Chainsaw M Linden Gets The Chop – Philip Linden Steps In
by Pixeleen Mistral on 25/06/10 at 11:26 am
Linden Lab CEO M Linden is stepping down, after axing 30% of the Lab’s staff in recent weeks and pulling a surprise no-show for his speech at the Second Life 7th Birthday celebration. Philip Linden has been named interim CEO in a move that raised the hopes of residents with short memories, but left those who recall the reign of king Philip un-moved — and brought frowns to the faces of those who realize the Lab’s board of directors have signed off on the Lab’s questionable strategies over the last few years. Philip Linden is the chairman of the Linden Lab board.
M Linden land offline permanently?
Funeral arrangements for M Linden’s avatar’s remains are uncertain. The Linden mass grave in Rouge sim would seem to be an obvious choice for a memorial, but when asked for comment sim owner CodeBastard Redgrave was concerned about possible griefing.
Pixeleen Mistral: do you have a headstone for M Linden yet?
CodeBastard Redgrave: lol not yet.. think he deserves one?
Pixeleen Mistral: why not? it will be interesting to see what sort of gifts the residents leave by it
CodeBastard Redgrave: or get my sim griefed lmao
CodeBastard Redgrave: but i’m thinking about it, honestly. he was not such a bad guy, he just had a dirty job to do.
The immediate impact of the return of Philip Linden on the L$ market was neutral, and volumes on the LindenX L$ spacebux currency exchange remain low. After dropping significantly in value against the $USD in the last week, the L$ fictional currency seems unlikely to strengthen in the near term.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“I challenge you to come to a libertarian message board with me and present your ideas. Then, I want you to go through and respond to every single response you get in detail. Do you accept my challenge? If not, then your comment above was ridiculous.”
If you’re anything to go by, Libertarians are people who never give up, make loops for those arguing with them to jump through, then just put a solid brick wall a foot beyond that hoop.
In realistic terms, and no offense intended here, you seem like those people who never want to be wrong and literally feel you can trump any argument made towards you. And if you tell em I have no idea what I’m talking about, then it’s your view of me, ’cause I have dealt with people like you before. I’ve seldom, but again, the reason wasn’t because they were necessarily smarter.
“Making an issue out of the fact I don’t respond to ever single point is a red herring and demonstrates the weakness of your case.”
No, it’s not a red herring. No, it’s not a weakness. Why? ‘Cause that wasn’t even an argument, I was just stating the usual preferred type of arguing I generally see most places. But take it how you want.
“ABOUT BOTTLED WATER:”
k, I’m reading/listening.
“Okay, so let me try and illustrate this question about a mega-corporation taking control of the sole water source for a population and how a free market would overcome that.”
Decent start. Taking note of “sole water source”.
“Well, first off, this is a rather unlikely scenario. It’s possible, but we’d have to assume that this was a city in the middle of the desert. And, of course, once its citizens can’t afford to live there because the price of water is so high, they’d move. That would put the corporation out of business. That’s but one scenario of how this company’s actions would be self-destructive.”
And then we moved on to a very unlikely event, but you did admit that it was unlikely. Indeed, the large corporation would be damning their own business if they did things that way. Now let’s see…
Now, the large corporation wouldn’t just keep the prices hiked unless they were idiots. And I doubt they are if they built that corporation from the ground up into a large one, in a populace in the middle of a desert no less. They could sell it cheaper and the quantity would not be much of a problem depending on how large and abundant the source is, and if it’s just a single town and they managed to build themselves in that town from the ground up on selling water, I doubt the source is going to dwindle any time soon.
There are other things I could go into, such as how they would leave depending on the size of the desert, but…..that’d just be complicating the primary focus of the hypothetical situation.
“But let’s try another scenario like the one above, equally fantastic. There are two cities and a company builds a road between them. And this is 1895, so there are no airplanes. What if the company controlled this only road and charged fees that people could barely afford? You ask me how a competing company would break their monopoly.”
Then we strayed from the specific idea of the water. Now, not trying to get into things here, but another scenario, and one I occasionally thought of ever since We brought that up: A normal town, in the middle of a civilization(say, the U.S.). A large corporation that sold water moderately cheaply across at least a few cities. How would someone start a business up from the ground and usurp that corporation? I’m not gonna demand you answer that, but that one particular thought has crossed my mind a few times.
As for your scenario, my attention is slightly divided in thought a bit here, but the first thing that comes to my mind is a small contractor COULD make a couple of side roads. If that company controlled only the road, and not much else in the city, there is very little they can do to stop a smaller group from building roads between the two cities. Now, if this corporation owned the land the road went across and a bit of the surrounding land, that’d be a bit of a problem, but then this small group could just make a few roads that aren’t near that one large road.
In the end, a few could be built by other groups that had a profession in construction and they could be free to cross.
“Well, I don’t know what innovations will come along, but I’m sure given the freedom to get rich coming up with a solution, that hundreds of minds will have a huge incentive to create a solution to this problem.”
I’d just try for a solution so people wouldn’t have to pay. I don’t care for screwing people over to get rich.
