Rise of the "HomoCon"

[dannno]

It was my belief that no self-respecting giver of presents to children riding around the world in the sky with reindeer and climbing through chimneys could
possibly be an ordinary toy salesman.

Soooo..... how long did you hold the belief that Santa was an "ordinary toy salesman"

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Soooo..... how long did you hold the belief that Santa was an "ordinary toy salesman"

That's what he is. Do you disagree?

 

[johngr]

Half-ass libertarians just oppose state violence. Real libertarians oppose state violence because they are PRO freedom, and AGAINST ALL forms of oppression. We don't turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, class inequality, and bigotry. We know that these are social maladies that will ONLY be overcome if we actively work against them. We know a society is not truly free if dominated by bigotry in all of its ugly forms. Don't be blinded by a singular goal of opposing the state - be aware that human freedom has many enemies of which the state is only one.

What specifically do you mean with "working against" "social maladies". A big difference between the state and your paper tigers is that the state takes up arms to enforce its edicts. How do you fight your "enemies" (including Proudhon, by the way, who knew the source of many problems) without "oppressing" "racists", "sexists" and anyone who has more wealth than you do?

If "real libertarianism" includes Frankfurt School Marxist claptrap, then I'm a proud "half-ass" libertarian.

 

[johngr]

I think there oughta be a law that bugerers be rendered at Guantanamo to turn in all their sex partners, given a fair trial and boiled in oil.

There, now at least, we can have a few non-straw-man arguments from the pro-gay people.

Yes, because responding to the allegation that homosexuality is responsible for the decay of society isn't actually valid. Thank you. I feel so much better, now that you felt a need to waltz in here and add that to the discussion.

Another straw man. Oh, well. I tried. The socially and legally enforced acceptance, promotion in schools and promotion in the media of homosexuality are both causes and symptoms of society decay. It did not come from the grass roots. Its origin is the top-down culture creators who seem hell-bent on destroying Western civilization. The world they have planned (those at the very top) will be bad for everyone, homosexuals included. Some of them I've talked to recognize this.

I'm an atheist, by the way, so don't try to bring religion this argument.

 

[dannno]

That's what he is. Do you disagree?

Not specifically

 

[zade]

so God is the victim here

Un f***ing believable. With all the actual victims that exist in this brutal world your god made for us, and you're actually concerned with gay sex hurting god's feelings?

 

[RedStripe]

What specifically do you mean with "working against" "social maladies".

Using non-violent means to put an end to racism, sexism, class inequality, etc. We aren't advocating the use of violence to put an end to state oppression, so there's no reason to assume that working against these forms of oppression would require violence.

Boycott stores that refuse to serve minorities. Join organizations that educate the public on the dangers of homophobia, sexism, and the ignorant intolerance of people who have lifestyles or cultures that differ from the mainstream. Most importantly, don't just stand around as if you have no opinion or stance when people start bashing gays or minorities, or women on the basis of their status as such. Tell them that you don't agree with this bullshit and that you don't respect people that aren't expose hateful views based on pure ignorance.

A big difference between the state and your paper tigers is that the state takes up arms to enforce its edicts. How do you fight your "enemies" (including Proudhon, by the way, who knew the source of many problems) without "oppressing" "racists", "sexists" and anyone who has more wealth than you do?

Through the means mentioned above, and others. For example, if the the legislative scheme is one that exacerbates the problem (such as the marriage laws which discriminate against homosexuals), you could oppose them, or, if that is not feasible, offer alternatives such as a reformed set of laws which, although not perfectly libertarian (in the sense that state intrusion has not been eliminated) at least apply without the effect of discriminating against a particular group for no reason other than to satisfy the ignorant and destructive prejudices of a particular segment of society. (In other words: support the right of homosexuals to legally marry, since marriage is not a legal status the state is anywhere near willing to relinquish to other social institutions).

If "real libertarianism" includes Frankfurt School Marxist claptrap, then I'm a proud "has-ass" libertarian.

The first thing anyone who wants to understand real libertarianism should do is stop using right-wing libertarianism's criteria as a litmus test for what is worth consideration. Here's a fun fact: many of the original American libertarians during the 1800s considered themselves socialists, although of a different branch of socialism than their marxist cousins. They considered the capitalist class the enemy of liberty, as the wealthy class has always (and continues) to own/control the state and use it to further its own class interests.

