that don't ask don't tell was a fine policy. Our pre-boomer ancestors knew faggotry oft enough resulted in degenerate behavior outside the bedroom. This policy made the point to fuck who you want, but dont be a retard with no opsec, or a narcissist who puts oneself before your fellow servicemen. Also, don't engage in witch-hunts.

I utterly despise how the gay agenda was actually a thing, not the bugbear we made fun of . This goes beyond letting Peter Thiel and Dave Rubin sex up their husbands; even then I have mixed opinions on both of them I didn't have 6 years prior. The self-righteous, dogmatic language the lgb-t-map+ "community" embraces to force their preferences without responsible society's consent should be reason enough to fall back to early 20th century policy. Doesn't matter what the movement is, such tactics cause societal collapse, just waiting for the inevitable trigger.

Point is, right-wing libertarians really need to find a new label that also separates them from the soccer-moms for Bush/Trump. That the hippie LPUSA suffers from so much Gramscian damage that they would lend any lip service to what is substantially and morally bankrupt has invalidated the uniparty alternative. If for the simple reason that there is no right to serve in the military, only equal opportunity to all civilians.

Said normie-baiter was among many engaging in anti cancel-culture cuckery we've witnessed over the past 2 weeks. Before, he's said this line of thought regarding publisher vs platform distinction, that the right only wanting control when they're in power. This point has been made too about boomer moral police and SJWs, at least by other people.

There is a circumstantial difference between supporting the strengthening the DMCA provision of platform vs publisher (right-wing commentators never frame it this way because how unpopular the DMCA is with tech-savvy gen-x/millennials), and the application of cancel culture against leftnuts. Unlike the platform vs. publisher distinction (or Reagan-Right moral panics vs SJW moral panics), there's a general understanding that cancel culture is bad, and that the effective tool we have to fight fire is fire. Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls this estoppel, where an individual or group cannot go back in their word without punishment or ejection. This forum and other places have discussed this point enough in the recent weeks, and I expect most here are already familiar beyond what I've typed up here.

With the anti big-tech platform vs publisher distinction that was being primarily publicized from the 2010s-2022, there was very little acknowledgement of the unintended consequences. Chiefly the loss of freedom of of independent internet hosts, and the ability of big tech companies to hijack these regulatory frameworks. There's also the lack of a bright-line distinction between spam prevention, algorithmic recommendations, and algorithmic meddling in support of the Democratic party. This was the right-wing version of the FCC fairness doctrine progressive weirdos evangelized in the 90s and 00s. Maybe some right-wingers had the eventual goal of dismantling the DMCA, if they even thought about it, when supporting the platform vs. publisher distinction against big-tech, but certainly not the Daily Wire.

This youtuber would be right if he attempted good-faith pursuit of first-principles, in the subject of society/politics/economics. Anyone who believes in the mainstream cases for anti-trust, minimum wage, or EU "prosumerism" does not fit in this category. He's not educating his audience on the intricacies of regulatory capture, and common misconceptions of the general public. He's doing low-effort entertainment on the culture war for views.

Being libertarian because you want to smoke pot versus not trusting a authority that has the power to ban it at the state/federal level. My aggravation since being a high schooler is how the former became the household definition, because the mode averaged person has an allergy to cynicism for some gods' forsaken reason. These naive idealists, coinciding with single-issue fuckwads, are so invirtuously useless for society that the proggie NPC has a point when he paints a libertarian as a social loser living in fantasies. Then we have anarcho-capitalism, a designation stemming from humans irresistible urge to subdivide into counterproductive tribes, to be divided and conquered by the outside culture. Any hypothetical minarchist state and ancapistan would be indistinguishable in practice.

Paleoconservative/paleolibertarian would be great brands if they weren't syllablistic vomit doomed to irrelevancy to the average Westerner. Would someone notable start a movement that isn't complete anathema to social marketing, but not so vague as to be amorphously inclusionary? I propose the axiomatic party. Principled yet without delusion, unique, and only slightly more grating to pronounce than "Democratic" or "Republican". I suggest taking a lesson out of Heinlein's History and Moral Philosophy class, sticking to uncomfortable, unambiguous social truths as a serious science. Of course the conditions in Starship Troopers were different, where hard men emerged out of truly hard times, and not bread and circuses limbo we're stuck in.