“So, a couple bicycle shop owners, brothers, create a flying machine. If I lived in this scenario, I cant’ imagine how the problem would be solved. I could only tell you that hundreds of minds, free from impediments to pursuing economic gain, would be working to solve the problem. And without regulations undermining their own self-determination, someone would come up with the solution.”
Wait…….okay, maybe I’m not reading this one correctly. How would two brothers creating a flying machine be a problem to the economy? You mean if they and they alone controlled it and all money going into it, such as the money paid by people to buy them?
“So, in your water scenario, I don’t know what innovations would be created to solve them. I just know that at one time it was pretty wacky idea that people could use a plane to break a road monopoly. But people do fly these days.”
So…….you can’t answer the water question very accurately is what you’re saying?
“And so, maybe someone would create the innovation to ship water far cheaper, or at least cheap enough to compete, in your water scenario. It’s about freeing the human potential.”
Well, someone could. Cheap enough to compete yeah.
“The problem with We — and many of you for that matter — you don’t believe in human potential. You see people as weak and greedy. So, you seek control over them, which undermines their their own self-determination and limits innovation. Economies stagnate and fall, and you get rid of all that unequal distribution of wealth under capitalistic societies, only to replace it with an equal distribution of poverty.”
I’ve read a lot of what We has said, and I don’t see him as a guy who has no faith in humanity as a whole and a guy who thinks all people are evil and greedy, I think that he just views capitalists and capitalists. The tests he explained about weren’t to show that people are evil, they were to explain a concept of authority to you that has been experimented on constantly, and you still claim that it’s something different when We himself told you otherwise.
We never said he wanted to control people. I don’t want to control people. Also, I don’t see why what you’re thinking We said applies to me and a lot of people here either. We doesn’t speak for everyone, and as what has been said, that’s not even what he himself meant.
“I hope that answers your question.”
Sorta kinda. Also:
“I’m the sole challenger to the dominant paradigm here.”
There…..really isn’t a dominant paradigm here. I’ve just seen you make counter-arguments towards anyone that dared make any arguments towards you.
We
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Persephone
“So, in your water scenario, I don’t know what innovations would be created to solve them. I just know that at one time it was pretty wacky idea that people could use a plane to break a road monopoly. But people do fly these days.”
And there’s the main evangelical belief that is the lynch pin of your pseudo-religious Libertarian thought: SOMEONE will do something. John Galt will save us! It’s against all logic, reason, and evidence, but you simply BELIEVE that it will happen.
“The problem with We — and many of you for that matter — you don’t believe in human potential. You see people as weak and greedy. So, you seek control over them, which undermines their their own self-determination and limits innovation. Economies stagnate and fall, and you get rid of all that unequal distribution of wealth under capitalistic societies, only to replace it with an equal distribution of poverty.”
Seeing people as greedy? Very true, I never mentioned anything about being weak however. You know who else sees people as greedy? One of the founders of libertarian thought: Ayn Rand. Who in Atlas Shrugged, espoused human greed as one of the greatest virtues of humanity. All your love of the human potential? Founded by greed. Why would someone think of ways to overcome the road monopoly in your example? It’s obvious: to save money not paying the road tax, or to get rich getting around it. Both thought fueled by greed. The only difference is, while your founders and your belief system sees greed as a virtue, I see it as a vice.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
capitalists as capitalists
I’ve seldom won, but again, the reason wasn’t because they were necessarily smarter.
Curse typos.
We
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Persephone
“I challenge you to come to a libertarian message board with me and present your ideas. Then, I want you to go through and respond to every single response you get in detail. Do you accept my challenge? If not, then your comment above was ridiculous.”
This is a neutral website that has neither libertarian or anti-libertarian bias, on an article that has nothing to do with free markets or libertarianism. It started out with just me debating against you and IntLibber. Then IntLibber left and it was just me and you, now it’s Gaara and I debating you. You consider the equal opposite of this situation to be to go to a highly libertarian biased website, and pit one to two people against however many hundred libertarians are actively there?
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara “In the end, a few could be built by other groups that had a profession in construction and they could be free to cross.”
That’d be competition.
“I’d just try for a solution so people wouldn’t have to pay. I don’t care for screwing people over to get rich.”
In a free market society, your motivations would be irrelevant. Whatever drove you to create, you’d be free to do so.
“How would two brothers creating a flying machine be a problem to the economy?”
It was a reference to the Wright Brothers, inventors of the Kitty Hawk.
“So…….you can’t answer the water question very accurately is what you’re saying?”
I’m saying that I don’t know what solution would be created, but in a free market economy, one would come up. Regulations would impede the creative process.
“”I’ve read a lot of what We has said, and I don’t see him as a guy who has no faith in humanity ”
I would argue that indeed he views people as easy to exploit. Translation: People are evil and exploitative or weak and exploited.
“We never said he wanted to control people.”
That’s what regulations do. They tell you what you can and can’t do. That’s control.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@We “John Galt will save us! It’s against all logic, reason, and evidence, but you simply BELIEVE that it will happen.”
