The hunting of the Snark October 22, 2009 7:37 AM   Subscribe

Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

The author of this post recommended I take my complaints over here.

I understand that the internet is a kind of teeming metropolis, and that, as in any big city, a sport will be made of people-watching, people-hunting: as the comedian said, a tug of war between gawking at the very beautiful and the very crazy. And I also understand that there is a sort of revolving list of crazies that are seen as fairest game for this sort of thing. On Metafilter, I think we can agree that Objectivists, libertarians, and Christians would find themselves included in that rare fauna. Fine.

What I don't understand is how these ingredients add up to Metafilter ripping its lines straight from the Encyclopedia Dramatica, the culture of one-liners and the fraternal cult of lulz.

Why do we not create threads specifically to declare open season on Furries, or on the obese? Why don't we hunt down the sites on which they congregate, share their unfortunate and gauche little displays of humanity, snicker at the dead-end lifestyles in which they've ensnared themselves? Why don't we casually dismiss objections to this sort of behavior as weepy or butthurt?

Because it's noise. Because there are a dozen other sites a ping away that are already overrun with childish snark. Because it lowers conversation to a noise floor of capslock memes and shouted catchphrases.

How is this thread different from any of that? Really.

A few users did point out that I could resolve my problems with the thread instantly by just walking away. Too true, Lord Humungous, too true. But I don't think that "flag it and get out" is how differences of opinion are supposed to be settled here.

I'm genuinely curious about how this community can simultaneously take the high road in so many other matters and then occasionally devolve into a fraternal pack when the wrong name is mentioned or wrong word is sounded.
posted by kid ichorous to Etiquette/Policy at 7:37 AM (199 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

kid ichorous: " I don't think that "flag it and get out" is how differences of opinion are supposed to be settled here."

Turned out to require less cleanup than a glove slapped across the face followed by pistols at dawn.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:44 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


My take, as someone who is a little maladjusted to snark and doesn't find as much of it funny as my peers seem to, is that sort of thread is now the exception rather than the rule.

I didn't like it much but it really wasn't flagged much and people there seemed to like it. I don't have to like all the threads here, obviously. The weird thing about Ron Paul [as opposed to say, obese people and/or furries and/or many other LOLGROUP people] is that he was such a weird relentless self-promoter, and his followers often were as well. This tends to make people feel "well if he's putting himself out there, then it's okay to mock and ridicule" I also feel that there's an otherness to Libertarians [i.e. not many here on MeFi, most people don't know any except for the Randian/Paulian ones handing out literature] so they become a real "out there" commodity sort of like Scinetologists i.e. "these people CHOSE this and they're weird"

Making fun of weird people = not so awesome in my book but you asked why maybe something like this is okay, not deleted, while other stuff goes and that's my best guess at why the community does what it does. Finding love is great, even for Libertarians.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:44 AM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]


"Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?"

I hadn't read the thread in question. Now that you've pointed it out and I've had a chance to read it, my answer is "In this case, yes. Yes, we do."
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 7:46 AM on October 22, 2009 [9 favorites]


Objectivists, libertarians, and Christians

Don't think anyone missed your non-capitalisation slur on the libertarians there. Take your bigotry elsewhere ichorous, we don't need it here.
posted by biffa at 7:50 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


Well, I should mention that I didn't exactly want the thread deleted, because 1) it's a conversation already in motion, no matter how I feel about the contents, and 2) Metafilter has a dandy search feature. My angle on this is that I (just like everyone else) have expended a few thousand words here, give or take, on my political beliefs. And it sucks to go through with that in good faith only to be instantly rebuffed and bonked over the head repeatedly with slogans from the depths of reddit. The less of that culture, the better, that's all.
posted by kid ichorous at 7:51 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's still better than the caps lock thread.
posted by smackfu at 7:52 AM on October 22, 2009 [12 favorites]


Finding love is great, even for Libertarians.

I initially read that as "Finding love is great, even for Librarians" and I was like "Aw, Jessamyn, of COURSE you deserve love!". Now I feel kind of foolish.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:57 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's still better than the caps lock thread.

Faint praise indeed.
posted by fixedgear at 8:08 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

No.

Entire threads devoted the ridicule of RONPAULITES, though? Totally necessary, at approximately the rate of one every two weeks.

Hope this helped answer your question. Have a nice day.
posted by dersins at 8:08 AM on October 22, 2009


There's really only two controls to this: 1) to try to control the feelings and responses of the members in the post, 2) to have or not have the post itself.

Amusingly, the first is fairly anti-libertarian itself.

I don't think it's the wrong name, or the wrong word, or one little thing triggering the behavior. It's not even the wrong phrase. Those personal ads are many, many long strings of bad craziness concatenated together. Maybe it is possible for someone to have a genetic predisposition to being into Ron Paul, like your obesity example. I don't think a genetic predisposition would necessarily give a pass on people who would create a temple to the angry crazy, then seek other people to live inside the walls of the angry crazy. ("It's not ... a compound. It's our ranch, and it's our home.") Most people are going to look at that and say, "Yeah, that's pretty messed up right there." I've seen some fairly off-the-wall personal ads in my life, but these are ... special. People recognize that and respond. Short of mounting a campaign to track down, rescue, and deprogram the people on that site, what other response is there?

So you're pretty much left with "to post or not to post." The post itself is interesting for two reasons, to me:

1) We could not escape Ron Paul. His followers were some of the most vocal in the world. I saw chainlink fences with cups jammed in them spelling out his name, whereas I saw nothing else for the other two candidates. "GOOGLE RON PAUL" was ubiquitous. Post-election, especially with that sad little photo of him sitting all alone, one does have to wonder about his adherents, which brings us to ...

2) The fascinating behavior of devotees of certain religions, ideologies, philosophies, and the like as their userbase shrinks and they become unpopular, especially with regard to the reality-filtering, self-segregating techniques they employ. In this case, these have been manifested as a dating site, and one wherein the usual unrealistic expectations of the people subscribing have been given an extra layer of frosting, that of THIS IS MY AMBITION.

There's all kinds of weird, and I like weird, but not all weirdness is sacrosanct. Sometimes, you give people power by taking them seriously; here the urge is to not give them that power at all.

"Just walk away ... walk away and there will be an end to the horror ..."
posted by adipocere at 8:09 AM on October 22, 2009 [10 favorites]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

I say we let the free market decide.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:21 AM on October 22, 2009 [47 favorites]


Finding love is great, even for Libertarians.

This is true; and thanks to Ron Paul Singles, even Ashley Todd can get a date.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:27 AM on October 22, 2009


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

In regards to this particular thread, in answer to your question, I don't know. It depends on how you feel about Ron Paul, I guess, and his followers. Ever since I saw his homophobic outburst in Bruno, I've felt he deserves whatever comes to him -- and that's on top of his reprehensible politics, which was recently reconfirmed by his appearing with Michele Bachmann, who might be American politics at its absolute nadir.

As to your question in general, sure. Sometimes people engage in such a way that invites ridicule. Sometimes they even deserve it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:31 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


I have socialist tendencies, but would definitely consider something like SOCIALISTDATE.COM (that domain is free, you internet entrepeneurs!) to be totally game for some heavy snark. I don't really understand why it wouldn't be. I also like my Macbook, but would find a dating site exclusively for Mac users to be hilarious and ridiculous.

Bam. One post, two millionaire ideas. You're welcome.
posted by naju at 8:34 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


definitely consider something like SOCIALISTDATE.COM (that domain is free, you internet entrepeneurs!) to be totally game for some heavy snark.

Is true, too. OBAMASINGLES.COM would be equally mockworthy. (I'm imagining it as some combination of Nerve.com, Stuff White People Like, and The New York Times.)
posted by octobersurprise at 8:43 AM on October 22, 2009 [6 favorites]


Ron Paul is such a contrarian jerk. Every time I look up his voting record I dislike him more. He votes against the silliest stuff, but it's not consistent at all as one would expect from any sort of coherent ideology.

And he's anti-choice, which always irks me, especially because all the Ron Paulites I know are dudes who very easily brush it off as "yeah, well, most of his ideas are great go freedom"

Anyway, I don't find the site particularly funny, but I do find it odd to attempt romance under the watchful (if imagined) eye of a crotchety politician.
posted by kathrineg at 8:44 AM on October 22, 2009


A super-environmentalist dating site would be funnier because people would be able to sort each other by whether or not they use reusable toilet paper and it would be awesome.
posted by kathrineg at 8:46 AM on October 22, 2009


Why do we not create threads specifically to declare open season on Furries, or on the obese? Why don't we hunt down the sites on which they congregate, share their unfortunate and gauche little displays of humanity, snicker at the dead-end lifestyles in which they've ensnared themselves? Why don't we casually dismiss objections to this sort of behavior as weepy or butthurt?

Furries are weird and creepy as hell but they generally don't have a problem with roads or libraries or reduced-price hot breakfasts for war orphans, all of which libertarians and Paulites oppose. In addition, both pretend to be something they are not, but only libertarians and Paulites pretend to be self-sufficient ubermenschen who don't need anyone or anything except a Fleshlight and a liberal GameStop return policy. In short, libertarians are both hilarious in their self-delusion and repulsive in their politics, thus making RON PAUL SINGLES the funniest and saddest and most mock-worthy website of this year. Best of the web.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:46 AM on October 22, 2009 [25 favorites]


Mock-worthy, or praise-worthy as a method of shunting them out of the general dating pool? You decide.
posted by kathrineg at 8:48 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


I have socialist tendencies, but would definitely consider something like SOCIALISTDATE.COM (that domain is free, you internet entrepeneurs!) to be totally game for some heavy snark. I don't really understand why it wouldn't be. I also like my Macbook, but would find a dating site exclusively for Mac users to be hilarious and ridiculous.

Why? Plenty of dating sites exist for people who are looking for a specific quality in their partners. JDate, BuddhistDating, Frumster, FreeThinkerMatch, Dating Disabled, HIVPoz... etc, etc. Ron Paul Revolution seems a little weird to me, but I suppose it's no weirder than the rest.
posted by zarq at 8:52 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

most certainly.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:54 AM on October 22, 2009


jessamyn: maybe something like this is okay, not deleted

My personal benchmark is the "furry test." If I would feel bad about a similar post or comment making fun of the furry subculture then it's beyond the pale.* I'd feel bad about a post making fun of a furry dating site.

On the other hand, those Star Trek videos where Data painted furry scenes were hilarious and I love them.


* I use this because furries are the most ridiculous subculture I know of which I have met members of. The subculture has the inherent funniness which occurs when a lot of people take something very silly very seriously. However, I've met some furries socially and they're nice people and I hate the idea of people making fun of them as people.
posted by Kattullus at 8:55 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Kattulus, I put the Ron Paul people a little further down — near otherkin and diaperfurs.

Oh, wow ... DiaperDragonsforLiberty.com hasn't been registered yet.
posted by adipocere at 8:59 AM on October 22, 2009


JDate, BuddhistDating, Frumster

If you can't see the difference between a Jewish dating site and one for Mac users to couple up, maybe our humor is different.

By the way, it would be cool if that Mac dating site blocks Internet Explorer traffic. I'm actually thinking of pitching this to some VC types.
posted by naju at 8:59 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Furries are weird and creepy as hell but they generally don't have a problem with roads or libraries or reduced-price hot breakfasts for war orphans, all of which libertarians and Paulites oppose. In addition, both pretend to be something they are not, but only libertarians and Paulites pretend to be self-sufficient ubermenschen

I can't see how you'd fit this characterization to mokuba based only on his participation in the thread in question. I identify as a libertarian because I'm as radically skeptical of power in the hands of state agents as you are of it in private hands, and I think those two classes are becoming less separable, and yet I have no problem with spending on roads, or libraries or any sort of intellectual commons, or on education, for that matter, seeing as it clocks in at something like 1000% ROI, and because rational agents are a goddamn precondition of a free market, of ideas or otherwise. Don't you understand that these explosions of "what about roads?!" are as facile and as utterly off-base as hurling welfare queens your way? You're acting the complement of right-wing talk radio. Be more generous. Start coming at us from somewhere off the AM dial, please.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:01 AM on October 22, 2009 [6 favorites]


kid ichorous: "Don't you understand that these explosions of "what about roads?!" are as facile and as utterly off-base as hurling welfare queens your way? You're acting the complement of right-wing talk radio. Be more generous. Start coming at us from somewhere off the AM dial, please."

