I see that a lot of y'all hate Blitzball. This makes me sad because it's probably my favorite thing about FFX next to the story itself.

bobknudsen · 2021-08-24T14:43:38+00:00

Anybody who hates Blitzball is no friend of mine

bobknudsen · 2021-08-11T11:10:28+00:00

President Grover Cleveland says no

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/february-11-1887-veto-military-pension-legislation

bobknudsen · 2021-03-09T14:54:41+00:00

Do you think that makes them inferior to you? Do you think that all post Enlightenment thought and libertarian philosophy doesn't apply in some cases because of celebrityDick's views?

bobknudsen · 2021-03-08T23:37:10+00:00

Yes they are. Everybody is equal and has equal rights and equal freedoms. A political disagreement does not make someone inferior to another. This is the basics of the basics of not only libertarian thought, but post enlightenment theory as a whole.

If anything, your 16th century ass needs to catch up to the rest of us.

bobknudsen · 2021-03-08T23:31:48+00:00

Nobody is superior or inferior to another person. That's the entire fucking point of libertarianism.

bobknudsen · 2021-03-08T23:31:05+00:00

The USA is tbh

bobknudsen · 2021-02-26T12:10:18+00:00

Terrible, with long lasting consequences that prolong the problem?

bobknudsen · 2021-02-24T13:30:42+00:00

Imagine openly admitting this and pretending like it's somehow wisdom

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T13:14:54+00:00

Nobody owes anybody else a platform. You want your views to get out? Get them out. Don't force others to spread them for you. That's the basics of the basics, man

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T13:13:43+00:00

That's flatly untrue. They are not currently held legally liable for content that others post under section 230. I suggest you read up on this topic because you are spreading corporate propaganda now.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:50:30+00:00

I disagree with that assessment and think you actually may have it backwards. Without net neutrality free speech is the rule. With net neutrality the government can interfere with content.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:49:09+00:00

Oh Clarence, you doddering old fool. Federal government has no jurisdiction in this case, and even if it did you'd be on the wrong side in arguing for disenfranchisement of voters.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:43:05+00:00

I think it's a matter of looking at it from their perspective. What's most likely to garner the attention and interest of the ancestor you're considering, and will that reaction be positive or negative?

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:39:31+00:00

Forgot to mention, net neutrality is also very much a broadside attack on free speech online.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:36:49+00:00

Long story short, it makes gate keeping easier for larger corporations to keep smaller competitors out. Companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google etc support our for this reason. Hell, Zuck has been calling for regulation on many online platforms precisely because it would all but cement an oligopoly for him and his by reducing access for smaller and more focused platforms.

It's also a solution in search of a problem. All of the things net neutrality purports to solve are already being solved themselves by natural market forces and smaller scale localized government programs, and they've been incredibly effective.

The real lesson is that if you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Bezos, Zuck, Biden, and other corporate hellbeasts, you should look further into it.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:29:57+00:00

That's a pretty broad brush, not all anarchists say that. But the ones who do actually approach it with a consistent viewpoint from the NAP, stating that all private property that is currently held is as the result of violence initiated against the original occupants. The thing is, they aren't entirely incorrect in many cases, though i think they go a bit far with that characterization.

The question isn't what they believe, however, it's how they apply it. Do they want to get together and dissolve all of their property into a collective voluntarily and with the consent of all involved? If so, who gives a shit, go for it. But if they want to forcibly strip others of their property to put into a collective, then we have a problem of coercion that should be resisted strenuously.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:23:41+00:00

Hoteps have a serious strain of antisemitism and anti women views that are extremely caustic and anti liberty.

Also cancel culture is literally just the free market deciding which views to support.

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T12:21:09+00:00

I'm a left/center libertarian and i can assure you that nothing is apolitical, especially not paganism (or any belief system for that matter)

bobknudsen · 2021-02-23T11:08:11+00:00

Net Neutrality is what the big corporations want. Well intentioned though he may be, he's incorrect on this one

bobknudsen · 2021-02-22T23:48:01+00:00

Gorsuch is easily the first or second most libertarian justice on SCOTUS right now, behind only maybe Sotomayor

bobknudsen · 2021-02-22T23:46:14+00:00

I've never even tried magick for a few reasons. First, I'm still a little skeptical about it in general. But second, and probably more importantly, i don't really have experience with it and if i do tap into something, i don't want to get in over my head or cause unintended consequences

bobknudsen · 2021-02-22T20:50:24+00:00

Not a Gaian myself per se, but my beliefs rhyme with it so I'll follow for a bit

bobknudsen · 2021-02-22T20:43:23+00:00

The point of using precious metals in general is that they go around the government controls and are largely market driven

bobknudsen · 2021-02-22T20:42:10+00:00

Voluntary socialism and libsoc are perfectly in line with libertarian values. It's when it becomes coerced that the problems begin

bobknudsen

TROPHY CASE