Gun control advocates used plight of iconic California condor to push legislation
“Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.
—Professor Stephen Carter, cited by Ilya Somin, “Don’t support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce”, The Washington Post, 2014-12-05
Regent University Law Professor James Duane gives a lecture on why you should never talk to police without a lawyer, explaining how even innocent people can fall into subtle traps which would have been avoided by just shutting up.
- The Privilege To Shut Up
- Shut Up, I Explained, Mostly Pointlessly
- Reminder: Oh, Won’t You Please Shut Up?
- Just A Friendly Reminder: Please Shut The Hell Up
- As Blagojevich Might Say, Just Shut the Fuck Up
- Memo To Defense Attorneys: When In Doubt, Shut Up
- Today In “Shut Up, Moron”: Terrorism Suspects Learn FBI May Not Be Trying To Just Help Them Out After All
- What Part of “Shut Up” Didn’t You Understand?
- Just Shut Up: Attorney Edition
- Free Lawyer Advice: This Would Be An Excellent Opportunity to Shut Up
- Even Lawyers Don’t Remember to SHUT UP When The Cops Come Calling
UPDATE: Don’t talk in action:
“According to feminist icon Lena Dunham, yet another common expression is actually really a super-sexist one: ‘too much information,’ or ‘TMI.’
“In fact, Dunham said she finds the expression so offensive that it’s her ‘least favorite phrase.’”
—Katherine Timpf, NRO: Lena Dunham: The Expression ‘TMI’ Is Sexist
Lena Dunham’s public statements, writing, and scarcity of cloth on screen are TMI. How this child ever reached the point of being taken seriously defies all reason.
I’ve heard the phrases “TMI” and “oversharing” plenty of times, applied to both men and women. If she associates with people who use it primarily to criticize women, then she should associate with better people. Rather, I suspect she has a nasty habit of over-sharing too much information and lacks the mental ability to accept that she has acted inappropriately. It can’t be anything she did wrong. It must be people who react negatively towards her inappropriate behavior. Considering the nature of her upbringing by ultra-rich exhibitionist artists, I’d say she was assembled by these people, who then pulled the pin on her and tossed her out into the world.
Dunham’s frequent use of the feminist/SJW card, asserting that certain words “offend” her, simply takes the tactic of turning words into thoughtcrimes to its logical conclusion. I doubt she’s truly offended, but she’s learned to play that card to control others.
In response to remarks on “privilege” by self-described “left libertarians”, Jeff Peterson, II and Matt Tanous dissect the nonsense underlying the “check your privilege” attitude thrown down by these people. The basic definition is, itself, a problem:
“…how is it that privilege is the problem? I thought the problem was that some people are oppressed, not that some people aren’t.“
—Jeff Peterson II and Matt Tanous, Something Something “Privilege”. | We the Individuals, taken out of the longer essay “Left-Libertarianism, A Love Story” and enhanced.
Look close enough and you’ll find envy underlying any “leftist” perspective—and I despise the left-right paradigm as hopelessly flawed on many levels. Whether it’s the lexicon of the Marxist or the newer phrases like “privilege”, “micro-agressions”, and the like, it’s about envy. And, it’s about rigging the analysis of how to draw the lines between oppressor and oppressed to tilt everything towards the result they want.
“This quickly devolves into the “Oppression Olympics” with a whole bunch of “intersectional” activists fighting over who is most oppressed.“
Engaging these people in arguments leads to the inevitable accusation that you’re blinded by your own privilege to see evidence of your oppression, for which they employ a wonderful term from Wendy McElroy, “kafkatrapping”, which
“[d]escribes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.”
Finally, they hit on a core problem of the “left libertarian” argument:
“The great presumption that some sort of belief in a particular ideal social organization is somehow “libertarian” is absurd. And that’s the root of the issue we have here.
I view those who dub themselves “left-libertarian” as charlatans or fools. Using some libertarian phrases is just a sham so that the likes of Noam Chomsky can deny association with big state collectivism and sucker the naïve away from actual individualist sources.
Nobody who understands the concepts and who has a basic knowledge of history would ever mix “left” with individualism. On the question of do you own your life?, the “leftist” will never give an unqualified “yes” and the individualist, by definition, must do so. The “left libertarians” simply play with words in an attempt to avoid being cornered on that basic question, when all that is necessary is to understand what “left” means, again, considering how the one-dimensional metric is inherently flawed and perverse to describe political ideas.