January 29, 2018 at 10:41 am #976
Facebook is apparently searching old messages to ban people for. It used to only be new messages. I’m banned for a week, because the wuss snowflakes at Facebook can’t handle the word “tranny.” (That seems to be the reason, though they do not give any reason.) LOL! Here’s the message I got when logging in today:
We Removed Something You Posted
It looks like these posts don’t follow our Community Standards.
Anti-tranny bigots would score a 3 or 4 on the Bogardus scale. I.e. As you say they would not want a relative to marry one (1) and wouldn’t have one as a close friend (2), but some would not have a problem with having a trannie neighbor on the same street (3) or working with one (4). Virtually none want to prevent citizenship (5). Now let’s look at those who voted to have anti-tranny bigots fined and (if they resist) jailed. That scores at the extreme end of the Bogardus scale, up there with “Would exclude from entry into my country (7.00).” So: People who voted for 5781 are roughly twice as bigoted as anti-trannie bigots. (That last part was a joke; Bogardus is not a ratio scale.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogardus_social_distance_scale
I think that libertarian anorexics or trannies would not be offended by others thinking they have a mental disorder. Only snowflake lefty SJW types get offended over such petty shit! Some people think I have a mental disorder due to my anarcho-capitalism, or egoism, or atheism, and it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Anyway, most of the people there will be gay, not tranny.
I said *libertarian* trannies would not likely be offended. Most are probably thin-skinned victimhood culture snowflakes, who WILL get offended. The purpose is to find libertarians and get publicity, not pander to the victimhood culture.
But of course, opinions about trannies and mental illness are not likely to come up at all. We do support tranny rights. And the rights of the mentally ill, too, for that matter.
Of course, these are out of context; it’s hard to say what I was responding to. Anyway, I still have Reddit and Diaspora. I’ve never been banned from those. Apparently they are truly open forums, the kind I like.
- This topic was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Hogeye.
January 29, 2018 at 11:02 am #978
Yesterday I was banned from Facebook for the following message. As usual, no reason given, other than “It looks like these posts don’t follow our Community Standards.” Considering today’s message (posted above) it has to be the t-word. Content and intelligence don’t matter, only forbidden words! Lame. I remember liberals before they went nazi. Or as Haidt would say, before the rise of the illiberal left.
Milo is my new comedy hero! I didn’t know much about him until after he quit Breibart – after the silly pederasty charge – but then I watched a bunch of his videos on YouTube and realized that he is brilliant.
Milo Yiannopoulos is basically a flaming gay Bill Maher – funny as hell, politically incorrect, an iconoclast that savagely ridicules social dogma. After watching some videos, I realized that virtually every charge made on mainstream media about him is a lie – third hand political correctness gone wild. E.g. One friend of mine claimed that Milo outed a tranny at the University of Wisconsin. No; he did not out anyone – the dude in question is obviously a guy in a dress, and anyone in his class would know that. Milo did ridicule the guy – quite deservedly since he used government power to “force his way into women’s restrooms.” Milo makes astute but funny observations about Muslim culture, in much the way Maher skews Christian culture, and Milo and Bill share a strong distaste for political correctness. I think one reason statist liberals (and anti-Trumpers) hate Milo so much is that he, by his very existence and popularity among the “right,” disproves the lefty claims that righties are homophobic and racist.
Milo’s “fall” is very strange. He has said so many politically incorrect things, that I found it rather surprising that the old statutory “rape” issue was what “got” him. As usual, the PC types did not even listen to what he actually said. They just listened to a sound byte, misunderstood, and commenced virtue signaling. What did Milo actually say?
1) That some 13 year olds are mature enough to have sex.
2) That one-size-fits-all statist decrees do not capture these human differences.
3) That some gay guys learn the ropes from older gay guys, which may be a good thing for some, e.g. preventing suicide.
4) Milo defines “pedophilia” and explicitly denies defending it.
