07
Sep
2016
A Video Offering Constructive Criticism of Gary Johnson
I feel that I’ve lost my objectivity when it comes to Gary Johnson, and so I’m only going to share this here (as opposed to social media). Incidentally, see if you can pass the Turing Test on me: How did I react around 1:05?
BTW, the stuff about Muslim immigrants and what they did in Germany–I am not endorsing this guy’s view that someone who allows immigration is obviously non-libertarian. (You could use the same approach to argue that allowing women to have babies is unlibertarian, since some grow up to be murderers and rapists–a point from Block and Callahan, both of whom now kinda sorta support Trump, in an interesting turn of events.)
Anyway, do with this what you will.
I think he makes some good points. Johnson understands libertarian philosophy perfectly well. He’s just pandering to the left because he thinks it will get him votes. I disagree that Johnson will rob more votes from Trump than Hillary. If his left-wing pandering works, he’ll take more votes from Hillary… and his pandering to the left will definitely not buy him Trump votes.
Where do you get the idea that he understands libertarian philosophy perfectly? In the last 4 or 5 years of hearing this guy, he comes off as someone that happens to fall into libertarian positions on some issues, but has never taken the time to actually study libertarian philosophy.
Heck, Rand Paul sounds like someone that understands libertarian philosophy perfectly, but either panders to the right or just happens to disagree with certain views for whatever reason. He seems well read on libertarianism to me, though. I feel like if he was teaching a course on libertarianism he would be able to do a pretty good job, even if he isn’t sold on all the positions. And I don’t even like the guy. But I don’t think Johnson could even begin to teach libertarianism to people whether he wanted to or not.
Rand Paul probably says he’s not a libertarian (rather, “libertarian-ish”) because he understands it well.
The narrator was so irritating and obnoxious that I couldn’t even get through the whoile video….The narrator’s obnoxiousness actually made me more sympathetic to Johnson…
that should read “whole” video…
Paul Joseph Watson is not generally known for his subtlety and florid speech.
There is sometimes a case for speaking bluntly, but takes skill to get the balance right.
My disagreement with the Block/Callahan argument is that until recently babies had chaperones, highly invested in the project and for many years legally and socially accountable, who teach them civilized behavior in accordance with the larger community.
Immigrants not so much.
This isn’t to take a position on whether or not D.C. do one thing or the other, it is to point out a problem in the argument.
There are multiple problems with your response.
First off, I don’t know what you mean by “until recently”, but if you don’t think that’s the case anymore, then wouldn’t you think the baby argument works now?
Second, a massive number of babies have always had parents who did not “teach them civilized behavior in accordance with the larger community”, so the argument would still apply to them.
Third, the vast majority of immigrants had parents who were legally and socially accountable for them, and who taught them civilized behavior in accordance with the larger community.
Fourth, you aren’t understanding the argument. It is meant to reply to specific arguments, not to every argument. The argument Bob cited doesn’t respond to the argument that only people born on native soil or approved by most citizens should be allowed to be citizens. That doesn’t mean the baby response is bad, it just means that it isn’t meant for every single argument in every circumstance. In this case, it was used to respond to the argument that some immigrants will rape/kill/commit crimes. Since the same argument can be used to deport babies, clearly the argument is bad. You cited a different argument.
“What Is Aleppo?”
It’s a few blocks over from NAP Ave.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/08/what-aleppo-gary-johnson-appears-stumped-question-syria
Or maybe it’s a gay leopard.
All part of that big grain storage system under the pyramids.
Suppose they had taken President Bill Clinton and started throwing geopolitical questions about Serbia and Rwanda. Do you think he would have tripped up?
What if President G. W. Bush had been asked to explain the religious background of the Middle East. How do you think he would have gone?
Mr. Trump seems unaware that Shia Iran is presently fighting Sunni ISIS. He doesn’t know a Shi’ite from Shinola.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTHL0y6xvLE
If I were Mr. Johnson, I would ask the MSM hosts why they never mention that Obama and Hillary have been doing Israel’s bidding in helping Al Qaeda literally destroy the last standing secular Arab nations and why there is never a mention that Obama overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in order to install anti-Russian Nazis.
Because those are very far out opinions that no one in the mainstream media believes?
Paul Joseph Watson is an infowars/prisonplanet writer, which of course means he is a total fraud and a complete idiot.