The counterpoint is actually the over-educated dude with too much white liberal guilt.
posted by kathrineg at 9:07 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of

"Need" is probably overstating it. In fact, there are few things here that would fit into that category. I don't need to snark on MetaFilter, anymore than I need MetaFilter at all. I can quit anytime I want. I can. Seriously, I could just walk away right now, and no one would know the difference.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:08 AM on October 22, 2009


The counterpoint is actually the over-educated dude with too much white liberal guilt.

I hope that's not directed at me. I don't think you know what being White gets you growing up on the Orange line, but it's not enviable and certainly not worth feeling a shred of guilt over.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:09 AM on October 22, 2009


*looks up from knotting the surgical tubing around 'Flo's arm* Anytime you want, baby. That's right.
posted by adipocere at 9:17 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

Well, if they're funny.
posted by Artw at 9:17 AM on October 22, 2009


Look, Ron Paul votes with the Republican Party more than 75% of the time. When he doesn't--Oh wait! Here's where he votes against roads:

H R 3617: Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009

H R 3357: To Restore Sums to the Highway Trust Fund and for Other Purposes

He also votes against stuff like H RES 210: Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives That Providing Breakfast in Schools Through the National School Breakfast Program Has a Positive Impact on Classroom Performance

God knows that was a blow against freedom!

To his credit, he voted against H R 1259: Dextromethorphan Distribution Act, which I guess is ideologically consistent.
posted by kathrineg at 9:18 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


1. Fuck Ron Paul, he deserves whatever political/social mockery he gets.
2. RonPaulSingles is an absurd idea and just more commercial/political/heylookatmeeeee wankery. Strays into Rev Moon territory.
posted by edgeways at 9:19 AM on October 22, 2009


Don't you understand that these explosions of "what about roads?!" are as facile and as utterly off-base as hurling welfare queens your way?

Libertarians/associated tax dodgers never actually answer the roads thing. Also it's sort of amusing because so many of them live in out of the way places serviced by less trafficked roads that take a disproportionate amount of tax payers money for the amount of usage they get, so really if we paid any attention to them the first thing we'd do is bulldoze the roads leading to their houses.
posted by Artw at 9:21 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


kid ichorous: "I hope that's not directed at me. I don't think you know what being White gets you growing up on the Orange line, but it's not enviable and certainly not worth feeling a shred of guilt over."

No, I am not attacking you for being a white guilt liberal overeducated guy.

I am saying that the counterpoint of the "NO ROADDDDSSS" stereotype of libertarians is the "overeducated white guilt" stereotype of liberals.
posted by kathrineg at 9:21 AM on October 22, 2009


META RON PAUL THREADS
posted by DU at 9:22 AM on October 22, 2009


I don't think you know what being White gets you growing up on the Orange line, but it's not enviable and certainly not worth feeling a shred of guilt over.

White people have it so hard.

Why do we not create threads specifically to declare open season on Furries, or on the obese?

I've never had furries try to convert me to their cause, whatever it may be.
posted by kmz at 9:25 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


My mock dating site (warning - plays music) got started after a French friend of mine was asked how he'd met his American girlfriend. The smart ass replied that they found each other on "frenchboyfriend.com," which, at the time, did not exist.

After I learned that the domain was available, I recruited our mutual friends to dress up as stereotypical French men and designed a really ugly website. We managed to keep the site secret from him for months until it was "finished," and unveiled it to him at his birthday.
posted by exogenous at 9:25 AM on October 22, 2009 [13 favorites]


Yes.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:27 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


I identify as a libertarian because I'm as radically skeptical of power in the hands of state agents as you are of it in private hands, and I think those two classes are becoming less separable, and yet I have no problem with spending on roads, or libraries or any sort of intellectual commons, or on education, for that matter, seeing as it clocks in at something like 1000% ROI, and because rational agents are a goddamn precondition of a free market, of ideas or otherwise. Don't you understand that these explosions of "what about roads?!" are as facile and as utterly off-base as hurling welfare queens your way?

Uh, Ron Paul votes against roads and school lunches and shit all the time so I don't know why you think I'm making shit up. You may identify as libertarian but being for libraries and roads clearly makes you not one.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:27 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


I identify as a libertarian because I'm as radically skeptical of power in the hands of state agents as you are of it in private hands, and I think those two classes are becoming less separable

If your point is that there are astute, reasonable libertarian/libertarian-ish arguments to be made, then yes, you are correct, there are. If your point is Ron Paul Singles doesn't deserve the mockery it's getting because there are reasonable libertarian/libertarian-ish arguments to be made, then no, it still does. I don't think Julian Sanchez or Radley Balko are patronizing Ron Paul Singles.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:29 AM on October 22, 2009


Thanks for pointing this out. I would've missed it otherwise.

Off to the lulz!
posted by slogger at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

We all Watch For The Mutant in our own way, bro. Some point and laugh at them, some hang them from trees after dragging them behind trucks.

I ain't sayin' either way is right, but snark beats what some folks are handing out.
posted by Pragmatica at 9:38 AM on October 22, 2009


Oh. I'm sorry for being fighty.

Look, Ron Paul votes with the Republican Party more than 75% of the time. When he doesn't--Oh wait! Here's where he votes against roads

Well, wait a second. He's broken rank on some significant issues. He came out in opposition to the whole National ID puzzle, several parts of which were onerous tracking measures to be levied against immigrants. He's against the death penalty. He was almost uniquely anti-war when the entire ship of state was full-steam on Iraq. And he and his supporters raised money and advertised against the 2008 amendments to FISA - the cloak of immunity that the Obama administration still tightfists.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:42 AM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


"I could just walk away right now, and no one would know the difference."

Hey, has anyone seen It's Raining Florence Henderson lately? I miss him, darn it.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 9:44 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


You may identify as libertarian but being for libraries and roads clearly makes you not one.

Why? Should I tell Noam Chomsky to stop calling himself a libertarian? Geo-libertarianism. Left-libertarianism.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:45 AM on October 22, 2009


That's kind of a Nazis-are-actually-socialists arrangement, i.e. bollocks.
posted by Artw at 9:46 AM on October 22, 2009


if you love him so much why don't you marry him

JUST LOG ONTO RON PAUL SINGLES CHECK I AM A [MAN] LOOKING FOR [RON PAUL] AND MEET YOUR MATCH.TALK ABOUT THE GOLD STANDARD AND THE JEW ILLUMINATI CABAL BEHIND TEH FED.MAYBE SEND HIM A TEASER PIC OF U.GOTTA LOOK SHARP TO CATCH A RON PAUL.COMMIT TAX FRAUD TO GET HIS ATTENTION.PUT A BANNER ON A CHAIN LINK FENCE. THATS PAUL DR RON OR MAYBE JUST RON TO US IN THE KNOW.WE PUT LOVE IN THE RELOVEUTION.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:48 AM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]


I think that the really interesting FPPs are posted with a certain amount of good faith, regardless of how LOLworthy the subject is. It's interesting to read about pastors who use Insane Clown Posse language and imagery. It's interesting to read about young Muslim women co-opting burqas as a sex symbol. With a little more framing and context, it would have been interesting to read about the dating habits of libertarians (or, if you prefer, dating sites for several fringe groups). Just laughing at shit gets old.
posted by roll truck roll at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2009 [6 favorites]


Should I tell Noam Chomsky to stop calling himself a libertarian?

Chomsky is pretty clear that he's referring to the word the way Europeans traditionally mean it [i.e. more socialist] and not the way Americans usually refer to it [i.e. not voting for roads/libraries, i.e. like Ron Paul].
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:01 AM on October 22, 2009


we do not need threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics.

what we do need are more blogs devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, their unfashionable lifestyles and politics to angle for book deals!
posted by the aloha at 10:10 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well, wait a second. He's broken rank on some significant issues. He came out in opposition to the whole National ID puzzle, several parts of which were onerous tracking measures to be levied against immigrants. He's against the death penalty. He was almost uniquely anti-war when the entire ship of state was full-steam on Iraq. And he and his supporters raised money and advertised against the 2008 amendments to FISA - the cloak of immunity that the Obama administration still tightfists.

So because there were a couple gems of good ideas within his giant, tottering pile of destructive (if it were to be implemented) crazy, that makes it all okay? We make fun of Ron Paulites because he's an anti-choice, racist, homophobic batshit-insane asshole whose followers worship him like he's the second coming of Christ. The worst part about Ron Paulites and objectivists isn't how destructive their policies would be if they were implemented, it's how blindly they follow their chosen idols. For people who so strongly advocate "freedom," they sure don't spend much time exercising their freedom to think.
posted by Caduceus at 10:10 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


I thought the site was all about Ron Paul becoming a baseball player but it wasn't :(
posted by haveanicesummer at 10:13 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Well anyway beyond my feelings towards Ron Paul (hate him) I think it was a really weak post.
posted by kathrineg at 10:19 AM on October 22, 2009


I think Ron Paul types get teased because so many of their ideas are so bizarrely, insanely wrong that debating one is like arguing with someone who favors lower taxation and reduced spending because purple monkey dishwasher.

I have a very dear friend who's a libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter. The other day, he tried to convince me that government spending doesn't have a stimulus effect, because spending the money removes it from the economy. He compared it to carbon sequestration.
posted by EarBucket at 10:20 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


GOOGLE FLORENCE HENDERSON
posted by Kwine at 10:21 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


(Oh, and you should click here and go to 5:25 to hear Neal Conan deliver an EPIC smackdown to a Ron Paul supporter on Talk of the Nation the other day.)
posted by EarBucket at 10:26 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Ron Paul is a public figure; his actions can affect the general public, so he's a justifiable subject of public attention and criticism.

The Ron Paul Singles website... it's just a website. Posting it is kinda' churlish, but I get the "LOL idiology + romance = two unlike things unnaturally glued together!" sentiment.

Some comments have links to individuals listing on the website, though, and I feel squickish about it. They might be good or bad people on my ideological map but they're not public figures, and they're posting details about themselves in good faith, hoping (naively or not) to count on a modicum of public privacy (the notion that you can, for example, say ickle cute things to your significant other at an outdoor cafe and not have people at neighboring tables transcribe it for Gawker, or post details of your lunch on Twitter and have it not judged in the same way as a White House news release).
posted by ardgedee at 10:30 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


he weird thing about Ron Paul...is that he was such a weird relentless self-promoter

Every politician who aspires for higher office is a weird relentless self-promoter. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Palin, McCain, Kerry, Edwards: all of them have been relentless self-promoters.

In terms of weirdness, which is subjective anyway, there are plenty of "weird" politicians or folks seeking public office: Ross Perot, James Traficant, Mike Gravel, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, Jerry Brown, etc.

I am a lifelong progressive Democrat with Socialist/Green leanings, and am in no way a Ron Paul supporter or Libertarian, but I do respect him for sponsoring the bill to audit the Fed (which has wide bi-partisan support from Barney Frank and others), which makes him the lone Republican (well perhaps aside from Olympia Snowe) who I have even a shred of respect for at this point. So yeah for me I just don't get the Ron Paul hate: he seems slightly better and more independent-minded to me than the vast majority of Republicans.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 10:34 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


I would absolutely make fun of a Ross Perot dating site.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:36 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


I was just going to say the same thing as ardgedee. there is a real difference between mocking a website as a whole and mocking individual members of said website. My stance is that the posts are fine, but we shouldn't be mining laughs from individuals who have put themselves out there in a generally unassuming manner
posted by Think_Long at 10:37 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


"I would absolutely make fun of a Ross Perot dating site."

