Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Condescension in responses

Yes, I can be condescending. A commenter has called my attention to it once again.

This happens when I get frustrated. When a person keeps saying the same thing over and over (and over) again; grasping for any justification for The State. It becomes hard to take that person seriously, since they are not taking the pro-liberty evidence seriously.

At least I don't start calling people nasty names- not worse than "statist", anyway. But if that's their position, that ruling other people is a legitimate human activity, should they be insulted by the acknowledgement that this is what they believe? I don't know. I am not insulted in the least when called an anarchist, even when the person is trying to insult me. I guess that's just me.

I just finished reading the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and he mentions a similar problem he had that was pointed out to him by a friend. He tells how he endeavored to change his behavior. I may not be as good a man as Mr. Franklin, so I may fail... but I will try to do better.

I'm not saying there is no place for condescension. Or profanity. Or even calling an idiot an idiot. What I am saying is that I try to not be the "place" for that.

However, there are some notions that have had a free ride for way too long. Some opinions are just not valid. The myth of "needing" a State is one of them. Too many people have coddled the people expressing this false delusion for far too long, and pretended that the idea isn't simply outright insane. I think it's long past time to call a spade a spade.



Addendum: Then what makes me even more irritated in this particular case is that the commenter huffs off after claiming to find misogyny in the comments. Notice that no one mentioned gender at all. Until she brought it up, that is. It makes me think that she believes that socialism is a "feminine value" or something. Ugh!



  1. Statism is the utopian ideal that just the right amount of violence used by just the right people in just the right way can perfect society.

    (Yes, I've said it many times, but I like it. ;-)

  2. Also, statists usually insist on those of us who oppose the state in providing perfect and complete answers to any conceivable problem (no matter how unlikely) while ignoring all of the vast numbers of problems they see daily in the state.

  3. Which is why I usually try to remember to say that I don't know for sure how it WILL work itself out, but I have some ideas of how it might.

  4. As a participant in that thread, Kent, I have to say that you were far more gentle than I would be. I am a firm believer in the use of sarcasm to highlight idiocy in it's many forms, wherever and when ever it may be found. I agree with you about name calling, and ad hominem attacks, but none of those things happened, did they?
    I think the poor little thing was just so frustrated at not being able to defend a position that's indefensible, she had to blame you for here intellectual and moral failure.
    Sometimes, people can be taught to think before they speak.
    Sometimes they can't.

    1. She could have just walked away. Instead she called names and victimized herself (as being a female amongst mysogynists and something about driving nails up her nose) and then walked away. That speaks volumes.

  5. Yes it does. I find myself feeling more and more sorry for her. And for "N Tim".

  6. Why coddle ignorance? When you suffer a fool, you only encourage them and give tacit legitimacy to their inanity.

    You were not the one name-calling, she was. She was doing so to support a position that, frankly, isn't even statist- it's just nonsense. She demonstrated that she does not understand the concept of a contract, or the historical-hell *archaeological*- roots of marriage.

    All a marriage does is create an artificial, symbolic, family bond. Nothing more, nothing less. It predates governments by millenia, and is even practiced, after a fashion, by some animals(and not other primates either, geese come to mind.)

    In primitive societies this symbolic family is certainly not always man and woman-a variety of complex ceremonies are often available. No matter what, it is still an abstract bond.

    Government, if it is going to exist in a society claiming to be free, needs to recognize the announcement of a family formation, no matter the components. It's really not that complicated, inheritance rules are effected...and?

    Personally, I think gay activists would have been better served, tactically, pushing something like civil unions to get the legal recognition they really need-for things like regulated insurance, etc-AND then recruiting trouble-maker ministers and pastors to give them church weddings if they so desire(government, by the way, has no authority in such a thing, unless the Margie's get together and repeal the First Amd....I'm sure she'd like to.)

    It almost makes me want to be ordained.

    Frankly, if you are willing to do some extra paperwork, with the right will and the creation of a corporation with two (or more) shareholders you can exactly approximate marriage civilly now. I had an Aunt who did just that in the 70's. Sorry Margie.

    To me, that would have presented more of a tweak to the bizarre intolerance of the Margie's of the world.

    Why people get so concerned over this is beyond me, but you were far less condescending than I'd have been.