While the pursuit of absolute adherence to the non-aggression principle is of course fundamental to the libertarian movement, what is also necessary and foundational to our success is the ability to be wrong.
I disagreed with @liquid2ulu (aka @Not_LiquidZulu) for his take about the LPNH (who have me blocked), and for his take on Nick Fuentes. I've publicly voiced my disagreement with Zulu about this take, and guess what? I wasn't attacked by a cult, we're still allies in the liberty movement and we're still going to host our podcast together.
The reason for that is simple: theorists on the cutting edge of the libertarian movement are allowed to get things wrong. Fuck it, they're even allowed to continue believing wrong things so long as they believe they are advocating for liberty.
I fundamentally disagree with and abhor @AlisDekay and others' reaction to Zulu's error, because I think if taken to its logical conclusion such a reaction would be the condemnation of freedom of thought within our movement.
I want to be free to take controversial stances within the movement, and disagree with my allies, because that's how we make our philosophy better.
I also think that the person who, in my estimation, has done more than any other person in existence to combat the infiltration of pragmatism into the liberty movement, deserves - at the barest of minimums - the 'benefit of the doubt'.
Zulu deserves better than to be ruthlessly outcast for getting one thing wrong. Heck, he deserves to get multiple things wrong, without being condemned as a hypocritical neoprag.
If you want to take myself and Zulu to task, then the next episode of the Remnant will be coming soon. I implore any of our detractors to show up and take their best shot.
I’m sure you all remember Avery Jackson, the “trans girl” who, at 9, was on the cover of National Geographic in January of 2017. Avery was given the gold standard in gender affirming care: he was chemically castrated and sterilized with “blockers” to hold off male puberty.
Now Avery has come out as “nonbinary” and chosen not to pursue transition, meaning that his puberty was blocked for no reason — but that’s not the worst part. He also identifies as asexual, meaning that he doesn’t experience sexual attraction.
This is undoubtedly the result of the medication used to delay male puberty. The president of WPATH, Dr, “Marci” Bowers, has said on camera that so-called puberty blockers, which are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, chemically castrate the young boys who take them as well, leaving them incapable of arousal or orgasm.
For adult sex offenders, the process is reversible. For boys like Avery, the effects are permanent. He will never feel sexual attraction, or any of the experiences that accompany it. He is also completely sterile; he will never father a child, and his own childhood was spent in the national spotlight. The blockers he was given have also stunted his physical and mental development in irreversible ways. We know from the experiences of other “trans” children that he will never sexually mature - neither physically nor emotionally. All of these things were stolen from him, and he has said that transitioning “ruined my life.”
It’s high time that we stop pretending that children can make an informed decision to transition or take blockers, even if their doctors are honest about the risks and consequences — which most are not.
Blockers are not a pause button. They are not reversible. The intellectual deficits they cause will never repair themselves, and neither will the damage done to the child victim’s body, or to their emotional intelligence and maturity. This will, of course, make it easier to push them into transitioning; ie, to sell them hormones and provide surgical alterations.
Parents like Avery’s, who try to monetize their child’s struggles with gender identity, belong in prison, not on television, and so do the doctors and politicians who were complicit in his chemical castration and sterilization.
@mrjohn496@Uncommonsince76 Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. "Society" as a fixed objective political unit is meaningless. You've spent this entire conversation trying to justify state religions and ethnonationalism on the basis of a boundary you can't define. Thanks again.
No, we advocate for the individual to rule themselves. I don't recall interacting with you, but if we did, clearly you didn't actually understand anything I had said.
@thefreespi65329 had dialogue with @8bitProdigy on the ideal ruling elites, the fundamental problem with libertarian adjacent ideologies is there advocate for the merchant class to govern society, the problem that is the merchants support mass legal immigration and free trade
@mrjohn496@Uncommonsince76 So society boundaries are fluid and constantly redrawn by emerging tribal allegiances. You've just conceded that societal boundaries are arbitrary and contingent, not objective natural facts. Which is exactly what I've been arguing from the start.
Thanks for the concession!
@mrjohn496@Uncommonsince76 I didn't argue for mixing as a solution. I asked a simple descriptive question: in your framework, which society does a mixed-race person belong to right now? You still haven't answered it. Either your framework can place every individual in a society or it can't.
@mrjohn496 That's not an answer to either question. "A significant proportion" means some don't. Which society do they belong to? Also you still haven't addressed mixed-race individuals at all. Your framework can't account for either without drawing an arbitrary line.
@mrjohn496 That doesn't answer either question. What society does a Turk in Germany belong to? What about mixed-race individuals? Answer those first, then we can discuss your elite theory.