Why, that'd be like a two-ton Texas tornado tryin' to spit past a barn door with a herd of longhorns ridin' sidesaddle on a jackalope!
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 10:39 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


Oh. Hi, Mr. Rather.
posted by EarBucket at 10:48 AM on October 22, 2009


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

And curly fries, you can't forget the curly fries!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:51 AM on October 22, 2009


If we don't make fun of Libertarians, how will they learn?
posted by chunking express at 10:52 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hell, I would make fun of Obama Singles, and I would definitely make fun of Kerry Singles.
posted by creasy boy at 10:53 AM on October 22, 2009


I thought the site was all about Ron Paul becoming a baseball player but it wasn't :(

My first thought was that he'd become a recording artist.
posted by exogenous at 10:55 AM on October 22, 2009


I'm still waiting for Millicent Fenwick singles.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 10:57 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Why do we not create threads specifically to declare open season on Furries, or on the obese?

Because there's enough MeFites—doesn't take a lot, just a few will do—who will defend the furries or the obese and force the LOL[X] thread into an actual discussion. There's virtually no one on MeFi who will defend the Paulites or fundie Christians. (Not that that's necessarily a good thing; I'm explaining, not defending.)

Here's an interesting case study: starts out as LOLJUGGALOS, but then some people start to speak up for them, and it ended up in some decent discussion and even changing a few people's minds. It only takes a few people defending the target group to change the tone of the thread; the ones that stay LOL[X] all the way through are the ones where the target group has no MeFi defenders at all.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:57 AM on October 22, 2009 [8 favorites]


Walter Mondale Singles? John Bayard Anderson Singles?
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 10:58 AM on October 22, 2009


where the target group has no MeFi defenders at all.
posted by DevilsAdvocate


Eponysterical
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 11:00 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


Well, BEAM ME UP! Where's this James Traficant dating site I've been hearing so much about?
posted by electroboy at 11:04 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


"I identify as a libertarian... and yet I have no problem with spending on roads, or libraries or any sort of intellectual commons, or on education..."

While I don't think your stance is necessarily an unreasonable one, please be aware that it differs substantially from the stated positions of most of the actual Randroids and Paulbots people come into contact with regularly. Your more carefully reasoned, civic-minded, nuanced opinion is uncommon on the landscape of American libertarianism which as a rule tends more toward "YOINK! I GOT MINE, SUCKA!"

When you identify with clueless loudmouth asshats -- even if you yourself are not any of those things -- you have to expect to catch a certain amount of flak.
posted by majick at 11:14 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


"YOINK! I GOT MINE, SUCKA!"


Don't forget "I WOULD'VE GOTTEN MINE IF IT WEREN'T FOR EVERYONE ELSE GETTING THEIRS!"
posted by kathrineg at 11:17 AM on October 22, 2009 [7 favorites]


majick: "When you identify with clueless loudmouth asshats -- even if you yourself are not any of those things -- you have to expect to catch a certain amount of flak."

I think this is a bad attitude, though, there are a lot of clueless asshats out there and I'm not a fan of indulging in overly-broad negative generalizations.
posted by kathrineg at 11:18 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


I dunno...the reason I thought it was funny is that Ron Paul really isn't someone I associate with dating, sex, or even having sex organs.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:28 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


kathrineg: I think this is a bad attitude, though, there are a lot of clueless asshats out there and I'm not a fan of indulging in overly-broad negative generalizations.

Agree. I see this attitude in LOLXTIAN threads a lot and the general comment seems to be 'You need to make EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS X IN COMMON WITH YOU stop being jerks or I will continue to call you dumb'
posted by shakespeherian at 12:17 PM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


When you identify with clueless loudmouth asshats -- even if you yourself are not any of those things -- you have to expect to catch a certain amount of flak.

e.g., Any person who labels himself "Republican" in this, the Year of Our Lord 2009
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:23 PM on October 22, 2009


The weird thing about Ron Paul is that he was such a weird relentless self-promoter, and his followers often were as well.

Honest question here. I honestly didn't feel like Ron Paul was a huge self-promoter during his campaign. Certainly his supporters were as loud and present as any supporters, to the point of nausea - there I agree. But was he honestly promoting himself a lot? I always got the sense he was almost embarrassed by the degree to which his supporters supported him.
posted by kingbenny at 12:27 PM on October 22, 2009


For the record, I would totally make fun of Kucinich Singles, too.
posted by empath at 12:31 PM on October 22, 2009


Next up: Mark Sanford Swingers!
posted by ericb at 12:33 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


And I see I've used 'honest' and 'honestly' about 49 times in 56 words, for which I apologize with utmost sincerity.
posted by kingbenny at 12:41 PM on October 22, 2009


Ron Paul... was such a weird relentless self-promoter

To be fair, dude was running for president.
posted by spaltavian at 1:00 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Because it lowers conversation to a noise floor of capslock memes

YOU TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:03 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


You know who else was a weird relentless self-promoter?

Angelyne.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:06 PM on October 22, 2009


I dunno...the reason I thought it was funny is that Ron Paul really isn't someone I associate with dating, sex, or even having sex organs.

Which is funny, kittens for breakfast, because he's actually a gynecologist.

Oh god. Can you seriously imagine having Ron Paul as your gynecologist? That's even worse than a dating site, if you ask me.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 1:11 PM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


You may identify as libertarian but being for libraries and roads clearly makes you not one

Oh, and this is stupid, by the way. Libertarianisn does not equal anarchism. Exactly what constitutes a "minimal" state depends on what you consider essential to a state, and what level of state one should be restricted. It's prefectly possible to be a libertarian and think roads are essential, like national defense, same for libraries. It's prefectly possible for a libetarian to be against, say, a federal Dept. of Education but for local goverment paying for schools. I've seen a libertarian earnestly argue for some degree of national healthcare, arguing that it fit the same criteria as an armed force for national defense.

Libetarianism is a general philosophy of government, like (modern) liberalism or socialism, not a laundry list of specific policy positions that you can use to weed indiviudals out of the philosophy. Before you set yourself up as the chief magistrate of libertarianism, it would help if you had a better grasp of political theory than LOLGOOGLERONPAUL.
posted by spaltavian at 1:12 PM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]


It's humbling when I wander around and see very, very unlikley couples and remember that there's someone out there for everybody. Even Ron Paul.

Though I agree with the poster who early in the thread said that it would be better if it were RU Paul singles. That would be awesome.

I'm not going to cast aspersions on anyone's love life. Were I single, I'd have to find "I go to bed by 10PM, I talk on the phone to my mom for hours every day, and one of my best friends is my cat." singles. We may not all be precious snowflakes, but we are all - in our own loveable ways - huge weirdos.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:13 PM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


Weirdos, indeed. Like, why is it that people on personals sites can't hook up more easily, when every last person is into candlelit dinners, weekends away & long walks on the beach?
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:21 PM on October 22, 2009


Ron Paul is a proponent of hatred for women, based upon his desire to take away reproductive healthcare choices from them.

He is an established, published racist, someone who signed his name to a document that calls black people terrorists.

He is an established homophobe who regularly supports legislation that eliminates the ability of our government to recognize the equal rights that are enshrined in the Constitution for everyone, but specifically the gays and lesbians he hates.

Beyond that, he regularly votes to take away privileges and protections from people who are in a weak position to defend themselves against a corrupt system, while pretending otherwise.

Paul argues for vague notions of freedom, but ultimately only for wealthy, white, Christian males. In actuality, he votes against a wide variety of freedoms for those he dislikes personally.

If only dating would somehow magically grant his followers the empathy and humanity to understand the misery they intend to spread to the rest of us, by supporting such an evil piece of work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:24 PM on October 22, 2009 [22 favorites]


If only dating would somehow magically grant his followers the empathy and humanity to understand the misery they intend to spread to the rest of us, by supporting such an evil piece of work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon


Sadly, when Paulites and libertarians go on really bad dates they conclude "all women are bitches" not "christ, I'm an asshole." Because they don't have the mental tools required to think about other people as real agents of their own will. They are literally mentally retarded.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:56 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Don't you understand that these explosions of "what about roads?!" are as facile and as utterly off-base as hurling welfare queens your way?

Uh, Ron Paul votes against roads and school lunches and shit all the time so I don't know why you think I'm making shit up.

He didn't say it was made up. He said it was facile and off-base -- as in, interpreting this kerfluffle as being about political differences is a facile, superficial, simplistic, disingenuous way of looking at it.

the way i read it: kid ichorus isn't saying don't disagree with them. he isn't saying not to discuss why their policies are bad, or why we need roads. he isn't even saying be nice when you do it.

the way i read it, and i agree, is that it's really beneath the potential for metafilter, beneath the possibility of what this place could and really ought to be, to create threads for the sole purpose of LOLHEWEARSAFEDORA
posted by jock@law at 1:58 PM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


Exactly what constitutes a "minimal" state depends on what you consider essential to a state, and what level of state one should be restricted.

Doesn't this render the term meaningless, though? Can't any political position be characterized as libertarian under this definition? "I consider free pony rides for every citizen on Thursdays 'essential to a state,' so I believe the government should provide pony rides on Thursdays. Hey, I'm a libertarian!"

Libetarianism is a general philosophy of government, like (modern) liberalism or socialism, not a laundry list of specific policy positions that you can use to weed indiviudals out of the philosophy.

In fairness, you'd never know this from most libertarian discussion boards.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:00 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


They are literally mentally retarded.

Classy.
posted by electroboy at 2:15 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


When did people here stop using Cognitive Dissonance at every possible opportunity?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:17 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Can't any political position be characterized as libertarian under this definition? "I consider free pony rides for every citizen on Thursdays 'essential to a state,' so I believe the government should provide pony rides on Thursdays. Hey, I'm a libertarian!"

I see, because someone can come with any absurd definition, all shades of meaning of that don't match a straightjacketed strawman that the netroots like to poke must be false.

In fairness, you'd never know this from most libertarian discussion boards.
They're doing the best they can, seeing how they are "literally mentally retarded".

For fuck's sake.
posted by spaltavian at 2:18 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


LOLHEWEARSAFEDORA

What the hell is up with the fedoras anyway.
posted by empath at 2:25 PM on October 22, 2009


maybe we should use the sidewiki to make fun of libertarians from now on.
posted by empath at 2:27 PM on October 22, 2009


Fedora.
posted by electroboy at 2:31 PM on October 22, 2009


Are there libertarian librarian Liberians?
posted by lore at 2:43 PM on October 22, 2009


The depressing fact about most anti-government people is that they have no fucking comprehension of what government is for. They are like people who don't care to learn how the body works, don't really believe that kidneys are important, because they feel people ideally shouldn't get sick—but instead of going into advertising or some other field unrelated to their chosen area of ignorance, they decide to become amateur doctors.

It's not just stupid, it's crazy-dangerous-for-all-of-us stupid.
posted by fleacircus at 2:48 PM on October 22, 2009


They are literally mentally retarded.

Stop it. Turning MetaTalk into your own personal humiliation and abuse parlor is not okay. Take that elsewhere.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:49 PM on October 22, 2009 [7 favorites]


That said, let's not point and laugh so much.
posted by fleacircus at 2:49 PM on October 22, 2009


I see, because someone can come with any absurd definition, all shades of meaning of that don't match a straightjacketed strawman that the netroots like to poke must be false.