If my axiomatic ideal were attempted in my lif, neurotypes and grifters would just pervert the meaning like they did to liberalism. Principled will be confused with being a dense zealot. But really, libertarianism needs to rebrand.

Note: This isn't a diatribe against female comedians

There are some types of pervasive comedy that baffle me as much as internet memes do to the Silent Generation. Lousy Sunday morning cartoons along with their sibling; boomer political cartoons. Modern talk show hosts too, with what Ben Shapiro called 'Clauphter', which is comedians making statements to be agreed with rather than jokes .

A related form of subjective humor I haven't seen get much scrutiny is where the punchline is swapped with an emotional outburst, common with ordinary women. Example #1 (contrast with a similar Seinfeld scene) Example #2 . The comic would be fine if the emotive first-person narration was replaced with some gonzo journalism. There doesn't have to be some wordy technical breakdown[1]; those are just the two examples that came to the top of my head.

This could be stretched to include the demeanor of low IQ, neurotypical hoodrats (Ex: Onlyusemeblade occasionally did this shit way before he pimped out his alcholism); contrast with 50 Cent's Icebucket challenge). All style and social posturing/groveling, no meat and potatoes. Weirdos who compulsively monologue other peoples' and animals' actions fall into this category, think the "Honey-Badger don't give a fuck" video but without that dude's flair. Basic-bitch subjectivity and everyday social maneuvering is a zero-sum game, while objectivity is baking another pie.

-

Edit 1: Is anyone aware of a person or publication that critiques this 'quirky adult humor' of modern entertainment, as seen in my first example clip? The third answer on this arbritrary search result at least notices the general phenomenon of narcissistic "humour".

-

\1. Wordiness, however, is notoriously common with lefty memes

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7427

Author: Eric Raymond, former software architect on NetHack and Battle for Wesnoth

Summary: An obscure category of pre-modern games showcase the virtues of minimalist video games versus Triple-A cinematic monstrostities. CLI and TUI games in particular free up the designer's focus and implement a solid gameplay foundation.

My take: These early games have distinguishable cultural contribution to our hobby, having unique qualities from the arcade games that come to the regular person's mind when they hear the term "retro". However, the terminal interface went to the dustbin of electronic gaming for good reason. Better to have ascii graphics inside a renderer, with modern control tech. Ultimately, I wish the point about visual polish detracting resources from gameplay was more appreciated with the general public. Games like Crysis and EA: Battlefront were visually stunning and exciting, but the triple-A industry has become centralized and zombified over the past 2 decades, partially because of a consumer fascination with presentation.

Solution: Sever all contact with those who play Candy Crush.

The goal of an internet forum is to have a high signal/noise ratio, something that is both objective and subjective. An imprecise understanding of master-slave morality is applicable, where the priority is good vs. bad, not the easily hijacked nice vs. mean. Respect should be defined by 4chan ethos; it's okay to capture the HWNDU flag but not to SWAT Shia Labeouf's home. Casuals should be discouraged and mocked, but not arbitrarily interfered with by a badmin or exalted priesthood/parasitic inner-circle clique.

Conservatism is about recognizing that humans are flawed by default and cautiously maintaining institutions based off that fact. Sizable, sophisticated (i.e. not Facebook Groups tier) lib-right online communities are few and far between.

.

Policy:

Many of the replacements gaining traction during the jannie revolt, like Lemmy or Kbin, have anti hate-speech clauses in their ToS. Some platforms may be motivated to keep defect-attracting/distractionary content out, others to coddle fragile feelings, and many more just imitate contemporary norms. This has the hidden cost of encouraging positive feedback loops, akin to stocks and other markets (depending on country and decade) becoming overvalued because players are artificially and capriciously restricted from shorting or insider-trading. Social ecosystems are healthier when some dissent and disruption isn't restricted, counter-acting degenerate individual and collective behaviors.

