Good, Evil and the Lulz

Tyler thinks Roissy is evil, but Scott wins the game (from the comments under Tyler's post):

Come on, people. A big chunk of this blog's readership is already profoundly evil. I certainly am.
-Scott Scheule

If I were God for a day, the first thing I'd do is set the homepage of everyone Tyler's age who likes Lolcats and ICanHasCheezburger to /b/. (Back to the source with ye!)

One of my favorite posts by Roissy:

But before I could stop putting women on a pedestal I had to first kick them off. So I had an asshole phase. I think every man who was not born with his dick in a girl’s mouth needs to go through an asshole phase in order to seduce women in a healthy way. It’s important to experience for oneself what the power of assholery can do to a girl’s attraction buttons — press them like an epileptic on coke and E playing whack-a-mole.

It’s also important to stay in touch with your asshole side in case you ever find yourself slipping into bad beta habits. This way you can play the asshole card when the moment calls for it. Believe me, it’s much more efficient than groveling your way back into her good graces with expensive dinners, flattery, and engagement rings.

Have you ever said “Fuck you” in anger to a girl you were seeing? Have you ever told a girl “Enough of your shit”? Have you ever let a girl argue for 20 minutes then look her in the eye and say “You done?” and walk off? If you haven’t done any of these things you don’t know just how much is possible in your dealings with women.

It’s easy to dismantle the pedestal when you read this:

Scott Peterson, the man who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child, had been on Death Row barely an hour when the first proposal arrived from a woman who wants to be the new Mrs. Scott Peterson.

Three dozen phone calls came in to the warden’s office on Peterson’s first day at his new home in San Quentin State Prison — women were pleading for his mailing address, and one smitten 18-year-old said she wanted to marry him.

18 years old. Scott Peterson was twice her age. So much for the theory that chicks get creeped out by older (murderers) men. Heh.

So think about that the next time you find yourself romanticizing the woman of your dreams. There are women who would take their chances with a sociopathic death row inmate over law-abiding nonmurderous free men they know.

I say nuts to Frank Sinatra and the lessons learned by Red Fox. You can work the big rooms with blue material, at least on the net. I feel like I need to drink in all the off-color laughs I can before I can't anymore. But am I being paranoid?

What do French author Michael Houellebecq, a fifteen year-old British teenager, and Canadian columnist Mark Steyn have in common? They have all been, in the eyes of different Western governments, criminally offensive. Nevermind being offended is a choice and no matter what you do someone, somewhere will always find it offensive, or at the very least claim to be offended if they disagree with you (and I can't imagine this getting better if it becomes apparent that doing so will effectively censor your opponents).

There have certainly been calls for censorship in our recent past. But, it seems like there has been a change. I don't see the far-out ACLU defending "hate speech." It is now the left, and not the right, that is trying to do the censoring. The thin skinned have moved beyond going after rap music and porno mags on behalf of "THE CHILDREN!!!" and are now trying to enforce, with the guns of the state, the "right" for all to never be upset by something they read, see or hear, ever.

I think we are in for rougher seas. And I'm going to get all the lulz in that I can before the party van arrives.

Share this

A pretty long "now"

There have certainly been calls for censorship in our recent past. But, it seems like there has been a change. I don't see the far-out ACLU defending "hate speech." It is now the left, and not the right, that is trying to do the censoring.

Your examples are global - Canada, France, Britain. If you want to discuss globally how long the left has been censorious, and whether the left or the right has been more censorious, then you need to include Communist China and the Soviet Union in your discussion. If you want to treat these states as somehow effectively on another planet, I will simply recall something which the American left and to a lesser extent the European left (because the Europeans never quite got what was wrong) have conveniently forgot: for much of their existence, the Soviet Union and Communist China were championed by a Western left which knew what was going on and approved of it.

If you wonder how a leftist can possibly be against free speech, I'll explain how that position arises almost automatically from leftist principles. Here is one path (there are others). First, in the battle between correct process and "correct" outcome, the left has long been on the side of "correct" outcome (while both the left and the right have agreed that the right has to a much greater degree been outwardly on the side of process, though the left has long believed that the right was really on the side of outcome). I put "correct" in scare quotes but the left does not: they are quite serious and unselfconscious about believing that certain outcomes are correct and others are incorrect. In the case of wealth, the correct outcome is equality. Egalitarianism is an outcome-based ideology. In the case of speech, the correct outcome is truth, and the incorrect outcome is lies. The left is quite sure that it knows what the truth is and what the lies are. Lack of self confidence has rarely been one of the faults of the left. Lies must therefore be illegal and truth must be mandatory. The left has not only always been on the side of outcome, it has always been on the side of "socialized" (in practice state) control as a solution to the problem of achieving the correct outcome. This is so central to the left that, take away a strong preference for outcomes and a strong preference for "socialized" control, and you no longer have a recognizable left.

