Rethuglicans, Teabaggers, and Fundies, oh MY!

kuwisdelu said:

For those who don't realize this, teabagger also has certain sexual connotations. "Teabagging" is a particular sex act. This has been a public service announcement.

Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. (So it's potentially a two-way offense?)

Depends on if you like teabagging or not.

mscelina said:

Not at all. How can I be an ageist when I'm a grandmother? (A grandmother at 42, mind you, but still...)

Heck, I'm officially a geezerette now.

Click to expand...

I'm more fond of this kind of geezer though.

kuwisdelu said:

Oh, I think Don is quite contemptuous. Just not insulting.

Click to expand...

mscelina said:

I don't. I think he's pretty funny--for a geezer.

*smirk*

Fortunately, geezer isn't a poltically loaded word.

Click to expand...

Have you checked with AARP about that?

Glad to see this thread, and it's reassuring that context will be important deciding whether or not a word is being used appropriately...

Oh yeah, this has been bugging me.

Can we add "Somalia = Libertarian Paradise" and USSR/DPNK = "Communist Utopia" to the 'stop doing'.

Yes, we know that libertarians and anarchists want less laws and a weak/nonexistent centralized government, and I know that several interpretations of communist/socialist theory involve a strong centralized government and a command economy...

But that does not mean that I want to live in Somalia, just as I am sure that the communist/socialist leaning members of the forum don't want to live in ye olde USSR or North Korea.

We want to live in countries that FUNCTION. We just disagree on HOW they should function.

Implying otherwise adds nothing to the conversation and is really bugging me.

Zoombie said:

Oh yeah, this has been bugging me.

Can we add "Somalia = Libertarian Paradise" and USSR/DPNK = "Communist Utopia" to the 'stop doing'.

Yes, we know that libertarians and anarchists want less laws and a weak/nonexistent centralized government, and I know that several interpretations of communist/socialist theory involve a strong centralized government and a command economy...

But that does not mean that I want to live in Somalia, just as I am sure that the communist/socialist leaning members of the forum don't want to live in ye olde USSR or North Korea.

We want to live in countries that FUNCTION. We just disagree on HOW they should function.

Implying otherwise adds nothing to the conversation and is really bugging me.

Click to expand...

I sympathize with this, although OTOH, the advantage of seeing people make these Somalia and North Korea comparisons is it exposes the person as being completely unknowledgeable about libertarianism and communism. Which is sometimes helpful.

So I don't know.

MOD NOTE: I moved the Democrat/Democratic discussion over to TIO. Didn't want it derailing the point of this stickie. You can find it here.
Thanks,
--Williebee

Williebee said:

MOD NOTE: This is a repost for Michael Wolfe, that I moved accidentally.
apologies. -- Williebee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoombie
Oh yeah, this has been bugging me.

Can we add "Somalia = Libertarian Paradise" and USSR/DPNK = "Communist Utopia" to the 'stop doing'.

Yes, we know that libertarians and anarchists want less laws and a weak/nonexistent centralized government, and I know that several interpretations of communist/socialist theory involve a strong centralized government and a command economy...

But that does not mean that I want to live in Somalia, just as I am sure that the communist/socialist leaning members of the forum don't want to live in ye olde USSR or North Korea.

We want to live in countries that FUNCTION. We just disagree on HOW they should function.

Implying otherwise adds nothing to the conversation and is really bugging me.
I sympathize with this, although OTOH, the advantage of seeing people make these Somalia and North Korea comparisons is it exposes the person as being completely unknowledgeable about libertarianism and communism. Which is sometimes helpful.

Click to expand...

As I suspect I am the person most responsible for the libertarian=Somalia comments, I'll offer this: I've made those comments as blatant hyperbole, in response to one, and only one, other person's commonly expressed comments about how the absence of government would be desirable. When that other person admits to similar hyperbole, AND ONLY THEN, will I refrain from making such comments in response. Otherwise, I consider them entirely appropriate.

Thanks.

blacbird said:

As I suspect I am the person most responsible for the libertarian=Somalia comments, I'll offer this: I've made those comments as blatant hyperbole, in response to one, and only one, other person's commonly expressed comments about how the absence of government would be desirable. When that other person admits to similar hyperbole, AND ONLY THEN, will I refrain from making such comments in response. Otherwise, I consider them entirely appropriate.

Click to expand...

But that person is not a libertarian. Libertarians are not against government. Libertarians are not anarchists. The prime literature for libertarians are Robert Nozsick's "Anarchy state and Utopia" wherein Nozsick describes the philosophical foundations for the libertarian night-watchman state, and how such an entity always emerge. The fundament of libertarianism is thus that nature abhors a vacuum, and that a political vacuum will be filled by a proto-state first and then a state.

Anarchists don't believe this. Which is why they are anarchists, and not libertarians.

If it's Don you're talking about, he's an agorist. An anarchist.

As Somalia is the best, if not only, living example of a state-less country, I think it's a cromulent counterpoint to any serious argument for anarchy. I certainly don't accuse any libertarians here of admiring Somalia's 'society', but if anyone wants to advocate an anarchist utopia then they should address its evident shortcomings.

A better counter-argument to libertarian utopianism is Britain or America during the industrial revolution, anyway.

Albedo said:

As Somalia is the best, if not only, living example of a state-less country, I think it's a cromulent counterpoint to any serious argument for anarchy. I certainly don't accuse any libertarians here of admiring Somalia's 'society', but if anyone wants to advocate an anarchist utopia then they should address its evident shortcomings.

A better counter-argument to libertarian utopianism is Britain or America during the industrial revolution, anyway.

Click to expand...

