Interesting article, until it devolved into a big straw-man, leading me to question the veracity of the entire premise. I’m not going to argue that some people among these groups hold a philosophy like this, but I’m not sure if it can be generalized out to all the individuals in these “interest communities” (for lack of a better term).
Also, in the most BB of ways, I think this might that be a nice bit of writing that is actually just attempting to troll the trolls, more than actually attempt to genuinely examine or explain the culture or phenomena. If one was actually trying to analyze the philosophical underpinnings of these communities, a more neutral tone would lend a lot of credibility. Instead, it sounds like the author is just using his college education to bash communities he doesn’t like with a faux analysis, which is a bit disingenuous.
It would be very interesting, though, to read a decent, neutral, analysis of these groups.
This being Boing Boing, I sadly need to include this disclaimer: Being somewhat skeptical of the article in question does not mean I support or agree with these groups or agendas. Indeed, I find the ideas of the communities discussed here infantile at best, and hateful as a general default.
“Heard of” ≠ “take into account.” I would expect a biologist to be familiar with Lamarckian inheritance, and I would expect an astronomer to be familiar with Aristotle’s geocentric model. In neither case would I expect them to subscribe, but if they haven’t even heard of them something is awry.
I thought it was common knowledge that there were two major branches of it. Capital L Libertarianism, which you describe. And lower case l libertarianism, which is best described as Vermont and rural Oregon. I’m not getting into details, but consider that what people call themselves is often, and usually, irrelevant.
I’m going to take this opportunity to once again trot out my favorite witticism, that nothing more nuanced than temperature can be accurately described along a single axis.
No, it’s not a tautology – it is just saying that the very criteria that can be used to measure the value of an explanation is exactly what science is about. Some people claim that science unfairly excludes “other ways of knowing” like knowledge obtained by ESP or angels or ghosts, but the point is, science would gladly accept all of these if there was any evidence that they existed. This is why “scientism” is kind of a meaningless insult.
I don’t believe that I have anything in common with what I know of his social views, but he added very constructive commentary in a thread about industrial t-shirt printers.
So, he’s a productive member of the BB-commentariat, for what that’s worth.
I only mentioned him because he was the catalyst for the 'Sup Marxists thread that I’d just glanced at again - and then as pointed out, he does/did indeed communicate with the charming chap Funruly drew our attention to (that I was quite happy living in blissful ignorance of).
If he’s still around, it’s a new account cos the old one is still banned.
But now we have a green pill perspective! Broad church! Although I’m pretty sure that the guy that plays both sides gets killed in every post-apocalyptic movie ever.
Oddly enough, I am gradually working through Kurusawa films I should have seen but haven’t (Rashomon just the other day), I am wondering about watching Yojimbo, but having seen at least 3 direct adaptations of it already I’m not too enthusiastic). But I guess that’s no different from me seeing Seven Samurai years after Magnificent Seven and Battle Beyond the Stars…
