By David Futrelle
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
Well, at least it’s a day off, right? Enjoy this open thread, and try to enjoy the day.
Here’s a panda video?
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
That wasn’t even the link I expected: My disabled son’s amazing gaming life in the World of Warcraft
(I still feel the real tragedy there was the young man’s parents’ inability to grasp what a social life he had until *after* his death)
Good news everyone I moved out of my mean aunt’s place back to my parents. Mean Aunt decided to be a bit too physical so everyone agreed that for my safety I shouldn’t be there anymore.
On bright news still able to have decent grades despite the bs.
@Moon_custafer, thanks for that. Second time I’ve cried today, but at least this time I’m not at work.
I think I’ve finally worked out the fundamental difference between libertarians and conservatives:
Libertarians hurt people in order to gain power.
Conservatives gain power in order to hurt people.
One of the twins brought home a nasty stomach bug and I’ve been spending the day in bed, throwing up every hour. Somehow that feels very on-brand for this Fourth of July.
Hope the rest of you are having a better day -__- Ooglyboggles, I’m so glad to hear you were able to get away from that situation with your aunt. Good luck with your studies!
@ Full Metal Ox
The former. The book actually outright tells cops they should be following Captain America and they suck for liking the Punisher. The Punisher is the one saying this.
That’s kind of stronger than “hey, stop buying stickers.”
@ Ooglyboggles
Glad to hear you’re safe! Stay that way, please.
@Ooglyboggles
I’m so glad you’re safe sugar. I hope things get better. Lots of love.
@Full Metal Ox
Frank Castle’s speech is explicitly calling out cops idolizing vigilantes, explaining in detail why idolizing vigilantes means you are a bad cop.
So it’s not Disney protecting their copyright, it’s Marvel writers and artists (both current and past) disgusted with the cops behavior and finally addressing it.
@Naglfar
I think my “favorite” ones are the ones who scream about the 2nd amendment being set in stone and utterly untouchable, and apparently have no clue what the word “amendment” actually implies.
I had a nice day. I drank champagne and ate cake while swimming in a pool. I can’t exactly feel nationalisic today though. I mean, I never felt super patriotic, but now, hell no I don’t.
I’m really glad that Trump’s stupid ass speech got rained out.
Serves him right.
We Canucks don’t celebrate the Fourth, of course, but I have spent the day nursing a liter of cold Diet Pepsi trying to endure the heat. The weather here has spent all year acting like it was a month earlier than it was (except in January, when it acted like it was July … in Antarctica) but as soon as it flipped from June 30 to July 1 bam! it was like jumping directly from May to August.
@Buttercup, feel better.
@Oogly, that’s good news.
Seriously, seriously bummed that the Great Goddess, Katie, did not see fit to strike President Donald Trump with lightning during the rainstorm on his military parade — an incident that he would have survived but that would have caused a complete rearrangement of his ideas and values, and a subsequent politically progressive, environmentally wise presidency. I was kinda counting on that happening on this Independence Day in my United States of America.
I suppose She had more pressing business on other worlds.
Thanks for the update Ooglyboggles! I’m glad you made it out safe! *hugs*
@Kat
Staring directly into the sun didn’t do it. I don’t want to be a Katie-heretic, but I’m not sure a lightning bolt would have worked either.
After all, Dr. Frankenstein may have used lightning to revive a creature with a criminal brain (according to the film, at least), but the creature nevertheless had a brain. I don’t know that lightning works on unadulterated (if adulterous) self-absorbed id.
@Rabid Rabbit
A girl can dream.
Well I spent my 4th of July getting an ultrasound at Toronto Western. Then this happened:
https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/on/toronto/a-toronto-street-car-has-derailed-from-its-tracks-causing-traffic-delays-in-the-downtown-core
Yayyyyy, that was my way home…! So it was legging it back up to Bloor Street for me! In 32C heat……….
If that did happen, I guarantee you that the Republicans would suddenly remember how to do impeachment.
@Allandrel
Firstly, it has been a long time since I ventured through libertarian spaces. I understand from friends that are still involved, libertarianism, especially in the USA, has paradoxically become very alt-right adjacent. Much to these friends’ displeasure. So perhaps you are right.
However, I would note that I developed most of my progressive views through a libertarian lens. Specifically: a near fetishization of personal autonomy combined with a strong belief in the non-aggression principle. This always led me – and perhaps the non-representative libertarians I associated with – to believe that harming others is always wrong regardless of the end-goal.
Based on these views it was always very clear to me that, to use one example, trans rights should be a non-issue. Being trans does not harm anyone (non-aggression) and people should be free to express themselves however they wish without the state policing their bodies (autonomy).
To use another example: “gay”* marriage also seemed very straight forward to me. Two consenting adults should be permitted to arrange their affairs anyway they wish (autonomy) so long as that arrangement does not harm others (non-aggression). Further, it should not be the place of the State to police the non-harmful behavior of citizens.
