http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/rise-of-the-cultural-libertarians/
Quote
A new force is emerging in the culture wars. Authoritarians of all stripes, from religious reactionaries to left-wing “social justice warriors,†are coming under fire from a new wave of thinkers, commentators, and new media stars who reject virtually all of their political values.
From the banning of Charlie Hebdo magazine across British university campuses on the grounds that it promoted islamophobia, to the removal of the video game Grand Theft Auto V from major retailers in Australia on the grounds that it promoted sexism, threats to cultural freedom proliferate.
But a growing number of commentators, media personalities and academics reject the arguments that underpin these assaults on free expression, in particular the idea that people are either too emotionally fragile to deal with “offence†or too corruptible to be exposed to dangerous ideas.
In a recent co-authored feature for Breitbart, I coined a term to describe this new trend: cultural libertarianism. The concept was critically discussed by Daniel Pryor at the Centre for a Stateless Society, who drew attention to the increasing viciousness of cultural politics in the internet age.
There is a reason for the sound and fury. Like all insurgent movements, the emergence of cultural libertarianism is creating tensions, border skirmishes, and even the occasional war with lazy incumbent elites. Some of these rows can be breathtakingly vitriolic, as self-righteous anger from social justice types collides with mocking and occasionally caustic humour from cultural libertarians.
QuoteCultural authoritarians from both the left and right occupy most positions of power in government, academia and the media. Both argue that art and expression can be harmful. Conservatives say that overly-violent video games and movies are the cause of school shootings and youth crime. This was the view of Jack Thompson, who led a crusade against violent video games and rap lyrics in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Progressives argue that “problematic†media can lead to racism and misogyny. In the words of left-wing culture critic Jonathan McIntosh, “oppressive media representations can be damaging sociologically.â€
Underlying both Thompson’s and McIntosh’s arguments is the idea of culture as a corrupting influence, one that must be policed. This view has little scientific evidence to support it. A recent long-term study found no link between video games and sexism, and violent crime has been in decline for decades despite the growth of violent media. Nonetheless, arguments for a link continue to surface.
QuoteWHAT CULTURAL LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE
Free expression. No idea is too dangerous for cultural libertarians, who want total artistic and intellectual freedom. They often indulge in deliberately outrageous jokes and wacky opinions to test the boundaries of acceptability. Little wonder that the movement’s leaders often attract large followings from the the chaotic, politically incorrect world of anonymous imageboards like 4chan.
Resisting identity politics and public shaming. The movement can also be seen criticising modern methods of cultural control and the neo-puritanism they say has infected modern cultural criticism. The newest of these is a rash of social justice-inspired online vigilantism where professional offence-takers use the power of social media to destroy the reputations and careers of their targets. Justine Sacco, who faced global outrage and the loss of her job over a single politically-incorrect joke, is one well-known victim. Astrophysicist Dr. Matt Taylor and biochemist Sir Tim Hunt were also victims of this modern form of thuggery.
A sense of humour. Cultural libertarians combat anger with ridicule. There is a certain preposterousness to bloggers and social media addicts setting themselves up as a new priesthood, which makes them easy targets for comedy. As MIT Technology Review editor Jason Pontin puts it: “Tyrants, authoritarians and activists all hate the sound of laughter.†Cultural libertarians understand this instinctively.
An end to nannying and “safe space†culture. Arrayed against the cultural libertarians is the control freakery of the establishment, left and right, and the second coming of political correctness as embodied in campus safe space movements. This latter movement claims that students are too fragile to be exposed to dangerous ideas, and that even mildly offensive speech can cause permanent emotional damage. On the internet, these activists enjoy the support of outlets like Vox and Buzzfeed.
Defending personal freedom. Cultural libertarians may have their own opinions about how people should live their lives, or have low tolerance for offensive speech. But what distinguishes them from their opponents is their rejection of attempts to impose personal standards on others.
Defending spaces for uncomfortable opinions. Reason columnist Cathy Young is a critic of the “misogynistic rhetoric†of masculinist bloggers like Daryush Valizadeh, but nonetheless defended Valizadeh’s right to speak after activists launched a campaign to ban him from Canada. Cultural libertarians are serious about protecting the the freedoms of people they despise.
Fact over feelings. Hand in hand with their commitment to free speech goes a loathing for narrative-led journalism. Cultural libertarians are highly critical of “feelings over facts†in general, but particularly where it gives rise to failures in reporting such as the Duke Lacrosse case, the Rolling Stone debacle, “Mattress Girl†Emma Sulkowicz and GamerGate.
Standing up for consumers and producers over hand-wringing middle-class panic merchants. Cultural libertarians are the natural allies of consumers and want fandoms to have access to a wide variety of culture and ideas. They also stand up for the right of publishers and content creators to experiment wildly with art and believe that nothing should be “off-limits†however uncomfortable it may make some people.