They considered themselves (as Rothbard has written) as being more radical than the state-socialists. They opposed both state-socialism as well as capitalism (which we might today refer to as state-capitalism, since many of capitalism's proponents seem to forget that capitalism was originally coined, and has always been used, as a term to describe an economic system in which the state intervenes and sets the basic legal rules in favor of a small class of capital owners (capitalists) in order to preserve and ensure their ability to exploit the laborers who have been deprived of their right to own property, etc.) because they understood the dangers of each. To be for a true free market is to be egalitarian. Once you understand that you understand that the way that certain groups label "marxism" or "socialism" as the "great evil" is misleading and yet another attempt at creating a false left-right paradigm.

 

[johngr]

Using non-violent means to put an end to racism, sexism, class inequality, etc. We aren't advocating the use of violence to put an end to state oppression, so there's no reason to assume that working against these forms of oppression would require violence.

Boycott stores that refuse to serve minorities. Join organizations that educate the public on the dangers of homophobia, sexism, and the ignorant intolerance of people who have lifestyles or cultures that differ from the mainstream. Most importantly, don't just stand around as if you have no opinion or stance when people start bashing gays or minorities, or women on the basis of their status as such. Tell them that you don't agree with this bullshit and that you don't respect people that aren't expose hateful views based on pure ignorance.



Through the means mentioned above, and others. For example, if the the legislative scheme is one that exacerbates the problem (such as the marriage laws which discriminate against homosexuals), you could oppose them, or, if that is not feasible, offer alternatives such as a reformed set of laws which, although not perfectly libertarian (in the sense that state intrusion has not been eliminated) at least apply without the effect of discriminating against a particular group for no reason other than to satisfy the ignorant and destructive prejudices of a particular segment of society. (In other words: support the right of homosexuals to legally marry, since marriage is not a legal status the state is anywhere near willing to relinquish to other social institutions).



The first thing anyone who wants to understand real libertarianism should do is stop using right-wing libertarianism's criteria as a litmus test for what is worth consideration. Here's a fun fact: many of the original American libertarians during the 1800s considered themselves socialists, although of a different branch of socialism than their marxist cousins. They considered the capitalist class the enemy of liberty, as the wealthy class has always (and continues) to own/control the state and use it to further its own class interests.

They considered themselves (as Rothbard has written) as being more radical than the state-socialists. They opposed both state-socialism as well as capitalism (which we might today refer to as state-capitalism, since many of capitalism's proponents seem to forget that capitalism was originally coined, and has always been used, as a term to describe an economic system in which the state intervenes and sets the basic legal rules in favor of a small class of capital owners (capitalists) in order to preserve and ensure their ability to exploit the laborers who have been deprived of their right to own property, etc.) because they understood the dangers of each. To be for a true free market is to be egalitarian. Once you understand that you understand that the way that certain groups label "marxism" or "socialism" as the "great evil" is misleading and yet another attempt at creating a false left-right paradigm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Anyone who would boycott my café or for politically correct reasons is someone I wouldn't want as a patron, either. A good way to find businesses to support: look up which ones you're boycotting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

You guys make the the one world government's job much easier.

 

[RedStripe]

The socially and legally enforced acceptance.... of homosexuality

Please cite examples of the ways in which personal "acceptance" of homosexuality is legally enforced against people against their will. Name a single person who has been punished for committing a crime of which the only legal criteria is a negative or "unaccepting" view of homosexuality.

are both causes and symptoms of society decay.

No, this is yet another myth perpetuated by the right wing social conservatives. Society is not decaying, it is advancing. Just because you can't see it every day or, sadly, even within your lifetime, that doesn't mean it isn't happening (*cough* the evolution controversy rings a bell). Yes - society is improving.

A child born today has a lower probability of dying from homicide than at any other time of human history. Violence is down people (although there are occasionally short-term trends to the contrary - most of which are related to reactionaries who don't like that social norms are changing). The state is a fucking sideshow. What's really changing is technology and the way people interact and relate to each other. We are more tolerant than ever. We are more charitable than ever. We are more sophisticated than ever. Sure, there are groups who pose a roadblock to this progress (fundamentalists of various religions, for instance - Taliban, Southern Baptists, etc), but that doesn't buck the overall trend.

The claim that tolerance of homosexuality is somehow a negative influence on society is incredibly ironic. Those who propose that are the ones who seem to have no problem with a society that treats homosexuals as some sort of permanent underclass of untouchables. What is this, the fucking middle ages? Even young children are better able to grasp the concept of reciprocal respect and the fucking golden rule. It's the fucking golden rule! How is the further implementation of the golden rule leading to the decay of society? I don't understand how any reasonable person could reach the conclusion that it is.