WTF are you talking about, spaltavian? My question was sincere. I am not necessarily saying the common stereotypical definition of libertarianism is necessarily the correct one. I am not questioning "all shades of meaning that don't match a straightjacketed strawman." (In fact, a few years ago I made a lengthy comment arguing that Libertarian politicians, at least, are more diverse in their positions than Republicans or Democrats. I just don't believe the same is true of most libertarians writing on the internet.) I am only questioning your particular shade of meaning, namely that "Exactly what constitutes a "minimal" state depends on what you consider essential to a state, and what level of state one should be restricted."

Just because I have challenged your particular alternative definition of libertarian does not mean I am making a knee-jerk attack on any possible alternative definition of libertarianism. Now, would you care to actually address my criticism of your characterization of libertarianism? Is or is not every conceivable political position a libertarian one under your proposed definition? If not, what is an example of a position that would not be libertarian under your proposed definition?

In fairness, you'd never know this from most libertarian discussion boards.
They're doing the best they can, seeing how they are "literally mentally retarded".


Optimus Chyme and I are not the same person. He does not speak for me, nor I for him.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:51 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Why do we not create threads specifically to declare open season on Furries, or on the obese?

Declaring open season on the obese, not so nice. But with furries, it does not sound like a bad idea.

That shit is low-key beastiality. They know unless you have a dick the size of a AAA battery, it is impossible to engage sexual intercourse with a rabbit, so instead, they fuck a human who's wearing a bunny suit. Try that shit with a real bear, they'll eat you up, so they settle for eating someone out who's wearing a bear suit. And so on...

Sorry if that sounded crass, I'm just completely skeeved out by this stuff.

*back to lurking*
posted by Eleutherios at 2:58 PM on October 22, 2009


Ron Paul is a proponent of hatred for women, based upon his desire to take away reproductive healthcare choices from them.

He is an established, published racist, someone who signed his name to a document that calls black people terrorists.

He is an established homophobe who regularly supports legislation that eliminates the ability of our government to recognize the equal rights that are enshrined in the Constitution for everyone, but specifically the gays and lesbians he hates.

Beyond that, he regularly votes to take away privileges and protections from people who are in a weak position to defend themselves against a corrupt system, while pretending otherwise.

Paul argues for vague notions of freedom, but ultimately only for wealthy, white, Christian males. In actuality, he votes against a wide variety of freedoms for those he dislikes personally.

If only dating would somehow magically grant his followers the empathy and humanity to understand the misery they intend to spread to the rest of us, by supporting such an evil piece of work.


LOL

How very silly this is. I can't justify spending the time needed to answer all your claims, but I can't resist responding to this, "Paul argues for vague notions of freedom...". Ron Paul argues for the principles embodied in the Constitution. This means staying with the text according to the intent of the Founders, and not changing the powers of government to promote the agenda of the party in power. Maintaining the intended meaning of these principles until an open and explicit change is made, helps protect all citizens from the whims of the current and future administrations and the otherwise unchecked growth of the state. That's what it's about, not promoting wealthy, white, Christian males. I have little doubt that you conflate an argument for state's rights with a desire to return to Jim Crow laws.

But isn't this thread about the curious absence of MetaFilter's sensitivity towards all marginalized populations? What does your idiotic outburst have to do with that? Had it just been building up too long? Time to spew?
posted by BigSky at 3:05 PM on October 22, 2009


That shit is low-key beastiality.

I think the furry fetish is weird and pretty silly, but this just isn't true.
posted by EarBucket at 3:06 PM on October 22, 2009


Ron Paul argues for the principles embodied in the Constitution. This means staying with the text according to the intent of the Founders, [...]That's what it's about, not promoting wealthy, white, Christian males.

Heh.
posted by kathrineg at 3:09 PM on October 22, 2009 [10 favorites]


Optimus Chyme and I are not the same person. He does not speak for me, nor I for him.
posted by DevilsAdvocate


eponysomething.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:17 PM on October 22, 2009


Ron Paul is a proponent of hatred for women, based upon his desire to take away reproductive healthcare choices from them.

I am strongly, unequivocally pro-choice and always have been, but calling anyone who is not pro-choice as harboring a hatred of women is no better than calling me or you a proponent of baby murder. It's just rhetorical mudslinging.

He is an established, published racist, someone who signed his name to a document that calls black people terrorists.

I am not a Paul supporter AT ALL (and I mean AT ALL), but this accusation has always seemed thin on evidence to me: you are referring to newsletter controversy. It's really not clear from the newsletters that Paul was aware of what was in them. I actually find it believable that he was not aware, and furthermore that he is not actually a racist. I realize I could be wrong, but it all seems at worst a bit unclear to me that he really is a racist.

I concede the rest of your points.

But here's the thing: he was also one of six Republicans to vote against the Iraq War Resolution; he sponsored a bill to repeal the War Powers Resolution Act; he sponsored a bill ot audit the Fed that has wide bi-partisan support. He's a mixed bag. Compared to 99.9% of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, he seems at least to have a few positive things about him. He seems not nearly as anti-middle class as the rest of them.

I actually can't believe I'm defending him, as most of what he believes in I find repellent, but I just think he's nowhere near as bad as the vast, vast majority of Republican politicians.

posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 3:17 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ron Paul argues for the principles embodied in the Constitution.

Including the ability to amend the Constitution?

This means staying with the text according to the intent of the Founders

So Ron Paul believes the Constitution should never ever be amended?

And while we're at it—when you say "the intent of the Founders," which Founder are you referring to? As you're probably aware, the Founders agreed on very little among themselves beyond the necessity of independence from England. The text of the Constitution is the result of many necessary political compromises rather than one single unified vision of how the government of the United States should work. I'm not sure it's useful to talk about "the intent of the Founders" as if they were a single hive mind in agreement on every issue.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:19 PM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]


someone who signed his name to a document that calls black people terrorists.

I'm a terrorist for your love!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:20 PM on October 22, 2009


Interesting that the libertarian appeals to authority over a speech issue - if your arguments were cogent enough, wouldn't the market Metafilter self-regulate? ;)

I say this with love (and as a former registered Libertarian): libertarian thought goes back waaay further than the LP and/or Paul - read more, there's some gems as well as an acre of toss, 'cause nobody's exempt from Sturgeon's Law; perhaps also set up a little gedankenexperiment where you reflect on libertarian goals, libertarian ideals, and whether putting the second into action would accomplish the first for anyone except those who already enjoy quite enough privilege, and also what effect third parties have in a two-party system (especially one like the US's, which is set up to pretty much ensure it'll always be a two-party system) - this, plus, y'know, LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD were what turned me from an Edward Abbey libertarian into the lefty fuckwit I am today
posted by jtron at 3:21 PM on October 22, 2009


Stop it. Turning MetaTalk into your own personal humiliation and abuse parlor is not okay. Take that elsewhere.

Aside from that, attention, everyone: stop misusing "literally"!

The word still has meaning, okay?

It is not a generic intensifier!


If what was meant was that they are so figuratively "retarded" that you could say that this level of retardation might as well be called literal, then the "literally" itself is used in a figurative manner.

"Figuratively literal" is so logically nonsensical that it makes a mockery of the very point of using either term in the first place.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:31 PM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


Including the ability to amend the Constitution?

and

So Ron Paul believes the Constitution should never ever be amended?

Don't know where this is coming from. I wrote, "Maintaining the intended meaning of these principles until an open and explicit change is made, helps protect all citizens from the whims of the current and future administrations and the otherwise unchecked growth of the state.".
posted by BigSky at 3:34 PM on October 22, 2009


HP Laserjet: if it had just been 1 or 2 newsletters there might be something to Ron Paul having been misled about what was being printed in his name, but the Ron Paul Report is a regular monthly newsletter with his name in the title. Now maybe it's true that Ron Paul doesn't believe what was being printed in it, but either he had no idea people that crazy were printing his newsletter (in which case he's too stupid to hold the position of county dog catcher) or, much more likely, Ron Paul was fine with cozying up with the crazy racist fringe because back then it was fairly safe to do so. Before the internet you could get away with saying crazy ass shit to crazy ass people and if you didn't do it too blatantly noone else would ever know. So you have three options, either Ron Paul is a drooling moron, a serious racist, or a major hypocrite willing to pander to some of the worst political views in our society. (To be fair, he could be all three.) None of those options meshes very will with Mr Last Honest Man Fighting For Our Liberty At All Costs.
posted by aspo at 3:35 PM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


Ron Paul argues for the principles embodied in the Constitution.

Except when those principles conflict with his hatred of women and minorities, at which point his writings and his votes — all matters of public record, with genuinely grateful thanks to our government-researched and -funded Internet — show an obvious disregard for those very principles.

For a pseudo-libertarian like Paul, as for his followers and apologists, the notion of "state's rights" is well understood to be a code phrase for using government (at any level) to maintain the status quo of social and economic inequalities and injustices. It explains what motivates many of his federal legislative efforts, without question.

I'll admit I'm on the fence about whether to poke fun at lonely people, above and beyond any gentle joshing about stuff like the gold standard. At the very least, most of the mocking in the thread in question is based on the less-than-laudable-i.e.-more-evidently-ridiculous aspects of Paul's ideology and not so much the people themselves.

If any other extremist political affiliation was used as a basis for an exclusive dating site, I would bet $100 with anyone here, yourself included, that Metafilter would get around to poking fun at them, as well, because the character of Metafilter that I have become intimately familiar with over the last four years is more about deflating the narrow scope of that kind of behavior with humor, more than promoting any one specific political agenda.

Certainly, what represents funny is different for everyone, but the fun is what motivates most participants, more than a political agenda itself. Calling Metafilter a "collectivist" paradise, for example, entirely misses the point of the thread. Sorry, comrade.

Anyone who sets up a dating site around a political ideology (and a self-evidently warped philosophy like that espoused by Paul, one which is easy to take apart, examine critically and discard) is probably not looking to have their worldview challenged and will probably not be too affected by any criticism we'd issue, in any case.

I don't wish to deny those folks the right to find love and companionship. In fact, I hope they find what they are looking for, because I hope that in finding those things, it will help them develop and repair those stunted and broken emotional and rational faculties, that they will perhaps one day recognize the humanity of others who do not share their socioeconomic status, skin color, gender and sexuality, among other characteristics used by elected officials like Ron Paul and his right-wing colleagues to oppress and deny the humanity of minorities and disenfranchised.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:39 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Stop it. Turning MetaTalk into your own personal humiliation and abuse parlor is not okay. Take that elsewhere.
posted by jessamyn at 2:49 PM on October 22


I only bully the bullies. But you and the other mods and Matt have the final call, so okay.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:40 PM on October 22, 2009


Blazecock--I'm just curious if you think Paul is as bad or worse than Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Rudy Giuliani? I dislike all of those jerks with every bone in my body, and while I really don't like Paul at all I actually dislike Mike Bloomberg more than I dislike Paul. I even think Romney and Huckabee, sometimes touted as "centrist" Republicans, are far, far worse than Paul. Far, far worse.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 3:46 PM on October 22, 2009


Aside from that, attention, everyone: stop misusing "literally"!

You see, I thought the OC was using "literally" in a Lilly-the-caretaker's-daughter-was-literally-run-off-her-feet sort of way.
posted by octobersurprise at 3:54 PM on October 22, 2009


I even think Romney and Huckabee, sometimes touted as "centrist" Republicans, are far, far worse than Paul. Far, far worse.

Either Paul hates women and minorites, or he panders to an audience that does the same, by working to further legislation along those lines. I'm not sure how productive it is to argue the duckness of a duck, here. And it seems like splitting hairs to say who is worse, politician A or politician B, when they both aim to increase the general misery of specific parts of society.

