4 ms·

What is your political affiliation that you shared? I am curious to know if I would empathise with someone wanting to delegate blocking people with your affilia

What is your political affiliation that you shared? I am curious to know if I would empathise with someone wanting to delegate blocking people with your affiliation by a communal block list.

donatj 11y ago
Libertarian. Apparently detesting violence is unpopular.
- tangled_zans 11y ago
  Huh. Well, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that it's probably some other aspect of libertarianism that offended them. Just saying. Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor.
  - zo1 11y ago
    >"Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor." Most would not say they are offended by non-violence, and most would actually advocate non-violence. The problem comes in when you start pointing out that logical and consistent definitions of violence/aggression preclude a lot of the things people value and think noble. To some, mentioning you are Libertarian inherently means you are saying all of their "noble" and "good" ideas should be scrapped because they rely on aggression. Hence the cliched "you want poor people to starve" criticism of Libertarian-like beliefs. Violence is also a bit of a misleading word, in that it paints a very physical picture. Threat of violence can be seen as aggression, and is on-par with actual violence because the implication is that if compliance is not achieved, the aggressor will exercise violence. Had to clarify a bit, as I did switch the discussion from violence to aggression, which is what libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is mainly about.
    - donatj 11y ago
      That's the problem in a nutshell, and quite elegantly stated.
    - tangled_zans 11y ago
      I acknowledge that this is how libertarians see themselves, but it is inherently dishonest to assume that just because someone disagrees with you then they're doing it out of a misunderstanding and overreaction about you "trying to dismantle all of their 'noble' ideas". Their values can simply be different, and it is valid for them to disagree with you based on the conclusions they get from those values. Aggression is defined differently by different groups after all, so the set of actions that a libertarian objects to based on their understanding of "aggression" would be different to a set of actions that someone else would object to based on a different understanding of "aggression". Obviously you disagree with their conclusion of dismissing libertarianism and blocking libertarians, and that's fine. What's less fine - in my eyes - is to imply that the disagreement comes from the fact that you are the only one who understands some basic Truth about the world and those that disagree are foolish and cliche for disagreeing with you. That's the sort of thing that I associate with religion, rather than an honest intellectual discussion of political merits of an ideology.

What is your political affiliation that you shared? I am curious to know if I would empathise with someone wanting to delegate blocking people with your affiliation by a communal block list.

donatj 11y ago

Libertarian. Apparently detesting violence is unpopular.

tangled_zans 11y ago
Huh. Well, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that it's probably some other aspect of libertarianism that offended them. Just saying. Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor.
- zo1 11y ago
  >"Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor." Most would not say they are offended by non-violence, and most would actually advocate non-violence. The problem comes in when you start pointing out that logical and consistent definitions of violence/aggression preclude a lot of the things people value and think noble. To some, mentioning you are Libertarian inherently means you are saying all of their "noble" and "good" ideas should be scrapped because they rely on aggression. Hence the cliched "you want poor people to starve" criticism of Libertarian-like beliefs. Violence is also a bit of a misleading word, in that it paints a very physical picture. Threat of violence can be seen as aggression, and is on-par with actual violence because the implication is that if compliance is not achieved, the aggressor will exercise violence. Had to clarify a bit, as I did switch the discussion from violence to aggression, which is what libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is mainly about.
  - donatj 11y ago
    That's the problem in a nutshell, and quite elegantly stated.
  - tangled_zans 11y ago
    I acknowledge that this is how libertarians see themselves, but it is inherently dishonest to assume that just because someone disagrees with you then they're doing it out of a misunderstanding and overreaction about you "trying to dismantle all of their 'noble' ideas". Their values can simply be different, and it is valid for them to disagree with you based on the conclusions they get from those values. Aggression is defined differently by different groups after all, so the set of actions that a libertarian objects to based on their understanding of "aggression" would be different to a set of actions that someone else would object to based on a different understanding of "aggression". Obviously you disagree with their conclusion of dismissing libertarianism and blocking libertarians, and that's fine. What's less fine - in my eyes - is to imply that the disagreement comes from the fact that you are the only one who understands some basic Truth about the world and those that disagree are foolish and cliche for disagreeing with you. That's the sort of thing that I associate with religion, rather than an honest intellectual discussion of political merits of an ideology.