His first attack is on mandatory vaccinations. First, he is wrong – Johnson clarified his view right after (he is in favor of mandatory vaccinations only in extreme circumstances, and none right now). Second, supporting mandatory vaccinations for children can obviously be libertarian. Putting children at high enough of an unnecessary risk is a threat (violation of the NAP), and if the chance of getting diseases that vaccines can prevent without the vaccine is high enough, then it meets this threshold. Unfortunately, Paul Joseph Watson supports parental rule over children to the point of clear NAP violations, because he is an authoritarian.
Then Paul Joseph Watson the fraud claims that Johnson wants to implement a carbon tax, right after playing a video where Johnson did not say that. He said he was open to it. But Paul Joseph Watson is an idiot who cannot tell the difference, and is also a fraud.
He mentions the gay wedding cake thing, which is true, but not quite the way he stated it. Johnson supports discrimination regulations, not forcing people to make certain types of cakes. Still, I’ll give him that one.
Then he lies about Black Lives Matter. Actual libertarians have supported BLM groups and been against other BLM groups because they’re not one big blob. But Paul Joseph Watson is a fraud, and cannot tell the difference. But the phrase black lives matter itself is completely libertarian, and thank goodness that Johnson is supporting it. Authoritarian PJW, of course, is against it.
Then he talks about the TPP, which has some good things and some bad things. Johnson thinks it has more good than bad, although he recognizes the bad, and supports free trade without these deals as well. But PJW actually opposes it for non-libertarian reasons, because he’s a xenophobic “anti-globalist” authoritarian who doesn’t want to trade with other people.
And then – hahaha – he attacks Johnson for the #1 most important libertarian issue, protecting private property when it comes to saving people dying overseas (letting in refugees). PJW thinks that the government owns the entire country, because he is an authoritarian. He also makes up fake statistics about terror attacks and attacks on women (migrants are no more likely to commit crimes than other similar aged/gendered groups, by actual real German statistics). Because he’s also a fraud.
Johnson’s record is poor, I’ll give him that. Because he was a conservative governor (PJW is also a conservative).
Then he cries about SJWs. Libertarians, of course, support social justice, because they support justice.
Then he gets triggered by Johnson not liking the term illegal immigrant, and cries about that too.
He then – and I’m not kidding about this – declares free speech to not be libertarian, because he’s a complete idiot. How in the world does he misunderstand free speech so much? Someone saying to use a certain term isn’t using the government to restrict speech. Saying to use a certain term is perfectly libertarian. PJW is a fraud.
He complains about Johnson being nice to Clinton (while heavily opposing her authoritarian policies). But, he, of course, not only is nice to Trump, he supports his policies.
That’s the vast majority of complaints in the video. All but two or three of the complaints were ridiculous, supported authoritarianism, or were just wrong. Because Paul Joseph Watson is an infowars/prisonplanet writer, which of course means he is a total fraud and a complete idiot.
I have not watched the video and am not likely to, but I will address two of your points.
“Second, supporting mandatory vaccinations for children can obviously be libertarian. Putting children at high enough of an unnecessary risk is a threat (violation of the NAP), and if the chance of getting diseases that vaccines can prevent without the vaccine is high enough, then it meets this threshold.”
I think you may have confused the Non-Aggression Principle with the Non-Risk Principle. “Aggression” does not refer to some sort of utilitarian calculus where the greater good is weighed against possible harm; it refers to actually violating the rights people who are not violating your rights first. Choosing not to get a vaccination, which may or may not increase risk of illness, is not aggression. Forcing someone to get a vaccination is aggression. One cannot be a consistent libertarian while supporting the government’s efforts to force you to inject something into your children.
“He mentions the gay wedding cake thing, which is true, but not quite the way he stated it. Johnson supports discrimination regulations, not forcing people to make certain types of cakes.”
Discrimination regulations force business owners to associate with certain people they may otherwise choose not to associate with. If your business is making cakes, that means that you are in fact forced to make a cake. Violations of the freedom of association are in fact violations of the NAP, and therefore incompatible with libertarianism. One cannot be a consistent libertarian while supporting regulations which infringe on a business owner’s freedom of association.
Okay, I lied, three points.
“Libertarians, of course, support social justice, because they support justice.”
This is just ridiculous. “Social justice” has nothing to do with actual justice. Libertarians support actual identifiable victims being compensated for actual identifiable aggression. Social justice is all about whiny children wanting the government to protect them from other people not catering to their whims. Libertarians are in favor of security, but that doesn’t mean we support social security!
