3 ms·

You're kind've chasing your tail there. I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives but then totally ok with alienating women bec

You're kind've chasing your tail there. I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives but then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek.

smsm42 9y ago
> I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives Because it's only not OK to alienate people who we agree with, but the idea of having civil discussion with people we disagree with... who needs that? Just call them names, chase them out and be done with it! Do you think this is the libertarian way? Where did you meet libertarians like these? > then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek. Err what? Who you are arguing with here? Nobody said it's "ok with alienating women" and Hayek has nothing to do with it. Could you please leave that strawman alone, he needs a well-deserved rest.
- CalChris 9y ago
  I do not hold libertarians in any high regard. I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP. Again, the OP is concerned with Google alienating conservatives but then is completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population. Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke?
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > I do not hold libertarians in any high regard. That's your problem but hardly an argument to anything. > I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP. You are definitely wrong on the first part, to the point of being insulting and disrespectful to literally millions of people holding genuine libertarian beliefs (what is especially ironic here that I assume with high probability that you think it somehow serves the case for inclusiveness and tolerance). As for the second part, I see no way you could have any useful information about it, unless you personally know the author and he told you so. Do you? > Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke? I am sorry, I do not understand this comment. Could you make your point a bit clearer, if there's any? What exactly you are trying to say here? > completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population. The goal of the author was certainly not alienating all women, and I think the result is also not so. I find it sad that I need to even mention it, but not all women think the same, and not all women agree on all questions, including this one. Of course, it may be that by "half of the population" you didn't mean women, then who? I must also note that you yourself don't feel particularly bad about alienating literally tens of millions of people. Which is completely your right of course, just adds a bit of strange flavor when you say how bad it is when others do it.

You're kind've chasing your tail there. I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives but then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek.

smsm42 9y ago

> I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives Because it's only not OK to alienate people who we agree with, but the idea of having civil discussion with people we disagree with... who needs that? Just call them names, chase them out and be done with it! Do you think this is the libertarian way? Where did you meet libertarians like these? > then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek. Err what? Who you are arguing with here? Nobody said it's "ok with alienating women" and Hayek has nothing to do with it. Could you please leave that strawman alone, he needs a well-deserved rest.

CalChris 9y ago
I do not hold libertarians in any high regard. I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP. Again, the OP is concerned with Google alienating conservatives but then is completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population. Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke?
- smsm42 9y ago
  > I do not hold libertarians in any high regard. That's your problem but hardly an argument to anything. > I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP. You are definitely wrong on the first part, to the point of being insulting and disrespectful to literally millions of people holding genuine libertarian beliefs (what is especially ironic here that I assume with high probability that you think it somehow serves the case for inclusiveness and tolerance). As for the second part, I see no way you could have any useful information about it, unless you personally know the author and he told you so. Do you? > Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke? I am sorry, I do not understand this comment. Could you make your point a bit clearer, if there's any? What exactly you are trying to say here? > completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population. The goal of the author was certainly not alienating all women, and I think the result is also not so. I find it sad that I need to even mention it, but not all women think the same, and not all women agree on all questions, including this one. Of course, it may be that by "half of the population" you didn't mean women, then who? I must also note that you yourself don't feel particularly bad about alienating literally tens of millions of people. Which is completely your right of course, just adds a bit of strange flavor when you say how bad it is when others do it.