Pointing out behavior that hurts the cause, and inconsistencies, by self-described Austro-libertarians.
So… for keeping ourselves honest?
Uh oh, Big Brother is watching me.
Isn’t this just going to end up being an awesome place for trolls to come, get content easily and use to spread discontent?
I think there will be some unintended consequences here.
I appreciate the sentiment and effort, but I also share Conza’s concerns. I’m not sure this is the best way to go about it. It kind of paints a bullseye.
I have to agree with Conza. It actually took me a minute to realize what you were doing in those first three posts. At first I thought it was calling attention to where these people were pointing out false claims made by others or things people said that hurt the cause. Then I read the sidebar and looked at the posts again. I thought: “he’s not actually posting this to berate Catalan for that blog entry, is he?” [I had already read that full blog post, and didn’t have a problem with it.] But looking at the other two I realized that’s exactly what you were doing…that it wasn’t a collection of links where people had called attention to negative claims, but instead it was supposed to be a collection of negative comments in and of itself.
In that particular case, Catalan prefaced his comment and made it clear why he was being unusually harsh. And it is extremely unusual (essentially unheard of) for him to be harsh.
As for the other two, big deal: Someone I’ve never heard of called someone doing something dumb “dumb”, and Stefan Molyneux being a douchebag. What else is new? You might as well just have an automatic entry for every new video he uploads. Or just a keep his name tacked to the top of the list.
But aside from just being a Molyneux repository, I see this being an open invitation to infighting among libertarians…a place designated solely to criticizing each other which I could easily see fostering into a “you’re not a real libertarian” accusationfest, or some kind of Randian elitist in-group/out-group mentality.
And even more than that, while I agree it’s important to keep each other honest and accurate, I really don’t see the usefulness or benefit in creating a storehouse of everytime a libertarian calls someone “dumb.” It honestly doesn’t bother me that someone used that word on the Rockwell blog or that Catalan used the word “idiot” in response to someone flippantly mischaracterizing Mises’ views and then claiming he has a mental disorder. There are much more important things to call attention to, and much bigger battles to be fought, and much better uses of libertarians’ time than running to a reddit to tattletale when someone hasn’t played nicey nice. And to Conza’s point, I do see this as being more than anything else a resource for enemies of libertarianism to acquire ammo.
If someone says something that’s really out of line or is inconsistent with libertarian principles, they’ll get called out on it in the blogosphere and possibly even in an article or two. But I for one will not contribute to a collection of virtually meaningless one-liners that any enemy would find more useful than virtually any friend.
These are things that are good to complain about. That’s the whole point.
So you’re telling me that it doesn’t bother you that the major outlets of Austro-libertarian thought don’t have any self-regulation as far as verbal abuse goes. Well, I do think it’s a problem. And as long as that doesn’t change, I have no interest in what else you have to say about it.
A lesson from the skeptic community: Don’t Be A Dick (Phil Plait)
How is a subreddit more effective at dealing with verbal abuse than explicitly addressing the verbal abuse at the point of origin?
The larger point of what I’m saying is that I don’t consider simply referring someone as a “self-hating libertarian”, or calling someone doing something dumb “dumb”, to be a “problem” of “verbal abuse” that needs to be “regulated”.
But what’s more, I don’t see how collecting such instances in a single place and creating an archive of such things — that when taken individually, in context may not even be given a second thought, but when quote-cut, compiled and presented in a neat list, to be added to in perpetuity, can over time create the impression of a negative modus operandi — does anything to “regulate” anything. Again, I don’t see how it serves any real useful purpose to the cause of liberty. Such a thing is most useful to an enemy looking to acquire ammunition with which to attack the philosophy and it’s adherents. In fact it’s the kind of thing that would be created by enemies for such a purpose.
I do not see what good is supposed to come from doing that job for them. Again, if anyone ever says anything that is actually heinous or does not align with the philosophy, and yet masquerades as being part of it, they are generally called out in a response piece. And if anyone personally has a problem with something that is said, they can always write a public response of their own, or better yet, contact the person directly and address it that way. I see no value in maintaining an online tattletale bulletin of libertarians supposedly by libertarians.
Malachi,
I think the two go together, especially when it’s such a widespread problem.
Ok, thats not really an answer.
It’s a false dichotomy. Having a collection point can be used to address it either directly or indirectly to the source of origin.
I wasnt presenting it as a dichotomy. Rather, my contention is that your subreddit provides no benefits over/in addition to addressing the problem at the point of origin.
I have to agree with almost everyone here. I see no point/purpose in establishing a depository of this kind.
I really disagree with this.
I might be wrong here, but you seem to take the position of “verbal-non aggression”, if I had to phrase it that way, and correct me if I’m wrong. By that I mean, your approach to libertarian enlightenment of others, is that you reject the deontological approach, or say, argumentation ethics etc.. instead for the focus on economics, ala Danny Sanchez style.
This hardly comes off as being consistent with that approach.. Of not really pressuring people into realising they are wrong by focusing on the immorality of what they are doing, or have said.
I’m wondering why that is. And why that, as someone who does favour rhetorical absolutism and the apriori of argumentation ethics etc, that even I disagree with this kind of thing… let alone the others here who don’t, but also don’t see a need / any good to come out of this. I think it should give a cause to pause.