Wrong. I’ve used examples from Texas to India to show that deregulation creates wealth and prosperity. I’ve also linked to several studies and articles illustrating my point, which you refused to read, because you said they’re too biased.
You BELIEVE. I back up my beliefs with real world examples.
“One of the founders of libertarian thought: Ayn Rand”
I’m not a big Ayn Rand fan. So you can refute her arguments to one of her followers. I’m not and disagree with her principles on many levels. We just both agree in free market principles.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@We “This is a neutral website that has neither libertarian or anti-libertarian bias, on an article that has nothing to do with free markets or libertarianism”
Oh, please. It’s a liberal echo chamber that at times borders on cartoonish in its slavish devotion to “capitalism is the root of all evil” ideals.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@We “If each state has more power than the federal government, they don’t have to officially secede, it’s already happened by default.”
No, a state with rights is not a sovereign nation. Get a political education. I don’t have time to explain to you the difference between sovereign nations and independent administrative units.
“And we’ve been getting more regulations since the early 1800s, when we had as close to Free Market as America ever got, and we realized as a nation that “oh fuck, corporations are evil.””
Actually, as I pointed out early, Bush W. was the biggest regulator of them all. So, no, your facts are simply wrong here. I linked to articles to demonstrate this.
“Again you’re quoting biased libertarian websites instead of stating your views, do you not understand your own libertarian beliefs, or are they completely decided by these websites?”
I’m citing my sources as opposed to making shit up as I go along as you do.
And that’s all of this post I’m going to read. tldr
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“It was a reference to the Wright Brothers, inventors of the Kitty Hawk.”
Yeah, I know that much. But if I recall wasn’t that a good thing for the economy? Eventually?
“I’m saying that I don’t know what solution would be created, but in a free market economy, one would come up. Regulations would impede the creative process.”
So We is right and your belief is that something will always happen to save the economy?
“would argue that indeed he views people as easy to exploit. Translation: People are evil and exploitative or weak and exploited.”
That’s the translation your mind received. I’m not a liberal, a libertarian, a democrat, a republican, I’m none of those. And even I got a completely different translation from what he said. Now the real question is which translation is more or less accurate. We himself could answer that because he’s said that’s not what he meant, but you insisted it was.
“That’s what regulations do. They tell you what you can and can’t do. That’s control.”
But We isn’t a regulation. He’s a person.
“Oh, please. It’s a liberal echo chamber that at times borders on cartoonish in its slavish devotion to “capitalism is the root of all evil” ideals.”
Actually, no it’s not. At most it was filled at times with conversations on views of how LL was/still is screwing themselves over.
And like I said, I’m not a liberal. Not everyone here is. Why do you think such things?
:/
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“I’m citing my sources as opposed to making shit up as I go along as you do.”
We cited sources. Even if eh didn’t, he has clearly named events he spoke of and surely they could be searched up and found as real. I have very rarely seen him make shit up, if ever, so far.
We
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Persephone
“I would argue that indeed he views people as easy to exploit. Translation: People are evil and exploitative or weak and exploited.”
I would argue that I know my views better than you do. Especially since you’re tacking on “evil” and “weak” which are terms I never used in reference to people. I think people are exploitable, not necessarily easy too.
“That’s what regulations do. They tell you what you can and can’t do. That’s control.”
Then you want to control people too, unless you’re saying that there should be no laws whatsoever. Otherwise you’re telling people they can’t murder and can’t rape. That’s control. I’m not advocating either, simply pointing out the absurdity and hypocrisy of attributing me with a “desire to control” because of regulations.
“Wrong. I’ve used examples from Texas to India to show that deregulation creates wealth and prosperity. I’ve also linked to several studies and articles illustrating my point, which you refused to read, because you said they’re too biased.
You BELIEVE. I back up my beliefs with real world examples.”
Are you serious? Am I being punk’d? You can’t be for real. You linked to a number of libertarian biased site’s op-ed pieces, you provided “evidence” (from no actual sources, I assume you simply made it up or read it in a libertarian op-ed piece) which I proved wrong with actual statistics, you’ve brought up your Libertarian revisionist history of how America works which I extensively proved wrong (to your reading annoyance). I backed up many of my statements with proof, scientific studies, all from non-biased resources, which you refused to believe.
The core of your belief, as you said yourself, is someone will do something about it, with no actual evidence that this will or even could happen in the dystopian free-market nightmare society you’d like to inflict on the world.
“I’m not a big Ayn Rand fan. So you can refute her arguments to one of her followers. I’m not and disagree with her principles on many levels. We just both agree in free market principles.”
Is that your shrug off to my point? Libertarianism is based on a lot of Objectivist ideas. In fact, the “utopia” created at the end of Atlas Shrugged, seems to be the exact same ideal that you’ve been weaving throughout this. And that was a utopia created with Greed as the founding principle. Whether you like it or not, greed is the foundation of Libertarian thought. The only difference is, Libertarians believe that human greed can be used to bring about the greatest good.