Celebrating culture in all its forms. Cultural libertarians can be divided into three broad categories: vanguard hell-raisers who generate headlines by provoking social justice warriors, followed by a loose coalition of academics, journalists and social commentators who provide intellectual substance to the movement.
Finally, comedians, directors and movie stars who recognise the threat to creative freedom posed by cultural scolds bring up the rear, cautiously interjecting when authoritarian critiques overreach.
Do what you want, just don't presume to stick it in my face, or someone else's face, unless they give permission ... particularly if it is one of your sex organs ... but really pretty much anything else. That is why need privacy ... and family abuse ... so people aren't doing this abuse at the workplace or out on the street.
The problem with purging all the in-closet authoritarians or out-closet authoritarians .. is that nobody would be left!
And the pendulum swings back and forth...
One way of avoiding much of the internet mayhem is to simply not have a comment section where so much hatred gets started, flamed and eventually inferno"ized". Avoiding the socially inept and mostly useless media such as twitter would probably save a lot of humiliation and grief. But, people do love drama.
Somehow, people need to label evrything...Cultural Libertarians, WTF is that? Some people have pushed the PC/uncomfortability zone too far. You don't need to be a "libertarian" to see the fallacy of that argument.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 10, 2015, 09:16:02 AM
Somehow, people need to label evrything...Cultural Libertarians, WTF is that? Some people have pushed the PC/uncomfortability zone too far. You don't need to be a "libertarian" to see the fallacy of that argument.
I really wonder if people simply spend too much time on the internet getting all riled up over some comments some idiot made and that it is on the internet it has to be "destroyed" or "protected" depending on your view. Maybe we need to go outside and work in the yard more and pay less attention to trolls looking for attention.
Quote from: aitm on October 10, 2015, 09:27:28 AM
I really wonder if people simply spend too much time on the internet getting all riled up over some comments some idiot made and that it is on the internet it has to be "destroyed" or "protected" depending on your view. Maybe we need to go outside and work in the yard more and pay less attention to trolls looking for attention.
Quoted for truth.
Quote from: aitm on October 10, 2015, 08:48:01 AM
One way of avoiding much of the internet mayhem is to simply not have a comment section where so much hatred gets started, flamed and eventually inferno"ized". Avoiding the socially inept and mostly useless media such as twitter would probably save a lot of humiliation and grief. But, people do love drama.
This post reflects my thoughts on the whole comment section removal. Many of this sites that have removed the comment sections claim that it is to promote free speech by creating a "safe space" for people to communicate or some other bullshit to justify their censorious act without telling it straight and yeah twitter fucking sucks it kills nuance at the crib with the character limit.
http://penny-arcade.com/news/post/2015/10/07/vox-something-or-other
QuoteVox Something Or Other
Motherboard merely joins a raft of sites which have, over the last couple years, removed the ability for users to comment on their articles. It’s funny; the first thing I did was scroll to the bottom of the page to see what people thought about it. There was no comment section there, which I probably should have guessed. Force of habit.
Comments are what they are. “Don’t read the comments†is a phrase you have heard, and perhaps used. Sometimes people say that it’s not enough to say “don’t read the comments†and then they read the comments and get super angry, which, I mean, I don’t know. You tell me if that’s a good life strategy.
I go to the comments not to find consensus but literally to find people criticizing the article. I want to see the idea of that article discussed. I am not of the opinion that most articles I see are very good; and even if they were, they’re not scripture. For me they’re like the sausage casing that contains the actual food, which is the community processing the data. Independent of any other consideration, just at a lower level of magnification, I don’t think we get smarter this way. I don’t think we achieve robustness just rolling around in a bunch of ideologically hermetic spheres.
You don’t have to have comments on in order to be a good person. I don’t have comments on my posts, for example, and I’m an incredible person. The only reason there is a newspost at all is that I wrote the first website by hand, and the page looked really crazy with a big empty cell on the left of the navigation stuff so I put text in there. I should have just stacked the UI in two rows and saved myself a lot of trouble. I’ve written hundreds of thousands of words now and gotten in huge trouble and it could all have been avoided. A public diary is an incredibly dangerous instrument.
So, comments are not required, as I said. I don’t think you’re obligated to donate the footer of your article to people that hate you. Adding comments to our strip page - when everyone else was removing such things - was certainly a conversation. But here’s what I would say: having them and then taking them away is strange. And trying to present the fundamentally censorious act as being of a piece with greater communication is simply a lie. You aren’t supposed to call people liars; it’s one of those things you aren’t supposed to do. It seems like a rule cooked up by liars, frankly. But what if a person dissembles madly, and writhes rhetorically, in the service of a goal oblique to their stated aims? I see no reason to invent another word.
