As a broken clock is right every twelve hours, one of our friendly libertarian visitors to yesterday's post has raised an interesting point that I need to address periodically. Perhaps it was unintentional, an externality of the barrage of nonsense about how I don't devote my life to whining about taxes because I don't pay any.
Regardless, let's accentuate the positive.
Why do I call Objectivists retards and make fun of them rather than engaging their philosophy in earnest, respectful debate? Kudos, Rand Fan. That is a fair question. Let me explain.
First of all, I teach political science for a living with a heavy emphasis on current American Politics. In the course of this work I am regularly exposed to many bright, dedicated students of all political persuasions. I am also exposed on a daily basis to all manner of sloth, proud ignorance, arrogance, and flat-out stupidity. As I have stated before (but perhaps not for newcomers) my profession prohibits me from responding to students with "What's the matter with you? Are you fucking retarded?" even when that is my first response and perhaps even the most appropriate one. As anyone in this profession should do, I treat my students respectfully and take great pains to emphasize that students are graded on the ability to retain, apply, and interpret facts. This site, which is a personal one, is a place where I don't have to listen respectfully to stupid shit. I get to make fun of it. This is an outlet.
Second, I go for jokes. Very little of what I post is "straight" with no element of sarcasm and comedy. Why? Because funny things are fun to read (and write). People like to read things that amuse them, especially while trying to kill a few minutes at work ("going Galt" if you will).
buy xenical online buy xenical no prescription
Third, I've gotten a little older and wiser. Granted, taunting and insult comedy are not usually taken as signs of maturity. But I used to argue with everyone and about everything.
buy bactroban online buy bactroban no prescription
All the fucking time. Strangers, friends, classmates, teachers, idiots on the internet…it didn't matter. Gradually I realized that this was unproductive and therefore a tremendous waste of effort on my part. So I no longer argue with people who hold frivilous viewpoints. That is not an idle choice of adjective. I mean "frivolous" in the way that the legal system uses the term.
When an attorney files a motion, the judge's response generally falls into one of two categories. First, the judge can grant the motion, having decided that the attorney's legal argument was sound and persuasive. Alternatively, the judge can deny the motion if the attorney's argument is flawed or sound but unpersuasive. In short, the expected outcomes are "You convinced me" or "You didn't quite convince me."
When a judge rules that a motion is frivolous he is saying neither of those things. He's saying "This is complete gibberish and a waste of our time." He is not saying you have a bad argument, he is saying that you have not made an argument at all. For example, when "tax protestors" attempt to defend themselves with lunatic arguments such as that income taxation is voluntary or that they are not United States citizens, judges do not solemnly consider the merits of this nonsense. They call such arguments frivolous.
It would waste the court's time to address them as serious points of law.
Here's a better example. Pretend that a conference on astrophysics has convened the top minds to discuss the latest in the field. You crash one of the panel discussions and raise an argument that the moon is made of cheese. What would they do? Well, they'd probably think it was a joke and laugh politely. After you pressed the point they would realize you are serious. Perhaps one of them would take a few seconds to kindly point you toward the mountains of evidence disproving your "theory." If you kept pressing, they'd stop being polite. They'd get pissed off and probably have you removed from the premises so you could no longer waste their time.
This is why I am not interested in having a point-by-point debate about Objectivism, whether or not the Holocaust happened, Young Earth Creationism, 9/11 Controlled Demolition hypotheses, the McVeigh/Hussein connection, or any other ridiculous viewpoint. The people who subscribe to such ideologies aren't worth arguing with because they aren't affected by evidence or rational critiques. Since they can't (or more likely just won't) understand that their viewpoint is without merit, it avails me of nothing to point it out.
Feel free, as is your kind's habit, to insist that our refusal to debate you is because we A) lack brainpower or B) are terrified because we know you're right about everything. Keep telling yourself that. In reality I have better things to do than be the 10000th person to explain to you that Ayn Rand's cult is intellectually bankrupt. Everyone else can see what you refuse to. Repetition isn't going to help.
So that's the long answer. The short answer is that I make fun of you because you make it so goddamn easy.
John says:
Well said, and an excellent summation of the situation as it stands.
Unfortunately, it is most likely falling on absent ears. The dogs fulfilled the collective's directive for the day, and will have promptly forgotten about it in the morning — gone back to complaining all day about how they're going to "go Galt" despite lacking the intestinal fortitude to do so, lest they realize just how little the world needs them.
Brian says:
By the way, 'frivolous', not 'frivilous'
Jeff says:
I find it sad that the man who posted such an excellent critique of some of the problems of libertarianism ("There are no libertarians in airplanes") is attacked by rabid objectivists for lacking a substantive argument.