“Oh, please. It’s a liberal echo chamber that at times borders on cartoonish in its slavish devotion to “capitalism is the root of all evil” ideals.”
Where the hell do you get that from? It’s a silly blog about an online world focusing on getting the most drama possible because it gets the most attention, and therefore the most money. In a lot of ways, it’s the product of capitalist thought, it’s not about the news here, it’s about getting hits any way possible so that they can get advertising and thus get more money.
Either way, this article has nothing to do with libertarianism, so you can hardly equate the opposite of this environment to being a libertarian forum. It’s been 2 v 1, 1 v 1, and 1 v 2 here. Either stop complaining or leave.
“No, a state with rights is not a sovereign nation. Get a political education. I don’t have time to explain to you the difference between sovereign nations and independent administrative units.”
Oh? Then what happens the first time the weaker federal government disagrees on a core issue with a stronger state government? All authority is derived at base from force, if the federal government can’t enforce their status as top of the food chain, then they get knocked off. If each state government is stronger than the federal government, they may be officially part of one country the USA, but unofficially the federal government can’t force them to do anything.
“Actually, as I pointed out early, Bush W. was the biggest regulator of them all. So, no, your facts are simply wrong here. I linked to articles to demonstrate this.”
You linked to libertarian op-ed pieces, not proof or evidence. All it proved is that your thoughts on all these subjects seem to be completely decided by whatever reason.com writes.
“I’m citing my sources as opposed to making shit up as I go along as you do.”
If by making shit up you mean quoting historical facts and scientific studies, then yes I am. Simply because you don’t read it, doesn’t mean it’s not true. P.S.: a Libertarian biased opinion piece is not a source. Your delusions know no bounds.
“And that’s all of this post I’m going to read. tldr”
They have pills for ADD now, you should look into it. But while you’re at it, think about how you couldn’t read a few paragraphs of my text, and then you expect me to read websites full of your garbage.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@We “If by making shit up you mean quoting historical facts and scientific studies, then yes I am.”
You cited two pop psychology experiments that you could learn in any first year college pysch course. Almost everything else was from the source:
Stuff I Believe to be True by We
I, on the other hand, cited numerous studies. While some of the pieces were op-ed, those pieced cited other studies to back up their conclusions.
I also provided examples from India to California to the New York Islands.
You had two mainstream psychology references.
You believe what you believe because it’s what you believe. I believe what I believe through study and research well beyond freshman college courses.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@ Gaara
No, We cited few sources other than a couple psych experiments, and the anti-trust against AT&T.
I had numerous links to studies and articles, all of which were verifiable so that one could see the validity of my claims.
So, no. We citation skills are sadly limited.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
Like I said, a lot of what he has said is stuff that is true and factual. Read, pl0x.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara “So We is right and your belief is that something will always happen to save the economy?”
No, it’s that deregulation strangles creativity, which prevents innovation, which stagnates economies. Understand now?
“But We isn’t a regulation. He’s a person.”
He’s the representative of regulations in this conversation. And he’s not a person. He’s an idiot.
“Actually, no it’s not. At most it was filled at times with conversations on views of how LL was/still is screwing themselves over.”
From a leftist point of view.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“No, We cited few sources other than a couple psych experiments, and the anti-trust against AT&T.
I had numerous links to studies and articles, all of which were verifiable so that one could see the validity of my claims.
So, no. We citation skills are sadly limited.”
As I said, just ’cause it’s not cited does not mean he pulled it out of his ass.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara “Like I said, a lot of what he has said is stuff that is true and factual. Read, pl0x.”
Yes, but they were hardly the standards of citations I’ve provided.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“He’s the representative of regulations in this conversation. And he’s not a person. He’s an idiot.”
He never agreed to be considered such in this conversation. Both of these claims of him are views of your own mind and belief. Not fact.
“From a leftist point of view.”
Which I am not. So it’s not entirely from a leftist point of view.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“Yes, but they were hardly the standards of citations I’ve provided.”
So because you can cite better you’re arguments are better? Such a libertarian view. I would never have imagined. O:
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@ We “Libertarianism is based on a lot of Objectivist ideas.”
No it’s not. Learn what it’s about before making silly statements like this.
“Where the hell do you get that from? ”
You for example.
“hen what happens the first time the weaker federal government disagrees on a core issue with a stronger state government? All authority is derived at base from force, if the federal government can’t enforce their status as top of the food chain, then they get knocked off.”
Obviously, duh. I never argued that states had more power. I argue that they have much more deferred power. That’s what states rights means, and I don’t have time to educated you on these matters.
“You linked to libertarian op-ed pieces, not proof or evidence.”
I liked to articles that backed up my claims. You refused to accept them because you knew I was making very solid arguments and backing up my claims with facts and data. Again, you got nothing but stuff you believe to be true.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara “As I said, just ’cause it’s not cited does not mean he pulled it out of his ass.”
Yes, he did.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“Yes, he did.”
No, he didn’t. God this is turning childish. He provided factual information and in your eyes just because they have no citations they are random non-important things he made up? Get your head out of your ass.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara “God this is turning childish.”