(CW)TB out.
Just look the bullshit arguments of Jessica "It wouldn't matter if we hate men" Valenti (http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Wtf+england_c732cf_5482708.jpg) https://web.archive.org/web/20151003175701/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/10/end-online-comments
She is unable to understand that the comments are not only for her but for the readers to discuss and see different view points, she harps on about threats which is bullshit because the guardian comment section is heavily moderated, those comments are such a minor percentage some moderation can take care of them pretty easy. What she does not like is that 90% of the comments she gets disagree with her because she has become more stupid and extreme in her rhetoric as time has gone by. https://archive.is/kuxG8 ("One reason is not better than another, but saying the procedure needs to be rare creates a hierarchy of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" abortions that runs counter to the notion that abortion is a legal right, a personal decision and a matter of bodily integrity." )
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 10, 2015, 09:16:02 AM
Somehow, people need to label evrything...Cultural Libertarians, WTF is that? Some people have pushed the PC/uncomfortability zone too far. You don't need to be a "libertarian" to see the fallacy of that argument.
libertarian is a old term that imo just means you value personal freedom over other political values like order, safety, the common good, etc. You would not truncate personal freedoms to accomplish an end that you think would justify those means. The cultural focus is because this is supposed to be a call to defend the concept of a free market place of ideas, a free culture. An idea that can join lots of different political points of view, even though they disagree on pretty much everything, except on the fact that everyone should be able to participate in that discussion, without being labeled with a buzzword and shut down. Obviously you do not have to use the term but it is there to differentiate people because of the political fractures that have recently occurred on the left and the right due the complete dissatisfaction with the superfluous buzzword laden political discourse of the mainstream media, social media and the mainstream political candidates.
Quote from: aitm on October 10, 2015, 09:27:28 AM
I really wonder if people simply spend too much time on the internet getting all riled up over some comments some idiot made and that it is on the internet it has to be "destroyed" or "protected" depending on your view. Maybe we need to go outside and work in the yard more and pay less attention to trolls looking for attention.
indeed and we should definitely not try to publicly shame them in real life to get them fired and destroy their reputation and/or lobby for their censorship and/or prosecution.
Quote from: mauricio on October 10, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
indeed and we should definitely not try to publicly shame them in real life to get them fired and destroy their reputation and/or lobby for their censorship and/or prosecution.
I agree. You know for many many years jack ass reporters could write whatever shit they wanted thinking they had some kind of immunity, but public sentiment righted that for the most part. Todays "comment section" is a fucking cesspool where it looks very much like people are being paid to viscerally attack someone they disagree with to the point that they should be killed and butt fucked while dying.
Quote from: aitm on October 10, 2015, 06:41:43 PM
Todays "comment section" is a fucking cesspool where it looks very much like people are being paid to viscerally attack someone they disagree with to the point that they should be killed and butt fucked while dying.
I started using the internet around 2004 and frankly be it on a chan board, in a game chat or on this forums, i learned pretty quickly that the internet was not a place when you can talk to people like it is the same as real life and take everything so seriously (for one the tone and the mood does not transfer well by text). I learned the art of ironic shitposting and also how to swift through a sea of shit to find that one pearl: a person who actually wants a reasonable levelheaded discussion or a post containing a great argument or perspective or idea or joke or link. So to me it is not "today's comment sections" it is always been like that (though it varies by site obviously) I find it hilarious how people seem to think sites like 4chan or 8chan are hellholes of hatred, they simple do not understand the culture of those sites which is founded on ironic shitposting. And that's actually kind of the point sorting out the new people and laughing at them taking stuff seriously or laughing at outsiders trying to describe or report on it taking jokes as serious business. I really admire the the approach of 8chan to moderation. You are the one responsible for filtering the content to meet your preferred standard (the source remains unaltered for others to filter as they please) Someone annoys you so you block them, you do not like a thread so you hide it, you do not like the rules of this board so you create your own. It's all about self moderation. The admin only bans illegal stuff to protect the integrity of the site. But everyone is welcomed to discuss literally anything and post anything that is not illegal.
So... those who don't like the Religious Reich or the Social Justice Warriors have discovered libertarians also opposing them.
But they can't bring themselves to simply write "libertarians" because it is supposed to be a bad word. After all, according to conventional wisdom, we have no stands other than economics and marijuana. So they come up with a new term "cultural libertarians" to describe where libertarians have been the whole fucking time.
Quote from: aitm on October 10, 2015, 09:27:28 AM
I really wonder if people simply spend too much time on the internet getting all riled up over some comments some idiot made and that it is on the internet it has to be "destroyed" or "protected" depending on your view. Maybe we need to go outside and work in the yard more and pay less attention to trolls looking for attention.