The traditional objections to these two examples (at least where I grew up in the deep south) also held little weight for me because of my libertarian leanings. So your god doesn’t allow it? Ok, that’s fine you’re free to believe that. What you cannot morally do is attempt to utilize the State, or other methods of force (non-aggression) to police the private and personal lives of other people (autonomy) who are not engaged in behaviours which directly harm others.
As I have grown intellectually and (I hope) morally, these beliefs have brought me closer to the left. One cannot be autonomous without access to healthcare, housing, or education. Similarly, one cannot be autonomous without some degree of workplace democracy.
Just some thoughts. All that being said, I understand that some libertarians have adopted the autonomy rhetoric to justify being tyrants in their own homes (which I would argue is a perversion of the belief system as it denies the autonomy of others – but I won’t engage in a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument) and the libertarian fixation on property rights above all others is (in my opinion) very dangerous to true autonomy and should be scaled back significantly.
*scare quotes because marriage is marriage; the parties didn’t “gay park” when they arrived for the ceremony.
@ Moggie
@ Moon_custafer
Thank you for reminding me about that. It’s also got me looking into the potential computer games can have for relieving Parkinson’s.
I don’t think assuming the mantle of John-117 would restore my nervous system to full function, but in – game victories might bring on a helpful dopamine increase.
@Doethreetwoone
There’s no ‘become’ about it, Right-libertarianism has always been fascism in a party hat. See for example the Chicago Boys, Friedman’s proteges who served as Pinochet’s economic advisers back in the 70s.
Original-flavour libertarianism is a left-anarchist tendency and a horse of an altogether different colour.
@Dalillama and Doethreetoone
Pretty much what Dalillama said. Libertarianism has had a disturbing past of being the very first group falling to fascist tendencies, even before conservatives: Fujimori in Peru, Videla in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Porfirio Lobo in Honduras, Hayek and Friedman supporting Pinochet in Chile and Apartheid in South Africa, James Buchanan shifting towards authoritarianism, etc).
Libertarians and conservatives both seem to agree on the principle that societies should be built upon social hierarchies; the only difference I find between both ideologies is how these hierarchies should come about.
For conservatives, tradition and religion are the main factors that should determine how social hierarchies come about; for libertarians, hierarchies should be determined by the free market.
Except, therein lies the catch: libertarians act as if we live in a cultural void, as if power hadn’t been historically monopolized by certain groups of people, and as if we all had equal opportunity. So they conflate the success White men have enjoyed throughout history with an apparent innate capacity, that is somehow superior to those of other groups of people.
These people literally believe that, if there were no restrictions or regulations of any kind, and if resources were allocated based on abilities alone, White men would naturally rise to the top, every time.
From there it’s only a logical step further into Alt-Right territory.
@Dalillama
I would have to respectfully disagree.
Of course, you are entirely right about the right-libertarian* economic influence on Pinochet’s dictatorship.
However, I would suggest that it was Pinochet’s dictatorship that allowed him to implement very unpopular economic policies and not libertarian economic policies that facilitated Pinochet’s dictatorship.**
Be that as it may, it is inescapable that a right-libertarian society would quickly succumb to a corporate oligarchy which would be permitted to violate all sorts of rights in the name of private property and the sanctity of the contract.
*Should have been explicit in my first post that I was discussing right-libertarianism. “Original flavour” is a rather polite way of saying that the term was stolen whole-cloth from the left and then inverted into an unrecognizable parody.
**That making the country more “friendly” to US economic interests assisted him in maintaining power is undeniably true. However, that can be said of any number of dictatorships that did not maintain libertarian economic ideas.
My experience has been that libertarians SAY they support things like marriage equality and trans rights.
Then they vote a straight Republican ticket.
As for the “non-aggression principle,” it initially seemed to me like a lot of bragging about a principle that most people agree to (don’t start fights). Until I read more about it, and what libertarians consider “aggression” and “appropriate response.”
And what I found was that the “non-aggression principle” boils down to is “If you touch My Stuff, I get to kill you and call you the aggressor.”
@Diego Duarte
While I agree with you that a right-libertarian society would become quickly stratified, I don’t believe that libertarians intend for this to be the outcome. I also believe that most libertarians, at least the ones I associated with, have no interest in securing anything particular for white men. That being said, I again agree that it would be the likely outcome of implementing a right-libertarian agenda in the near future. On both points, I would suggest that Hanlon’s razor applies.
@Allandrel
I grew up Florida and S.C. – Republican strongholds if any have ever existed. In my experience, most libertarians I knew voted libertarian when possible. Most found Republican social conservatism to be abhorrent and – during the Bush years – the Republicans’ wars of aggression were seen as equally repugnant. How much it has changed since then, I don’t know.
On the non-aggression principle, at least for me and my cohorts, we took it very seriously. I still believe that it is never morally justifiable to initiate force. Mostly, amongst me and mine, it was used to critique Bush’s wars and the state sanctioned violence/oppression of minority communities.