None of these statements are controversial to me. They are all true. But the Politically Correct stick-up-their-ass types freaked out, without hearing these points, let alone addressing them. Their minds turned to mush due to their disgust-sanctity proto-value, as Jonathan Heidt might say.
For those who did not catch the comments in the video, here is the transcript:
Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”
The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.
Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”
The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”
Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.
Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”
Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.
Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”
Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”
Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”
January 31, 2018 at 12:41 pm #991
Hey hogeye! So let’s talk about language, shall we? I have a number of relatives who are trans* and so this is an issue that is near to me, and, additionally, I think that the attitudes that you convey here are the reasons, largely, that the broader Anarchist community is so eager to disavow AnCaps, and I’m all about coalition-building, so I’m curious to explore this a little more here.
Specifically, this– in both of those posts you have listed, you seem to fetishize the idea of “politically incorrect” language. Now, I’m against the idea of language policing as much as the next anarchist. However, I will assume for the sake of this argument that you believe in the transcendency of the NAP, as articulated by Spooner Bookman, from whom I’ve come to better understand it? If I’m incorrect in this assumption, please let me know.
At any rate, in your first post, you insist on using the term “tranny” over and over again, almost as if you get some kind of illicit joy from the tacit disapproval of others. So let’s talk about the way that this word has historically been used. Historically, this word has been used as a slur for people who are trans*. You claim to “support tranny rights” but clearly that conviction is aha, if you’ll pardon a bad pun, not even skin deep, as it is not just as a slur that that term has been used. That term has also been used as a dogwhistle for violence against people who are trans*. It is a word that was used by police chiefs to dehumanize people who are trans* in order to justify police violence against them at stonewall. It is a word that is used in lockerrooms to trivialize violences committed against people who are trans*, and it is a word that is still today used in order to incite people to violence against trans* communities at rightist rallies. Given this historical entanglement, I think that it’s reasonable for a person who is trans* to view the use of the word “tranny” not just as a slur but as an invitation for violence against and dehumanization of their body. Given that, using that word like that is not just “defying political correctness” but is, rather, making a threat, in violation of the NAP, correct?
As far as your second post goes, while there are a variety of points you make that I disagree with, the one that I think is clearest in this case as far as examples of you violating the NAP go would be the claim that (to paraphrase) “there is nothing controversial about the idea that some 13-year-olds are mature enough to have sex.” As someone who both studied biology and works with children on a daily basis, I would contest the claim that there is any 13-year-old who is mature enough to be capable of giving meaningful consent, and to claim otherwise is to advocate for sexual violence, is it not?
Eager to hear your reply,
January 31, 2018 at 9:54 pm #996
Empifur> “Given that, using that word like that is not just “defying political correctness” but is, rather, making a threat, in violation of the NAP, correct?”
We libertarians have a rather objective definition of aggression. It is the initiation of nonconsensual force or threat of it. Actual or threatened physical force. Modulations of airwaves – speech – is not aggression, except in cases of “true threat.” In short, calling someone a “tranny” is no big deal, certainly not aggression, but discrimination is. Instead of tilting at symbols, worrying about words, maybe you should do something if you feel strongy about it.
Actually, I have zero knowledge about past events where you allege a simple word compelled assault.
As for age of consent issues: They are outside the scope of libertarian thought to a large extent since the NAP is about moral agents (persons). These persons are an axiomatic entity. The meta-questions about ‘who is a moral agent’ and to what extent for children are interesting.
February 7, 2018 at 11:53 am #1030
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Putting aside your condescension for the time being: You are v, v, v excited about how “objective” your definition is. As Spooner knows well, I have a stick up my ass in regards to the idea of objectivity vis-a-vis it not existing. You seem to be very stuck on this idea that because speech is “merely” modulation of airwaves, it is incapable of being a “true threat.”
I’ve got examples for you, but first I want to better understand what you mean by true threat. Suppose, for example, that most of the time when someone called someone else a “tranny”, that language use was followed by an assault. In such a case, could the use of the word “tranny” be seen as presaging an assault, and thus, bringing violence about?