Exactly.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 12, 2015, 11:09:33 AM
So... those who don't like the Religious Reich or the Social Justice Warriors have discovered libertarians also opposing them.
But they can't bring themselves to simply write "libertarians" because it is supposed to be a bad word.
Well, it seems like this term is a bit broader than that. I know of plenty of liberals who despise both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism who nevertheless don't agree with the libertarian party platform.
In the US today, the term "libertarian" ties you too closely with Ross Perot and Ron Paul ... who have aspects too RW even for the RINOs. The Tea Party Jihadis are the leaderless flotsam and jetsam from their prior campaigns, who can't stomach RINOs. It isn't connected to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in current usage. This is probably unfair to the Libertarian Party ... but co-opting the call, plumage or nests of other birds ... is known in nature. There really are very few people (outside the Libertarian Party) who would support liberalism like Washington or Jefferson (but with obvious necessary improvements like no slavery). Numerically we mostly see the struggle between competing leviathan autocracies.
Ross Perot? Seriously?
There was a time when the Tea Party was justifiably associated with libertarianism - the time period from November 7, 2007 and January 19, 2009. After that it was taken over by conservatives and the libertarians were kicked out. Anyone who thinks that the Tea Party after say about July 2009 has anything to do with libertarianism is so full of coolaid they don't notice what flavor the tea is.
The "Cultural Libertarians" mentioned in the article, they are simply libertarians but called that by an author who can't stand to say anything nice about libertarians.
What did I say about borrowed plumage? I met the VP candidate of the Libertarian Party at college back in 1976 ... there were maybe four students who wanted to hear what he wanted to say. Of course lack of popularity, isn't a sign of irrelevance .. small seeds grow into big trees.
Actual politics is a laborious pain in the ass ... I worked for Dukakis in 1988 ... so I have a taste. So much easier to control the Media and brainwash the voters.
Social justice warriors can suck a bag of dicks! it's no fun when they are around!
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on October 12, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
Social justice warriors can suck a bag of dicks! it's no fun when they are around!
I have been triggered by your microaggressions. Please don't disparage the lived in experiences of the differently selved in the future or you will twittershamed and potentially face a U.N. fine.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on October 12, 2015, 11:09:33 AM
So... those who don't like the Religious Reich or the Social Justice Warriors have discovered libertarians also opposing them.
But they can't bring themselves to simply write "libertarians" because it is supposed to be a bad word. After all, according to conventional wisdom, we have no stands other than economics and marijuana. So they come up with a new term "cultural libertarians" to describe where libertarians have been the whole fucking time.
The author of that article is a libertarian, but libertarian implies you believes in individual freedom on more than just culture, libertarians from what i have seen want the government reduced and that all be done on voluntarism without forcing anyone to do anything against their will but voluntarily agree. This does not describe the movement hes talking about, many libertarians are part of it but so are other ideologies. They ultimately mainly agree on having an open marketplace of ideas, thats the center of it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 12, 2015, 03:35:47 PM
I have been triggered by your microaggressions. Please don't disparage the lived in experiences of the differently selved in the future or you will twittershamed and potentially face a U.N. fine.
wah wah wah
Quote from: mauricio on October 10, 2015, 04:42:15 PM
libertarian is a old term that imo just means you value personal freedom over other political values like order, safety, the common good, etc. You would not truncate personal freedoms to accomplish an end that you think would justify those means. The cultural focus is because this is supposed to be a call to defend the concept of a free market place of ideas, a free culture. An idea that can join lots of different political points of view, even though they disagree on pretty much everything, except on the fact that everyone should be able to participate in that discussion, without being labeled with a buzzword and shut down. Obviously you do not have to use the term but it is there to differentiate people because of the political fractures that have recently occurred on the left and the right due the complete dissatisfaction with the superfluous buzzword laden political discourse of the mainstream media, social media and the mainstream political candidates.
Well to me, libertarian means anarchy. So there. Anything pushed to the limit, including freedom of speech, is as crazy as batshit is.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 12, 2015, 07:27:39 PM
Well to me, libertarian means anarchy. So there. Anything pushed to the limit, including freedom of speech, is as crazy as batshit is.
Well as long as you understand that is not what the author meant with the word, the word is not important the meaning is what matters.
Quote from: mauricio on October 12, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
Well as long as you understand that is not what the author meant with the word, the word is not important the meaning is what matters.
To expand on this he certainly does not support a "freedom of speech anarchy" because he recognizes the value of journalistic ethics as described in the SPJ code of ethics:
(https://bettyhorn.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/code-of-ethics-for-journalists.png)