A healthy community doesn't try to shove 1a/1b discrimination under the rug. Discussing the consequences of ethnic IQ disparities (without double-speak), and making off-color jokes doesn't hurt anybody. It keeps thin-skinned normies and up-tight narcissists out. Genuine type-2 discrimination is bad not because verbal abuses are committed against cultural groups, but because such content will drown out regular activity. Voat was obnoxious mostly because it didn't crack down on brigading. Wolfballs shut down his Lemmy instance when he got tired of real Nazi content. Ruqqus had some dank memes, but stormfront scared off non-political content. c/ConPro is saturated with posturing nutjobs and glow-in-the-dark bait. Sometimes that overflows here with low-effort anti-Davidian sentiments getting upvoted, with no joke or observation attached.

R/adviceanimals and r/politics are similarly bad for accelerating the evaporative cooling effect across the rest of the website. 50k> subscriber hobby subreddits were better 11 years ago.

.

Mechanism:

The worst aspect of Reddit is the innate encouragement of group-think and information cascades[1]. Replacements like Scored are doomed because they inherit this central flaw from Reddit. Downmodding keeps the most inane comments out of the way, but it also buries constructive disagreement and nuanced perspectives. Large, weakly moderated subreddits (as opposed to unmoderated derailment or brigading) inevitably devolve into a sanitized or polarized wall of brain-dead extroverted cliches, shedding intrinsic quality. A bad mix of those who touch too little and too much grass.

Hacker News has some weighted voting and lightweight automated content detection, so it gets some mechanism right, if not policy. LessWrong may or may not have mechanisms for quality curation; I need to do further research. The two technical founders of Stackoverflow and Discourse had some good conservative (non-political) insights and solutions for community degradation, if only tainted by living in coastal urban communities and bias towards 80s/90s progressivism like many other boomers and X'ers. A better platform gives more weight to those who participate responsibly, independently, and have good taste.

Lemmy's federation model swarms too far, hurting discoverability of content and communities[2]. If instance A defederates from instance B, user1 from instance A should be able to override this and view+participate in instance B; instance B would still be able to blanket-ban all users of instance A. Perhaps a return to Usenet's big-8 hierarchy is ultimately more coherent, where a central cabal coordinates group names for general interests. Like Usenet, there'd be the more permissive alt. hierarchy[3], and different instances/providers can create unaffiliated hierarchy groupings. The ultimate intent is not to be more/less inviting to newcomers, but to make regular usage efficient, less exhausting.

.

Other:

Larry Sanger was ultimately right that Wikipedia's neglect of expertise resulted in the rise of agenda-driven cliques. He was a bit too conventional on how you determine expertise, but preferable to the permissive civil-libertarianism of Jimmy Wales.

Any platform that uses heart imagery for upvotes, like squabbles.io, Youtube, or Twitter is dead on arrival. Aesthetics dictate culture.

.

1. I get autistically particular over the 'hivemind' term, since popular usage of that term implicitly discounts spontaneous order and bazaar styled norms
2. Champagne socialists ruin everything they touch, whether it was Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, or it's modern latte guzzling LARPers committing cringe with like-minded freaks. Lemmy deserves Reddit refugees. So does Mastodon, but Twitter addicts were too sheltered and mainstream to figure it out. Inadvertently, G+ was the only microblogging platform to attract half-decent contributors.
3. Tragic that there's no alt.right newsgroup

Further reading:

TWISATWINS

Comprehensive list of current alternatives

The biggest telltale of a confused leftist (i.e. hangs around the current conservative counter-culture) is that he is still brainwashed with the modern form of phony democracy being the ideal of free society. This contrasts with Ancient Greco-Roman [1] conception of citizenship akin to nobility and bourgeois/middle-class, with a middle/working-class of freemen sitting between the former and slaves. While not purely meritocratic, ancient democracy meant having stakes in the game. [2]

In libertarian circles, there's also the concept of market-democracy, where having stakes in the game means individuals answer better questions, and makes more accurate collective decisions . The Wisdom of Crowds (pdf) book cites plenty of examples, such as the stock-market quickly identifying who was responsible for the 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster. Political commentary is mostly outside the scope of the book, particularly with the inconclusive last chapter [3].

Without a useful term, discussing this concept or anything related to the uninitiated is unnecessarily verbose, even though it is an intuitive, populist concept.