“I think you may have confused the Non-Aggression Principle with the Non-Risk Principle. “Aggression” does not refer to some sort of utilitarian calculus where the greater good is weighed against possible harm; it refers to actually violating the rights people who are not violating your rights first.”
Puting people at undue risk is a violation of the NAP because it constitutes a threat. I cannot play Russian Roulette with other people without their consent. I cannot drive recklessly on the road.
In the case of children, parents also have positive obligations to provide for them. But certainly they cannot carry them onto the road and put them there or do anything else that puts them at risk.
The NAP contains several subjective decisions to be reasonable (not utilitarian, more like common sense and finding where the line is). Rothbard and others recognized the proportionality principle, because without it libertarianism is ridiculous. You can’t shoot someone for stepping onto your driveway.
“Choosing not to get a vaccination, which may or may not increase risk of illness”
There is plenty of evidence showing that it increases your risk and other people’s risk. To the extent where they should be mandatory for children, I don’t know, probably not in most cases. Certainly the flu vaccine doesn’t seem effective enough to be mandatory and it would seem to imply needing to do other things as well (like taking vitamin D pills, since there is plenty of evidence that reduces risk, which would obviously be silly).
“Forcing someone to get a vaccination is aggression. One cannot be a consistent libertarian while supporting the government’s efforts to force you to inject something into your children.”
Nobody is forcing you to inject your children. They would be forcing you to not prevent a doctor from doing it. If you call any outside force preventing risks to your child to be aggression, then you would also have to be for the awful not feeding your child for significant periods doesn’t violate the NAP (or maybe even starving them completely?). Obviously other people have the right to enter your home and feed your child if you refuse to do so and are putting them at high risk.
“Discrimination regulations force business owners to associate with certain people they may otherwise choose not to associate with. If your business is making cakes, that means that you are in fact forced to make a cake. Violations of the freedom of association are in fact violations of the NAP, and therefore incompatible with libertarianism. One cannot be a consistent libertarian while supporting regulations which infringe on a business owner’s freedom of association.”
You completely misunderstood my point. I gave him that one, because Johnson’s position is obviously the unlibertarian one. All I was saying was that he stated the position wrong, which is clearly true. Johnson has said, many times, that people would not have to bake certain types of cakes. He has said that they would have to not discriminate in selling their regular cakes. The fact that PJW is a fraud does not mean I am defending Johnson.
“This is just ridiculous. “Social justice” has nothing to do with actual justice.”
There are plenty of social justice issues real libertarians support, such as reparations for slavery (see Rothbard’s Confiscation and the Homestead Principle, 1969). If social justice goes beyond real justice, then of course libertarians do not support it. But PJW is calling Johnson a “SJW” based only off him saying things that are compatible with libertarianism (with the one exception of discrimination regulations). The extent which he is a “SJW” seems to be almost completely libertarian.
“Libertarians support actual identifiable victims being compensated for actual identifiable aggression.”
Yes, like reparations from still existing estates and companies that benefited from slavery. Exactly! PJW would call you a SJW too.
“Social justice is all about whiny children wanting the government to protect them from other people not catering to their whims.”
Hold on. I was referring to PJW’s definition, because he is the one that called Johnson an SJW. It is very clear that your definitions are different:
1) PJW thinks objecting to the term “illegal immigrant” is a sign of a SJW (see video for proof)
2) Objecting to the term “illegal immigrant” does not involve the government intervention.
3) Your definition of SJW does always involve government intervention
4) PJW’s definition of SJW does not always involve government intervention (1, 2)
5) PJW’s definition of SJW does not meet your definition of SJW. (3, 4)
I try to respond to people using the same definitions that they use, since otherwise it’s just an argument over semantics. So when I said social justice is a libertarian issue, I was referring to the social justice that PJW is against, not the kind you are referring to.
“Johnson has said, many times, that people would not have to bake certain types of cakes. He has said that they would have to not discriminate in selling their regular cakes.”
So you agree, then, that discrimination regulations are unlibertarian? That was unclear from your earlier post, but if so, I’m glad to hear it! That some people are trying to claim the weaselly “you have to sell the cakes you’ve made but you don’t have to make a new, different cake” or the absolutely ridiculous “you have to bake a cake but you don’t have to frost it” things as libertarian positions makes my head swim.
As for “social justice,” I suppose I will need to watch the video to understand your point, but it seems to me counterproductive to try to claim a definition of “social justice” that is consistent with libertarianism when the vast majority of people who use the term mean something else.
