Meh. Looks like a laundry list of moral condemnations deriding science and reason as incompatible with the author's perceived moral superiority.
In one paragraph, he condemns authoritarian and collectivism; in another he's collectivizing the entire Alt Right and suggesting that libertarians build an alliance with "the extreme left", who are violent Marxists.
Derrick's anti-white screed thinly veils his own desire to force himself on white people. Not only is his article not great, it's not even an article. It's more like a diary entry.
"laundry list of moral condemnations deriding science and reason as incompatible with the author's perceived moral superiority."
never derided science or reason. Only said that science shouldn't be used to justify taking away the liberties of any individuals, no matter what larger groups they may share an identity with.
Also, did not collectivize the alt-right, but I did acknowledge that those who are still using the title know it is associated with racism and bigotry. I don't have to collectivize over what is know.
" in another he's collectivizing the entire Alt Right and suggesting that libertarians build an alliance with "the extreme left", who are violent Marxists."
show me where I said any such thing. In fact, i said the exact opposite. Here is what I said:
"Libertarianism will not grow if the libertarian movement chooses to align with the Alt-Right. This does not mean the reverse – an alliance with the extreme-left wing of American politics – is necessary. It does mean that libertarians ought to remain principled and work with individuals from across the spectrum on issues where there is alignment. "
And this, I don't even know what it means.. "Derrick's anti-white screed thinly veils his own desire to force himself on white people."
force myself on white people? anti-white? no. I don't see skin color. I am great friends with people of all ethnicities and colors.
It wasn't an "appeal to (his) own lack of understanding", it was a well-thought out and detailed response to what you said in your comment. Can't say the same for your childish quip about IQ.
Meh. Looks like a laundry list of moral condemnations deriding science and reason as incompatible with the author's perceived moral superiority.
In one paragraph, he condemns authoritarian and collectivism; in another he's collectivizing the entire Alt Right and suggesting that libertarians build an alliance with "the extreme left", who are violent Marxists.
Derrick's anti-white screed thinly veils his own desire to force himself on white people. Not only is his article not great, it's not even an article. It's more like a diary entry.
"laundry list of moral condemnations deriding science and reason as incompatible with the author's perceived moral superiority."
never derided science or reason. Only said that science shouldn't be used to justify taking away the liberties of any individuals, no matter what larger groups they may share an identity with.
Also, did not collectivize the alt-right, but I did acknowledge that those who are still using the title know it is associated with racism and bigotry. I don't have to collectivize over what is know.
" in another he's collectivizing the entire Alt Right and suggesting that libertarians build an alliance with "the extreme left", who are violent Marxists."
show me where I said any such thing. In fact, i said the exact opposite. Here is what I said:
"Libertarianism will not grow if the libertarian movement chooses to align with the Alt-Right. This does not mean the reverse – an alliance with the extreme-left wing of American politics – is necessary. It does mean that libertarians ought to remain principled and work with individuals from across the spectrum on issues where there is alignment. "
And this, I don't even know what it means.. "Derrick's anti-white screed thinly veils his own desire to force himself on white people."
force myself on white people? anti-white? no. I don't see skin color. I am great friends with people of all ethnicities and colors.
Appeals to your own lack of understanding aren't an argument, especially given that your IQ likely isn't any higher than 100.
It wasn't an "appeal to (his) own lack of understanding", it was a well-thought out and detailed response to what you said in your comment. Can't say the same for your childish quip about IQ.