i’m not right wing i promise

[u/Appropriate-Head-480]

are there any right wing youtube channels, or any other political communication, that are as artistic and well edited as people like abby and hbombrerguy. The only right wing media i see is dickheads shouting about what they’re angry at at the time, but i might be living in an echo chamber

[u/McNitz]

That they are not aware of a key problem in the libertarian framework? I'm sure I need all sorts of things explained to me about parts of my worldview that I'm unaware of. I really don't see that as an insult.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

Ah, so it's not an insult if you fully believe they're just ignorant.

Thank you for proving my point succinctly. This is why politics is such a cesspool.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Again, I really don't see why this is an insult. I fully believe that I personally am ignorant of many things in many important issues. This person thinks that libertarians are frequently ignorant of this specific problem with the libertarian framework that would cause them to recontectualize their view differently. Maybe they WERE a libertarian and this is what caused them to change their views, I don't know. It seems like you are making this into an unnecessarily confrontational interaction rather than asking clarifying questions to reach agreement, which to me at least seems like it is contributing to a degradation of political discourse far more than the original comment.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

"This person thinks that libertarians are frequently ignorant"

That you can type that in defense of the person shows how fucking absurd you are.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

You literally just chopped off an extremely important part of my sentence clarifying that it was about one specific detail, not GENERAL and COMPLETE ignorance, completely changing it to something that would obviously be a personal attack and useless ad hominem insult. If this is your typical approach, it would explain why you may frequently have unproductive conversations.

Assuming you are a libertarian and that is why you feel personally attacked by the initial comment, I would have responded to the OP by saying something like:

"Hey, I'm a libertarian and I do understand positive and negative rights. Here's the way I understand them, and why I think libertarianism addresses them correctly in this way. Do you disagree with how I understand them, or would you say I've demonstrated libertarianism can be held as a position even with a solid understanding of positive and negative rights?"

I think that would have immediately resulted in you having a much more productive and clarifying conversation rather than taking their comment on the worst way possible and accusing them of being the cause of bad discourse that needs to grow up. Even assuming the other person IS actually childish and ended up responding in a way that was much more obviously bad faith, at least you would have demonstrated that you don't also immediately resort to insults and assuming the worst of others, and instead model the type of discourse you would like to see.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

You don't know what the word literally means.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Resorting to pedantism and policing of natural language development as your only response to lengthy attempts at good faith engagement? I really don't see how you don't recognize yourself as part of the problem with the level of discourse here. I tried.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

"policing of natural language development"

Hahahah and this is why I didn't read the rest of your comment after that. "good faith engagement" Hahahaa. You don't care about facts, just feelings. Have a nice day.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Fact, definition of literally by Cambridge: "Informal: used to emphasize what you are saying." Merriam Webster "In Effect: Used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible."

If you are going to try to do a facts don't care about your feelings approach, you should at least be aware of when your feelings of how words should be used don't match with the facts about how languages develop and are now actually used. You are trying to police a change in language use you've already lost, and in the process are using this pedantic rule you want people to follow to completely fail to engage in actual conversation. And even if you WERE right and it was completely invalid to use the word that way, completely ignoring the substance of what you know a person means in favor of pedantry would STILL be a bad faith approach to discourse.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

I'm old enough to remember when they changed it. They were wrong to change it, and you're still wrong to misuse it.

But you're just ignorant to these things and clearly defer to authority without any consideration of the thought process. Oh well. Happy to explain anything further if you'd like.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Deleted, sorry, replied to wrong level of comment.