And now for the important one…
“Puting people at undue risk is a violation of the NAP because it constitutes a threat.”
I assume you would acknowledge that there is a baseline of risk inherent in normal living, since you identify the concept of “undue” risk. Who decides what is the normal risk inherent in living, and when that risk in increased by the actions of another enough to justify a retributive violation of the NAP? Libertarians deal with risk through personal responsibility (my risk is my responsibility, not yours) and property rights, not by drawing arbitrary lines determined by wise overlords.
For example, with reckless driving, there is no pure libertarian reason why one could not drive as recklessly as he wishes. Until and unless your driving actually causes harm to the person or property of another, you have not committed aggression. What you may have done, however, is violated the property rights of the person who owns the road, which is why private ownership, not state ownership, is so important in libertarian philosophy. The road owner lays out a certain code of conduct for those using his road. and those who fail to follow it are prevented from using the road. By the same token, a private school could require certain vaccinations as a prerequisite of attending that school.
It is extremely important that aggression be strictly defined this narrowly, because otherwise we see the slippery slope of “aggression” that encourages a justification of the call for government intervention on things that are not actual rights violations.
“Nobody is forcing you to inject your children. They would be forcing you to not prevent a doctor from doing it.”
Are you really claiming a difference here? Clearly no one arguing against mandatory vaccinations is claiming that the problem is that he is being forced to physically stab a needle and inject a substance into his child himself.
I realize lots of highly respected libertarian thinkers have a different perspective on this, and I’m a nobody, but frankly, I think they’re wrong. No one can have a right to live free of risk, but I do sure have a right to refuse to have things injected into myself or my children.
I don’t really care about Gary Johnson or anyone else who wants to claim to be my overlord without my consent. but I dislike when libertarian philosophy is conflated with utilitarianism and then used as a justification for rights violations.
“So you agree, then, that discrimination regulations are unlibertarian? That was unclear from your earlier post, but if so, I’m glad to hear it!”
Yes, I completely agree that Johnson’s position here is unlibertarian.
“As for “social justice,” I suppose I will need to watch the video to understand your point, but it seems to me counterproductive to try to claim a definition of “social justice” that is consistent with libertarianism when the vast majority of people who use the term mean something else.”
I think you need a citation for that. Social justice, from what I’ve seen, is an extremely wide term. Many definitions that I have seen are perfectly compatible with libertarianism.
The problem is that the newer version of “SJW” is a completely made up term by the alt-right, starting right around the time of the new alt-right’s origin, with Gamergate. Obviously, in that case, the alt-right were the ones making threats and being unlibertarian, not the “SJW”s.
Hence both the origin of the new version of the word and the “social justice” part of the word have nothing to do with authoritarianism, while the anti-SJW origins were authoritarian. As a libertarian, I would much rather be on the libertarian side.
“I assume you would acknowledge that there is a baseline of risk inherent in normal living, since you identify the concept of “undue” risk.”
Yes.
“Who decides what is the normal risk inherent in living, and when that risk in increased by the actions of another enough to justify a retributive violation of the NAP? ”
Why does that matter? I am saying that there is a line, which seems obvious. My examples were things that are overwhelmingly agreed to be too high of a risk (such as Russian Roulette and extremely reckless driving). There are plenty of other examples (think massive potential dangers like nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, walking around with a bomb, etc.). I don’t know where the line is. It clearly exists.
You could make similar arguments against private property and libertarianism itself. Who decides how much labor must be used to gain ownership? Who decides when property has been abandoned? Who decides whether breathing violates my property rights? Who decides when *anything* violates my property rights? And so on. The “who decides” argument is not at all useful in determining whether a line exists. I’m not arguing here how a libertarian society should be run. I am arguing that mandatory vaccines do not violate libertarian principles prima facie.
“For example, with reckless driving, there is no pure libertarian reason why one could not drive as recklessly as he wishes. Until and unless your driving actually causes harm to the person or property of another, you have not committed aggression.”
That’s simply wrong. I cannot think of a single major libertarian who did not recognize threats of aggression as a crime. It does not have to cause physical harm to people or property to be considered an aggression.
“What you may have done, however, is violated the property rights of the person who owns the road, which is why private ownership, not state ownership, is so important in libertarian philosophy.”
No, that’s not why private property is so important. For one thing, a private owner could simply decide to change their private property to public property. You could then play Russian Roulette with other people’s heads if you don’t recognize threats as a violation.
