You're viewing a single thread.
Which reminds me that Kevin Sorbo tried pushing for the Jan 6 insurrection and after it failed, he deleted the posts and said it was an Antifa plot to frame Donald Trump.
Or this lol
Reminder that QAnon Shaman is running for Congress in Arizona's 8th district as a Libertarian. That doesn't exactly describe a leftist agitator.
It feels like he should be disqualified from holding office.
He should be but the 14th Amendment keeps him out only if he previously took an oath to the Constitution. You can go all out full shooting war against the federal government but as long as you weren't already elected or appointed or whatever, you're still eligible.
He was in the military and therefore swore an oath. He's absolutely disqualified under the 14th amendment.
That is my interpretation too. It feels wrong or at least lacking.
Now if only we could make changes to it somehow... Like amend it or something?
Amendments need a functioning government willing to change shit for the better in a bipartisan way. That's not going to happen for a long time.
Jan 5th me thought doing what he did got you hanging from a rope
funny thing about that, that's the question in front of the supreme court currently
Reminder that just because somebody runs as something doesn't mean that they are that thing. I can guarantee you that dipshit has no idea what the non-aggression principle is.
Furthermore, libertarianism is not a left right spectrum ideology. There are left libertarians. There are centrist libertarians, and there are right libertarians.
For reference, authoritarianism also bounds the spectrums of left to right.
Left to right is economic theory authoritarian to libertarian is social theory. They are two separate axises.
In my opinion, the shaman dude is definitely somewhere on the right side of the chart in the authoritarian section.
Sincerely, a. Centrist and minarchist.
Furthermore, libertarianism is not a left right spectrum ideology
In theory, maybe. In practice, though, if an American claims to be a libertarian, in my experience they're more than likely either a republican that knows they can't get laid while calling themselves a republican, or a republican that likes weed(or both)
But your personal frame of reference is not the definition. Clearly, this shaman person is a Republican pretending to be a libertarian. So call them out on the bullshit instead of allowing them to hide under a banner of a party that is not theirs with ideals that they do not represent.
I never said it was the definition, but the definition is besides the point as far as I am concerned; I'm not a libertarian, so I frankly don't care what libertarians "actually" believe, I don't care if the word is being "co-opted" or whatever.
What matters to me is that the vast, VAST majority of people I meet and know of that claim to be libertarian are awful people; so yes, my initial assumption when someone claims to be a libertarian, until proven otherwise, is they're not a good person.
While I understand your position, I would have to completely disagree with it on principle. If you sub in any word besides libertarian, you'll see what I mean. In my opinion, you should care for accurate definitions in order for us to all maintain a common understanding and a productive straightforward discourse.
"What matters to me is that the vast, VAST majority of people I meet and know of that claim to be French are awful people; so yes, my initial assumption when someone claims to be a French, until proven otherwise, is they're not a good person."
/S
Then to continue the example let's pretend every French person you have ever met is actually from Paris and not any other part of the country.
If all previous experiences are negative and the actual definition seems outlandish, that's a valid opinion. It's not your fault if you never learned of non-negative examples.
The only question is how to apply this bias. The harm in assuming libertarians as Republican doesn't seem critical to me. I haven't made any other experiences so maybe I'm just as biased.
But maybe you're simply the only one living your non-right interpretation/definition of libertarianism. I'd have to hear your point of views to actually believe it.*I've read some things about 'true' libertarianism in the past but couldn't find any community living it. It's like all those guys on hexbear preaching to be the most loving people while spewing hate and fascist opinions wherever they can.
Most of the Republicans seem to be so far right that those few moderate-right Republicans would have to distance themselves clearly to actually represent their position. If you distance yourself from all those "LINOS" (do I have to give Trump credit for this?) that others and me see everywhere, then you might be rather alone, I'd wager.If all previous experiences are negative and the actual definition seems outlandish, that's a valid opinion. It's not your fault if you never learned of non-negative examples.
Starting this with a /s just be clear this is a parody of your position:
"All my previous experiences with trans people have been negative, and the idea of a person with a penis being a woman seems outlandish."