Even if you were to limit your discussion to the United States, then read up on something called the Fairness Doctrine. This was repealed by the Republicans, over the loud protests of the Democrats, who attempted to reinstate it (in part as a transparent attempt to rein in the likes of Rush Limbaugh). The fairness doctrine was egalitarian. Broadcasters are required by law to give balanced coverage of controversial topics. What constitutes "balance" is of course inescapably up to the state to decide.

Briefly, two more avenues of government control over what speech we are exposed to are the public schools, and the business environment. Some libertarians have fooled themselves into thinking that the suppression of "racist" and "sexist" speech is the spontaneous evolution of society. It is not. It is government social engineering. Like the kidnap victim who falls in love with her kidnapper, businesses have been vehemently opposing any trace of racism and sexism in the workplace, ultimately out of fear of lawsuits. It is the same as the reason for drug testing. This suppression has been going on quietly for a long time, and the recent public cases involving the likes of Mark Steyn are merely part of the gradual spread of censorship. One day we wake up and we notice that we don't feel so well, we go to the doctor and he tells us that we have cancer and it is nearing the final stages. For a long time the cancer has been growing but we never noticed it. What has happened isn't that the cancer bloomed overnight. We simply just now noticed it.

The public schools are so completely dominated by left wing ideology that they are virtually a lost cause. A few non-leftist parents have attempted to regain a tiny, pathetic amount of control over what their children are exposed to, but it's a lost cause. And they don't even know the half of it. Evolution and sex education and the suppression of prayer are obviously sharply at odds with how some parents would have elected to educate their own kids, but those parents who struggle in these areas are meanwhile missing some arguably far greater dangers, such as social studies and history, which teach an ideologically far left view of the world which we can see bearing fruit in the online forums dominated by college students, who have just recently finished twelve years of left wing indoctrination.

How much of this is just a

How much of this is just a function of being the party in power vs. being the underdog? I have no doubt that when the right is in power, they are just as censorious as the left. Maybe even more so. Playing the free speech card is an underdog tactic. Everyone plays it when their views are in the minority. Everyone (or practically everyone) ignores it when they are in power.

Ideology matters

Power corrupts all, but ideology still matters a great deal. People will abuse power regardless of ideology, but if your ideology categorizes a certain abuse of power as the highest good, then you will abuse power to a much greater degree. I don't know where you got the idea that the right is more censorious than the left, but the examples I've seen given here are trivial stuff, relatively speaking.

I don't know where you got

I don't know where you got the idea that the right is more censorious than the left

When the right is in power, just being - black, gay, Jewish, a woman, an immigrant, poor - is threatened, let alone trying to spread unpopular ideas. The right censors existence, in addition to ideas. The right certainly has no better claim on tolerance than the left.

True for some definition of "the right"

But not for any definition currently in common use.

But, then, the definition of

But, then, the definition of "the right" currently in use describes a party that is not currently in power to the extent historical right wing censorious parties have been in my power. Which goes back to my point: the right is fighting an underdog's battle (at least in academia and in the countries most likely to censor unpopular, intolerant views), so it's no great surprise that it plays the free speech card while its opponents are the censors.

Who is the underdog?

When feminists pushed through sexual harassment law, were they the underdog? Wasn't their complaint precisely that they were the underdog?

And when the Republicans dismantled the fairness doctrine, were they the underdog? Or not?

When feminists pushed

When feminists pushed through sexual harassment law, were they the underdog? Wasn't their complaint precisely that they were the underdog?

Insofar as they held the reigns of political power or had influence and sway over those who had political power, they were not the underdog. But one can be a minority in some parts of society and a majority in others. For example, conservatives seem to be underrepresented in mainstream media outlets (excluding Talk Radio and Fox News) and academia, yet at the same time held strong majorities in government.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

And Campaign Finance Reform, possibly the single largest single attack on freedom of speech in recent years. Overwhelmingly supported by Democrats, opposed by Republicans by a large margin. Supposedly bipartisan, but not really.