“It is extremely important that aggression be strictly defined this narrowly, because otherwise we see the slippery slope of “aggression” that encourages a justification of the call for government intervention on things that are not actual rights violations.”
We see calls for government intervention on things that aren’t rights violations right now. The vast majority of people do not agree with libertarian rights theories, and they certainly won’t agree with it if they think that people would be free to take ridiculous risks with other people’s lives.
“Are you really claiming a difference here?”
Yes. You do not own your children. When the medical community overwhelmingly agrees that something needs to be done to help a child, and the parent doesn’t want it to be done, I care far more about the child than the parent’s pseudoscience problems. If the parent tries to forcefully stop the doctor from helping the child, then they are violating the NAP.
(Do you see how different wording changes the problem so much? When you talk about “forcing the parent” it sounds like mandatory vaccines for children are using violence against the parents. But the same wording can be used the opposite way. This is being done on the child, who is a person, with rights of their own.)
“I realize lots of highly respected libertarian thinkers have a different perspective on this, and I’m a nobody, but frankly, I think they’re wrong. No one can have a right to live free of risk, but I do sure have a right to refuse to have things injected into myself or my children.”
*Every* highly respected libertarian thinker has a different perspective on this as far as I know. Many of them don’t support mandatory vaccines (probably a large majority don’t, actually). But I don’t know any who have disagreed that taking high risks with other people’s life/property isn’t a crime.
I also didn’t see you mention anything about positive obligations for children. You do agree that parents are obligated to take care of their children, correct? That means food, water, medical procedures when necessary, education, etc. Clearly that gets subjective every once in a while (can you feed them only unhealthy food? can you feed them only 4 times a week? etc.). Vaccines can fall under the same problem.
“The problem is that the newer version of “SJW” is a completely made up term by the alt-right, starting right around the time of the new alt-right’s origin, with Gamergate.”
Have you never even heard the word “Tumblr” before?
The Alt “Right” are indeed authoritarian fascists, but they did not invent Social Justice Warriors out of whole cloth.
Nobody on Tumblr was referring to themselves as SJWs until quite a while after the alt-right made the term, and even then only ironically.
The origin of the modern term literally is from Gamergate. Given that the origin is not anti-libertarian and that many who are called the term are not anti-libertarian, there’s no reason why it should be considered anti-libertarian.
Consider terms like “socially tolerant”, “fiscally conservative”, “socially liberal”, “libertine”, “Muslim”, “Christine”, and so on. If you asked people in those groups some questions to see if they were libertarian, the vast majority would not be. They would even have some things that they considered under those terms that would not be libertarian. That doesn’t mean that someone who identifies under one of those terms isn’t a libertarian, and that doesn’t mean the term itself is against libertarianism. It isn’t that simple.
That should be “Christian”. Not sure how I got that.
“Nobody on Tumblr was referring to themselves as SJWs until quite a while after the alt-right made the term, and even then only ironically.”
So we’re just, rewriting history here, huh?
Google trends has “social justice warrior” as a continuously active search term every week going back to 5/5/2012. “gamergate” doesn’t take off as a search term until late August of 2014.
You’re just wrong.
Social Justice Warrior has been used as a term for decades. The modern meaning was hardly used at all until the Gamergate controversy, that isn’t controversial at all. Before that, some people (like MLK) were still being referred to as a SJW by people who were very favorable toward them. There was a short time period in which both meanings were used.
The Gamergate problems were happening a long time before the term became popularized, in early 2013. So, yes, there was a short period in which SJW was used very infrequently, but it certainly wasn’t mainstream at all.
Like I said, this history isn’t controversial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/
Before you call someone wrong, you should probably actually look up the relevant facts, by the way.
Lol, I looked at the actual trends for SJW.
Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/q4IpAps.png
Now, see the part where I circled at the beginning? That’s when it is completely agreed that the term was not used in that way. Sometimes, it got used enough to make a blip anyway with the former meaning.
Now, later, when both terms were being used, the blip is essentially constant. Very small, hardly used, but existent.
Then you see my second red circle, around the start of the harassment campaign. Here’s Wikipedia:
“In February 2013, Zoë Quinn, an independent game developer, released Depression Quest, an interactive fiction browser game. The game was met with positive reviews in the gaming media, but some backlash developed among those who believed that it had received undue attention. Quinn began to receive hate mail upon its release, leading her to change her phone number and screen her calls.[1][2][3][4][5] By August 2014 Quinn had been the target of eighteen months of increasing harassment, which had created what The New Yorker characterized as “an ambient hum of menace in her life, albeit one that she [had] mostly been able to ignore”.[6]”
You can see the ramp up from there and the massive ramp-up in August and September, when gamergate went into full force harassment.