I mean, has anyone who opposes social or legal equality for homosexuality actually realized that the thrust of their arguments are the EXACT same as those used by people who opposed the equality of blacks and women, or tolerance of other religions? It's not just a coincidence that the arguments are extremely similar!

It did not come from the grass roots. Its origin is the top-down culture creators who seem hell-bent on destroying Western civilization.

Oh yea, just like equal rights for women and civil rights for blacks - it's all just part of the super-secret conspiracy of the elite to "destroy western civilization" (even though any 'elite' would necessarily derive its power from the preeminence of western societies over the the rest of the world - don't worry, most attempts to claim that "the elites are behind it" aren't actually supposed to make sense). Yea. I'm a member of the Western Elite who wants to destroy western society and thus western power. Do you really believe that?

Have you yet to realize that the elites can be blamed for whatever it is you don't like about society? Why is Ron Paul being interviewed on CNN far more often than any other loser of the 2008 Republican Primary? OHHH IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY BY THE ELITES BECAUSE THEY KNOW RON PAUL WILL DESTROY WESTERN SOCIETY!!!!11

The mainstream view of history and the social sciences, insofar as it lacks an appreciation of the role of the elite in shaping history and culture, might not give an accurate representation of reality... but neither does the view by a bunch of cranks who claim the elite is responsible for everything. The elite exists but has a very limited about of control (and is also a very varied demography with many divergent and conflicting interests). The mainstreaming of homosexuality, while it may be co-opted by a particular faction of the elite to serve certain ends, is for the most part a result of the fact that there are simply quite a few homosexuals in society who are finally pushing for their right to be treated like any other sexual preference (which they should be).

 

[RedStripe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Anyone who would boycott my café or for politically correct reasons is someone I wouldn't want as a patron, either. A good way to find businesses to support: look up which ones you're boycotting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

You guys make the the one world government's job much easier.

Wow, I actually respond to the things you say, and this is the turd of a post you drop into this thread as a response? No wonder your views are so distorted - you're to lazy to investigate anything to the contrary. Any moron can post random links.

I've spent more time looking into the claims of a coming world government that you realize. I've attended many meetings of the John Birch Society. I've read The Creature from Jekyll Island; None Dares Call it Conspiracy; etc (twice over in many instances). I once found such arguments very compelling. After further studies I find it to be half-truths. The conspiratorial view doesn't take into account the full complexity of society and the processes by which social changes occur. To the degree that full-fledged conspiracies exist, they come about as a byproduct of a flawed power structure but are not the source or engine of that power structure. Like the economy, power relations, government, and various institutions are too difficult for any one individual or interest group to control precisely.

But don't worry about that. Keep letting others define your ideological enemies for you.

 

[johngr]

Wow, I actually respond to the things you say, and this is the turd of a post you drop into this thread as a response? No wonder your views are so distorted - you're to lazy to investigate anything to the contrary. Any moron can post random links.

I've spent more time looking into the claims of a coming world government that you realize. I've attended many meetings of the John Birch Society. I've read The Creature from Jekyll Island; None Dares Call it Conspiracy; etc (twice over in many instances). I once found such arguments very compelling. After further studies I find it to be half-truths. The conspiratorial view doesn't take into account the full complexity of society and the processes by which social changes occur. To the degree that full-fledged conspiracies exist, they come about as a byproduct of a flawed power structure but are not the source or engine of that power structure. Like the economy, power relations, government, and various institutions are too difficult for any one individual or interest group to control precisely.

But don't worry about that. Keep letting others define your ideological enemies for you.

Using thought-stopping, debate-terminating magical buzzword nominalizations like "racism" and "sexism" "bigotry", etc., you do exactly what you say I'm doing.

They can't have a one world government without nation-busting (Israel excepted).

The primary engine for social change and control is the Western media. Read some Proudhon and you might get a clue as to which ethnopolitical interests they serve.

BTW, it's None Dare(subjunctive, 2nd form) Call It Conspiracy.

 

[Endgame]

Dear social conservatives,

You're on a level with a welfare bum whining about being forced to accept that some people have more money when you're punished for trying to steal from them.

Your slave-morality is what makes people predisposed to accept serfdom and is useless to me in my pursuit of happiness.

