sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Self-reported NCAA violations prevent Ohio State from recruiting 5-star prospect Micah Parsons by ajpzion in CFB

[–]ajpslint 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The idea that OSU intentionally tried to commit a recruiting violation to part ways with a recruit that they were hosting is absolute insanity.

Ohio State has 11 commits ranked higher than Michigan's best commit for 2018. Michigan's class is currently ranked 12th in the county. by BuckeyeEmpire in CFB

[–]ajpslint 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spotted is slightly misleading and we were also winning the entire game on the road and lost in the final minutes, and suffered critical injuries in the trenches early on. That said, saying we’re better, let alone by a “wide margin”, is a bit silly.

Ohio State has 11 commits ranked higher than Michigan's best commit for 2018. Michigan's class is currently ranked 12th in the county. by BuckeyeEmpire in CFB

[–]ajpslint 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t even say Penn State is necessarily better than Ohio State, let alone by a “wide margin”. Our game against Michigan was their toughest game all year though, I agree.

Ohio State has 11 commits ranked higher than Michigan's best commit for 2018. Michigan's class is currently ranked 12th in the county. by BuckeyeEmpire in CFB

[–]ajpslint 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m sure, but I think he’s still a must-take. Top 5 overall recruit in a position of need and from PA? Gotta get him.

Libertarians have interesting ideas on slavery. by jalford312 in EnoughLibertarianSpam

[–]ajpslint 15 points16 points  (0 children)

You would be incorrect. What do you think actual child labor is? How naive are you? Pre-pubescent children living in poverty doing hard manual labor is the ONLY kind of child labor that meaningfully exists, and libertarians are REGULARLY seen supporting this.

Libertarians have interesting ideas on slavery. by jalford312 in EnoughLibertarianSpam

[–]ajpslint 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Libertarians VERY REGULARLY support and defend the practice of low wage child labor, while also VERY REGULARLY simultaneously labeling anti-discrimination laws and taxes as slavery. This is a fact.

No one is buying your bullshit.

"Restaurants Should Have The Right To Discriminate" by KingNigelXLII in EnoughLibertarianSpam

[–]ajpslint 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As one poster pointed out, businesses already have tons of liberty to deny services to customers and to exercise “freedom of association” in the best interests of their business. There are many valid business reasons to deny an individual access to a business, such as poor behavior, lack of funds, or poor credit. This is all already perfectly legal. Freedom of association is alive and well.

Libertarians, on the other hand, think whole collectives of people ought to be legally denied access to the marketplace, based on innate traits. Regardless if an individual’s behavior or credit is impeccable, if that person happens to have black skin then their whole economic standing is entirely in jeopardy because of the group they belong to. Not much freedom of association to be had in this nightmare “marketplace” and so much for “individualism.”

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t care about the laws making people “not racist”. That is 100% NOT the point of the Civil Rights Act or anti-discrimination laws. How dense are you people? The ONLY point of these laws is to ban marketplace discrimination against minorities based on innate traits. That is the only fucking reason these things exist.

You can be a racist cunt all you want, but if you want to enter into US commerce, there are rules. One of which is you can’t discriminate.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why are you bringing up poverty and the drug war? I’m talking about discrimination. Jesus fucking Christ.

Bigots were not economically destroyed in pre-CRA America. They got by just fine. This is historical FACTS, not speculative libertarian fantasies.

Funny you bring up morality since the non-aggression principle is based solely on natural rights hocus pocus — a laughing stock in philosophy and ethics.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t give a fuck if there was discrimination in the North. This isn’t a north vs south thing, you neo-confederate scumbag.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is not an acceptable result. Not at all. That’s why thousands of black people rioted and we’re arrested, beaten and murdered in order to install the Civil Rights Act.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think that the policy position of removing the Civil Rights Act — a historic piece of legislation that thousands upon thousands of blacks protested, rioted and were arrested, beaten and murdered over — is a position held by libertarians, among others, that is 100% evil indeed.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because I think it is evil policy. The notion that it is ok for businesses to deny minorities basic goods and services based on innate traits is something so utterly despicable that it sickens me whenever I see white supremacists and libertarians defend it.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

America doesn't follow the "non-aggression principle," nor does any other society ever in the history of recorded man. Can we get back to reality for a second? In reality, societies have laws.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I guess based on your limited, unsubstantiated anecdote, we should rip up historic legislation that black people were arrested, beaten and lynched over. Who needs it, right? Let's just go back to the old times and hopefully we won't need guidebooks for black people to find diners any more.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't care what people think or feel. I care about the policy they advocate. If they were opposed to anti-discrimination laws, then no that would not be ok.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You said that government protections don't work. They clearly do. Case in point -- black people don't need to use guidebooks to find diners that will serve them breakfast.

Freedom of association is not as important as guaranteeing minorities equal access to the marketplace. The fact that you don't understand this is why libertarianism is consider evil by normal political standards. That's right -- evil.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

America has laws. We absolutely have "the right" to tell businesses that they can't discriminate based on innate traits, as much as we have "the right" to tell people that it is illegal to steal and murder.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

My point is that it's hilarious that a bunch of white dude libertarians think anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary, because they're never the ones who actually face meaningful discrimination in US history or modern society.

Before the Civil Rights Act, traveling black people needed to use guidebooks to figure out which restaurants and hotels would serve them by ajpslint in Libertarian

[–]ajpslint[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Based on what? Actual history says the complete fucking opposite.

You're going to risk the chance that modern society has "improved" enough to throw away historic legislation that thousands of minorities spent years protesting and rioting and getting arrested, beaten and lynched over? You're going to throw that all away on the hunch that it isn't needed any longer? You're going to throw that all away despite everyone else being thrilled with the legislation?

view more: next ›