So, the trends match up perfectly with every single actual journalist’s story. What a surprise.
Reece, you claimed that “The Alt Right” invented the term social justice warrior, you now basically admit that was a total fabrication of history on your part and instead try to claim you meant that social justice warrior was invented “in a new sense” by “The Alt Right” as a result of gamergate birthing both these things.
This is a very convenient story because there is literally no way to prove it wrong one way or another. But it’s a change of your argument, which means you have conceded your earlier argument-that social justice warrior as a term was invented by “the Alt Right”. So frankly there’s really no point in continuing this conversation. You’re committed to rewriting history and the best you can do at this point is cite opinion pieces and eyeball analyze charts and speculate about what the charts mean.
Meanwhile, in reality:
“The problem is that the NEWER VERSION of “SJW” is a completely made up term by the alt-right” (emphasis mine) – what you originally disagreed with
“The origin of the MODERN term” (emphasis mine) – what I responded to your first complaint with
And then my third response to you was with the graph and deeply explained history that you completely ignored in favor of your own weird theory that has no backing. Literally every journalist who has ever written on this subject disagrees with you, and yet you carry on in ignorance. It is quite impressive.
Not to mention that the Google trends completely match with the journalistic explanation, there is no evidence of the term being used in its modern sense before recently, etc.
But since when do facts matter to anti-SJWs who pretend they are libertarian?
Oh, and a journalist actually doing some pretty deep research on the matter is hardly an “opinion piece”.
I cited the graph because that is what you yourself used as evidence. I looked at the actual graph, found that the uptick started literally at the same time as gamergate (which you somehow managed to be off by over a year on), and posted it here to show you that the evidence that you yourself cited as being proof actually pointed the opposite way. I argued on your own terms, as well as on my own, and unsurprisingly was right both ways. Because your theory was completely ridiculous.
Lololol
https://i.imgur.com/7NX1IOZ.png
My favorite part is how condescending you were at first, despite being completely wrong.
Journalists writing things is apparently the same thing as historical fact.
If you agree that “Social Justice Warrior” is a term that existed before “the Alt Right” then your theory that they changed the meaning of Social Justice Warrior is not something worth having a discussion with you about. You can eyeball charts all you want but the charts do not separate out what people mean when using the term, so you’re just engaging in blind speculation that people using it before gamergate were all using it in a completely different sense than anyone using it after.
I have never “pretended to be a libertarian” and indeed I don’t believe I’ve ever actually stated my political views so you should probably calm down about that, too.
I accurately described the data in the charts. I pulled the data into Excel for the specific purpose of getting the exact week when “social justice warrior” came into regular use, and it was indeed in regular, though less widespread use, well before the events which led to “gamergate” coming into wide use-which, yes, was in late August of 2014, Even if we take the beginning of interest to be a very small brief blip in December of 2012, that still post dates the point at which “social justice warrior” became a continuously active search term by several months. In other words, I was not “completely wrong.” I asserted that the term was in use before “the Alt Right” existed as an entity that could have invented it. Your theory is that every use of “social justice warrior” was magically transfigured in meaning after “the Alt Right” arose, such that people using it after mean it in a very different sense than those before. You want to claim that, this is obviously true given the term increased in usage after the take off of gamergate. It may very well be, but the chart proves nothing of the kind. It does suggest a possible relationship between the rise of a certain political movement and more widespread use of a pre-existing term. But there is no way to know, just from the chart, whether people are presently using the term exclusively in your “new sense” as you apparently believe.
Honestly perhaps the oddest thing that has occurred here is that you have paranoidly decided that I must be one of the people who uses the term in “the new sense” since I seem determine to prove the term was in use before the new sense existed. That seems not only a total non sequitur but the very opposite of what one would logically assume motivates my argument.
Though it does suggest that you believe that to be a “true libertarian” obligates one not only to side with the social justice warriors against the fascists (something I have in fact done far more than any other readers of this blog, to my knowledge) but to affirmatively side with them in all cases, even when they are social justice warriors “in the old sense.”
Libertarians are not obligated to do anything, of course, as no human being is obligated to do anything except avoid intentional harm to another’s life, liberty, or property, so who is the phony libertarian exactly?
Haha, you’re completely falling apart now. So much for “there’s really no point in continuing this conversation.”
