The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

[dead0man]

HELL YEAH

 off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

[PJ]

The swing voter is either a mythical creature or the lowest order of mankind.

[Ebowed]

HELL YEAH

  off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

[TJ in Oregon]

HELL YEAH

  off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

Umm... the original post here was literally calling for the genocide of libertarians. It's sort of strange that the person who made it hasn't been banned yet, let alone otherwise reasonable posters praising it.

[Torie]

HELL YEAH

  off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

Umm... the original post here was literally calling for the genocide of libertarians. It's sort of strange that the person who made it hasn't been banned yet, let alone otherwise reasonable posters praising it.

It does not appear that anybody reported the post. For what it is worth, if nobody reports a post, even if it is problematical, unless way, way out there, that influences me as to how to deal with it. What the Forum community thinks really does count, believe it or not. So if you consider the post outrageous, well, I have given you a hint.

[TJ in Oregon]

HELL YEAH

  off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

Umm... the original post here was literally calling for the genocide of libertarians. It's sort of strange that the person who made it hasn't been banned yet, let alone otherwise reasonable posters praising it.

It does not appear that anybody reported the post. For what it is worth, if nobody reports a post, even if it is problematical, unless way, way out there, that influences me as to how to deal with it. What the Forum community thinks really does count, believe it or not. So if you consider the post outrageous, well, I have given you a hint.

That's fair. There were several in that thread that were well beyond the pale and I did report one of them (which is exceedingly rare; I don't normally report posts).

[dead0man]

HELL YEAH

 off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

If you can't defend what your friends say, attack the guy pointing out what they say.  Nice.

[Ebowed]

HELL YEAH

  off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

Umm... the original post here was literally calling for the genocide of libertarians. It's sort of strange that the person who made it hasn't been banned yet, let alone otherwise reasonable posters praising it.

I thought it was a funny post, and assume it's not serious.  That being said, I have no interest in defending the post, only noting that the sanctimonious lecture from the usual suspect is, as always, a bit rich considering the source.  I guess threats of genocide are more serious when they aren't just Brown People, but ordinary hard working libertarians?  The key difference, I suppose, being that libertarians are about as likely to be rounded up and shot as they are to win an election.  Who even cares?  It's clearly not a serious post, and if it is, it only exposes the absurdity of the person who wrote it.

[dead0man]

Your displeasure has been noted.  You may now climb back up on your horse and continue to think that talk of murdering your political opponents is funny.

[dead0man]

That's how I took it too, which is why I found Crabby's "HELL YEAH" (and Ebowed's odd entrance into it) weird.


edit-I guess now we wait to see if d323232 back pedals or double downs. (double down's?...I feel like I need an 's' in there, but putting it in makes it sound stupid in my head...doubles down? aaah fack it)

[Ebowed]

Your displeasure has been noted.

I don't really know if it has.  You respond to a thread about gun deaths with characterizations of 'dead baby jokes' despite making jokes at the expense of dead children previously.  Back up here on my "high horse" of not laughing at the plight of displaced Brown People, it's hard to miss the sight of you throwing a hissy fit about the one time that someone decides to direct this vitriol at libertarians instead.

Godspeed, happy trails, and a vaguely inappropriate joke about natural selection.

[Figueira]

Ok, the way that poster said it was NOT in a joking fashion. If you read the original post, it would be quite clear. It was said in a very angry and vicious tone.

I've known d32123 on the Internet for a few years. He used to be a generally pleasant pacifist Trotskyist; I'm not entirely sure if he underwent a personality change or just decided to troll Atlas for fun. I would be very surprised if he actually supports the genocide of anyone, though.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Eh, I'm not complaining about people with opposing political views. They are fine and necessary. What is neither fine nor necessary is the utterly loathesome and contemptible act of perpetuating the crime against semantics that is "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" and using it as your ludicrous moniker. That phrase and its utterance must be treated like Japanese knotweed and shown no mercy.

[dead0man]

k.....what phrase or title should someone describe themselves if they are for gay marriage (before most Dems), for legal weed (before most Dems), thinks prostitution and gambling should be legal but also think free trade is good, believes that private charity works better than govt handouts, and generally thinks lower taxes are better than higher taxes?


