3 ms·

> I think you've decided that CF has bad intent, and this utterly blinds you to the possibility that he actually genuinely wants what's best, and he thinks over

by camgunz 6mo ago

> I think you've decided that CF has bad intent, and this utterly blinds you to the possibility that he actually genuinely wants what's best, and he thinks over-regulation does more harm than good. I don't think he has bad intent. I'm just saying his idiocy is so rampantly virulent anyone who reads one of his articles should be treated for brain damage; like Typhoid Mary he should be banned from his chosen profession in the interest of public sanitation; anyone who really believes ignorance is bliss should spend an evening with Friedersdorf's catalog and wake up the next morning happier for it. > Friedersdorf has expressed his thoughts on drug laws elsewhere, and they are consistent with his other beliefs, in that he thinks drug laws as a form of regulation do not really work. Our correspondence has regrettably required me to ingest Friedersdorf's oeuvre of articles on the war on drugs. You're right, he doesn't think it's effective, and he doesn't think the collateral is worth it. I agree! But he doesn't think we should put drug dealers in prison, which is nutso. He also doesn't have any plan for the additional treatment that would be required, which is irresponsible. Let's imagine a world where tobacco is illegal, like cocaine. Some libertarian somewhere is like "hey, imagine a world where we don't terrorize an entire continent in service of proscribing tobacco; how do we get there?" And the answer, unbelievably, is that you decriminalize usage, treat users, and punish sellers. That is this regime. But Friedersdorf prefers merely to whine about the grotesqueness of it all. He's getting what he wants! Can't he see this is the entree? (Narrator voice: "No, he cannot".) > Protected classes do not exist in Europe You've been wrong about this for maybe 16 years or so: https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/workforce-and-hr-support/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-workforce/equality-act-and https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/workforce-and-hr-suppor... > and yet where specific characteristics are enumerated, 'age' is one of them. "birth date" is not "age". > [libertarians] tend to believe people will consume drugs no matter what Legalization advocates argue constantly equate relatively small numbers of users with huge numbers of users. Cannabis use has skyrocketed since legalization: https://www.addictiongroup.org/resources/marijuana-use-statistics/ https://www.addictiongroup.org/resources/marijuana-use-stati.... Imagine the effect cocaine legalization would have on a society that couldn't even handle Four Loco. Again the kind of rattling skull brilliance we get from the right. I'd also love to hear a libertarian explain how we're gonna pay for all the treatment that'll be required, given that we won't have any taxes on anyone under their regime. Wait, no I wouldn't, I need to hang onto the few functioning brain cells I have left. > There is not a person on Earth who's ever been convinced to turn their politics around by being called a moron over and over again. Hey, I believe all people deserve love and respect, no matter their intelligence level. Friedersdorf clearly didn't find his calling, but that's OK! Maybe he could do better as a prompt engineer or something. In seriousness, Friedersdorf isn't in conversation with anyone. Most people on the right are Clarence Thomases: they've made up their mind and they're not changing it. They are not in conversation with us; they're not looking to be convinced by us, they're not open-minded; they're not acting in good faith; they're in the town square solely to trumpet their ideas, not to hear ours. Again I don't think in Friedersdorf's case this is malign intent. I just don't think he has the mental flexibility to conceive of the world any other way. > An effective politics requires a willingness to understand other viewpoints I couldn't disagree more. Most viewpoints are pretty bad. Ideally you educate/persuade people out of them, but at some point you're fighting. I don't think in a million years I'll ever convince Friedersdorf or most libertarians they're wrong. My hope is I convince passersby that the ideology is bankrupt and foolish, a playpen for small minds with small dreams. > I want to turn moderates towards my politics and build a lasting coalition to secure my rights Vote Democrat. Leftists, MAGA, conservatives, libertarians, they all want to strip your rights in service of their weirdo ideology. Simple as that. Or, decide we're too rude and shamble into the gulag. Whatever I guess.

troad 6mo ago
> My hope is I convince passersby That's just it, you don't, when your arguments are poor and your tone hostile. The only people who support you are people who already agreed with you; everyone else (the passerby moderate) is automatically repelled. > Vote Democrat. Leftists, MAGA, conservatives, libertarians, they all want to strip your rights in service of their weirdo ideology. Simple as that. Or, decide we're too rude and shamble into the gulag. Whatever I guess. It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up, it would be even worse under the other guys. It's pretty obvious when someone sees minorities as an adornment to their politics, and considers their actual needs and interests an irritant. Consider what kind of messed up version of left wing politics would talk that way to the people it ostensibly exists to represent. Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. The actual messy needs of the underprivileged are an inconvenience to your "right side of history" posturing. There's nothing noble about this. The MAGA crowd are just the red flavour of people like you.
- camgunz 6mo ago
  > That's just it, you don't You have no way of knowing this. > your arguments are poor You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics. > your tone hostile I call it like I see it, in good faith. If you're offended, feel free to engage on the substance. Or you can make any real changes on your end contingent on meaningless tone changes on mine, but that would put you in the same basket as Friedersdorf, Thomas, et al: unwilling to engage in conversation and good faith debate. > It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence [sic] of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up That was over 30 years ago. Remember that one time we elected the first Black president, ran the first woman candidate for president, elected the first Black woman vice-president? Remember that one time we put the first Black woman on the bench? Remember that one time we got marriage rights for the LGBTQ community? Remember that one time we pushed for years to decriminalize and legalize cannabis and spare thousands and thousands of Black men meaningless prison sentences? Remember when we pushed through sentencing reform? Remember all our efforts to reform the immigration and asylum systems? Etc. etc. etc. If this is your summation of the benefits Democrats have had on minority populations since and including the Clinton era you are woefully ignorant. > Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks. Every accusation is a confession.

by camgunz 6mo ago

troad 6mo ago

> My hope is I convince passersby That's just it, you don't, when your arguments are poor and your tone hostile. The only people who support you are people who already agreed with you; everyone else (the passerby moderate) is automatically repelled. > Vote Democrat. Leftists, MAGA, conservatives, libertarians, they all want to strip your rights in service of their weirdo ideology. Simple as that. Or, decide we're too rude and shamble into the gulag. Whatever I guess. It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up, it would be even worse under the other guys. It's pretty obvious when someone sees minorities as an adornment to their politics, and considers their actual needs and interests an irritant. Consider what kind of messed up version of left wing politics would talk that way to the people it ostensibly exists to represent. Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. The actual messy needs of the underprivileged are an inconvenience to your "right side of history" posturing. There's nothing noble about this. The MAGA crowd are just the red flavour of people like you.

camgunz 6mo ago
> That's just it, you don't You have no way of knowing this. > your arguments are poor You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics. > your tone hostile I call it like I see it, in good faith. If you're offended, feel free to engage on the substance. Or you can make any real changes on your end contingent on meaningless tone changes on mine, but that would put you in the same basket as Friedersdorf, Thomas, et al: unwilling to engage in conversation and good faith debate. > It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence [sic] of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up That was over 30 years ago. Remember that one time we elected the first Black president, ran the first woman candidate for president, elected the first Black woman vice-president? Remember that one time we put the first Black woman on the bench? Remember that one time we got marriage rights for the LGBTQ community? Remember that one time we pushed for years to decriminalize and legalize cannabis and spare thousands and thousands of Black men meaningless prison sentences? Remember when we pushed through sentencing reform? Remember all our efforts to reform the immigration and asylum systems? Etc. etc. etc. If this is your summation of the benefits Democrats have had on minority populations since and including the Clinton era you are woefully ignorant. > Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks. Every accusation is a confession.