Clearly repeating that argument (or its variations) post after post whenever one mocks objectivism is not a practical option (and would be boring as hell for us regular readers), but its absence will always be criticized by one-time posters who read one entry, spout their gut reaction, and never return. It's a sad thing when people don't bother to research their subject before shooting off a polemic, and it shows them to be anything but thoughtful people.
Twisted_Colour says:
"But I used to argue with everyone and about everything. All the fucking time. Strangers, friends, classmates, teachers, idiots on the internet…it didn’t matter. Gradually I realized that this was unproductive…"
And there it is, Randroids. Your way to 'go Galt' without having to head for the Cheeto-free badlands.
Shane says:
I think my workplace has found a way to block the site through the server. Which means I have to get my morning gin and tacos before I leave home in the morning, I am not impressed. :(
Has anyone found ways around this?
You can call me, 'Sir' says:
A truly outstanding and well-considered reply. You continue to make the gin- and taco-wielding proletariat in your background proud.
Michael says:
Ed is my hero!
Tosh says:
Argue? with Republicans/Libertarians/Anti tax robots? Oh yea. Been there; done that. A leviathonic waste of precious time and effort.
Nailed it Ed.
j says:
I was mostly unhappy that none of them liked your references to Red Dawn! Ha ha ha!
I can see it now: "Your drivel is typical of a liberal bedwetter…but I respect your taste in 1980's cinematography."
Next time maybe they'll bite on Red Heat or The Hunt for Red October!
comrade x says:
Yes, before long, a rational person realizes that arguing with Randies, Fundies, and other variations of right wing reptiles gets you nowhere. So the best you can do is to point out how stupid they are in a public forum and get a laugh out of it.
The Left has its share of ideological robots, but not nearly in the same volume as has been spawned by 30 years of right wingnut broadcasting.
Vinny says:
Holy crap Ed, you really touched a nerve yesterday. The teabagging & Capitalist commando pics were great.
Kulkuri says:
A broken clock is right twice a day only if it is an analog clock. Broken digital clocks usually have a blank screen and are never right.
BK says:
Kulkuri – if I take nothing else from this site today, rest assured your post will be carried forth and used when appropriate…
Ed says:
I am duly regretful of the spelling error. Thank you for pointing it out.
j says:
Oh, and to fit in with the Commie vibe on this blog you need a link to Rolcats: http://rolcats.com/
Mike says:
Irony is like when you think that the moon is made out of cheese, but you look at a block of cheese and think that's not the stuff that makes up the moon.
Peggy says:
Shane: my students have had great luck getting to sites like Ed's using the proxy site http://www.teen411.com. I disclaim all knowledge of their activities. I have CERTAINLY not ever used it to read G&T myself at school.
Although I think the admin's on to it, since it's been blocked too lately. SIGH. I'll just have to ask the kids for more help before they get off my lawn…
Furthermore: Ed, another delightful entry. I'm always too sleepy to comment when I read your post first thing in the morning, and by the time I reread it for others' comments in the evening, it's all been said.
Peggy says:
WHOOPS DISREGARD. That is an actual informational site. They use http://www.411teennews.com .
joel hanes says:
If you want to be simultaneously mature, literate, and dismissively sarcastic, the canonical statement is:
"I refer you to the reply given by the defendant in the case Arkell v Pressdram, 1971"
Ed says:
An arbitrator once received a written offer from one of the parties in a dispute which read "Fuck off. Stronger offer to follow."
Good times.
Cassie says:
Classic.
I also can't view G&T at work. The only blog I know of that's blocked. And Peggy's link doesn't seem to be working right now…
David Recine says:
http://worksurfing.com/
My place of employment block the site on random days or at random hours, presumably inadvertently (does this to youtube occasionally too,even though we actually use youtube a lot for work presentations).
Another way to do it is to go here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ginandtacos.com&btnG=Search
And click the "cache" link of the first search result, ed's site. Very few firewalls actually block Google's cache. The version of the site you see will be stripped of much of its code, but still very readable.
Actually I live n south Korea, which poses another problem. ed are you aware that for days to weeks on end, this site appears to be inaccessible from any computer in South Korea? Then it magically reappears. You aren't alone. The Onion website did that to me once for a week or two, and the website for my bank in the states disappeared for three months last year.
Peggy says:
Hmm. I'll see if I can snoop out any others. The students know hundreds, I'm sure…
A friend of mine used sites like http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/ to view web pages, with the downside (?) being that the stuff she was reading was translated into "valley girl." That particular one's no longer available.