(and for the love of Og, don't pick apart the things above and explain why they are wrong, immoral or stupid)

[Figueira]

k.....what phrase or title should someone describe themselves if they are for gay marriage (before most Dems), for legal weed (before most Dems), thinks prostitution and gambling should be legal but also think free trade is good, believes that private charity works better than govt handouts, and generally thinks lower taxes are better than higher taxes?


(and for the love of Og, don't pick apart the things above and explain why they are wrong, immoral or stupid)

If you're referring to yourself, then definitely nothing including the phrase "socially liberal."

[RFayette]

HELL YEAH

 off.  This country would be a better place if every "fiscal conservative, social liberal" were rounded up, shot in the back of the head, and buried in mass graves like the animals they are.

How very BRTD of you.  Are you just praising stupid hyperbole to earn points with the clique or are you actually a wannabee mass murderer like the poster?  The desire to murder your political enemies is kind of, I don't know, insane.  Sometimes I think you're better than this, other times, not so much.

This week's Lecture in Morality from the Social Darwinist.

If you can't defend what your friends say, attack the guy pointing out what they say.  Nice.

Plus, there's a complete asymmetry here.  If a conservative says something nasty about liberals, they will get petitions to ban them put up right away.  On the other hand, a liberal can say pretty much whatever they want about conservatives and get away with it.  This extends to the media too - see Paul Krugman, Chris Mooney, Jonathan Chait, etc.

Compare Adam Griffin/BeccaM/NYMillenial/bedstuy to say, AggregateDemand.  All have said very nasty things about the opposition, but only AD ended up receiving a banning.  I'm not saying anyone should be banned, but it definitely seems like there is a double standard here.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

k.....what phrase or title should someone describe themselves if they are for gay marriage (before most Dems), for legal weed (before most Dems), thinks prostitution and gambling should be legal but also think free trade is good, believes that private charity works better than govt handouts, and generally thinks lower taxes are better than higher taxes?


(and for the love of Og, don't pick apart the things above and explain why they are wrong, immoral or stupid)

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

[dead0man]

There are two parties here.  They label themselves (and each other) all the time.  If you don't fit the mold, and are not apolitical, it can be handy to have a label for yourself.

I rarely label myself, plenty of other people around to do it for me, but plenty of people do label themselves.  I'd be willing to bet even you've "advertised your beliefs" before.  I'm not sure why you're singling out one group to complain about self labeling.

[sparkey]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

[DavidB.]

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Political descriptors are toxic nonsense, yes. For the vast majority of people "personal political descriptors" are little more than mind-numbing thought-terminating cliches, carefully designed to avoid nuance. It's why I try to avoid them if I can (sometimes I fail, but nobody's perfect, of course)

 In the case of my bete noir FCBSL, it's especially meaningless because it's one of the vaguest descriptions around. Any political description that could being Gary Johnsln and Michael Bloomberg under the same category has to be a bit nonsensical. It doesn't even work as, like, a cutesy way for libertarians to describe themselve as, as sparkey seems to advocate, because "socially liberal" covers a large amount of policies that most libertarians would rather chop their own fingers off than endorse. (E.g. In an American context, a "socially liberal" policy on, say, gun control would not go down well in the Ron Paul 2016 rally)

In fact, I find it hard to describe which part of the phrase I hate more. I've already dissected the idiotic catchphrase "fiscal conservative" a phrase that yields no logical meaning beyond "oh I don't like debt very much". "Socially liberal" is pretty bad as well because it normally covers a list of about five current "social issues" currently on the tellybox, arbitrarily sorts one side as "liberal" and the other as "conservative", and pretends the aggregate result is a meaningful or somehow useful descriptor. But perhaps the worst is tha horrible conjunction "but" because it transforms the whole phrase into a really astoundingly smug affair. "You'll never guess what I am guys, I'm X but Y!!" as a proud FCBSL will tell you, in a way that makes it sound like they'd just discovered the Grand Unified Theory. That's a level of smugness normally only plumbed by Trotskyists, which is never a good look.

[dead0man]

I don't think you were quite finished with your post when you clicked "Post".

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't think you were quite finished with your post when you clicked "Post".

?

[DavidB.]

The "but" simply indicates a situation that is different from the norm, since the assumption is that most people are either "fiscally liberal and socially liberal" or "fiscally conservative and socially conservative". It doesn't necessarily have to be smug.

[dead0man]

I don't think you were quite finished with your post when you clicked "Post".

?

You wanted the first paragraph to end that way.