Edit: Bad democracy is unqualified civies irresponsibly voting on people or ballot initiatives. Switzerland is passable, since ordinary citizens have better opportunity to be directly involved with state matters, for better or for worse. The only accurate phrasing I've come up with is active vs. passive democracy, but that doesn't exclude mob/clique/committee rule, which countermands spontaneous order and independent decision aggregation. I'll share this on the blackandgold Matrix channel and hopefully get a non-leftist answer that I can share here.

Edit 2: Market democracy in quadrant format.

.

1. Athens, the progenitor of Democracy, had more in common with the Roman Republic or it's rival Sparta than modern societies or feudal Europe.
2. Heinlein's Starship Troopers refines this concept on classical liberal principles.
3. Shame that the author is a New Yorker suffering from TDS.

A community gets ruined either by getting too large (Eternal September, evaporative cooling effect) or moderator ineptitude. I respected that this socialist subreddit could somewhat maintain its niche character while allowing good-faith opposition. 90% of their userbase still sucked at counter-intuitive concepts in social-science, but that's true of many remaining centrist or conservative subs on Reddit (eg. r/timpool, r/theleftcantmeme, r/conservative).

Today, I noticed my flair had switched from the unique [malthusian ancap] to the [regarded lolbert] dunce cap. I find out that a recent comment of mine had unceremoniously removed, rather than collecting dust. In fairness, I wrote that on 2 hours of sleep and realize that the incomplete 2nd sentence might have been misconstrued as attacking the parent comment instead of critiquing Sowell. Still, my suspicion is that a trigger-happy janny saw my 3rd sentence as more threatening to their narrative than the usual right-wing comments they leave up. That's a red flag towards what other content they've been pruning, left or right leaning.

My fault for having any faith in tarts who have a century-long tradition of using the incoherent definition of liberal. Side-note: I also noticed that r/outoftheloop lost the neutral PoV it had 9 years ago.

I'm posting here since r/kia2 used to vet based off activity in anti identitarian subreddits, including stupidpol. I'm also asking if this thread about only spam-marked comments becoming invisible was or still is accurate.

Zappa was intelligent and capable of independent insights, so don't take this as representative of his overall worldview. He's not on the level of Penn Jillette butt-buddying it up with Gavin Newsom, or Jimmy Fallon kicking the ladder behind him after doing the man-show.

Despite reaching the 100 filtered subreddit limit on r/all, this profoundly irrelevant clip found it's way onto my feed again. Yes, the 80's Christian-right earned every ounce of disrespect tossed its way, but any learned anti-establishment figure had access to knowledge pertaining to the virility and destructiveness of cultural-Marxism. The religious busy-bodies lost the cultural war over the past 3 decades, and the airhead demand for oppressors to LARP against inversely followed.

This is by far his worst take, principally rejecting freedom of association and ignorant of the pragmatic trade-offs of permitting the state to make these decisions. Without this, this post wouldn't be worth submitting.

More lame views, taken from Wikipedia:

he also stated that he approved of national defense, social security, and other federal programs, but only if recipients of such programs are willing and able to pay for them

The actual context in the book is balanced and nuanced. Still, the government is a priori incapable of running social security, or any program that does not qualify as general welfare, at a bargain price. Macro-economics is too complicated to where costs can be accurately and concisely presented to the electorate, even if special interests don't deliberately muck the presentation.

He always encouraged his fans to register to vote on album covers, and throughout 1988, he had registration booths at his concerts

High cringe.

Example: "[Russel Brand] was The Chosen One! He was supposed to destroy the wealth inequality gap, not join them!!!" -Source

There's no engaging with simple-minded Rhesus Macaques that refuse to think beyond 'Democrats: for the people
Republicans: for the rich' (or whatever the Fox News reverse is).

Einstein and Hawking get credit for distilling the essence theoretical physics to a level where an interested layman can comprehend it, but they didn't bother debating relativity with flat-earthers. It's remarkable how long modern civilization has clung on giving political authority to the snobbish masses with the delusion of modern democracy. The only route to prosperity is by respecting this quadrant graph; by restricting people making irrational decisions for others.