Then….
“Get your head out of your ass.”
Well, at least you’re above it all.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara
I have to wonder when someone starts defending an opponent so vigorously if there isn’t sock puppetry going on here.
We
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Persephone
“You cited two pop psychology experiments that you could learn in any first year college pysch course.”
Actually I cited five. And their status as “pop psychology” doesn’t make them any less true or intriguing. They’re “pop” because they stunned the psychological community.
“Almost everything else was from the source: Stuff I Believe to be True by We”
Would that include AT&T and Microsoft’s Monopoly, information on the Industrial Revolution and the laws made, and statistics about India and it’s poverty levels? The fact that you can’t even think of any more than 2 of the numerous statistical and factual examples I gave says a lot about your comprehension and reading level.
“I, on the other hand, cited numerous studies. While some of the pieces were op-ed, those pieced cited other studies to back up their conclusions.”
Does numerous different articles from Reason.com count as “numerous sources” now? Why can’t you cite these studies?
“I also provided examples from India to California to the New York Islands”
You never backed up anything besides one article from BBC which was as unbiased as you got, which actually disagreed with your general idea, saying that the untouchable class was still subject to rape, murder, and other prejudices. I debated and provided proof against your statistics in india, claiming that half of the population had risen from poverty due to free market, when really since 1973 only 14% of the population had risen above the international poverty line.
“You had two mainstream psychology references.”
Five. And others references to historical laws and facts.
“You believe what you believe because it’s what you believe. I believe what I believe through study and research well beyond freshman college courses.”
Reading nothing but libertarian fueled websites doesn’t count as “study and research”, I don’t suppose you’ve noticed that I quoted Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, despite me being opposed to the philosophy of Libertarianism that she founded. Curious how I know this stuff? Because I read all of the over a thousand pages of that monstrosity. I did it to understand other sources of thought, I’ve done this for multiple writings and other source of information, I’ve even seen that Penn & Teller’s Bullshit show you love so much. None of this was a part of a “freshman college course”.
I don’t have liberal, conservative, communist, libertarian, or any thought bias as such, at best I’m a trans-humanist.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@We “And their status as “pop psychology” doesn’t make them any less true or intriguing.”
And my citations from magazines devoted to a libertarian-leaning audience doesn’t make them any less true or intriguing. If they are “twisting” facts, can you demonstrate this? I’d love to see it.
“and statistics about India and it’s poverty levels?”
And I cited a study showing how much poverty has diminished in India thanks to deregulation.
“Does numerous different articles from Reason.com count as “numerous sources” now? Why can’t you cite these studies?”
In some cases I did cite the actual studies. In some cases I referred to the articles. Again, if the articles are not factual, why can’t you demonstrate this?
“You never backed up anything besides one article from BBC which was as unbiased as you got, which actually disagreed with your general idea, saying that the untouchable class was still subject to rape, murder, and other prejudices.”
Yes, things are still bad for them. But that class standard is being challenged. This never happened when the country was under massive regulations that kept it mired in poverty.
“Reading nothing but libertarian fueled websites doesn’t count as “study and research”, ”
I have an MA in Communication and Social Justice from the University of Windsor in Ontario, Canada. I studied Marxist based cultural theory extensively. And it was from the study I began to question leftist thinking. That led me to libertarian and other free market sources of information. And they made arguments I found compelling, especially in light of my in depth study of Marxism.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
It’s funny. For a balanced publication, where are all these people that aren’t agreeing with everyone here? I mean, besides me.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“I have to wonder when someone starts defending an opponent so vigorously if there isn’t sock puppetry going on here.”
I do not know We online, irl, and if you can manage to check, you’ll see our IP addresses are different here, and so are our email addresses(I almost never use a proxy or anything to change it so don’t even start with that).
I am not defending him vigorously because I like him(I can’t fully say I do but that again is not personal), because I hate you(or anyone, hating people over internet arguments is stupid), or for any personal reason. I agree with what he’s saying more than with what you are and I just can’t come to see how simple shit you say and think such as most of what he says being pulled out of his ass just because of lack of citations as being completely correct and right, as you seem to think everything you are saying is.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Gaara “you’ll see our IP addresses are different here”
I don’t know how to do that. I’ll take your word for it. But from now on, if We wants to defend himself, I’ll respond. I won’t respond to you defending him. Tag team all you want, but I’ll ignore the comments.
We
Jul 2nd, 2010
@Persephone
“And my citations from magazines devoted to a libertarian-leaning audience doesn’t make them any less true or intriguing. If they are “twisting” facts, can you demonstrate this? I’d love to see it.”
Provide it that MSNBC and CNN are twisting them, like you earlier tried to state. Would you treat it any differently if I started backing up everything I wrote by linking to an article on CNN or some fervently anti-libertarian website and demanding you read it, then treating it as complete proof? Why can’t you formulate your own ideas?
“And it was from the study I began to question leftist thinking. That led me to libertarian and other free market sources of information. And they made arguments I found compelling, especially in light of my in depth study of Marxism.”