And now the Republican

And now the Republican co-sponsor has the party presidential nomination locked up. Clearly, a deal-breaker with the right. (And then didn't Bush sign it into law even after acknowledging its unconstitutionality? What a defender of free speech, that Bush!)

That's a pretty indirect relationship

The direct relationship is the no votes to the legislation itself. I might very well vote for McCain in November - if I decide to vote and if I decide that Obama would be worse (which is probably not going to happen but is in no way remote as a possibility). Will that mean that I retroactively support campaign finance reform? No. Simply, no.

As for Bush, he signed everything into law. Doesn't mean much. [edit] I mean "everything" literally. His first veto wasn't until years later.

Tolerance

The right certainly has no better claim on tolerance than the left.

It's in the name of tolerance that the left has done some of its deepest damage to liberty. Check out "speech code" in Wikipedia. What you'll find is a list of restrictions on speech most or all of which are obviously pushed by the left and not the right. And in the section titled

Examples of speech illegal under speech codes

we see:

Examples of communication illegal under speech codes include Holocaust denial, racist or sexist speech. More stringent policies include a ban on anything deemed offensive, such as ridicule against another person.

All of it is supported by the left wing, and all of it is either undeniably or at least very arguably for the sake of tolerance. Finally, to make the evil palpable with a concrete example, here's a bit from Wendy McElroy.

Daphne Patai is very good at driving home the savagery of sexual harassment laws and policies. One third of her book, part II, is entitled "Typifying Tales." There she offers real life stories. For example...one case...a very over-weight and by all accounts a very popular, competent professor responded to a taunt shouted out in class by a female student. She rudely commented on the extreme 'size' of his chest: in response, he observed that she had no such problem. A witch-hunt of sexual harassment charges ensued. It was so extreme that the professor committed suicide. In a press release, the university's main concern was that the professor's death would not discourage other similarly "abused" women from "speaking out."

The abomination known as the sexual harassment industry must be swept away.

[edit] I took "illegal under speech codes" to be referring to cases where speech codes are enforced by law. On second thought it may simply mean "prohibited (e.g. by private entities) under speech codes". However, I would argue that speech codes exist in large part because of civil rights legislation, including sexual harassment legislation, as a form of institutional ass covering.

In Defense of Private Speech Codes

However, I would argue that speech codes exist in large part because of civil rights legislation, including sexual harassment legislation, as a form of institutional ass covering.

But that doesn't explain why we see speech codes more often on college campuses and less often in private businesses.

Here is Roderick Long giving one cheer for political correctness and defending some speech codes:

Another issue that inflames many libertarians against political correctness is the issue of speech codes on campuses. Yes, many speech codes are daft. But should people really enjoy exactly the same freedom of speech on university property that they would rightfully enjoy on their own property? Why, exactly?

If the answer is that the purposes of a university are best served by an atmosphere of free exchange of ideas -- is there no validity to the claim that certain kinds of speech might tend, through an intimidating effect, to undermine just such an atmosphere?

Or if the answer is that universities, as recipients of tax-supported funds, are representing the public and must therefore administer those funds in a nondiscriminatory manner -- does that mean that welfare recipients, too, must be prevented from spending their relief checks in a discriminatory manner? If taxation is theft, as we claim to believe, it's hard to see how tax funds for universities with speech codes are a worse violation of rights than tax funds for universities without speech codes. The real problem is that universities are being funded by extortion at all.

At my university, several white fraternity members were recently disciplined for dressing up, some in Klan costumes and others in blackface, and enacting a mock lynching. Is the university guilty of violating their freedom of expression? I can't see that it is. Certainly those students have a natural right to dress up as they please and engage in whatever playacting they like, so long as they conduct themselves peacefully. But there is no natural right to be a student at Auburn University.

One sometimes hears the argument: "if they're against such-and-such idea, there must be something to it." This attitude of quodcumque ostendis mihi sic incredulus odi is an unreliable guide to truth, however. Does it speak in Hitler's favour that Stalin was against him? Does it speak in Stalin's favour that Hitler was against him?

Is it not true that the contributions of women, minorities, and nonwestern cultures have traditionally been marginalised and excluded? One needn't want to give George Washington Carver more pages in the history textbooks than George Washington to agree that the PC folks are on to something here. And look at the anti-Muslim, pro-war hysteria that's sweeping the country these days. The PC crowd, bless 'em, are certainly on the right side of that one. Libertarians should regard the PC crowd the way we regard conservatives: as potential allies. Often infuriating and wrongheaded potential allies -- but nonetheless people to cultivate, not to insult.