The fact is that Paul has a fairly rabid base of support that embodies some of the worst and ugliest elements of America. That's part of democracy, but we really need to own up to that by shining a light on it. That shouldn't mean we ignore, for example, McCain's own legislative efforts that have tried to bully women into submissive roles in society. They are all part and parcel of an ideology that wants to rewrite America into something that we really need to learn and progress from.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:55 PM on October 22, 2009


Kid Ichorous, thank you for bringing the aforementioned thread to my attention via this callout. I was the nineteen year-old dipshit wearing a handmade "Who is John Galt?" t-shirt to my then-band's shows and it's threads like that reinforce my belief that people can change. And for the better, no less. Insert your own damn joke about the free market's inability to distribute sufficiently thick skins ------------> HERE.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:58 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


The fact is that Paul has a fairly rabid base of support that embodies some of the worst and ugliest elements of America.

I can still TALK (if disagree) with some Paul supporters; I can't even TALK to someone who still likes Cheney, Bush, Huckabee, or for that matter even Bloomberg. That for me is the difference.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 4:00 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


And while we're at it—when you say "the intent of the Founders," which Founder are you referring to? As you're probably aware, the Founders agreed on very little among themselves beyond the necessity of independence from England. The text of the Constitution is the result of many necessary political compromises rather than one single unified vision of how the government of the United States should work. I'm not sure it's useful to talk about "the intent of the Founders" as if they were a single hive mind in agreement on every issue.

I'm not convinced it's necessary to break it down like that. At least, there's a number of issues where those questions aren't relevant. Again, I point to state's rights. The text is clear. We can talk about the federal government's encroachment on the state when it comes to drug laws without getting deep into Jefferson's or Madison's papers.

-----

For a pseudo-libertarian like Paul, as for his followers and apologists, the notion of "state's rights" is well understood to be a code phrase for using government

When you tell me what I intend with my words, there's no dialogue. There can't be, it's all you.

Certainly, what represents funny is different for everyone, but the fun is what motivates most participants, more than a political agenda itself. Calling Metafilter a "collectivist" paradise, for example, entirely misses the point of the thread. Sorry, comrade.

Would "socialist" have been a better choice? And it was in reference to bias not paradise.

I'm not looking to stop anyone's fun. At all. I don't respond to the majority of snipes and insults directed at libertarians, Goldwater Republicans, etc. Have at it. This was the rare occasion that I found a comment to be so sneering in its contempt that I thought it worth pointing out. I didn't call for moderation or "appeal to authority", just pointed it out in thread.
posted by BigSky at 4:04 PM on October 22, 2009


For what it's worth, I meant literally literally.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:07 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Don't know where this is coming from. I wrote, "Maintaining the intended meaning of these principles until an open and explicit change is made,

Indeed you did. My apologies for not reading more carefully.

Given that it is possible to amend the Constitution (and, as the Founders saw fit to include Article V, which allows this, they presumably forsaw that it would be beneficial to do so from time to time) does a libertarianism which is based on a reading of the Constitution based on the "Founder's intent" have anything to say about whether a particular proposed amendment to the Constitution is advisable or not? I.e., if an amendment were proposed to explicitly place drug enforcement policy in the hands of the federal government, would Ron Paul's libertarianism have anything to say on whether such an amendment should be adopted, or would it remain silent?

What I mean to get at by this question is whether Paul's libertarianism is ultimately based on the Constitution itself, or on certain principles of liberty (which the Constitution may often, but by no means always, be in accordance with)? If it's based on the Constitution itself, then it seems to me it can't speak one way or the other on proposed amendments to the Constitution. On the other hand, if it's based on principles outside the Constitution, that raises the question of how a libertarian should act when those principles conflict with the Constitution.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:17 PM on October 22, 2009


Well, the range of Americans I've met (meatspace, not cyberspace) who've used the little-l libertarian runs from a somewhat selfish, boiled prig on the far right (who nevertheless takes a more liberal stance on privacy, war, torture, and prisons than does our president...) to an IWW member and a couple sometime Socialist-Anarchists on the far left. Even exempting the viewpoints I've encountered online, the word seems to have a broader meaning for me than it does to Optimus and several other members here. Maybe some of you guys just need to mix it up a little more, and stop judging the shit out of people you've never met based on a single word?
posted by kid ichorous at 4:18 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Seconding kid ichorous. I don't have much patience for libertarianism, but the few Paul supporters I've met at bars or whatnot over the past few years have been mostly geeky, naive computer programmer types. I've been able to TALK with them; even sensed they might be listening. If I meet a Palin or Romney supporter, which thankfully I rarely do, or even someone who thinks mayor Bloomberg is ok (keep in mind that technically, on social issues, he is "left" of Paul, but only b/c he has to be), I will literally have to do everything I can from starting a fight immediately. It's that bad. But the Paul people I've met seem more diverse and less kneejerk than the others: it feels like there's still hope there, like they might still become progressives. The deadbeats who still like Cheney or think Palin is great? Forget it.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 4:27 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is true, too. OBAMASINGLES.COM would be equally mockworthy.

Looks pretty boring to me. Maybe you meant OBAMA SINGLES DATING.COM? Perhaps a bit more interesting, but not much.
posted by effbot at 4:27 PM on October 22, 2009


Joe Lisboa, thank you for telling me that you're in a band! I'm certainly not, nor is anyone else on this whole internet, or else we'd have led with that up front, so this is certainly BIG NEWS. I hope you have lots of success with that Facebook I keep hearing about!
posted by kid ichorous at 4:32 PM on October 22, 2009


One further anecdote and I'll shut up: when I see a parked car with either a Bush/Cheney or McCain/Palin sticker my first impulse (seriously) is to vandalize it (I never do, but it's tempting). When I see a parked car with a Ron Paul sticker I have no such impulse; if I think anything at all, I think: if I could just talk to that person I might, with luck, be able to get them to support Bernie Sanders.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 4:35 PM on October 22, 2009


For what it's worth, I meant literally literally.

For what it's worth, you'd be wrong.

It would be an instance of an attribution bias, not an indication of some sort of developmental problem. It's not like failing some theory of mind task.
posted by CKmtl at 4:49 PM on October 22, 2009


I only bully the bullies.

And thereby make yourself into a bully. Bullies suck, we could use fewer of them, and you're smart and savvy enough to manage to pull that off if you try.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:52 PM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]




Metafilter wouldn't ever have arguments like this if we would just finally once and for all stop the government from testing whether or not our water supplies are potable.
posted by Flunkie at 5:33 PM on October 22, 2009


LOLHEWEARSAFEDORA

Hey now, however this thread shakes out, don't you dare try and take LOLFEDORA away from me. Paulites are people too and deserve to find love on or offline, I can dig that, and the same goes for fedora wearers - but, I absolutely cherish my quiet, private chuckles when I see someone sporting a Casual Joe Sex Fedora out in the wild, and won't give them up without a fight!
posted by EatTheWeak at 6:03 PM on October 22, 2009


Optimus Chyme: For what it's worth, I meant literally literally.

Okay, that is vile. (Also completely divorced from reality, but that's another matter.) In the same way that calling Ann Coulter a transsexual is something that hurts a bunch of people who aren't Ann Coulter, blaming repellant political beliefs on mental retardation is something that hurts a bunch of people who are not holders of the repellant political beliefs in question. I mean, let's say this theory of yours gains popularity- I think it's pretty safe to say that it would not be a good thing for those with Down syndrome, for example, if people associated the selfish, empathy-free brand of libertarianism with them. Mental retardation doesn't necessarily make one incapable of empathy. The kind of person who comes to the conclusion that "all women are bitches" after a bad date comes to that conclusion because they're a misogynistic asshole, not because they have an IQ below a certain level. (And it lets guys like that off the hook, in a way, to blame it on "retardation"- it assumes that they have no other choice than to be what they are.) You may say "you only bully the bullies", but in this case, I'd say you managed to hit a bunch of non-bullies- which, by your standards, would make you yourself fair game to be the target of bullying. Which I think illustrates why standards like that leave something to be desired. One problem I have with the idea that it's okay to bully the bullies is that it almost never stops there.

On the general subject, I pretty much agree with the OP. Aside from the way threads like that tend to have an unpleasant bullying tone, the LOLLIBERTARIANS thing here often strikes me as being based on something of a strawman picture of what the word "libertarian" implies. To be sure, there are a number of people who are a perfect image of the strawman- the Randroid-type libertarians are hideously annoying and have an ideology fit only for cartoon supervillains as far as I'm concerned, and the GOOGLE RON PAUL crowd are hardly better (though I agree with HP Laserjet on them being at least an improvement on the mainstream of the Republican Party, not that that's a high bar to clear at all), but "libertarian" is a word applied to a much, much broader range of beliefs than just that. (Granted, the Randroid types tend to be the noisiest about being libertarians.) There's obviously the leftist ideological tradition which is now mostly called "anarchist", but "libertarian" is a word that has been long applied to that tradition- as mentioned, Noam Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist, for example. But- as much as I don't agree with them- even the free-market rightist libertarians aren't a monolith. Yes, all too many of them are the aforementioned Randroids, but it's not necessarily the case. I don't agree with Radley Balko on a number of things, for example, but in his area of focus he's done some very good work, and I think most MeFites would agree, in that particular case.
posted by a louis wain cat at 6:04 PM on October 22, 2009 [12 favorites]

Ron Paul argues for the principles embodied in the Constitution.
That's baloney. Ron Paul doesn't even know what's in the Constitution.

In his quest to get Texas to be allowed to outlaw "gay sodomy", for example, he states that the Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated rights of states. Even worse, he also explicitly argues that it does not protect the unenumerated rights of people. States, he says, not people. Explicity. Meanwhile, here's the Ninth Amendment, in full:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The final irony in that, of course, is that he's using his counterfactual total rewrite of the Ninth Amendment in an argument where he is attempting to deny or disparage rights of people because those rights are not listed in the Constitution. It's like he not only misunderstood the Ninth Amendment, and not only took it to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly says, but also he used it in an argument against itself.

This is not an incident in which he made a small error while speaking extemporaneously; it's in one of his published articles, which, presumably, he thought about. Nor is it an isolated incident:

For example, he has also stated (in a published article arguing that judges should be allowed to display the Ten Commandments in their court) that the Constitution is "replete with references to God".

The United States Constitution is probably the most famously godless document in history. I don't merely mean "it's famous and it's godless", I mean that its godlessness is famous. The fact of its godlessness was noted immediately; Alexander Hamilton joked that it was because "we forgot", and moreover that the United States was "not in need of foreign aid".

Frankly, it's almost inconceivable that Ron Paul has actually read the Constitution, given that statement.

He also has argued -- again in a published article that he presumably thought about -- that "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Uh huh. So the man who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state", in reference to the Constitution, was not a Founding Father, I guess. Suck it, Tom Jefferson.

Ron Paul does things like this all the time. Again, honestly, it's difficult to believe that he has even read the Constitution. But he keeps saying that he's a defender of the Constitution, and his fans uncritically take him at his word, and moreover echo that word from every mountaintop.

I've even seen Ron Paul fans argue things like "No, you're wrong, Ron Paul would never back that abhorrent policy, because the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that such-and-such". This despite the fact that Ron Paul has publicly backed that exact same abhorrent policy, and in fact has directly argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to it.

Ron Paul fans, generally, seem to have an image in their mind of a politician who will stand up for their views. They seem to believe that Ron Paul is that person, merely because he says he believes in the Constitution, regardless of the fact that Ron Paul doesn't agree with their views, doesn't know what's in the Constitution, and in fact explicitly argues against their views based on his Bizarro World "understanding" of the Constitution.
posted by Flunkie at 6:12 PM on October 22, 2009 [17 favorites]


Do we need entire threads devoted to the ridicule of personal ads, their creators, and their unfashionable lifestyles and politics?

I say we let the free market decide.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:21 AM on October 22 [32 favorites +] [!]


yep. that's how we got fox news, 4chan, and 8 years of w.

makes you real proud, doesn't it?
posted by msconduct at 6:12 PM on October 22, 2009


Your more carefully reasoned, civic-minded, nuanced opinion is uncommon on the landscape of American [yourideologynamehere]ism. . . .

