You’re a dude. You can’t be a feminist anyways.
So nutrition is not a field of study for science? How anti-science of you.
Why can’t I claim that?
@Mark, no, you’re not supposed to give a damn about them, you’re supposed to give a damn about their audience since those are the people we are trying to reach. Why are many on this board so petulant, disparaging, and dismissive about this stuff? All I’m saying is that it has a very intellectual tradition yet a mediocre public perception.
You know, unless you want most people NOT to be libertarians…
Indeed, because what Paul experiences is akin to what many on the other end of the spectrum have experienced. Smearing people is typical and done very often these days.
Michael Moore himself often said that he is grossly misrepresented as a caricature of someone that he is not, even though he admits his stands are clear in that he opposes the business establishment as an anti-worker creation. Many on what is loosely called the Left have been have been badly smeared and shown as cranks that they never were.
So when you have a mass media that enjoys slandering people, does it hurt their credibility or does it hurt those whom they criticise?
Of course it will be the former. Where do those people stand? Hannity is notorious for not backing up his claims with proper evidence, especially when he says Obama has done nothing to stop terrorists when Obama has ordered more assassinations than any American President. Michelle Malkin herself is seen as naiive and stupid by other neoconservatives. Ben Stein?
BEN STEIN? That man has managed to dig his grave further and further. He said that real estate was fine a month before the housing crisis. That man has made the worst and most unscientific hyperbole claims on evolution that make Sobran’s piece look infinitely more thoughtful. That man is the one who said he had to scrounge and work hard to climb up the social ladder, even though he inherited millions of dollars from his father. This a man regularly parodied in media.
By comparison, Huffington Post editorials on Ron Paul always try to praise him before criticising him. Even Robert Scheer defended him and his character. So where does Paul stand and where do Ben Stein and Sean Hannity stand?
Oh yes, lets reach Hannity’s audience by having Hannity say good things about Ron Paul?? What the heck are you even talking about here? Hannity and Malkin are always going to hate and smear Paul and Rockwellians regardless of whoever they distance themselves from. Therefore they are exactly the people that is utterly pointless to try to accommodate.
Let’s face it. It is not really about Hannity or about Hannity’s audience. It is about you. You are unconfortable with some of what gets published on lewrockwell.com and would like to be accommodated. Ok, we get it. You have a narrow and mainstream-chiseled comfort zone. Tough luck. Not our problem.
Who cares?
This is a failure of Pete to promote a different vision, not a failure of the market to properly identify the Austrian School with his vision of it.
I consider myself a professional marketer. I can tell you that most of the libertarians on here concerned with image, and what “we” should do, don’t have a clue. I’d also argue, those who are about a unified message and shunning diversity are not very libertarian when the stakes are higher than posting on forums and blogs.
Politically correct libertarianism. And the radical youth embrace this idea. I need a drink.
It doesn’t matter. You can’t be a feminist no more than you can be a black nationalist. Doesn’t matter if you agree with them on everything.
This post along with the other recent religious posts really exemplifies how people here, in all sides, take some issues with far too much emotion.
Why not? Unless you explain my previous point still stands.
I could be a black nationalist but I’m not.
I fail to see how being feminist requires you to be a woman.That’s a schoolboy error.
No you can’t be. Nationalism is never so much about politics as it is about identity.
Unless you identify yourself as a black person you can not be a black nationalist. Unless you think of yourself as a woman you can not be a feminist.
You can not be an actual Japanese nationalist but feel apart from the Japanese nation. No more than you can be a die hard Celtics fan but feel apart from Celtics.
Your point never stood in the first place because you don’t understand what feminism is. If feminism was really defined as caring about human rights for women as you claim then every libertarian would be a “feminist” by default and you wouldn’t feel the need to tell us about your feminism every two minutes.
I’m going to ignore Marko for the time being because he is being pretentious and petulant, but as for your points libertystudent, I don’t see me as advocating politically correct libertarianism. I just want sane libertarianism.
The reason I’m concerned about the image isn’t about sacrificing ideals, it is about having ACCURATE information informing those ideals. I’m not against shutting down anti-evolution inanity, but I would much rather have it not tarnish the reputation of the movement.
Too late. The reputation of the libertarian movement is long-since tarnished. Most people think libertarians are mostly conspiracy-theory-wielding nutjobs who court the worst elements of the political right. And they’re at least partly right about that, depending on which libertarians one is dealing with. Some of it’s unfair, some of it’s not.
Clearly the issue here is that science-loving people are upset over LRC posting articles which go against evolution. As I stated earlier in this thread, I was a little annoyed over the Sobran article and the latest podcast where Tim Ball called Darwin an Atheist. Darwin was by his own admission an Agnostic (or possibly Deist), yet had studied to be a clergyman earlier in his life. So what do non-libertarians who are just getting into the movement think when they hear such things? I imagine they would be turned off. I’ve been into this whole libertarianism thing for roughly three years now and even I was turned off. I’ve started reading LRC less and less over the months.
No, I don’t think we should be politically correct, nor do I think we are. Nor do I think we should force Lew to reject certain sorts of articles just because most of us don’t like them. But it should be a surprise to no one if those articles come under fire for their perceived ridiculousness.
There’s also the fact that Darwin explicitly states in “Origin of Species” that the theory of evolution does not in and of itself contradict theism and the notion that the universe was created by a deity. Why creationists so often conflate the two issues (evolution of species vs. beginning of life and universe) is beyond me.
@BrainPolice, it’s because the writing is on the wall, it seems. It seems tremendously inefficient and is hinted at nowhere in the religious texts. They want to hang on to the idea that they are, in some special manner, above the rest of the animal kingdom and not a part of it.
Your definition of sane. Not some objective definition, right?
We all know libertarianism is not defined by personal preferences, including creation narratives. You’re welcome to think it is inane (a personal judgment, preference), but I think you go to far when you don the cloak of the entire libertarian movement (a herd of cats at best) to denounce it.
Since when are factual claims about scientific matters personal preferences? 
Got the creation of the universe and evolution all figured out have we?