That being said, often times campus speech codes are taken too far, destroying the very same atmosphere of free exchange of ideas they are designed to protect against intimidation. And this is the inevitable result of a dominant political ideology coming to power within the university, and failing to see value in non-mainstream, minority viewpoints - i.e. the viewpoints of political underdogs who don't currently hold power. The best argument against overuse of speech codes is that power can be illusory and fickle; you might be the underdog in the future, so you may not want to give the rule-making institution (whether it be a university or a government) the power to censor unpopular ideas, for your ideas may one day become unpopular.

Optical illusion

But that doesn't explain why we see speech codes more often on college campuses and less often in private businesses.

I would argue that this is an illusion caused by the greater public access to the goings on of campuses. Speech is tightly regulated in any business I have worked in. We are subjected to classes every few years that reinforce the boundaries of acceptable speech. It is not, by the way, only race and sex (though that is part of it). There are other aspects to business speech control which are transparent legal ass covering, because an employee supposedly represents his company in everything he might say.

Good point.

Good point.

Right-wing Censorship

And while we're on the topic of right-wing censorship...

Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography

Both left and right

As Wikipedia points out:

The term anti-pornography movement is used to describe those who argue that pornography has a variety of harmful effects, such as encouragement of human trafficking, desensitization, pedophilia, dehumanization, exploitation, sexual dysfunction, and inability to maintain healthy sexual relationships. Many of those involved in the anti-pornography movement come from religious groups, feminists, and individuals who feel that pornography plays a major role in the breakdown of their marriages and relationships.

I agree: the

I agree: the anti-pornography movement consists of both religious, social conservatives and left-wing feminists. But note the difference in focus: feminists target explicitly misogynistic forms of pornography, especially violent BDSM stuff. Whereas religious conservatives are more interested in banning what they consider "icky" or deviant, at odds with social norms. The feminist argument against pornography is not that it is at odds with social norms, but that it reinforces existing, harmful social norms.

In this particular case, dealing with coprophilia and bestiality, the emphasis seems to be on the right-wing objections to deviancy, and not the left-wing objections to female degradation.

The prosecution is the first in Southern California by a U.S. Department of Justice task force formed in 2005 after Christian conservative groups appealed to the Bush administration to crack down on smut.

Chalk this one up to right-wing censorship, not left-wing censorship.

Still, six of one, half a dozen of the other

Possibly you're right. But the point remains that it's not as though the right wing is censorious and the left is not - even in an area as restricted as pornography, though as you point out if we restrict it even further we might find some variation.

I say "possibly you're right" because I've seen enough movies about the mistreatment of sexual deviants - a deviancy as minor as homosexuality - in the left wing paradise of Cuba (among other places) that I cannot quite accept the idea that the oppression of sexual deviants is an exclusively right wing phenomenon. [correction - seen movies and read accounts]

But the point remains that

But the point remains that it's not as though the right wing is censorious and the left is not

But this has been the opposite of my point all along. Both the left and right are censorious; whichever one happens to be in power at any given time tends to be more censorious, while the underdog conveniently dons the mantle of defender of freedom of speech, for as long as it takes until it gets back into power.

Smaller point

But this has been the opposite of my point all along.

You're referring to your larger point. On the smaller point of pornography, my point was that both left and right attacked it, and your point was to focus on the right.

I would by the way additionally argue that an attack on pornography does not have quite the same sweeping effect on discourse as an attack on politically consequential speech. As you yourself pointed out with respect to pornography, it was the leftists, not the rightists, who attacked speech precisely because it was consequential (it reinforces social norms). Indeed. The leftists are treating pornography as political speech, and attacking it on that ground. And that is part of what makes the left so dangerous.

Even Smaller Point

You're referring to your larger point. On the smaller point of pornography, my point was that both left and right attacked it, and your point was to focus on the right.

And in this particular case, the blame goes exclusively to the right. Again, I'll quote directly from the article as I did earlier:

The prosecution is the first in Southern California by a U.S. Department of Justice task force formed in 2005 after Christian conservative groups appealed to the Bush administration to crack down on smut.

Not the same

Sure, it looks like Christians are pushing this. But as far as I can tell they are using existing law. This is a whole different category of action than the creation of new law which criminalizes something which had not previously been criminal.

But, okay, let's blame Christians for taking advantage of existing law. And let's also blame welfare recipients for accepting welfare checks. But after you're done blaming Christians for taking advantage of existing law, pause for a moment to reflect on just how little Bush has given them. Merely more strenuous prosecution under existing law. Pretty pathetic, really. So add that to the reasons not to be afraid of the right.