Here’s the picture of you being a liar again: https://i.imgur.com/q4IpAps.png
Your response this time, is, unsurprisingly filled with lies about what I said, because you are a liar.
“you’re just engaging in blind speculation that people using it before gamergate were all using it in a completely different sense than anyone using it after”
Provide a quote of me saying that, liar. I said that some people were using it that way before gamergate, but that the usage was still heavily mixed. My link, where an actual journalist looked for usage of the term on the web, backed me up.
“If you agree that “Social Justice Warrior” is a term that existed before “the Alt Right” then your theory that they changed the meaning of Social Justice Warrior is not something worth having a discussion with you about”
Hahahahahah, you mean what I said in THE VERY FIRST THING you replied to? What you literally quoted me on? How are you this out of touch with reality?
“I accurately described the data in the charts.”
You mean in the charts where you ignored that gamergate started 18 months before you thought it did? Good job!
“I pulled the data into Excel for the specific purpose of getting the exact week when “social justice warrior” came into regular use, and it was indeed in regular, though less widespread use, well before the events which led to “gamergate” coming into wide use-which, yes, was in late August of 2014”
Again, who cares when gamergate came into use? The gamergate problems started long before there was a term to describe it. You ignoring that is very embarrassing. The term came at the peak, after 18 months of continual harassment by the alt-right.
“Even if we take the beginning of interest to be a very small brief blip in December of 2012, that still post dates the point at which “social justice warrior” became a continuously active search term by several months.”
The blip was just as high as the continual activity before the gamergate problem. Google trends only go so low, and since the two meanings were combined, they went up slightly. I noted at the very beginning that it was “around the time” and the very low blip level activity was around the time. And the gamergate problems technically go back a little further than Feb 2013, to other developers, but the main problems certainly started in Feb 2013. Which was also when the main use of the term started.
“I asserted that the term was in use before “the Alt Right” existed as an entity that could have invented it.”
Gamergate was essentially the birth of the modern alt-right. Certainly the same figures that are high up in the alt-right now (like Milo) were heavily involved. The alt-right isn’t a big blob, it’s people, and these were the same people, coming together against what they saw as “political correctness” and other things the modern alt-right is against.
“Your theory is that every use of “social justice warrior” was magically transfigured in meaning after “the Alt Right” arose, such that people using it after mean it in a very different sense than those before.”
Liar. Quote me.
“You want to claim that, this is obviously true given the term increased in usage after the take off of gamergate.”
Liar. Quote me.
“Honestly perhaps the oddest thing that has occurred here is that you have paranoidly decided that I must be one of the people who uses the term in “the new sense””
Liar, quote me.
“since I seem determine to prove the term was in use before the new sense existed.”
I would say “Liar, quote me.”, but you seem to be lying about yourself. I was the one who claimed the term was in use before the new sense existed, not you. You didn’t even seem aware of that, given that you misread my first two statements to be saying that all usage of SJW originated with the alt-right. Had you known that wasn’t the case, you probably wouldn’t have misread things like “the newer version of “SJW”” as “the term sjw”.
“That seems not only a total non sequitur but the very opposite of what one would logically assume motivates my argument.”
Yes, your made up motivations for me don’t make sense. Good job!
“Though it does suggest that you believe that to be a “true libertarian” obligates one not only to side with the social justice warriors against the fascists (something I have in fact done far more than any other readers of this blog, to my knowledge) but to affirmatively side with them in all cases, even when they are social justice warriors “in the old sense.””
Holy cow. First off, I obviously don’t think people have to side with SJWs of current or of old. But most importantly, it is amazing that you not only derived all that from the lies you made up about me, but that it doesn’t even derive from all that. None of the lies you made up about me suggest this at all. You managed to make up an entire house of lies about me, and couldn’t even have the decency to at least make a logical argument against me out of them. I am disappointed.
“Libertarians are not obligated to do anything, of course, as no human being is obligated to do anything except avoid intentional harm to another’s life, liberty, or property, so who is the phony libertarian exactly?”
You are, as I said before. Remember? When you found it shocking that I would think you were a libertarian, despite your many comments on this blog that I have seen?
And, yes, libertarians are obligated to do things sometimes, as any actual libertarian knows. For example: If you have a child, you are obligated to feed them.
Oh, and here’s the picture of you being a liar again: https://i.imgur.com/q4IpAps.png
Oops, used the wrong picture. Here’s the one of you being a liar: https://i.imgur.com/7NX1IOZ.png
Actually, here’s a good idea:
Instead of posting a massive text of lies about me, why don’t you explain that picture.
