The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you see your use of force against others as self-defense, then you
could still be a libertarian. We might differ on what situations would
permit self-defense. But that would be something ripe for discussion.

Revolution can be non-violent. All revolution is is drastic change.

 

[Alceste]

No, revolution from the bottom up, not the top down.

Fair enough. I favour that too. But realistically speaking, no matter how successful a bottom up (presumably non-violent) revolution is or how persuasive its political philosophy, there will always be selfish, greedy people looking to get one over on the rest of us. I believe in their right to try.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revolution can be non-violent. All revolution is is drastic change.

True, but violence is a common tool of revolution.
There's usually someone with a powdered wig who needs more holes.

Hey, on a distantly related note....have you felt the urge to shoot stuff yet?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I've posted in the Liberal Only forum before, & never had a problem.
But after 7.24.14, my one post was poofed, with the admonition
that I identify as a "libertarian", therefore I am not a "liberal".
(They didn't object to my inter-marriage with one though.)
I didn't know the rules changed, but now I avoid that forum.

That happened to me in the Christian DIR, I nearly got an infraction for posting there. They told me that since I am a Gnostic I should not be posting certain statements in that DIR but only limit myself to post respectful questions and I had to explain to them the history of my religion.

So maybe you should explain why you should be allowed to post in the Liberals Only section. But it would be prudent to limit your posting to match the tenor of that section and not to criticize or challenge Liberals

 

[Tarheeler]

I've posted in the Liberal Only forum before, & never had a problem.
But after 7.24.14, my one post was poofed, with the admonition
that I identify as a "libertarian", therefore I am not a "liberal".
(They didn't object to my inter-marriage with one though.)
I didn't know the rules changed, but now I avoid that forum.

And that is the ambiguity I was talking about. We found that we couldn't realistically coach someone about not posting in a restricted section if we had never articulated the guidelines used to establish membership in that section. Rule 10 has limited participation in these forums (to a level that surpasses even a blue DIR) for years. We wanted to have something concrete when someone strayed into the wrong section.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that is the ambiguity I was talking about. We found that we couldn't realistically coach someone about not posting in a restricted section if we had never articulated the guidelines used to establish membership in that section. Rule 10 has limited participation in these forums (to a level that surpasses even a blue DIR) for years. We wanted to have something concrete when someone strayed into the wrong section.

Still, what I experience is a huge change in practice.
I was accepted in the liberal forum. Now I get the boot.
I was very directly told to leave the feminist forum. Now I have no trouble.

I also understand that more changes are being considered.

Note: Whatever you guys do, I'll live with. After all, I don't pay anything
to post here, & I don't take on any responsibility to run the place. (I'm lazy.)
So any stridency you might perceive doesn't mean I have unmet expectations.
I'm just happy to not be banned...yet!

 

[Alceste]

That happened to me in the Christian DIR, I nearly got an infraction for posting there. They told me that since I am a Gnostic I should not be posting certain statements in that DIR but only limit myself to post respectful questions and I had to explain to them the history of my religion.

So maybe you should explain why you should be allowed to post in the Liberals Only section. But it would be prudent to limit your posting to match the tenor of that section and not to criticize or challenge Liberals

That's a good point. If your entire reason for wanting to post in a DIR is to debate the fundamentals of that subforum's philosophy with the people you find there, you probably don't belong.

When I post in the Christian DIR, I post from the perspective of a woman who was raised in the church, studied the Bible, had a pastor for a father, and still follows a number of moral principles learned in this context, for example "love your neighbour", and "kick over the tables of the money lenders." If I want to ARGUE with Christians, I can have my fill in the Religious Debates section.

 

[Revoltingest]

That happened to me in the Christian DIR, I nearly got an infraction for posting there. They told me that since I am a Gnostic I should not be posting certain statements in that DIR but only limit myself to post respectful questions and I had to explain to them the history of my religion.

So maybe you should explain why you should be allowed to post in the Liberals Only section. But it would be prudent to limit your posting to match the tenor of that section and not to criticize or challenge Liberals

No, the definition of "liberal" is limited to the "modern" liberal.
While we have some social liberal views in common, I do not belong.
It's purple, so that means even respectful questions are prohibited.
Were it green, I'd post there. I think our forum here should be green.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

True, but violence is a common tool of revolution.
There's usually someone with a powdered wig who needs more holes.

Hey, on a distantly related note....have you felt the urge to shoot stuff yet?

Left libertarianism doesn't share the idea that the initiation of force is always wrong. That's something peculiar to the right-wing American form of libertarianism. Some of us are pacifists and some of us promote violent revolutionary means.