Or the Nordic countries. But this is OT so I'll bow out.

blacbird said:

As I suspect I am the person most responsible for the libertarian=Somalia comments, I'll offer this: I've made those comments as blatant hyperbole, in response to one, and only one, other person's commonly expressed comments about how the absence of government would be desirable. When that other person admits to similar hyperbole, AND ONLY THEN, will I refrain from making such comments in response. Otherwise, I consider them entirely appropriate.

Click to expand...

When the question of the day is whether it's sexual assault if the TSA does it, arguing over whether a minimal state or no state is the ideal seems a rather silly, and actually dangerous distraction. However, I understand that the more intrusive and objectionable the state, the more important it is to keep people afraid of any alternative to an even more powerful state.

As I've said repeatedly, when we get government cut down to 10% of what it is today, then we can reopen the question as to how much of the remaining government we need.

Maxinquaye said:

But that person is not a libertarian. Libertarians are not against government. Libertarians are not anarchists. The prime literature for libertarians are Robert Nozsick's "Anarchy state and Utopia" wherein Nozsick describes the philosophical foundations for the libertarian night-watchman state, and how such an entity always emerge. The fundament of libertarianism is thus that nature abhors a vacuum, and that a political vacuum will be filled by a proto-state first and then a state.

Anarchists don't believe this. Which is why they are anarchists, and not libertarians.

If it's Don you're talking about, he's an agorist. An anarchist.

Click to expand...

Um, yeah, definitions are important. The Somalia = Libertarian Paradise argument is not only hyperbole, it's flat-out wrong. Michael's post at #57 pretty much nailed it.

Albedo said:

A better counter-argument to libertarian utopianism is Britain or America during the industrial revolution, anyway.

Click to expand...

Well, except for the part where legislators were already writing laws by the bucketload to grant special privileges to their robber-baron buddies. Libertarian utopianism requires free markets and the absence of political privilege. Corporations, OTOH, are creatures of government, not the free market. The robber barons were the creations of government, not free markets.

Maxinquaye said:

Or the Nordic countries. But this is OT so I'll bow out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a much better example, as are the cooperatives and mutual aid societies that arose in the American west before the territories were conquered by political machines. The reality, not the John Wayne/Hollywood version.

But as Max pointed out, this is all OT. If someone cares to start another thread on this topic, feel free.

blacbird said:

As I suspect I am the person most responsible for the libertarian=Somalia comments...

Click to expand...

Most? Maybe. But you're not the only one.

But all of these comments do seem to be hyperbole. As far as I'm concerned, that should be okay, since they're easily answered (Mac et al may feel differently). And such comparisons are just that: comparisons. Faulty or not, they're hardly the same thing as the terms that spawned this thread.

robeiae said:

But all of these comments do seem to be hyperbole. As far as I'm concerned, that should be okay, since they're easily answered (Mac et al may feel differently). And such comparisons are just that: comparisons.

Click to expand...

Agreed. A comment can be trite and simply wrong without being offensive. I've many times seen the mildest of social democracies get called communist. If you're going to start existing on plausible comparisons, the mods will have loads of work to do.

Priene said:

Agreed. A comment can be trite and simply wrong without being offensive. I've many times seen the mildest of social democracies get called communist. If you're going to start existing on plausible comparisons, the mods will have loads of work to do.

Click to expand...

That one boils my bubbles, but it seems to me that ridiculous hyperbole should be called out as such rather than censored.

Don said:

Libertarian utopianism requires free markets and the absence of political privilege.

Click to expand...

Free markets are always managed by some entity. Otherwise you get no enforcement of trades, and no come back against fraudulent trades.

That entity is either a government in fact, or a government in embryo, because it always attracts those looking for personal advantage.

Yeah, you can shoot people who cross you. Then the surviving friends and relatives get together and shoot you back.

Let me know how that works out in practice.

As for political privilege - the whole points of markets is to reduce all transactions to zero sum games. So political privilege is an inevitable outcome, because it doesn't take long for some traders to gain systemic advantage over others.

It's not difficult to game or model these outcomes rationally.

If you don't want to reduce all human interaction to zero sum trading you may as well admit that Kropotkin-style free mutual aid is necessary for civilisation and real freedom - and then you're no longer a utopian libertarian. (Or someone who posts on this board without getting a free market traded-rate for your time.)

Back on the thread topic - is there some word equivalent to 'teabagger' that describes that group and isn't considered offensive?

What words should we use if we want to post something about them?

They're not synonymous with Republicans, so that doesn't work.

is there some word equivalent to 'teabagger' that describes that group and isn't considered offensive?

Click to expand...

Hmm,

How about just Tea Party member, or Tea Party supporter?

Republicans being members of the Republican Party, and Democrats being members of the Democratic Party, maybe just "Teas"?

We could call them...PWELPBAACBATFEWTRPWARATS*






*People who espose libertarian perspectives but are actually controlled by a theocratic fringe element within the republican party who are also racists and that sucks.

ahem.

or not.

...or perhaps just "members of the Tea Party."

I supposed you would bounce Bill Maher--he uses it all the time.

I don't understand what's wrong with using the word "tea bagger."

People who are in the tea party deserve derision.

Mr.L.A.Kegbrat said:

I supposed you would bounce Bill Maher--he uses it all the time.

I don't understand what's wrong with using the word "tea bagger."

People who are in the tea party deserve derision.

Click to expand...

Not here they don't. If you read the first post in this thread:

MacAllister said:

Guys? I'm seeing a resurgence of usage of deliberately-insulting diminutives like "teabagger" and "rethuglican" here. Stop it. Seriously.

Don't. Do. It.
Not here.

Click to expand...

Mac isn't asking.