Congratulations in going from one extreme to another. Extremes never work, corporations, government, etc. are all great, but too little and too much and it goes wrong. Everything in moderation.
“It’s funny. For a balanced publication, where are all these people that aren’t agreeing with everyone here? I mean, besides me.”
This sentence doesn’t really make sense, so I’m not sure what you’re saying. But I didn’t say it was balanced, I said, in regards to libertarianism, it’s neutral.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 2nd, 2010
“It’s funny. For a balanced publication, where are all these people that aren’t agreeing with everyone here? I mean, besides me.”
I don’t agree with Father Jones but that’s because he just comes in here and rants and raves about SL gambling and how damned horrible it is. I partially agree with some of the stuff Intlibber says but that depends on my scrutiny of it. I don’t agree with Unfixible because he just pops in to rant and rave about WU whenever WU is mentioned. I don’t agree with a lot of people besides you. We didn’t agree with Intlibber, Kiddoh didn’t agree with Unfixible. Goddamn, Percy. Don’t you read these articles?
“I don’t know how to do that. I’ll take your word for it. But from now on, if We wants to defend himself, I’ll respond. I won’t respond to you defending him. Tag team all you want, but I’ll ignore the comments.”
ya know, I’ll bet here and now if I WAS on one of your libertarian websites and was arguing with you and several other libertarians and finally said “fuck it, I’ll respond to Percy but I’m ignoring the supporters because I feel I’m being tag teamed”, you’d call bullshit.
Therefore, I say this: I call bullshit.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 3rd, 2010
@We “Provide it that MSNBC and CNN are twisting them, like you earlier tried to state.”
No I didn’t. I said they’re full of shit, which could be construed to say they twist facts. No, they don’t. They present facts from a point of certain point of view that I consider bullshit. If you were to cite your facts from their articles, I would scrutinize them, assuming there weren’t 20 articles to read or they weren’t 10 pages long.
I help you out in most cases by taking essential quotes out. Saves time, you know?
“Everything in moderation.”
Especially moderation.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 3rd, 2010
@Gaara “I’ll bet here and now if I WAS on one of your libertarian websites and was arguing with you and several other libertarians and finally said “fuck it, I’ll respond to Percy but I’m ignoring the supporters because I feel I’m being tag teamed”, you’d call bullshit.”
No, I wouldn’t. And I didn’t say I wouldn’t respond to you. I won’t respond to your defenses of We. And if he ever took it upon himself to defend you, the same will apply. But feel free to make to defend him all you want. I just won’t be reading or responding to the comments.
Oh, and in the highly unlikely event someone comes here and defends me, feel free to ignore their comments. I’ll understand.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 3rd, 2010
Hey, you don’t say I’m lacking in my argument because of ignoring your supporter’s arguments I don’t mind.
We
Jul 3rd, 2010
@Persephone
“They present facts from a point of certain point of view that I consider bullshit. If you were to cite your facts from their articles, I would scrutinize them, assuming there weren’t 20 articles to read or they weren’t 10 pages long.
And your libertarian fueled websites are immune to this?
IntLibber Brautigan
Jul 3rd, 2010
Libertarians are not in power and are purposely kept out of power by election laws rigged by the two main parties that keep them off the ballots and out of public debates. Libertarians don’t have a power base to defend with propaganda and disinformation like the right and left do. They don’t have a motivation to bullshit when all they have to do is illuminate the lies of those in power, illustrate their hypocrisies by holding them to their own standards.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 3rd, 2010
@We “And your libertarian fueled websites are immune to this?”
I’m sorry, We. But you are not very bright. You really just don’t understand the difference between bias, and fairness and honesty. There’s certain communications concepts here you’re just not going to comprehend.
When I say CNN presents facts from another point of view, it’s not a bad thing. In fact, it’s human and therefore unavoidable. I also know you don’t understand that the concept of “unbaised news” was borne out of mass production of news. It was a gimmick by which newspapers could be sold across numerous demographics. Only later did the concept rise to a virtue that journalists are suppose to live by.
Well, over time, that virtue became a way to disguise viewpoints and lend them unearned credibility by appearing objective. I think it’s dishonest. Just as it was at least intellectually dishonest for you to claim you like unbiased news, only to be unable to provide an example of such.
So, I have no problem with CNN presenting things from a certain point of view. Because you leftists are sympathetic to issues like gay marriage, I get my news on those topics from CNN. FOX is unreliable for that topic, while being far more reliable in business news. Neither are worth a shit at covering the war on drugs or immigration. So, I have no problem with their biases. I just wish they’d stop pretending to be balanced. Like all news, they’re simply not.
With so many sources of information out there, from alternative newspapers, to blogs, to satellite radio, there’s simply no reason for sources to be biased. We should place the digestion of information back in the hands of the consumers. Make people think for themselves.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 3rd, 2010
@ Gaara “Hey, you don’t say I’m lacking in my argument because of ignoring your supporter’s arguments I don’t mind.”