When you identify with clueless loudmouth asshats -- even if you yourself are not any of those things -- you have to expect to catch a certain amount of flak.


You could say the same thing about Republicans, Democrats, centrists, moderates, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc., etc. The loudest people in any camp are typically the least nuanced and least critically thinking, and all the camps seem perfectly able to draw great hordes of dreadful people.

I have strong-ish lefty-libertarian (or mild anarchist or whatever you want to term it) leanings, philosophically, and many real-world, thoughtful right-libertarians are much easier to talk politics with than mainstream folk because they are at least willing to contemplate non-bland, non-status-quo ideas -- even just as a thought experiment -- rather than happily gulping down every current institution, no matter how motheaten and pointless.

Now Randians, they're tougher for left-libertarians to deal with because they hate the whole idea of altruism and want government to get out of the way of the strong even when that means mowing down the weak. Whereas my comrades think that preventing the strong from mowing down the vulnerable is one of the chief functions of government. Plus the personal veneration of Rand herself is just creepy. I mean, I've studied Ezra Pound, god help me, but I don't have a shrine to the asshole in my living room.

I suppose it's fine to make fun of any dating site since dating is ludicrous and yucky, but BigSky, kidichorous, and spaltavian are all being reasoned and civil here and generating at least as much light as heat, despite being an ultra-minority. Except that I'd wager there are a lot more of us lurking out here in MeFi than you might think.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:16 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sadly, when Paulites and libertarians go on really bad dates they conclude "all women are bitches" not "christ, I'm an asshole." Because they don't have the mental tools required to think about other people as real agents of their own will. They are literally mentally retarded.

Yeah, you tell them!

Don't you hate it when someone has a bad experience with a small subpopulation of a huge group, then concludes that the entire group must be horrible people, then finally expresses their prejudice via insensitive bigoted language?

I think it must be a lack of mental tools. Seriously, how could someone do such a thing and not even realize what an asshole they were being?
posted by roystgnr at 6:23 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Joe Lisboa, thank you for telling me that you're in a band!

No need to be a dick about it.
posted by joe lisboa at 6:52 PM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]


Note: Everyone Kid Ichorous needs a hug.
posted by joe lisboa at 6:57 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


I only bully the bullies.

Bullying is not okay. It is not okay because you think someone deserves it either. I'm aware that for you this is a tactical decision and not just a rage problem, but I am telling you nicely you either need to stop of your own accord or we'll ask you to take some time off for a while. It's getting a little out of hand and it's creating a morale problem. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:08 PM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]


No need to be a dick about it.

You're right, I shouldn't have been a dick. My point was that exhortations to grow "a thick skin" cut both ways. Everyone can be civil, together, or everyone can be a bucket of dicks.

posted by kid ichorous at 7:14 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Did You Dudes know its Andrew m.f.ing birtyhday!!? Big Happy birthday to the man Andrew, many more to come bro!!! Go "ape" Andrew, its your day
posted by Damn That Television at 7:22 PM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]


Abridged list of people whose opinions I respect and who have said more or less "you are being a jerk."

- cortex
- jessamyn
- several fine posters
- my girlfriend (also a MeFite) "You're being mean. Stop being mean."

So I'll drop it. I'm sorry. I'll be nice.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:39 PM on October 22, 2009 [9 favorites]


So when do we get a snark.metafilter.com? Where thick-skinned, insensitive me-fites can go and commune with one another without fear of callout or persecution for their social affliction.
posted by doctor_negative at 8:50 PM on October 22, 2009


Boy am I just glad I do all my fucked-up online dating through VampireFreaks.
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:57 PM on October 22, 2009


absolutely cherish my quiet, private chuckles when I see someone sporting a Casual Joe Sex Fedora out in the wild

Is that a casual, Joe Sex fedora? Or a Casual Joe Sex-Fedora?
posted by electroboy at 8:58 PM on October 22, 2009


Casual Joe Sex Fedora are getting great press at Pitchfork.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:01 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


Casual Joe Sex Fedora are getting great press at Pitchfork.

Awesome.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:05 PM on October 22, 2009


Holy crap, there was Casual Ryan Sex Fedora on the Office tonight! Since the controversial fishpants episode of Frasier never aired, I think this marks MeFi's first primetime television exposure!
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:16 PM on October 22, 2009


Kraft Singles have no taste.
posted by arse_hat at 10:35 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


I just heard 30 minutes of easy listening in a waiting area and now I'm ready to hurt a large amount of people.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:43 PM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]


This post takes the place of the post where I get all offended and bitchy about the offensive and bitchy anti-libertarian shit upthread.

Moving on.
posted by Netzapper at 1:42 AM on October 23, 2009


@Flunkie

While I think you have a few solid points, the overall tone of your post is misleading. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul did not embark on any "quest to get Texas to be allowed to outlaw 'gay sodomy'". If you can provide a cite to the contrary, please do.

The article you reference is, 'Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution'; I note in passing, that it contains the phrase, "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be...". He does claim that there are "states' rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments". And the Ninth Amendment does not affirm the state's right to legislate on sexual encounters between two willing participants, or at the very least it does not affirm that right "plainly". But your argument in the first few paragraphs of your post overstates the case. There is significant divergence in the interpretation section of the Ninth Amendment Wikipedia article, with Bork taking the position that "while the amendment clearly had some meaning, its meaning is indeterminate; because the language is opaque, its meaning is as irretrievable as it would be had the words been covered by an inkblot". More important though is that Ron Paul also referenced the Tenth Amendment which does support Texas' right to make laws regarding sodomy.

I do agree that his claim about the Constitution and its references to God, is wrong.

And I've seen other errors. In the article linked above, he states that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, and there is no such explicit mention, but claims to a right to privacy appear elsewhere.

And still, he is the only politician I can see that takes the Constitution seriously. Let's look at a few cases where it really counts.

On the Patriot Act - Oct. 12, 2001

Statement on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - June 20, 2008

Hearing on proposed "Know Your Customer" regulations - March 4, 1999 [asset forfeiture]

Federalization of Crime Contrary to Constitution - May 18, 1998

-----

What I mean to get at by this question is whether Paul's libertarianism is ultimately based on the Constitution itself, or on certain principles of liberty (which the Constitution may often, but by no means always, be in accordance with)? If it's based on the Constitution itself, then it seems to me it can't speak one way or the other on proposed amendments to the Constitution. On the other hand, if it's based on principles outside the Constitution, that raises the question of how a libertarian should act when those principles conflict with the Constitution.

Interesting question, but I'm unwilling to speak for Paul's libertarianism. Perhaps you'll be satisfied with my own, which mostly rests on my belief in the importance of responsiveness to feedback. I don't advocate strict adherence to the Constitution because "they got it right" but rather because doing so provides a stable system which is self adjusting. Local knowledge is synonymous with early reception of feedback. And so I favor movement towards greater local control and respect for the individual actors. The main question for any proposed amendment would be whether it increases the capability of the system to make easier and smoother adjustments. More specifically, whether it gives power to the nimble individual and takes power away from the lumbering, centralized bureaucracy. I don't see this creating any great dilemna as the state continues to expand; my role remains the same - to focus on my own environment and to respond to it as well as I can. Perhaps that will be interpreted as being selfish, but I mean something different, more like resisting the temptation to set things right or even to think that I somehow could.
posted by BigSky at 2:40 AM on October 23, 2009 [1 favorite]



While I think you have a few solid points, the overall tone of your post is misleading. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul did not embark on any "quest to get Texas to be allowed to outlaw 'gay sodomy'". If you can provide a cite to the contrary, please do.

The article you reference is, 'Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution'; I note in passing, that it contains the phrase, "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be...".
Right, ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, here are the "Constitutional" reasons why I'm all hot and bothered that Texas can't outlaw "gay sodomy". Ignore that those "Constitutional" reasons are pulled straight out of my imagination and in fact some of them are exactly the opposite of what the Constitution plainly says. You can trust me that I don't really want to outlaw "gay sodomy". I just write articles in which I make up reasons why Texas should be allowed to outlaw "gay sodomy". I have nothing against "gay sodomites". Believe me. It's all about the Constitution, which I drastically misquote in the course of arguing that Texas should be allowed to outlaw "gay sodomites", not about those "gay sodomites" themselves. Really.

Snark aside, and repulsive policy aside, come on. My main point is not his backing of various awful policies, it is his grasp on the Constitution, or lack thereof.

This is not a small error on his part. The form of his argument is "that's not your right, because it's not explicitly listed in the Constitution". The fact that attempts to use the Ninth Amendment -- whose entire purpose is to say that arguments of that form are invalid -- in support of this argument is utterly damning with respect to his knowledge of the Constitution.
He does claim that there are "states' rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments". And the Ninth Amendment does not affirm the state's right to legislate on sexual encounters between two willing participants, or at the very least it does not affirm that right "plainly".
It doesn't affirm a state's right to do anything. It affirms the rights of people. Ron Paul not only says that it does affirm the rights of states, but also does this in an argument where he is attempting to disaffirm the rights of people.
More important though is that Ron Paul also referenced the Tenth Amendment which does support Texas' right to make laws regarding sodomy.
This is yet another instance of at best incomplete Constitutional knowledge. Paul argues that the Tenth Amendment affirms the rights of states; doing so within his overall argument of denying rights of people, he implicitly argues that it does not affirm the rights of people. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Tenth Amendment affirms the rights of both states and people:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yet another example of Ron Paul not knowing what's in the Constitution.
I do agree that his claim about the Constitution and its references to God, is wrong.
It's not merely "wrong". It's wrong to such a degree that I can barely fathom the thought that Ron Paul has read the Constitution. Or if he has, then either (1) it's been a really long time and he no longer has any grasp on its contents, or (2) he's a liar.

Can you? Seriously? How does a mistake like that get made, if he has read it? He thinks that this document without any references to god, which the framers explicitly worked to make without references to god, is "replete" with them? Not just has one, not just has a couple here and a couple there, but is "replete" with them?

The other absurd blunders, like the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment things, is just confirming evidence.
posted by Flunkie at 5:31 AM on October 23, 2009 [4 favorites]


look the constitution says what I would've put there if I wrote it okay
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:16 AM on October 23, 2009 [1 favorite]


Pope Guilty: "Just a reminder: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception... "

Sure, but as long as there are scores of Republican congresscritters who have all those heinous views and support the wars, domestic spying, etc., Paul will always have people to seem better than.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:57 AM on October 23, 2009


+1 for Casual Joe Sex-Fedora. As in the sex-fedora of Casual Joe.
posted by Neofelis at 9:53 AM on October 23, 2009


> So when do we get a snark.metafilter.com?

It already redirects to the mefi front page. Too subtle?
posted by jfuller at 11:50 AM on October 23, 2009 [1 favorite]


This is not a small error on his part. The form of his argument is "that's not your right, because it's not explicitly listed in the Constitution". The fact that attempts to use the Ninth Amendment -- whose entire purpose is to say that arguments of that form are invalid -- in support of this argument is utterly damning with respect to his knowledge of the Constitution.

I think you're coming at this from a strange angle. He isn't a state legislator, this is not about him determining whether or not sodomy should be illegal. The question is whether Texas can have such a law. Is it infringing a constitutionally protected right? Since it is not listed the answer would appear to be no. And then he references the Ninth (wrongly) and Tenth Amendments in support of Texas' right to enact said law.

It doesn't affirm a state's right to do anything. It affirms the rights of people. Ron Paul not only says that it does affirm the rights of states, but also does this in an argument where he is attempting to disaffirm the rights of people.

This is what I find misleading about your posts. You are attributing to him a desire "to disaffirm the rights of people". He isn't referencing (yes, mistakenly) the Ninth Amendment with that goal in mind. He is bringing it to bear on the question of Texas' rights.