Anyway, this got a chuckle out of me:

Then his office was raided by FBI agents who bought his videos online with undercover credit cards.

Obscenity law is so vague

Obscenity law is so vague that enforcement discretion pretty much defines its entire content.

That's a criticism of the law

That's a criticism of the law more than of the enforcement, and the law was in place long before anyone heard of Bush Jr. Anyway, if by "enforcement discretion" you mean "the decision of the jury", I'll grant you that the content of obscenity law indeed depends very strongly on the judgment of the jury. However, what's your evidence that the jury is conservative? If, on the other hand, you mean that the prosecutor can just imprison anyone he likes and juries will just go along with it, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

True, I'm criticizing the

True, I'm criticizing the law too. If the law weren't so vague, social conservatives wouldn't be able to take advantage of it.

By enforcement discretion I mean which cases prosecutors decide to prosecute. What makes this particular case unique is that the dependent decided to go to trial. The media reports about this case mention that the vast majority of obscenity prosecutions end in pre-trial plea bargains. That serves as a chilling effect for future pornographers.

Almost no chilling effect

Quote from the article:

The task force has won convictions in more than a dozen cases, the vast majority resulting from plea bargains, according to case summaries provided by the department.

And the task force has been in operation how long?

Created in 2005, the Task Force is dedicated exclusively to the protection of America's children and families through the enforcement of our Nation's obscenity laws.

So "more than a dozen" since 2005. And we're talking the porn business here. Big, big money.

As a point of comparison I was hoping to dig up RIAA lawsuit stats, with no quick success. What I expect to find is that a lot more than a dozen people have been sued, with little or no discernible chilling effect.

Speaking of RIAA lawsuits, I

Speaking of RIAA lawsuits, I was going to mention the efforts to enforce intellectual property laws and "censor" such technologies as file sharing software. Would you classify such efforts as left-wing or right-wing?

Not ideological, or right wing

The RIAA isn't acting on the basis of ideology but on the basis of commercial self interest. As near as I can tell the entertainment industry is almost to a man (or woman) left wing, but I don't think that has anything to do with it.

I would expect Republicans to be more propertarian than Democrats, and I would expect this to include intellectual property. So you can probably on balance blame Republicans for such innovations as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act. I haven't counted the votes. You can also, of course, blame a lot of libertarians insofar as they advocate intellectual property law. I'm on the anti-propertarian side of intellectual property, myself.

I agree; the RIAA is self

I agree; the RIAA is self interested. I don't think you can just count up congressional votes and then make ideological conclusions, for ideology is much broader than congressional partisan politics. And as you point out, there is a reason those on the left are more open to reforming or scrapping existing copyright law than those on the right. But that goes against your post title: it is in part ideological and it is right wing.

Not sure what you mean

But that goes against your post title: it is in part ideological and it is right wing.

I'm not sure what you mean. My post title is:

Not ideological, or right wing

Expanding that: first paragraph concludes it is not ideological. Second paragraph concludes it is right wing. So either A or B, depending on how you look at it. Either not ideological (if you look at RIAA), or right wing (if you look at legislation).

I'm not sure what you're saying in response.

Did you mean to say "Second

Did you mean to say "Second paragraph concludes it is NOT right wing"? Either way I don't understand what you are trying to say. If it is right wing, then it is ideological. If it is not right wing, then that seems to conflict with the content of your second paragraph.

??

Did you mean to say "Second paragraph concludes it is NOT right wing"?

No. Here is the relevant bit of the second paragraph, with the core bit highlighted:

I would expect Republicans to be more propertarian than Democrats, and I would expect this to include intellectual property. So you can probably on balance blame Republicans for such innovations as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act.

I'm not sure how you can get from me saying "blame Republicans" to me saying "it is not right wing."

If it is right wing, then it is ideological.

There are two different "its". You literally asked about "the efforts [you specifically mention the RIAA] to enforce intellectual property laws". I answered your question (not ideological but rather self-interested), but then after I finished answering your question I stepped back and looked at the creation (as opposed to enforcement) of IP laws, and thought that on balace it was probably Republicans pushing it.

RIAA assaults now fully bipartisan

It looks as though I was wrong or at least out of date in laying the recent IP law changes at the feet of the Republicans. I was visiting Reddit just now, and the latest legal innovation in IP law is fully and almost unanimously bipartisan. The Democrats actually have a slight evil edge on the Republicans: 7 Republicans voted Nay, and only 4 Democrats voted Nay. Ron Paul is one of the 7 Rs who voted Nay by the way. Here's the article that was directly linked from Reddit.

