You're not going to get laid. Inspired by Rogers Libertain Flash thread.

[MaineShark]

...The last time you made a substantive post (ie, not just the two intervening party invites) here was the end of May.  After six months of silence, you started posting again to defend someone who epitomizes the opposite of "polite, neighborly behavior."

Um, I wasn't defending _you_... I was defending Tammy, whom I'd rather have on my side than half a dozen Joes and Curtises. Tammy is way more polite and neighborly than either of you, that's for sure.

Gee, did you spend a long time trying to come up with a response as "clever" as that?

But considering the old threads where she questioned Ivy's behavior(s) and you two attacked her repeatedly, it's clear why you dislike her.

I've detested Tammy since long before I'd even heard of Ivy.  Tammy has been a negative influence on the liberty movement for years.  Since before you moved here.

Remember, I've been involved in the liberty movement here since before the FSP was even a concept.  Her infantile behavior towards Ivy is just one more thing in a long line of destructive behaviors.

Try again, kiddo.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

Hey, what happened to the 'ignore'?

it doesn't work right now .... and i used to have a really big list

[Tom Sawyer]

Can people start talking about the main thrust of the topic... 

Can we please help some of these people get laid... might help the attitude... I'm just sayin'... 

[Kat Kanning]

Ignore does work right now, but I'm guessing that's not going to help you get laid. 

Go to your Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Buddy/Ignore List.

[JAC]

Seth,

Just a question.  Do you think that all people on the "anarchist" side of the "split" are bad at conversing with people and are socially awkward?  Or just "most"?  And why?  Are you willing to cite specific individuals who have partaken in said "bad manners"?  Are you willing to define "neighborly" in the context you are using it?  What makes someone neighborly; un-neighborly?  Are you willing to cite specific factors that may explain the supposed correlation between "anarchists" and "lack-of-manners"?  Or are you going to continue thinking collectively - and, therefore, fallaciously - and just say "people on X side of the schism can't get along with anyone"?

Not that you are required to say any specific names if you'd rather abstain.  Simply say so.  I just don't like seeing libertarians, when they are talking strategy and trying to define an appropriate path to an end (here the end is social acceptance), bashing each other with superfluous ad hominems and vague generalizations.  Let's be specific.

I am an anarchist, myself, and most people I know will tell you I know how to talk to people and that I get along with just about everyone I've ever met (for Christ's sake, I even made Judge Burke laugh, in his own courtroom, while I was on trial for pot possession, by joking that I was hiding pot in my Nietzsche book - how do you think I got away with that?  By being an asshole?).  I know other anarchists in Keene who are also very congenial and have no problems meeting new people and getting along with them.


So was your hasty generalization recognized by you as such and, perhaps, purposefully hyperbolic?  Or perhaps a simple incident of analytic laziness under the assumption that clarity of meaning would not be lost?  Or do you really think all "anarchists" in "Keene" are the same?

Either way, please cite certain individuals who partake in specific, defined actions, rather than generalizing an arbitrary group of people when there are individuals within that "group" who do not fit the standards for your criticism of said "group."

This will just make things more clear for everyone.  There is no room for obscurantism when we're talking strategy (which we are in this thread).  Obama's election campaign staff doesn't get together and say "Those Republicans are doing stuff and, so, we must do other stuff back!"  Clearly, they are specific so as to achieve their goals.  That's the whole point of pragmatism.

A "politico" like yourself should know better (*insert joke to lighten mood*).


In Liberty,
Andrew Carroll

[thinkliberty]

This thread is lame. No one is getting laid and there are no libertarian flash pics. I am so disappointed.   

I'd also like to add that sex sells. If no one is getting laid, no one is going to buy your products.

Maybe we could have the ladies could go topless for liberty. It works for PETA.   (Wasn't someone arrested in keene for this already? Those keeniacs are always ahead of the curve...)

[JAC]

This is for all the young single guys out there with the self righteous libertarian flash.  This particularly applies to the guys who want their liberty right now with little or no respect for others property, social norms and customs.

You're not going to to get laid going on like that.

If you do you'll have a very hard time keeping a nice girl around.

Kate,

There is a big difference between "getting laid" and "keeping a nice girl around."  Can you tell us which one the topic of your post is?  If you're saying men who defy social norms, defy social customs, and have no respect for others' property (all three of which are mutually exclusive, by the way - they are not necessarily co-dependent; and are subjective, as implied by the words "normative" and "custom") can not get laid then that is simply a false statement.

I could find you tons of people I've met in Keene or in California who spray-paint buildings, skateboard over private property, dress awfully, and care little for their outward appearance, who still manage to get laid by girls who are into those kinds of things.  For some women, "disrespect for private property" is a "norm" for their "social group."  Not saying those are the women I associate myself with, just saying they're out there.  They are nice girls, in my book, just not my type.


Or are you saying that men who defy social norms, or social customs, or have no respect for private property (again, three different concepts which can be found alone or not at all in varying degrees in different individuals, thus making understanding of your argument rather difficult) can not "keep a nice girl around"?