February 1, 2018 at 8:34 am #1004
February 7, 2018 at 3:20 pm #1033
Empifur> “I want to better understand what you mean by true threat. Suppose, for example, that most of the time when someone called someone else a “tranny”, that language use was followed by an assault. In such a case, could the use of the word “tranny” be seen as presaging an assault, and thus, bringing violence about?”
A true threat is a threat that is capable of actually being accomplished and constitutes clear and imminent danger. E.g. Holding a sign that says, “Lynch niggers” is not a true threat, but handing someone who you see has kidnapped a black person a rope and saying the same thing is a true threat.
In your scenario, calling someone a tranny would not be a true threat, unless there was, say, a gun pointed at the tranny. Your scenario seems to be addressing fear (from the tranny) rather than aggression. Let me give you a quite realistic version of your scenario. Mr. Smith calls someone a tranny, having heard the term in the news. He has no idea that it is considered derogatory (and indeed, it was not deemed so until just a few years ago.) He has never even heard of violence related to the term, or maybe is vaguely aware that in New York City or somewhere there may have been violence in the 1970s – the Stonewall incident or something. Mr. Smith has no intention of doing anyone bodily harm. How is calling someone a tranny even remotely aggression?
Jacob, I think you have to admit that observable violence is way more objective than someone’s “feelz” – feelings. It seems to me that you want to deem Smith’s words “aggression” only because the tranny is fearful, not because of any actual aggressive conduct.
Personally, I like the term “tranny” because I never know whether the person is a transvestite, a transexual, or transgender, and really don’t consider it any of my business. Maybe you would prefer me to quiz people before I label them. “Have you had your genitals surgically mutilated yet? If so, I can call you a transexual, but if not you are still a transgender.” Or maybe you would prefer that I simply ask, “What are you?” I always considered that rude, but with the political correctness today …
I am rather surprised that you, who likes the term “voluntaryist” so much, don’t seem to know what aggression is.
February 2, 2018 at 6:58 pm #1015
February 3, 2018 at 9:06 am #1016
It is surprising to me that a self-labeled “voluntaryist” would not know what aggression means. Mere verbal modulations are not aggression. Obviously. “Calling people names” is never aggression. On the contrary, it is a valid exercise of freedom of speech.
I understand that many “victimhood culture” types do not understand or like libertarians, since they treat mere communication as if it were aggression, and (in the case of antifa assholes) beat people up for merely disagreeing. Fuck those snowflake wimps! We libertarians have the very objective NAP as our determinant of criminality.
February 3, 2018 at 7:16 pm #1017
The theme of symbols versus substance is familiar to me. I wrote the song “Just Sayin’” about that. Lew Rockwell linked to a piece about it today. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb18/PC-elite2-18.html?fullweb=1
Also, Wilhelm von Humboldt had a lot to say about political correctness and conformity in his great book “The Limits of State Action.”
If man is a rational being, with the absolute sovereignty of his own moral law, then he must submit no other; no person may dare to rule another. Where a man’s morality liberates him, he is quite free. Wherever he seeks to be granted permission, he rejects his own will, the very moral autonomy which forbids him to recognize any other law than this will. Since he has pointed to his will as the means for deciding to do the permitted behavior, he may also use his will to refrain from the permitted. If another person fails to do so, he may be asked to do so, but he has the full right to deny this request. He must not be compelled to conform. He may freely decline to exercise his right.
A person may also make an exchange of rights with someone. He may, as it were, sell his rights. You ask that I do not exercise some of my rights because their exercise is injurious to you; in return, you agree not to exercise rights which I deem injurious to me. Who lays the law in this contract? Apparently I myself. No human being can be connected without himself. No human being can have a law be given except by himself. If he obeys a law decreed by a foreign will, he renounces his humanity and makes himself an animal; and he is not allowed to do that.” – Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1793) “Contribution to the Rectification of the Public’s Judgment of the French Revolution”
February 5, 2018 at 5:42 pm #1025
I love this tranny: http://exileinhappyvalley.blogspot.com/2018/02/fear-of-queer-planet.html
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.