I'm with Constant. I just

I'm with Constant. I just don't see how a prosecution for making bestiality and defecation porn (wrong though I consider it) is as worrisome as BCRA-style criminalization of political speech and Steyn-style kangaroo trials. And as far as I can tell, in the modern West, restrictions on political speech are more favored by the left than the right.

Maybe, maybe not

From this interview with Isaacs:

Some feminists would like to have your head, I'd imagine.

I'm probably exploiting women less than if they worked at Burger King. Have you ever worked at a fast food place? You get exploited a lot on earth. Everyone consents to do things. Everyone in [these videos] consents. To see it, to be in it.

It doesn't mean there are actually feminists against Isaacs, but I can't imagine feminists being okay with the stuff mentioned in the interview.

My Examples Are Scatterbrained

Your examples are global - Canada, France, Britain. If you want to discuss globally how long the left has been censorious, and whether the left or the right has been more censorious, then you need to include Communist China and the Soviet Union in your discussion. If you want to treat these states as somehow effectively on another planet, I will simply recall something which the American left and to a lesser extent the European left (because the Europeans never quite got what was wrong) have conveniently forgot: for much of their existence, the Soviet Union and Communist China were championed by a Western left which knew what was going on and approved of it.

When chucking up props to Scott and rambling from that point onward, massively oppressive and murderous communist states didn't jump to the front of my mind. Events happening in present day France, Britain and Canada grab my attention as something like an American version of the CHRC seems like it isn't too far off.

I'm rereading what I wrote, and I don't see some of the things you're pulling out. Where do I want to discuss whether the left or right has been more censorious on a global scale? Or make the claim that one is more censorious than the other? I think Micha's observation about the underdog standing up for free speech fits with my recollection of the zeitgeist of censorship here in the States. Keep in mind I was born in the 1980s and there was a large period of time where my little league batting average was of far greater concern (I hadn't even been introduced to James, Palmer and Thorn, or Cook yet, or I would have obsessed about my on-base percentage instead). Mentioning a recent, perceived shift doesn't make any grand judgments on the history of global censorship.

I agree with the vast majority of what you've written, and the point on equality of outcome over equality of process is excellent. I'd also say I'm more on your side of the aisle than the Wilkinson/Ghertner crowd.

But yikes man, I was shocked this thing got bumped to the front page. My posts don't have the level of depth generally found here. I've got zero background in philosophy. I've read some economics here and there. I've dicked around as an English major because going to college is what middle class kids do, and even then I steered myself towards the clever-but-not-brilliant, trashy bourgeoisie stuff like Ellis, Palahniuk and Houellebecq.

Just look at the freakin' mess above. I get from Cowen to 4chan to Red Fox in the span of about 70 words.

I answered you first

But yikes man, I was shocked this thing got bumped to the front page. My posts don't have the level of depth generally found here. I've got zero background in philosophy.

If you're just celebrating that your contribution, which you thought unworthy, got bumped to the front, you have my congratulations. But since you're replying to me you seem to be saying that I took you too seriously because your entry got bumped to the front. But actually I commented on your entry before it got bumped to the front page. And I'm not trying to tear you down or anything, I'm just going off on a rant kicked off by some little thing you mentioned, which seemed to suggest that left wing attacks on freedom of speech are a recent phenomenon - recent as in, within the past few months. How can I resist answering that suggestion?

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Thanks

When chucking up props to Scott and rambling from that point onward, massively oppressive and murderous communist states didn't jump to the front of my mind.

This is one of the nicest things anyone's ever said about me.

I've been meaning to flatter

I've been meaning to flatter my way back into your good graces since spurning you sexually.

Don't Worry!

That was quite interesting to me, as I'd never been sexually spurned before. Now I finally know what people are complaining about.

That was pathetic post by Tyler

Not linking to the site 'cause he thinks it's evil???

I remember Tyler once advising 'weird' men to seek out foreign wives. I don't remember if he elucidated why, but I assumed it's because the weirdness will be attenuated through a foreign lens. Is this not instrumentalism? Is this not manipulation?

Pointless not to link

It's trivial to find the site - in fact, it's trivial to find the exact entry simply by pasting a bit of the quoted material into Google.

Also see Randall Parker's

Also see Randall Parker's entrance late in the thread on Tyler's post.