What supporters’ arguments? And we’re not talking about someone coming here, like you, and agreeing with We and supporting his position. You got to defending We personally. We is an under educated drone with a slavish devotion to leftist positions, all stemming from a complete distrust of humanity. And it’s wonderful if you think he’s this great guy with sparkling wit and penchant for articulation. I have no interest in arguing with you about him.
Arguing his position, now. That’s a different story. If you join in, I’ll engage you so long as your reasonably concise.
Dr. Freedom
Jul 3rd, 2010
What’s with all the libertarian stuff? The article isn’t even about all that rubbish. But of course, to libertarians and similar teabagger crybabies there’s never a bad time or inappropriate moment to open their mouths and start bleating and snarling about how much more wonderful and gentle and perfect life would be if there were no laws and no civilization. Why can’t they all just shut up and move to Somalia, which I hear is a libertarian paradise of unlimited personal freedom and total independence from all regulations of any kind. Except the warlords. But if the free and unfettered marketplace of heroic human ambitions wants to produce warlords, who are we to argue?
Actually I was just kidding. I love libertarians. What’s not to love about squalling ingrates who grow up enjoying the benefits of a prosperous society built on free enterprise and the rule of law, appreciation for personal self-determination, and largely peaceful transfers of power…. yet who seethe with inflated righteous indignation when asked to poney up even a single penny to help keep everything running?
Bah. “Libertarian” is just a polite euphemism for coward, traitor and freeloader.
We
Jul 3rd, 2010
@Persephone
“Because you leftists are sympathetic to issues like gay marriage, I get my news on those topics from CNN.”
“We is an under educated drone with a slavish devotion to leftist positions, all stemming from a complete distrust of humanity.”
Are you trying to say I’m a liberal AGAIN? Can your world view not allow someone who disagrees with libertarianism and not be a liberal or something? For someone who accuses me of not being very bright, you have some severe comprehension problems.
“Arguing his position, now. That’s a different story.”
I’m glad you’re trying to make sure this stays on the topic of the debate position and not defending my person, while simultaneously spewing personal attacks and attaching false labels to me.
Pappy Enoch
Jul 3rd, 2010
@Dr. Freedom who done said, “What’s with all the libertarian stuff? The article isn’t even about all that rubbish.”
Librarians ain’t rubbish! In my experience they am hot, Doc. Hoo whee. I could talk about that gal in the Enoch Holler Library all day long. She wears them cat-eye glasses she don’t need, just to look rite forceful.
She wears them Daisy-Duke britches and a halter top an’ makes me call her Miss when she climbs up on them book ladders an’ makes me hand her stuff.
I ain’t gonna say what she done did to me when my book were overdue one time. This am a famberly publickashun.
I reckons librarians am what make the world go round, you rascal.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 3rd, 2010
“What supporters’ arguments? And we’re not talking about someone coming here, like you, and agreeing with We and supporting his position. You got to defending We personally. We is an under educated drone with a slavish devotion to leftist positions, all stemming from a complete distrust of humanity. And it’s wonderful if you think he’s this great guy with sparkling wit and penchant for articulation. I have no interest in arguing with you about him.”
Look. We hmself has constantly said that he’s not like what you keep slandering him as, and that he knows himself better than you. I could say your a childish trolling libertarian who refuses to back down and claims to be the sole voice of dissent whilst just simply attacking everyone here with your pushy economic views.
Does that mean I am the slightest fucking bit right? Of course not. That’s an opinion, and one I don’t push too much here because it’s one of the most childish arguments I could probably ever think up. That’s not even my full view of you in my eyes because this is the internet and I’m pretty damn sure there’s more to you irl than just this. And if there isn’t, then that’s just really sad. But you’re not just carrying an opinion anymore. You’re busting in, ascerting to the fullest as if you believe it’s actual fact, that We is a person who sees humans and pathetic, evil, greedy, weak, and requiring control, and just from what you’ve read him post on a goddamn blog at that, and I’ve been watching and have seen you more than willing to use such slander in your arguments.
I know it’s stupid to get emotionally heated in any internet argument, but I just can’t stand people like that, who believe they can form an opinion of someone else, especially a negative, slanderous opinion, and claim it to be factual truth. And the fact that you’ve done so from simply the text in his arguments against you? And on a blog? That’s even more fucking pathetic.
“What’s with all the libertarian stuff? The article isn’t even about all that rubbish. But of course, to libertarians and similar teabagger crybabies there’s never a bad time or inappropriate moment to open their mouths and start bleating and snarling about how much more wonderful and gentle and perfect life would be if there were no laws and no civilization. Why can’t they all just shut up and move to Somalia, which I hear is a libertarian paradise of unlimited personal freedom and total independence from all regulations of any kind. Except the warlords. But if the free and unfettered marketplace of heroic human ambitions wants to produce warlords, who are we to argue?
Actually I was just kidding. I love libertarians. What’s not to love about squalling ingrates who grow up enjoying the benefits of a prosperous society built on free enterprise and the rule of law, appreciation for personal self-determination, and largely peaceful transfers of power…. yet who seethe with inflated righteous indignation when asked to poney up even a single penny to help keep everything running?
