rofl
uh huh
As usual your attempts to produce an argument, in pretty much any group, result in nothing but humor. I hope for your sake you are pretty
you can take your ludicrous belief that your perceptions are more transcendent or panoramic than mine and shove it up your ass your silly twit
Bruce:
The latter statement you've made has been the
Libertarian response to black people, gays, women,
etc. for years.
And lo and behold, they've stayed away!
The ultimate conceit, of course, is that you've
positioned yourself as more panoramic than others who
are more directly affected by your political views.
You've argued with a black man about what it means to
be black, you've argued with women over the
implications of pregnancy and birth control.
In short, you've made the decision to always be right,
rather than to listen and consider that you don't
understand others' lives as well as they do. I
certainly don't claim to understand others' lives in
every situation either, but I'm certainly willing to
listen -- and to consider that I might be wrong about
my assumptions of them.
You just want to be right. And people who insist
they're always right -- on everything -- aren't
popular and don't win elections.
Cheers,
Brian
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
rofl
uh huh
As usual your attempts to produce an argument, in
pretty much any group, result in nothing but humor.
I hope for your sake you are prettyyou can take your ludicrous belief that your
perceptions are more transcendent or panoramic than
mine and shove it up your ass your silly twitFrom: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 10:00:02 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarians need to
be more politically correct to succeed?Actually, Bruce, "mainstream society" isn't white
and
male so much anymore.And while I am not going to get into an extended
discussion of racial politics, the notion that
Asians
don't encounter discrimination is also laughable --
and in either case, a white guy isn't in the best
position to "explain" the African American or Asian
American experience, unless he's done a bunch of
ethnographic research.Armchair analysis of culture based on outdated and
limited perceptions is completely unhelpful -- and
not
usually informed by listening and observation (the
keys to logical deduction and scientific
observation) .Cheers,
Brian
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> so blacks don't know what it is like to be white?
> and thus will always be incompetent to function in
> mainstream society?
>
>
> which doesn't seem to hold back asians?
>
> is it because they are lighter so they can guess
> even if they cannot understand?
>
>
> From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com>
> To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:13:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarians need
to
> be more politically correct to succeed?
>
> Starchild:
>
> A person's knowledge grows out of his experiences.
>
> The simple reality is that most white guys --
> certainly white guys who live in white suburban
> areas
> -- don't know what it's like to be a black
American.
>
> Most men don't know what it's like to be a woman.
>
> Most straight guys don't know what it's like to be
> gay.
>
> Yet we have white straight guys presuming to
> describe
> all of these things and counter the testimony of
> others as a matter of policy.
>
> If it's wrong for a black man to slam a white guy
> for
> "white privilege" or a gay man to condemn all
> heterosexuals for their "breeder privilege," it's
> equally wrong for a white straight group of guys
to
> ignore the issues of the black and gay communities
> and
> claim they don't exist.
>
> Libertarians are in denial on this basic point.
> Rather than offer solutions to the problems these
> communities have that cleverly utilize Libertarian
> theories and thoughts, we pretend that those
> problems
> just don't exist and that acknowledging that they
do
> is somehow endorsing "group rights."
>
> Ironically, many Libertarians aren't willing to
> consider individuals of those various communities
as
> individuals themselves, when levelling blanket
> condemnations. Thus, no traction is made, and very
> few people of color or of alternate sexual
> orientations or women -- the latter representing a
> majority of humanity -- get involved.
>
> If the ongoing assumption is that the issues of a
> majority of society should be ignored, and worse,
> that
> a majority of society should be condemned in a
> bigoted
> way with state power because restrictions
elsewhere
> would be loosened by the would-be condemner, we
> cannot
> act surprised when Americans pass us by and pull
the
> lever of the party that represents their own
> self-interest. After all, we're not making any
> effort
> to market ourselves to them or even pretend to try
> to
> understand their context -- we're simply denying
it
> exists and writing them off.
>
> And such foolish amortization goes both ways.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlin k .net> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > I think I understand your core point very well.
> You
> > speak of
> > "building a broader based movement that solidly
> > embraces our
> > principles." That is exactly what I am trying to
> do.
> > We must reach
> > out to people on the left, and I have been
> > championing such an
> > approach. But we must do so based on libertarian
> > principles of
> > individual rights, not on the premises of group
> > rights and "I'm-more-
> > oppressed-than- you" identity politics. The
latter
> > premises are
> > incompatible with our principles, and poison to
> the
> > libertarian ideal
> > of a society where everyone is treated equally
> under
> > the law.
> >
> > I'm not saying you hold such views yourself, but
> we
> > should avoid the
> > implication that a person's statements are
> > automatically less valid
> > because of his or her race, gender, sexual
> > orientation, etc. It was
> > this implication, in your statement, "We've got
> > white guys
> > 'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we
> have
> > gay men
> > 'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to
be
> > government property
> > isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term
> > "PC." I realize that
> > such persons saying such things *look* bad to
> those
> > who *are* coming
> > from a politically correct perspective, and I
> assume
> > that's what
> > concerns you.. I share that concern, but it's a
> tough
> > balance -- as I
> > said, we cannot afford to embrace identity
> politics,
> > nor should we
> > try to restrict free speech. We just need to
> > communicate in a
> > sensitive manner that shows we understand
> legitimate
> > grievances and
=== message truncated ===
Bruce:
Let's please keep discussions on the list
non-personal.