Insurrectionary anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Alceste]

Still, what I experience is a huge change in practice.
I was accepted in the liberal forum. Now I get the boot.
I was very directly told to leave the feminist forum. Now I have no trouble.

I also understand that more changes are being considered.

Note: Whatever you guys do, I'll live with. After all, I don't pay anything
to post here, & I don't take on any responsibility to run the place. (I'm lazy.)
So any stridency you might perceive doesn't mean I have unmet expectations.
I'm happy to not be banned yet!

When we first created the feminist subforum, you were bombarding us with exactly the same semantic nonsense that was derailing all the open threads about feminism and was the whole reason for creating it.

Now you are posting photos of exceptional historical women. So you're not being given the bum's rush, because we value that contribution to the discussion.

Perhaps it isn't the definitions that are tripping you up, but the non-confrontational spirit of the whole DIR concept.

 

[Revoltingest]

When we first created the feminist subforum, you were bombarding us with exactly the same semantic nonsense that was derailing all the open threads about feminism and was the whole reason for creating it.

For you, "nonsense" is anything you disagree with, & those are the posts you notice the most.
You're usually blind to areas of agreement, or prone to extreme misunderstanding of people's posts.

Now you are posting photos of exceptional historical women. So you're not being given the bum's rush, because we value that contribution to the discussion.

Before, the stated rule (by you, in fact) was that one had to identify as a "feminist", & that it was not enuf to believe in gender equality. The new rule does not require identification....rather, it states the movement's goals, all of which I share. If you like my current posts, it's because that is the hot thread at the moment....there's nothing controversial in it. If you believe that feminists should all agree, & that there are no arguments, well....you have a very different view of it than I.

Perhaps it isn't the definitions that are tripping you up, but the non-confrontational spirit of the whole DIR concept.

Perhaps you just don't fully understand the rule changes & their consequences, eh?
You should've noticed that many of the restricted forums still have confrontations, eg, yours
in this one. "Restricted" does not mean we should not disagree. It's about preventing outsiders
challenging the fundamentals & derailing discussions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You two need to kiss and make up.

 

[Alceste]

For you, "nonsense" is anything you disagree with, & those are the posts you notice the most.
You're usually blind to areas of agreement, or prone to extreme misunderstanding of people's posts.

Before, the stated rule (by you, in fact) was that one had to identify as a "feminist", & that it was not enuf to believe in gender equality. The new rule does not require identification....rather, it states the movement's goals, all of which I share. If you like my current posts, it's because that is the hot thread at the moment....there's nothing controversial in it. If you believe that feminists should all agree, & that there are no arguments, well....you have a very different view of it than I.

Perhaps you just don't fully understand the rule changes & their consequences, eh?
You should've noticed that many of the restricted forums still have confrontations, eg, yours
in this one. "Restricted" does not mean we should not disagree.

Well, if you don't identify as a feminist, what are you doing posting in the feminist DIR? Here I thought you'd had a change of heart.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if you don't identify as a feminist, what are you doing posting in the feminist DIR? Here I thought you'd had a change of heart.

I meet the new definition now, & I post where I feel like posting.
Why do you post there....or here?

It seems that a lot of people are posting in previously unexpected places.
Are you intending to become a gate keeper to keep forums pure?

 

[Alceste]

I meet the new definition now, & I post where I feel like posting.
Why do you post there....or here?

I post here because I am a libertarian, and there because I am a feminist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Now kith!!! Or I'll run you over and shoot at you!

ROTFL!

 

[Revoltingest]

I post here because I am a libertarian, and there because I am a feminist.

The rules don't require you to "be" anything.
They do give examples of what you can be though.
All one must do is fit the rules, which are based upon beliefs.

Conspiracy alert:
I suspect they'll change the rules to get rid of me.
These restricted forums have a social club feel to them.
Even the libertarians have been calling me "poopy head" lately.
I'll have to start a "Socially Awkward Geezer" forum to find a home.

 

[Alceste]

Now kith!!! Or I'll run you over and shoot at you!

ROTFL!

OK, OK. Pucker up Rev, I'm coming for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I....am....speechless....relatively.

 

[Alceste]

The rules don't require you to "be" anything.
They do give examples of what you can be though.
All one must do is fit the rules, which are based upon beliefs.

Meh, I see them as definitions, not rules. I fit a very large number of great definitions. Together, they make up a large part of what it means to "be" Alceste. Anarchist, feminist, stoic, libertarian, secular humanist, atheist, mystic, musician, wife, sister, grip, contemplative, apophatic, Taoist and more. I "am" all of those things, to the extent that "being" has any real meaning.