Leave "don't tread on me" to people who actually believe it.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

leave "don't tread on me" to people who actually believe it.

+1776

 

[johngr]

Dear social conservatives,

You're on a level with a welfare bum whining about being forced to accept that some people have more money when you're punished for trying to steal from them.

Your slave-morality is what makes people predisposed to accept serfdom and is useless to me in my pursuit of happiness.

Leave "don't tread on me" to people who actually believe it.

If you're going to continue with the straw men, here's some "straw fags" for me to knock down: you are in favor of the government to teach/promote homosexuality in the schools, affiirmative action for homosexuals, franchising and otherwise supporting Perversity Broadcasting System and media monopolies to promote it over air, proscribing voicing an opinion against it (they're working on it) and federal prosecution/increased penalties for the same crime based on motive.

Some liberty love you are!

 

[Bucjason]

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I am proudly ungodly then.

I actually do not believe that Jesus did anything people say he did as far his magic activity is concerned, nor do I believe in imaginary friends.

But at the end of the day, Jesus can have his opinion and I can have mine and to me that liberty is worth more than unicorns and fairies in heaven.

PS. I remember when I was around 7 or 8 I believed without reservation in the existence of Santa Claus and just like the religious I would
ignore any suggestions that Santa was simply not real. One day however, I noticed Santa being given money for a present that was to be given to me.
That's when I realised that my fairytale had to come to an end.

It was my belief that no self-respecting giver of presents to children riding around the world in the sky with reindeer and climbing through chimneys could
possibly be an ordinary toy salesman.

I'd certainly hate being one of your grandmothers.

 

[Promontorium]

In this fashion faux libertarianism(really just warmed over social liberalism) in fact also victimizes other people, who do not want social liberal amorality imposed on them legislatively. So if libertines would question whether conservatives should impose their values on social liberals, conservatives would question whether social liberals should impose their values on social conservatives. Those advocatng for decency are simply looking after protecting the third parties victimized as a consequence of a de-facto humanist theocracy the social left would like to impose on most of the population.

faux libertarianism ? Libertarianism is an offshoot of Objectivism, which is implicitly moral and Atheist.

You win no points by being ignorant, and claiming that people who don't follow your book of fantasys has no morals.


I have explicit, logical, universally defined morals, based on reality.

You claim I'm immoral, because I don't believe in your fairy tales? You think no person can be moral unless they fit the exact parameters of your specific sub-religion?

"conservatives would question whether social liberals should impose their values on social conservatives"

This is the argument of tyranny.

You want Christian Laws, but simply disagreeing with you in your eyes is "imposing". NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BE IMMORAL. YOUR SLANTED DEFINITION OF MORALITY HAS NO BEARING ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

FREEING INDIVIDUALS FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE COLLECTIVE IS NOT AN IMPOSITION, IT IS IMPLICITLY A LIBERATION.

You are a tyrant under the guise of a "true" libertarian.

 

[Promontorium]

I am so thoroughly insulted by the ignorance of some of you. I can not believe what I've been aligned with.

I find you people disgusting. You promote "morality" while demanding laws that penetrate the heart of individual liberty.

What moral right can you have that imposes law againsts individuals, simply for existing?

Your specific interpretation of a book does not sanction your tyranny. Not even your god accepts your precepts.

You denounce the right of your god while holding him up to support forcing your will on others.

Victimization indeed. You can play that shit with your enemies, but only at the end of a spear. That is the talk of the rule by fist.

You cry victim, because people disagree with you, and then slam your will upon them with physical force, and call that morality?


I condemn you.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Libertarianism is an offshoot of Objectivism, which is implicitly moral and Atheist.

not accurate. Objectivism is typically atheistic in nature, but Libertarianism is not; Libertarianism far predates objectivism. Also you may want to read up on Objectivism a bit more; it's a philosophy, not a political idea/action, and as a matter of fact, its founder (Ayan Rand) hated being associated with libertarians (IIRC she also did not like them).

 

[JamesButabi]

If you're going to continue with the straw men, here's some "straw fags" for me to knock down: you are in favor of the government to teach/promote homosexuality in the schools, affiirmative action for homosexuals, franchising and otherwise supporting Perversity Broadcasting System and media monopolies to promote it over air, proscribing voicing an opinion against it (they're working on it) and federal prosecution/increased penalties for the same crime based on motive.

Some liberty love you are!

I agree with endgame's last statement and yet do no subscribe to any of your pandering.