Disagreements are fine. Insults just lower the tone.
Thanks,
Francoise
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:
rofl
uh huh
As usual your attempts to produce an argument, in
pretty much any group, result in nothing but humor.
I hope for your sake you are prettyyou can take your ludicrous belief that your
perceptions are more transcendent or panoramic than
mine and shove it up your ass your silly twitFrom: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 10:00:02 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarians need to
be more politically correct to succeed?Actually, Bruce, "mainstream society" isn't white
and
male so much anymore.And while I am not going to get into an extended
discussion of racial politics, the notion that
Asians
don't encounter discrimination is also laughable --
and in either case, a white guy isn't in the best
position to "explain" the African American or Asian
American experience, unless he's done a bunch of
ethnographic research.Armchair analysis of culture based on outdated and
limited perceptions is completely unhelpful -- and
not
usually informed by listening and observation (the
keys to logical deduction and scientific
observation) .Cheers,
Brian
--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> so blacks don't know what it is like to be white?
> and thus will always be incompetent to function in
> mainstream society?
>
>
> which doesn't seem to hold back asians?
>
> is it because they are lighter so they can guess
> even if they cannot understand?
>
>
> From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@ yahoo.com>
> To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:13:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarians need
to
> be more politically correct to succeed?
>
> Starchild:
>
> A person's knowledge grows out of his experiences.
>
> The simple reality is that most white guys --
> certainly white guys who live in white suburban
> areas
> -- don't know what it's like to be a black
American.
>
> Most men don't know what it's like to be a woman.
>
> Most straight guys don't know what it's like to be
> gay.
>
> Yet we have white straight guys presuming to
> describe
> all of these things and counter the testimony of
> others as a matter of policy.
>
> If it's wrong for a black man to slam a white guy
> for
> "white privilege" or a gay man to condemn all
> heterosexuals for their "breeder privilege," it's
> equally wrong for a white straight group of guys
to
> ignore the issues of the black and gay communities
> and
> claim they don't exist.
>
> Libertarians are in denial on this basic point.
> Rather than offer solutions to the problems these
> communities have that cleverly utilize Libertarian
> theories and thoughts, we pretend that those
> problems
> just don't exist and that acknowledging that they
do
> is somehow endorsing "group rights."
>
> Ironically, many Libertarians aren't willing to
> consider individuals of those various communities
as
> individuals themselves, when levelling blanket
> condemnations. Thus, no traction is made, and very
> few people of color or of alternate sexual
> orientations or women -- the latter representing a
> majority of humanity -- get involved.
>
> If the ongoing assumption is that the issues of a
> majority of society should be ignored, and worse,
> that
> a majority of society should be condemned in a
> bigoted
> way with state power because restrictions
elsewhere
> would be loosened by the would-be condemner, we
> cannot
> act surprised when Americans pass us by and pull
the
> lever of the party that represents their own
> self-interest. After all, we're not making any
> effort
> to market ourselves to them or even pretend to try
> to
> understand their context -- we're simply denying
it
> exists and writing them off.
>
> And such foolish amortization goes both ways.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlin k .net> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > I think I understand your core point very well.
> You
> > speak of
> > "building a broader based movement that solidly
> > embraces our
> > principles." That is exactly what I am trying to
> do.
> > We must reach
> > out to people on the left, and I have been
> > championing such an
> > approach. But we must do so based on libertarian
> > principles of
> > individual rights, not on the premises of group
> > rights and "I'm-more-
> > oppressed-than- you" identity politics. The
latter
> > premises are
> > incompatible with our principles, and poison to
> the
> > libertarian ideal
> > of a society where everyone is treated equally
> under
> > the law.
> >
> > I'm not saying you hold such views yourself, but
> we
> > should avoid the
> > implication that a person's statements are
> > automatically less valid
> > because of his or her race, gender, sexual
> > orientation, etc. It was
> > this implication, in your statement, "We've got
> > white guys
> > 'explaining' why racist rants aren't racist, we
> have
> > gay men
> > 'explaining' why declaring a woman's uterus to
be
> > government property
> > isn't so bad..." that caused me to use the term
> > "PC." I realize that
> > such persons saying such things *look* bad to
> those
> > who *are* coming
> > from a politically correct perspective, and I
> assume
> > that's what
> > concerns you.. I share that concern, but it's a
> tough
> > balance -- as I
> > said, we cannot afford to embrace identity
> politics,
> > nor should we
> > try to restrict free speech. We just need to
> > communicate in a
> > sensitive manner that shows we understand
> legitimate
> > grievances and
=== message truncated ===
Francoise Fielding
820 Stanyan Street,#5
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-386-8643