Paul argues that the Tenth Amendment affirms the rights of states; doing so within his overall argument of denying rights of people, he implicitly argues that it does not affirm the rights of people.

He does not implicitly argue any such thing. In the context of this issue, the claim regarding the rights of the state is the relevant portion. How does the Tenth Amendment's phrase "or to the people", bring any clarity to the issue? Those who are looking to make the case that individual rights are being infringed would be better served by referencing other amendments. Look, I don't think much of this article, especially the portion on the sodomy laws, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill. A much stronger criticism can be made regarding his failure to see a right to privacy which he invokes on a number of other occasions.

-Can I fathom the thought that Ron Paul has read the Constitution?

Yeah, I can. I'm going to consider his comment about the Constitution's references to God a mistake and keep going. While I agree with Bork that the Ninth Amendment is opaque, the Fourth Amendment is a much easier read. The list of enumerated powers is also pretty easy reading. And with the exception of Ron Paul, I don't see too many Congressmen keeping those sections in mind as they go about their business. Given that, Ron Paul would be the last politician I suspect of not having read the Constitution.
posted by BigSky at 1:49 PM on October 23, 2009

I think you're coming at this from a strange angle. He isn't a state legislator, this is not about him determining whether or not sodomy should be illegal. The question is whether Texas can have such a law.
I'm guessing that the part of my post that made you think that I think this is about him determining whether or not sodomy should be illegal, and not about whether Texas can have such a law, was the part where I said "... come on. My main point is not his backing of various awful policies, it is his grasp on the Constitution, or lack thereof."

Am I right?
This is what I find misleading about your posts. You are attributing to him a desire "to disaffirm the rights of people".
I am attributing to him disaffirming the rights of people; whether he "desires" to do that disaffirming I don't particularly care.

And he does so disaffirm; that article is full of "there's no right to privacy", "there's no right to gay sodomy", "there's no right to blah blah blah". There's no right except for the right of the state to say what rights people have. That's disaffirming people's rights, regardless of whether you want to imagine that he doesn't actually want to do that disaffirming or not.
He does not implicitly argue any such thing.
Please. Of course he does.

There's a piece of the Constitution that says "states and people have, in a vague sense with no specifics spelled out, rights". He points to it and says "look, states have rights, it says it right there, but it doesn't say that people have a right to privacy or a right to gay sodomy! Therefore there is no right to gay sodomy, and also therefore the state has the right to outlaw gay sodomy."

He totally ignores the "people have rights" in the exact same thing that he's using as evidence for his claim that states can outlaw "gay sodomy". He does this in an argument where he is denying that people have a specific unenumerated right, despite the fact that he concludes a state has a specific unenumerated right based on the exact same evidence.

And even worse, he points to another piece of the Constitution that says "people have rights, and just because they're not explicitly spelled out here doesn't mean they don't", and uses it in the exact same way. Of course he's implicitly arguing the Ninth and Tenth don't protect the rights of people.
Can I fathom the thought that Ron Paul has read the Constitution?

Yeah, I can. I'm going to consider his comment about the Constitution's references to God a mistake and keep going.
Well, bully for you, I guess. Care to explain to me, as I've already asked you, how a mistake of that magnitude occurs, assuming that he has read the Constitution?

Can we at the very least agree that of the plausible scenarios accounting for this, the one that shows him in the best light is "Ron Paul has extremely poor reading comprehension skills"?
posted by Flunkie at 3:14 PM on October 23, 2009 [1 favorite]


So I'll drop it. I'm sorry. I'll be nice.

w00t! Welcome to being a Reformed-Getter-of-being-Worked-Up-on-Metafilter. RGOBWUOM-Anon has weekly meetings right before AA (we helpfully drink all the booze so they're not tempted)

Agenda for this week's meeting: Getting a new acronym
posted by jock@law at 3:21 PM on October 23, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'll just restate what a lot of people have said here: picking on the obese or the mentally ill is not cool. But picking on a group of people who, if they had their way, would impose their twisted values and worldview on the rest of us seems fine to me, when said picking-on is designed to reveal how fucked up the people who hold these values actually are. Remember those people screaming at health care town halls? Paultards. Some of the people with guns showing up at those rallies? Paultards. Many are also rabidly anti-immigrant and have racial views close to white nationalism.

And now they are trying to reproduce? Pardon me for snarking, but LO-fucking-L.

Ron Paul ran for president, and in the process acquired a lynch-mob like crew of Paultards who have taken on a life of their own and are at the heart of the Tea Party and Birther "movements." They are trying to disrupt American political discourse, kill important reforms, and undermine the legitimacy of a president elected by a substantial majority of Americans. Ditto for Christian homophobes who get caught sleeping with gay hookers (like, all of them).

If we can't mock self-righteous fools who would (and do) mock those of us who don't think like them (and the Paultards are headed toward Larouch and Scientology territory, in case you haven't noticed), then who the hell can we mock? Mockery has a purpose in politics, and culture.

If you don't mind your own fucking business, don't expect others to turn the other cheek.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:05 AM on October 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Mockery has a purpose in politics, and culture.

Savage shaming and mockery do not, however, have a place on MetaFilter. If you'd like to debate this point, please feel free to. I'm putting that forward as a general policy guideline and what we expect from people. To be specific

- the general "tard" construction lowers the standards of discourse and makes people annoyed. It would be great if you could find better words for what you're trying to express.
- the general overgeneralizations "like, all of them" is sloppy and doesn't help get the point across about the actual people you're actually mad at and makes you look inexact and speaking from a position of hand-flappy emotion, not of fact.
- Saying " they deserve it!" isn't atually accepted in the general rhetorical model around here.
- Getting your GRAR on when really you're not even looking at a single human example of the thing you despise on MetaFilter just stinks up the place

So, everyone's welcome to their opinions of how much Ron Paul and his followers are fucking up the place, but if you can't say it without resorting to harassment and bullying, then you'll have to go elsewhere. If you'd like to argue that point, MetaTalk is the place to do that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:33 AM on October 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


- the general "tard" construction lowers the standards of discourse and makes people annoyed. It would be great if you could find better words for what you're trying to express.

He who fights monsters . . .
posted by jason's_planet at 10:35 AM on October 24, 2009


picking on the obese or the mentally ill is not cool

Ron Paul ran for president, and in the process acquired a lynch-mob like crew of Paultards

Hello cognitive dissonance, my old friend.
posted by electroboy at 10:46 AM on October 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


There's so many words! Paulestinians for example.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:48 AM on October 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Cognitive dissonance! It feels like it's been such a long time, but it's great to see you again, mate!
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:10 PM on October 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Paultards who have taken on a life of their own and are at the heart of the Tea Party and Birther "movements."

Where is the proof of this? Maybe it's true, but my impression has always been that these folks are mostly Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin supporters.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 4:45 PM on October 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


- the general "tard" construction lowers the standards of discourse and makes people annoyed. It would be great if you could find better words for what you're trying to express.

Not to rebegin the kerfuffle, but I think that my "literally mentally retarded" thing was misinterpreted as a "retards" comment when I was actually asserting - however incorrect or mean it was - that the libertarian mindset may carry with it abnormal social and interpersonal skills, as well as a defective empathy, that I interpret as a certain kind of mental retardation.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:38 PM on October 25, 2009


I think that my "literally mentally retarded" thing was misinterpreted

You have the entire English language at your disposal, as well as a reputation on this site for hyperbolic insults. Feel free to keep that in mind for next time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:22 PM on October 25, 2009


I'm guessing that the part of my post that made you think that I think this is about him determining whether or not sodomy should be illegal, and not about whether Texas can have such a law, was the part where I said "... come on. My main point is not his backing of various awful policies, it is his grasp on the Constitution, or lack thereof."

Am I right?


No. It's the part where you said, "he is attempting to disaffirm the rights of people".

There's a piece of the Constitution that says "states and people have, in a vague sense with no specifics spelled out, rights". He points to it and says "look, states have rights, it says it right there, but it doesn't say that people have a right to privacy or a right to gay sodomy! Therefore there is no right to gay sodomy, and also therefore the state has the right to outlaw gay sodomy."

He totally ignores the "people have rights" in the exact same thing that he's using as evidence for his claim that states can outlaw "gay sodomy". He does this in an argument where he is denying that people have a specific unenumerated right, despite the fact that he concludes a state has a specific unenumerated right based on the exact same evidence.

And even worse, he points to another piece of the Constitution that says "people have rights, and just because they're not explicitly spelled out here doesn't mean they don't", and uses it in the exact same way. Of course he's implicitly arguing the Ninth and Tenth don't protect the rights of people.

The Tenth Amendment's portioning out all other powers to the states and to the people is a restatement of the limitations of Federal Government. The Federal Government can do this, that and the other, and no more. The state governments then have power to further regulate their communities, but they can not do so to the point that they deprive their citizens of the rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. The reason "He totally ignores the 'people have rights'" is because he is addressing Texas' right to pass laws on a matter unaddressed by the Constitution. Yes, we know that the Tenth Amendment also asserts the rights of the people, but that doesn't give any guidance on how to resolve this particular issue. Since a right to sodomy can not be found, then apparently Texas has the right to legislate on the issue. This is similar to Travis County having the right to legislate on where one can smoke. For him to disaffirm someone's rights, you have to presuppose that they were there to begin with, and not in some vague sense of "the powers remaining", but the right to 'X'. This isn't disaffirming, it's contesting a claim to have a particular right.

Care to explain to me, as I've already asked you, how a mistake of that magnitude occurs, assuming that he has read the Constitution?

No, I'm not going to linger here, and play at mind-reading. I've conceded the point on God and the Constitution; there is no more ground for you to win on this topic.

-----

If you don't mind your own fucking business, don't expect others to turn the other cheek.

This doesn't even make sense. If there's one thing libertarians are more than willing to do, it's "mind their own fucking business". In fact, that's a pretty good summary of their common complaint of both progressives and social conservatives. Stick with "selfish".
posted by BigSky at 6:28 PM on October 25, 2009


No. It's the part where you said, "he is attempting to disaffirm the rights of people".

Ron Paul disaffirms others' rights. He doesn't attempt it. He works to that goal every day he breathes breath on this planet.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 PM on October 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


BigSky: "For him to disaffirm someone's rights, you have to presuppose that they were there to begin with, and not in some vague sense of "the powers remaining", but the right to 'X'."

Decades of thoughtful jurisprudence, and common fucking sense, lead me to believe that rights exist outside of the constitution's enumeration of them.

So, true, some dudes back in the day didn't specifically say we have a right to sodomy. To use their omission of that specific act to justify a bigoted and invasive law smacks of hand-washing. Not my problem, the founding fathers remembered to enumerate all of my straight white male Christian rights!
posted by kathrineg at 10:19 PM on October 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


So, true, some dudes back in the day didn't specifically say we have a right to sodomy. To use their omission of that specific act to justify a bigoted and invasive law smacks of hand-washing. Not my problem, the founding fathers remembered to enumerate all of my straight white male Christian rights!

No, it isn't hand washing, it's saying you can't get there from here. The way this law should have been changed is by going through the Texas state government.
posted by BigSky at 11:06 PM on October 25, 2009


The way this law should have been changed is by going through the Texas state government.

"States' rights" is a code phrase that motivates like-minded people to band together and abuse the federal government to preserve discrimination and inequality, especially when it violates the Constitution. This weasel language was once used to defend slavery and it now presently keeps GLBT Americans as second-class citizens. Ron Paul is its current reigning champion and his followers who strain to give him any legitimacy whatsoever are little better for arguing for whatever compromises and corruption that are necessary to maintain Paul's hatreds and divisions among the public.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:23 PM on October 25, 2009


"States' rights" is a code phrase that motivates like-minded people to band together and abuse the federal government to preserve discrimination and inequality

...or to decriminalize marijuana, or to afford patients the right to euthanasia, or to advance any position to which the federal government is hostile. After eight years of Bush I find it especially amnesiac to believe that positive change need never come from the ground up, and that future presidents (and the courts they pick) will be so fair-minded as to need no fail safes. It's like betting all in for the rest of one's life on the basis that today's luck should hold.
posted by kid ichorous at 4:39 AM on October 26, 2009


...not that Obama or our present court are even a particularly good hand on all aforementioned issues.
posted by kid ichorous at 4:40 AM on October 26, 2009


The way this law should have been changed is by going through the Texas state government.