Bah. “Libertarian” is just a polite euphemism for coward, traitor and freeloader.”
Although like I said, opinions are opinions, sir…..I give you a gold star.
Pappy, you also get a gold star. Bravo.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 3rd, 2010
*humans as
Why do I keep making typos.
We
Jul 3rd, 2010
“Librarians ain’t rubbish! In my experience they am hot, Doc. Hoo whee. I could talk about that gal in the Enoch Holler Library all day long. She wears them cat-eye glasses she don’t need, just to look rite forceful.”
That’s about as good a place as any to end this nonsense.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 3rd, 2010
Meh, there’s really no point to continue anyway. If I recall it all started when Father Jones came in and ranted a bit about gambling, then Percy just busted on through and started mowing everything down with her ideals as soon as she saw the chance to transition the article’s topic.
So yeah, stopping here. I’ll still keep up with it all and headdesk when need be but……yeah, there’s no point in trying to reason with Percy.
Gaara Sandalwood
Jul 3rd, 2010
Oh, one final note though. I did some drinking and thinking, and I’m making a Gaara’s Law now: Every time someone accuses Percy of simply acting like a total fuckwit, Percy will commence blabbing about straw men and how their arguments are pure shit.
Persephone Bolero
Jul 4th, 2010
@Gaara “We hmself has constantly said that he’s not like what you keep slandering him as, and that he knows himself better than you.”
What’s really funny is that he insists that since I’m a libertarian, I must adhere to the principles of Ayn Rand. This is the same bullshit you always pull. Someone insults me. I treat them the same. And all you notice is when I do it. When someone you agree with treats me as I treat them, you’re oblivious.
This has nothing to do with anything other than you’re inability to believe that people who side with you are on some higher moral plane. Ain’t no one innocent in this nasty debate, Gaara. And they haven’t been in any previous debate either. And chances are, we’ll be right back here sometime in the future when I lash out at an opponent who’s lashed out at me. And you’ll be there saying, “Why does she always have to lash out at everyone???”
Persephone Bolero
Jul 4th, 2010
@We “Are you trying to say I’m a liberal AGAIN?”
Please give me a label you prefer to generally describe your left-leaning principles. I don’t mean to label you. I have plenty of names to criticize your personal character. But for generalizing your position in referential situations, what would you think best describes it?
You sit there and insist that since I’m libertarian I must adhere to the preachings of the spiritual-less Ayn Rand. And you just don’t accept I have very little affiliation with her, despite being a libertarian. But then I label you a liberal and you react with such self-righteous indignation. Like how dare I label you??
We
Jul 4th, 2010
@Persephone
“You sit there and insist that since I’m libertarian I must adhere to the preachings of the spiritual-less Ayn Rand.”
I only brought up Ayn Rand because her ideas on economy and Free Market are basically identical to your stated ideas, and she’s considered to be one of the founders of Libertarianism. I never suggested you must adhere to her, just that her ideas are considered to be at the core of Libertarian thought. In fact, Ayn Rand’s ideas and Free market society in Atlas Shrugged are completely identical to yours. The difference seeming to be that you believe human ingenuity and inherent human goodness to be the center of it all, while she believes that human ingenuity is fueled by greed, and greed is what fuels the free market society to work. If you wish to disagree with one of the founders of Libertarian thought, that’s fine.
“Please give me a label you prefer to generally describe your left-leaning principles. I don’t mean to label you”
I don’t know what I’ve said that’s “generally left leaning”, since just about every response I’ve made has been in reaction to yours or IntLibber’s Libertarianism; Not my own ideals. Unless being anti-Libertarian is considered being “generally left leaning” but Libertarianism is so vast of a philosophy it can be left, right, center, up, down, communist, fascist, anarchist, etc.
I didn’t react to being called a liberal because you “dare to label me”, I reacted because I’ve twice said now that I’m not, and you’ve twice tried to apply it to me, largely it seems because it fits in with your world view; that those who disagree with Libertarianism are hardcore Liberals. I think a Liberal would have a better view of humanity than I do.
I think no system of government will work perfectly at this scale, largely because of the human factor. I believe that humans were psychologically built to work in tribes and small family groups, and that one of the reasons these huge governments don’t work isn’t a problem with the government but the scale of it, and how that effects the human factor. So I don’t hold any encompassing political beliefs because I don’t think any of them would work, I have opinions on each separate issue, but no combined political agenda to group them all in; sometimes I agree with conservatives, sometimes liberals, sometimes even libertarians. As I said before, I’m at best a trans-humanist, which isn’t a political philosophy, but in a round-a-bout way, summarizes why I don’t think large-scale politics works, and the only way I know to fix it.
Rod Humble: Current SL Players Key to Growth | The Alphaville Herald
Feb 6th, 2011
[...] shoes, but there is some hope that this CEO might fit in better than ex-CEOs "chainsaw" M Linden and Philip "Love Machine" [...]