Explain how “the newer version of “SJW” is a completely made up term by the alt-right” is the same as “Reece, you claimed that “The Alt Right” invented the term social justice warrior”
You lied about what I said, and instead of admitting it, you just made an entire post filled with made up stuff. You’re honestly a jerk.
Reece, this is what you said to start with:
Well PJW is fairly closely aligned with the alt-right so if you want to claim there’s been some “newer version” of the term SJW (a claim that is highly debatable) then we can be confident that PJW would be using the “newer version”.
Anyway, if the main distinction you want to draw is about government involvement, then I can easily find articles long before “gamergate” talking about social justice in the context of government involvement.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/03/libertarianism-and-social-justice/
He still comes to the conclusion that you reach for government when the market doesn’t do what you want.
As Zwolinski points out, you end up hitting the limit of the whole libertarian concept when you get to that. Reaching for government is essentially an admission that there are cases where libertarianism fails (and quite likely there are cases, but that’s beside the point).
This does not support your original statement:
I agree with Amber, this is just ridiculous. It’s not even an argument, and there’s no way to relate that back to what PJW was saying.
It’s rather amazing you can call me a liar for quoting you calling it a “completely made up term” and then saying you said the “Alt Right” invented it.
Making up a term is the same thing as inventing in, genius.
But I’m not going to respond to you again. If I see you’ve posted with another set of ten replies at once to this comment I’m going to ignore them. Get bent.
“Well PJW is fairly closely aligned with the alt-right so if you want to claim there’s been some “newer version” of the term SJW (a claim that is highly debatable) then we can be confident that PJW would be using the “newer version”.”
That claim isn’t debatable at all, read my link. People were literally referring to MLK at as a Social Justice Warrior at a time when SJW was never used as an insult.
Yes, PJW uses the newer version. I assume everyone uses the newer version at this point. The older version was just adding “warrior” to “social justice” to make them sound great. The newer one combines them because it’s actually a term.
So I don’t understand your point here. Are you just saying because I said PJW’s definition of the newer definition is different? That’s the same thing as people having different definitions of libertarianism or anything else. That’s the importance of defining your terms. The term was clearly the same (the newer version, not the older one), but it clearly has different meanings to different people.
“Anyway, if the main distinction you want to draw is about government involvement, then I can easily find articles long before “gamergate” talking about social justice in the context of government involvement.”
Yes, Gamergate birthed SJW, not social justice. Social justice as an idea has been used for who knows how many centuries. Sometimes the people have used it with government intervention, sometimes they haven’t. It depends what they think is just.
“This does not support your original statement:
“Libertarians, of course, support social justice, because they support justice.”
I agree with Amber, this is just ridiculous. It’s not even an argument, and there’s no way to relate that back to what PJW was saying.”
Well, to be honest, I was being a bit ironic there since PJW said the opposite (you can’t support social justice and be a libertarian). Regardless, I was referring to PJW’s use of the term, which isn’t the same as people who support government intervention, as is clear by the fact that PJW used it in reference to a position by Johnson (on undocumented immigrants) that was actually the libertarian position.
But, sure, I admit I was wrong to say that.
What a surprise, after like three responses to me, Andrew still isn’t going to address that he lied: https://i.imgur.com/7NX1IOZ.png
Of course, “newer version” being “invented” is obviously not saying that their wasn’t an older version. In fact, it implies the opposite.
But poor sad Andrew couldn’t find the decency, in his response, to even quote “newer version”. He posted from the same quote just without “newer version”. Because he knows what I said, he just is a liar.
Still this gives a great opportunity to update the “Andrew FL is a liar” picture with more lying by Andrew.
https://i.imgur.com/F3OMgHI.png
Here’s an updated version, with Andrew FL’s recent selective quoting. (Reminder: He is a liar)
Turing Test Answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5_ZUFaKEw
Well done. I loved that Monsters movie.
FWIW:
This is what most Conservatives know about the motives of Islamic terrorists, and what Libertarians need to deal with if they’re going to reach Conservatives – even if Conservatives are still unaware that America’s current, unconstitutional foreign policy also causes us problems.
Yes, they do hate us for our freedoms, not just because we’re violating their rights over there:
Glenn Beck’s Video Vindication: Socialist Explain How They Worked With Muslim Brotherhood In Revolutions
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=492_1306861670