We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day But hey, there are a lot of uptight people out there whose bourgeois notions of “right” and “wrong” really don’t account for the unique pressures and special requirements you face as a liberal icon lookin’ for some lovin’. So, you need to take precautions to ensure that people don’t get the right idea about what you are doing.
Wrong idea. I mean, wrong idea.
First, you’ll want to exclusively seek out liberal women. Don’t make Bill Clinton’s mistake and target women who aren’t reliable progressives. Pinko gals generally know how to play ball and won’t start some sort of fuss that will end up derailing your really important work towards the Democrat Party’s ultimate goal of turning America into Venezuela II: The Starvening.
– Kurt Schlichter, writing Dating Tips For Prominent Democrats. Follow the link, you will not regret it 😀
(h/t Transterrestrial Musings)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Caustic. Very caustic.
😆
Editor’s note: This column is satire.
How far we have fallen.
Long way still to go I think… 🙄
One would have thought that a basic principle that everyone could agree upon was “hands off” people who do not want your hands upon them.
However, it seems some men (of both sides of the political divide) can not get this simple principle through their heads – perhaps having their hand broken would be a useful “learning experience” for them.
The “liberal” line appears to be “conservatives claim to have moral standards and we do not claim to have moral standards – so it is O.K. for us to sexually abuse people, but hypocrisy for conservatives to do so”.
I AGREE that it is hypocrisy for conservatives to sexually abuse people – but it is NOT the hypocrisy that is the offence, it is the sexual abuse that is the offence.
And it is an EQUAL offence – regardless of the political or other opinions of the sexual abuser. This, I think, is the correct point the writer of the satirical article is making.
The left believe in intentions. If many of those who most loudly proclaim their feminist wokeness do such things, how much worse must be those who don’t proclaim any wokeness at all? The self-servingness of such analyses is obvious, and their conscious dishonesty wise to suspect, but they are helped by making sense in their mad logic.
The right believe in incentives. If the MSM will savage a republican or ‘deplorable’ for acts alleged rather than known, while covering for a democrat or celebrity activist whose acts they know rather than allege, then those who do such acts will disproportionately choose their party and politics accordingly.
I’d already read Kurt’s witty article. After decades of weaponising this issue to attack the right and defend the left with their usual wild inconsistency, will there be consequences this time? And will there be side effects?
This was the funniest line in that whole article.
unlike other American Schlebs at least she made good on her promise to move if Trump was elected, even if it meant marrying a ginger.
What amazes me about the flood of allegations coming out now is the extent to which the press covered for the Democrats. I mean I knew a Republican’s affair would find it into the paper somehow, whereas Democrats could expect discretion. But now we have female reporters admitting they knew better than to find themselves alone with this or that congressman. For decades.
It makes me want to ask them “What is it, exactly, you do for a living?”
Haggling about the price, apparently.
I have suggested, on another forum, establishing an “Eason Jordan Award” for ‘The News We Kept To Ourselves’.
How that particular article you link to is relevant here, PFP?
Alisa
> Eric:
> > “What is it, exactly, you do for a living?”
> Haggling about the price, apparently.
I have no idea how to put a thumbs up emoji here.
But consider it done.