Well, if you mean your definition of "nice", then probably not, Kate.  But your definition clearly does not apply to others.  I don't know why you think that men who "defy [your] social norms" can't get laid by women who have different social norms than you; or why those same men could not find a "nice girl", who is nice as they believe the word to exist, to stick around for a little while.



If, however, you are saying that the libertarian women you know typically want "x, y, and z" qualities as you have defined them in your opening post; and that libertarian men you know typically do not have those qualities and are, thus, rendered unattractive by the libertarian women you know, then this post could be helpful to said men who do not have said qualities but want to have sex with said libertarian women.

However, you have not cited who these "libertarian women" are, or who these "libertarian men" are.  If the men you speak of do not want to have sex with the women you know, then your defined course of action to reach said goal becomes pointless - seeing as how they do not want to reach said goal.  Thus, why should they adapt your "social norms", since they are not conducive to their ends?  Perhaps they are happy, instead, "getting laid" by non-libertarians, or by getting a "nice non-libertarian girl" to "stick around."


Overall, your post was too vague.  While I do appreciate the thought behind it, because I think I know the type of men you are talking about and I understand you are trying to help said men; you should have named specific men and kept these facts in mind:

1) You know the man wants to be with a libertarian woman.
2) You know this libertarian woman and know what she wants in a man.
3) The libertarian man does not possess attractive characteristics as defined by specific libertarian woman.
4) Thus, libertarian man should change his characteristics so as to obtain sex or long-term-relationship (depending on the goals of the individuals involved) from specific libertarian woman.

You did not define any of those.  You just vaguely said "you guys" here and there and talk about how "you guys" are pretty much "assholes" and "socially awkward."  Who is "you guys"?


Those are my only objections.  I think your post would have much more affect if it were directed specifically towards the men who, despite their attempts to get laid by libertarian women, fail at said attempts due to their lack of "preferable" characteristics.  In which case, you should either name names on this forum and cite examples of their bad behavior (which would, in my opinion be a awful idea), or you should talk to those people specifically in private (better idea).  And you should be sure that they do want libertarian women, and not just assume they do - and you should know what these libertarian women actually want, and not just assume you do.

Just some suggestions.  I think the idea of a "charm school" for said men is a great idea, and you might be the person to put something like that together Kate, since you clearly have the motivation and care for men who simply "don't know what the hell they're doing."  I mean, if you didn't care about their failed attempts to get laid then you wouldn't bother.  So I think said men may appreciate that.

I just think a vague post on an internet forum does not achieve the ends you want in any satisfactory way.  Clearly, this entire thread has just further alienated people, as now Seth and Curtis are arguing and Seth has ostracized him - thus making this post fail in its original intent.

If you want to bring people together I suggest you talk to these men in private and help them out.  Because even the specifics in your post were rendered useless by your failure to mention whom they specifically apply to.


In Liberty,
Andrew Carroll

[FTL_Ian]

Curtis +1, JAC +1, Maineshark +1, Seth -1, ny2nh -1

[JJ]

I'm with Curtis, Tammy has shown herself a very hateful individual most especially in regards to other women.  Seth you can't help but know she is an asshole online. 

[AntonLee]

being a bureaucrat is akin to stealing from others.  You can pick any job, so pick one where you provide a service to others without having someone point a gun at them.  Libertarians understand this... Anarchists live this.

but I'm quite friendly with bureaucrats, at least the polite ones.  There's one bureaucrat on this forum that I think is a decent person in spite of his job.  There are others that down Anarchists/Voluntaryists at every point simply because some of us point out that working for the government is taking a welfare job.

[Tom Sawyer]

Don't be a Mr. Bungle!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s7X5-Drctk

[Russell Kanning]

i don't think seth was even saying that the anarchists are the anti-social ones

[dalebert]

Don't be a Mr. Bungle!

There are so many comments on that vid like "I want to be a Mr. Bungle!" Must be anarchists.

I love it when Phil is worried that his hair isn't neat when the longest hair on his head is maybe 1/4 of an inch. That shit ain't gonna move, Phil!

[SethCohn]

Seth,

Just a question.  Do you think that all people on the "anarchist" side of the "split" are bad at conversing with people and are socially awkward?  Or just "most"?

Not all, nor most. Some.  Maybe many.  There are 'anarchists' who are very socially skilled, and 'get it'.

Are you willing to cite specific factors that may explain the supposed correlation between "anarchists" and "lack-of-manners"?

No, go back and reread my post: I explicitly DID NOT draw that correlation, I said the various splits overlapped, not that they were the same split.  There are politicos with lack of manners, anarchists who are very polite, Libertarians who are social clueless, etc...  Go read Kate's original post, which really addresses the core problem here.

Next time, read more carefully please.  You wrote a handful of paragraphs that I completely agree with, as if I was arguing against you.  I'm not.  Russell understood that, as he mentioned above.

[SethCohn]

Ignore does work right now, but I'm guessing that's not going to help you get laid. 

Go to your Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Buddy/Ignore List.

Yey!  'plonk' 'plonk'
Ah, much better.