Anti-racists are collectivists too.
they are ignored. they have no right to have attention paid them. not a moral issue
these are objected to on NAP grounds. the issue of motive for lynchin or wars is moot, its the crime of NAP violation that is what is wrong about them
Is it morally wrong for dissidents to boycott a community of people? Seriously, I want to know if the principle of boycotting is the issue, or if it is related to size of the group, or age or some other collectivist factor.
Also, it’s not oppression. You have no right to force association, and that is the problem with the leftarian point of view.
“Absurd reasons” might need to be defined.
No, I think a libertarian could mind their own damn business & not go around & being a paternalistic busy-body to other people, while objecting (yet remaining neutral & not interacting with) a community of narrow minded bigots until they physically coerce someone and/or violate the NAP, methinks.
The equation of remaining neutral or indifferent or not interacting with a community of bigots as a libertarian endorsement of them “doing nothing wrong” is absurd, & seems to leave room for one to rationalize pre-emptive action against bigots (or the right for individuals to be bigots) on the basis of one’s own moral crusade.
Ironically, communities would probably realize how idiotic it would be to have un-discussed social rules on what constitutes absurd reasons (since they’re would constant bickering, in-fighting, etc.).
They would probably formally adopt agreements on what are absurd rules and what aren’t (i.e. a community might agree that not watering one’s lawn is an absurd reason to be kicked out or boycotted from the community, but might very well agree that stealing from one another is a perfectly valid reason for boycotting and/or being kicked from the community).
Nope. That’s ridiculous and kinda shows your bias against people who don’t like racism.
Well, that’s not exactly what I was talking about.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I was trying to underline the point that racism is irrational - it’s just an emotional whim. I’m saying racists are collectivists and act based on whim.
So your counter-argument is “nope, you’re a mean person because you don’t agree with me, and you are dumb.” ?
Clever.
I think this is an issue that people aren’t going to change their minds on and people said what was on there mind. I’m going to move onto something more constructive.
I don’t see any ‘busy-body’ around.
Not sure what you are saying, though it sounds a bit like a strawman : I object to bigots so it means I’m willing to use “pre-emptive” action - false.
I don’t like racism. So am I biased against myself?
No, my counter argument to a ridiculous assertion is to simply say it is a ridiculous assertion. I know this game. LS is pretending that my objecting to intolerance means I’m intolerant…
…And my objections to racism and collectivism means I’m a collectivist - frankly, as far as non-arguments go, this one is pretty stupid.
Sure, you’re the anti-religion and anti-social conservative values busy-body on the forum. Don’t shy away from it, it’s a role you have created for yourself and become quite expert at. Three cheers for Juan, always on the lookout for revealed religion and right wingers! Hip Hip Hooray!
Sorry, you are not making any sense.
You mean criticizing absurdities and collectivism means I’m a busy-body ? So be it. It’s another non-argument at any rate.
Then you should be able to understand me perfectly, because your position on objective morality doesn’t make sense either.
Sorry, I still don’t know what you are saying. As to your claim that you don’t like racism - seems kinda doubtful given your constant rants against people who don’t like racism and your constant siding with people like byzantine. But I guess you can eat your cake and have it too.
Now that, is something we can both agree on.
Do you consider yourself a collectivist ? Or are you going to quibble, I mean, ‘argue’ that not liking racism is different from being anti-racist ?
By the way, did you manage to explain how being anti-racist, which is a consequence of subscribing to individualism, actually means being collectivist ?
Black is white ? Freedom is slavery ?
It is different.
Anti-racists see race groups as victims of racism. They don’t see individuals, with individual experiences.
Based solely off my intuition and personal experiences (so certainly nothing formal) and barring the hard core “religious right” whom I have little experience with:
-
Republicans tend to on avg carry more libertarian rhetoric, particularly on more localized levels (I am from urban areas and NYC , so they may act differently in your location ).
-
The typical Republican/conservative non politician tends to be comparatively less of a political zealot (particularly the more urban cosmopolitan types of liberals, which in my opinion are just intolerable)
-
As far as major propaganda distribution is concerned, I think the Republicans/conservatives have pretty much lost on every front (even before Bush Jr took office) making them less a threat in any propaganda war
As far as the cultural preferences are concerned I think it would be an extraordinarily interesting and profitable to study, and I would be happy to read any worthwhile literature as to why which group prefers which, but outside of a few very speculative hunches I can not fathom anything close to a decent answer as to why group X prefers a certain aesthetic over group Y.
Like I said this is far from any real formal answer, just a few reasons from my experience as to why conservatives tend to be more of a choice for an “alliance” over Dems (particularly of the NYC/ college student variety)
- they ten