Is that still a valid opinion?
I'd say it's a valid opinion, though based on ignorance. When you grow up indoctrinated by your environment you'd have a hard time losing your bias on your own.
If you'd only have met mean people of a certain 'group' in your life it's understandable to form a negative opinion based on that. Even if you know that this might just be bad luck on your part it's still your experience.It comes down to one's willingness to remain open minded and actually learn differently. One shouldn't condemn others based on that but it's understandable to be biased and 'careful'.
I have a bias regarding many classic right wing opinions and a hard time to not assume that a person with a strong opinion on a certain topic also ticks off all other related opinions. While I think my bias to think of any Republican or Libertarian being right-wing is valid, based on my experience, it's still a bias and won't hold true to every individual I 'classify' this way.
There is no such thing as true. Libertarianism. Just many diverging branches of opinion. With common concepts. I hate to have to use a religion example but kind of like how there is no one true Christianity. Just a bunch of Christian sects. It's kind of like how every shade of gray from black to white is not a color. Just shades and variations. If you would have any questions for me I would be happy to answer them from my perspective as a minarchist.
Thank you for the offer. I don't have questions for you. Just wanted to point out that I think it's understandable that people, including me, tend to be hesitant to believe that a Libertarian or Centrist doesn't turn out to be far right on the political spectrum.
But for me, the political US as a whole seems to be skewed right. Both parties are right-wing to my European eyes so even a 'true' centrist, in between those two, ends up far right.
Big problem with your example, you don't choose to be French, you either are or you are not. You can be french and be an asshole, but the only choice there is in being an asshole. Being a libertarian on the otherhand, is a political position and is inherently something you have to choose to be.
Consider this: Prior to the Nazis using it, in western usage the Swastika was widely considered a symbol of good luck. The West boiling centuries of Eastern religious and cultural history of the symbol down into superstitious BS aside, by all accounts, at the time that would be an "accurate definition" of what the Swastika meant in the west. But obviously nobody today is going to believe you* when you say your Swastika tattoo is a good luck charm and you're "totally" not a Nazi. Hell, you'd be in potential legal trouble in Germany for it. Point is, all words(& symbols) are made up, and meanings can and will change.
-
- (figurative you, I'm not claiming you actually have a Swastika tattoo)
-
axises
I believe you're looking for axes, the plural of axis.
Yeah I've never had to pluralize axis before, thanks.
non-aggression principle
I don't either. Is this an Arizona rule?
No, it’s a Libertarian “rule”. The person is putting forth that just because the guy is running as a Libertarian doesn’t mean he is a Libertarian, as his actions go against the “Non Aggression Principle”.
Thank you 👍
It's a core political philosophy of libertarianism.
Last thing I heard from him was he (or his mother?) were complaining about the lack of
veganorganic food in prison or something? Do I remember this correctly?Permanently Deleted
You have to wonder how much of this is Sorbo's conservative brainrot and how much is being a paid conservative influencer, because this is disinformation agent type shit.
Probably equally both and given time he buys what he’s selling.
Damn, Xena dominated the shittiest Hercules ever.
The woman with Lawless in her name has more sense than the son of a god.
No Gods No Masters Only Xena
Alalealalealale!
Well, she is a Warrior Princess.
Lmao, took him a whole 45 minutes to flip flop. What a fuckin chode.
Dude got fucking rekt by Xena lol.
Ide still like to get rekt by Xena...
death by Snu Snu
Fuck, I really liked him in Hercules and Andromeda. So it turns out he's just another idiot.
He's solely responsible for running Andromeda into the ground with his massive ego. It was never a terrific show in season one, but it had potential. By season four he had full control and it was utter shit.
So true, it was a huge bummer that he drove it off a cliff for his ego.
Is Kevin Sorbo a five star man?
What a douche.
Why is your comment so long?
Using a mobile app like Android/iOS, or not recently updated like Memmy? It displays comments incorrectly at the moment.
Looks fine to me. It is pretty long but there are two pictures in it, after all.