And I'll disagree with that as well. I'm all for the states to experiment within their Constitutionally-delimited bounds, but one of those boundaries is a closed bedroom door. Lawrence v Texas was not only fair, it was about a hundred years too late.
posted by kid ichorous at 4:53 AM on October 26, 2009


...or to decriminalize marijuana, or to afford patients the right to euthanasia

None of these left-libertarian policies are supported by the majority of people who use "States' rights" as a code phrase to describe what they believe is the obligation of government (at whatever levels are necessary) to maintain oppressive laws.

After eight years of Bush I find it especially amnesiac to believe that positive change need never come from the ground up

I will maintain that left-leaning people who work for grassroots causes almost never, ever use "States' rights" in a sentence to describe their desire for change. It pretty much just never happens, ever.

The non-ironic use of this and other code phrases ("activist judges", "New World Order", etc.) are practically exclusive to paranoid delusionals who support Ron Paul's agenda, if not that evil himself, or the Constitution Party, or any other similar crypto-fascist, conservative politician or political movement.

Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" sheds light on precisely why this terminology prevails:
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. [emph. added]
Keeping society's minorities as second-class citizens is not a palatable thing to do, and illegal to boot. Better to tart it up by making it sound like something positive, but, above all else, something that doesn't hint at the crime.

A phrase like "States' rights" ironically implies rebellion and freedom from (vague and mostly non-existent) tyranny, when in fact it promises to a receptive audience the imposition of the exact opposite on undesirables like loose women, black terrorists, and AIDS-laden homo sodomites.

It is this precise corruption of language that the political Right has been furthering the last four decades, as the educational system in this country crumbles and people just don't want to know no better.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:27 AM on October 26, 2009 [1 favorite]


Even if you (and others in this thread) were correct, and the terms libertarian and states' rights had been stripped of nuance and pushed into the service of political sharpsters, why would that mean we need to retire or surrender these words? Why consent to the cheapening of language? Plain allusion to the "rights of states" goes back as far as anti-federalist thought and the constitution itself.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:04 PM on October 26, 2009


...or to decriminalize marijuana, or to afford patients the right to euthanasia, or to advance any position to which the federal government is hostile.

I have no problem with states giving people more freedom. That's cool. Taking away their rights is not cool, but that's what people who trumpet "state's rights" generally want to do.
posted by kathrineg at 4:02 PM on October 26, 2009


Yeah I'm sorry that "state's rights" has been co-opted but I think that's what's being advanced here and I have to say that that's the meaning that comes to my mind most quickly: states rights people are usually the ones arguing for their state's ability to deny people rights [i.e. marriage equality, the right to buttsex, the right to an abortion, the right to have prayer in school, the right to remova any book you want from the public library]. And I'm sorry this does suck. It's happened to a lot of feminists, depending what brand of feminism you subscribe to. It definitely happened to anarchists circa WTO [and circa McKinley prior to that but we reclaimed it] and I'm sure many other fringe groups see this happening a lot.

You're welcome to talk about states rights, of course, but you may be misunderstood. Basically meanings can shift with or without our consent. And then we have a choice to shift with them or be misunderstood or seen as someone cursing the darkness. I hate "ATM Machine" too, but it's here to stay.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:40 PM on October 26, 2009


"...or to decriminalize marijuana, or to afford patients the right to euthanasia, or to advance any position to which the federal government is hostile."

I have no problem with states giving people more freedom. That's cool. Taking away their rights is not cool, but that's what people who trumpet "state's rights" generally want to do.


I don't know how you came up with your information, but those happen to be two issues I feel strongly about, and I very much want each state to be able to legislate on them without fear of federal interference. Giving people the freedom to make their own decisions means you allow for the possibility that they will disagree with you.

Ron Paul on euthanasis: "I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue."

As for decriminalizing marijuana, his position on the Drug War is fairly well known; he was also a States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act co-sponsor.

-----

I will maintain that left-leaning people who work for grassroots causes almost never, ever use "States' rights" in a sentence to describe their desire for change. It pretty much just never happens, ever.

This is because the Left adores the federal government. Their ideal is for no community to be able to differ.

A phrase like "States' rights" ironically implies rebellion and freedom from (vague and mostly non-existent) tyranny, when in fact it promises to a receptive audience the imposition of the exact opposite on undesirables like loose women, black terrorists, and AIDS-laden homo sodomites.

Please. This is nothing more than a refusal to meet your opponents openly and honestly and to take their concerns at face value. Instead you rely on "code words" so you can caricature their intent and never actually address whether they have a point with respect to the limits of federal government as defined in the Constitution. All that matters to you is that some of the advocates of State's rights hold other political beliefs that you find repulsive, and so their argument can be ignored.

Here is a much better glossary of our current political glossary, despite being published over 20 years ago. "State's rights" and "judicial activism" are short hand for some very legitimate positions. Notice that they don't hide much, they say directly what they are about. On the other hand, some of the phrases that liberals like to toss around are much less honest; see "compassion", "equal opportunity", "insensitivity" and "public service".

-----

@kid ichorous

My preference would be for one of those limits to be a closed bedroom door. The discussion on the "right to privacy" is rather involved and I have not sorted through it. Perhaps a strong case can be made for such a Constitutionally protected right. But the Ninth Amendment does not provide any such support, and in this case the Tenth Amendment aligns with the State of Texas.

-----

Yeah I'm sorry that "state's rights" has been co-opted but I think that's what's being advanced here and I have to say that that's the meaning that comes to my mind most quickly: states rights people are usually the ones arguing for their state's ability to deny people rights [i.e. marriage equality, the right to buttsex, the right to an abortion, the right to have prayer in school, the right to remova any book you want from the public library].

But the larger issue is that increasing liberty (and that's what advocating for State's rights is) necessarily means giving others the power to take actions you despise. To reduce State's rights to the desire to continue ignoring minority claims for recognition is akin to claiming that advocates for freedom of speech are only seeking a means to express their bigotry, or spread heresy, or slander freely, etc.
posted by BigSky at 5:44 PM on October 26, 2009


Even if you (and others in this thread) were correct, and the terms libertarian and states' rights had been stripped of nuance and pushed into the service of political sharpsters, why would that mean we need to retire or surrender these words?

Capitalists like yourself stole the word "libertarian" and made it into a mockery of what it began as, tarted it up and pushed it out onto the streets to whore for unrestrained capitalist excess, so fuck you if you think anyone cares how much you dislike having your Orwellian linguistic violence turned against you. Oh no, the word you stole is being stolen from you! How terrible!

the Left adores the federal government.

You are a fucking joke and contribute nothing of value to this site, just lies and distortions and hate. I can't think of a post of yours that isn't shilling for the strong to be able to rob and harm the weak as much as they like phrased under concern for the "freedoms" of the powerful. You've staked out a position that spits on the very notions of liberty and freedom and made it your raison d'etre, and you can't even be honest while you do it. And then you accuse jessamyn- someone who I've butted heads with and someone who, while I've had differences with her, hasn't been anything but honest- of dishonesty and bad faith? Are you a parody? A satire? Are you here posting under deep cover to remind everyone of the sheer moral bankruptcy of the political right?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:02 AM on October 27, 2009


You are a fucking joke and contribute nothing of value to this site, just lies and distortions and hate. I can't think of a post of yours that isn't shilling for the strong to be able to rob and harm the weak as much as they like phrased under concern for the "freedoms" of the powerful. You've staked out a position that spits on the very notions of liberty and freedom and made it your raison d'etre, and you can't even be honest while you do it. And then you accuse jessamyn- someone who I've butted heads with and someone who, while I've had differences with her, hasn't been anything but honest- of dishonesty and bad faith? Are you a parody? A satire? Are you here posting under deep cover to remind everyone of the sheer moral bankruptcy of the political right?

Golly!

I'm sorry. I wish I could take you, and your neo-Marxist horseshit seriously.

Really, I do.
posted by BigSky at 12:38 AM on October 27, 2009


BigSky, if I decided to address every absurd thing you've said in this thread, I'd have to drop out of school, but this:

This is because the Left adores the federal government. Their ideal is for no community to be able to differ.

Is a nonsensical, talk-radio created caricature. Also: "neo-Marxist?" Who do you think you're kidding?
posted by EatTheWeak at 5:08 AM on October 27, 2009


So, to review:

*Ridiculing* people for their political convictions is out.

*Attacking* them by calling them "a fucking joke" or "Neo-Marxists" and resorting to ridiculously simplified terms ("Liberals love the federal goverment!") is okay.

Good to know, for those of us keeping score.

...or planning to create a MeFi drinking game....
posted by zarq at 5:37 AM on October 27, 2009


Actually no, BigSky and Pope Guilty pretty much need to take a walk from this topic at this point. They're both becoming a "what not to do" example here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:49 AM on October 27, 2009


Aw....

/puts away the Metafilter Thunderdome Action Playset



two men enter?
posted by electroboy at 8:03 AM on October 27, 2009


BigSky: "My preference would be for one of those limits to be a closed bedroom door. The discussion on the "right to privacy" is rather involved and I have not sorted through it. Perhaps a strong case can be made for such a Constitutionally protected right. But the Ninth Amendment does not provide any such support, and in this case the Tenth Amendment aligns with the State of Texas."


So you haven't sorted through the arguments for a right to privacy and yet you know it's not supported. Oh, okay.

BigSky: "But the larger issue is that increasing liberty (and that's what advocating for State's rights is) necessarily means giving others the power to take actions you despise. "

Giving people liberty to remove liberties from others does not increase liberty. It increases the oppression and persecution of the weak and the marginalized. Oppression and persecution, yes, I do despise them. Guilty as charged.
posted by kathrineg at 8:26 AM on October 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


kathrineg: Giving people liberty to remove liberties from others does not increase liberty. It increases the oppression and persecution of the weak and the marginalized. Oppression and persecution, yes, I do despise them. Guilty as charged.

Yeah I wanted to address that too. The way this country works is that the federal government supplies the minimum rights that all citizens have; states' rights allow smaller individual governments to give their citizens additional rights on top of the minimum provided by the country. States' rights does not mean that states get to make up whatever the hell they want, and it never infringes upon the idea of states' rights for the federal government to add to the rights enjoyed by all citizens.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:38 AM on October 27, 2009


This is because the Left adores the federal government.

OMG that's so true, every time Bush passed an expansion of the Gov't and increased the deficit I got a little excited in my downstairs areas.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:43 AM on October 27, 2009


Actually no, BigSky and Pope Guilty pretty much need to take a walk from this topic at this point. They're both becoming a "what not to do" example here.

Done.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:22 PM on October 27, 2009


Capitalists South Park viewers like yourself stole the word "libertarian" "gay" and made it into a mockery of what it began as, tarted it up and pushed it out onto the streets to whore for unrestrained capitalist excess a casual pejorative, so fuck you if you think anyone cares how much you dislike having your Orwellian linguistic violence turned against you I guess you're not allowed to complain when people use it that way. After all, being indirectly associated with a problem makes you part of the problem, right?
posted by kid ichorous at 2:04 PM on October 27, 2009


The words liberal, gay, and literal have all been cheapened or diminished in the vernacular, but that doesn't mean we're required to use them that way here. Each of them appears in this very thread with its full meaning intact.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:09 PM on October 27, 2009


« Older Yuoko.com & ©   |   Update on hoder's status Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments