StephanKinsella.com

Our baby is now in school from 8:30 to 3:00 every day, so the nanny does housework and errands etc. for us during those hours. Yesterday I asked her to go to 2 grocery stores and the drug store, and also asked her to drive by a local cafeteria–it’s like a Luby’s or Piccadilly. I asked her to get 2 meals for the wife and me, and wrote it down on a list. I made the mistake of showing her the cafeteria’s full menu and circled about a dozen items we like there, that she could resort to in case they were out of one of the items I had written down, or that I request in the future. She called me that afternoon and told me she ran out of money, had to dip into her own wallet. I was perplexed since I gave her ample funds for all the errands. Then it dawned on me. My fridge is now full of white styrofoam meal containers from the cafeteria. She ordered everything I had circled. I could not stop laughing. She was so embarrassed. She said the lady at the cafeteria wondered why so much food, and she told her she assumed I was having company that night. Thank God some of the things I had circled were daily specials throughout the week so they didn’t have them. I told her not to bring her lunch today as we have plenty of food in the fridge.

Ever notice in movies the cool guys hold beers in a way no one ever does in real life? They hook their index or middle finger over the very tip of the bottle, as if it’s a cigar, then with a flick of the wrist they upend the bottle, as if it’s a cheroot. Real guys in the real world hold beer bottles by the fat part. And then they get jealous of the cool way the cool guys in movies hold them.

When you buy a lottery ticket and the clerk tells you, “Good luck!,” what exactly does he mean? Surely he is not telling this to you only. He says it to all customers. Does he wish that all of them win? Surely that’s not what they wish.

A Theory of Lopez’s Theory on Incivility [posted here; it seems to be held up for moderation for now]

As I have noted elsewhere, many nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, losers, racists, cranks, etc., associate with movements like libertarianism, conservatism, militias, common law courts, etc. I think the reason is, in part, that when a view is marginalized by mainstream American–e.g., libertarianism, militias, etc.–then successful people tend not to associate with it, since they have something to lose. Some of us have the fortitude and type of careers that allow us to swim against the tide anyway, yet still keep a foot in a successful career, but not everyone.

So these movements tend to draw disproportionate numbers of those who have little to lose–i.e., losers, uneducated, those on the bottom rungs of society. This is why, for example, at libertarian-party or similar events I’ve spoken at or attended, where, e.g., the topic might be something academic like whether decentralized legal systems (judge-made law, courts, common law, Roman law) are superior to centralized, legislation-based systems, many of the people who show up are uneducated Harley riders who ask you over and over again about the nutball “common law court” stuff (this happened to me one time at a FEE-sponsored discussion group in Valley Forge), or ask you to show where in the tax code you are “required” to pay income tax, etc.

And this is why militia movements, for example, which in the older days would have upstanding citizens and “patriots” as its supporters, now are populated with gun nuts, racists, skinheads, anti-semites, etc. These are the type of people who have nothing to lose so have the luxury of joining a marginalized movement, thereby making it even more marginalized and crankish.

So it’s understandable that the only people willing, by and large, to openly challenge mainstream views by endorsing views marginalized or ridiculed by conventional society are those with little to lose. Sometimes someone with stature or courage or backbone will buck the trend, or become martyrs, but by and large, it’s understandable why those with little to lose–who are either losers, or retired billionaires–predominate.

(As an aside–something like this has been true for some time regarding politically correctness. For a couple decades now there were things you just could not say or question–especially if you were (no offense, Lopez) a white male). But just as explicit socialism has crumbled along with the Soviet empire, so the majority are starting to shrug, like Atlas, the burden continually placed on them by the PC Seriosos. They are sick of being told they are evil for being white or in the majority, or for holding preferences similar to those held by the whining minorities or special interests; and the escalating, shrill cries of the politically-correct have become ever more absurd, making them sound ever more like bleaters. They have diluted and distorted and twisted concepts like racism, bigotry, anti-semitism so much that no one bats an eye any more when a dimwit cries “racist!”; people roll their eyes and move on. And this is as it should be. So my point here is that it’s becoming more and more acceptable to be “politically incorrect” as the PC standards are revealed as being hypocritical, strange, unfair. Again, no offense, Lopez.)

This brings me to my point, though. Lopez (and Kennedy? I can’t recall) seems remarkably passionate about not following any rules of civility. I suspect one reason for this is he is just a marginal nobody with nothing to lose. While I do criticize him elsewhere, I don’t mean this to be a criticism at all, just a hypothesis. From what I know of Lopez, he is a blogger and a blogger only; no real publications or books, no credentials or status, no “name,” etc. This is true of most of us so again, I don’t mean this to be a criticism at all. It’s in part a suggested explanation as to why some blogger types will be so incivil–because they have nothing to lose–no book deals, no TV interviews, no teaching positions, etc.

Now, no doubt some might try to rebut this by saying that I, Kinsella, am also incivil. This would be ridiculous, for a few reasons.

First, so what? So what if it applies to me too? So what if I’m a hypocrit? It does not mean I’m wrong.

Second, I am not generally incivil, but only to the marginalized losers who are incivil because of this status. Mainstream society does not frown too much on responding to losers, as long as one is not a loser himself.

heh heh, he said “Woods”.

Steve Horwitz– my bigot, can you please help me out with The Rules. If I understand you correctly, it’s now anti-semitic for a bigot to … ummm,… be in favor of usury laws … you know, the kind most US states still have on the books?

Fine, fine, whatever, this bigot understands you here. This here bigot’s question is a corollary one: if someone disagrees with you on this, is that also anti-semitic? Dis here bigot just needs to know, so I can adjust my behavior accordingly.

This is fun, playing these made up games. What do you call this one?

Respek! Booyakasha!
Stephan “your bigot” Kinsella | Email | Homepage | 02.26.05 – 11:20 am | #

A couple items today:

1. THE PRINCIPLES OF JEWISH BUDDHISM — from Eric Muller’s blog. Hilarious, e.g., “To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the following: get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking?” I’ll avoid quoting more, don’t want to be charged with anti-semitism by the dimwit-Seriosos. Oh, who am I kidding, I don’t care.

2. I like the expression, “come to find out,” which my wife uses frequently.

Another annoying expression: when people say “bully for him!” What, do we live in the 1920s?

More replies to snot-nosed, hypocritical, ridiculously holier-than-thou punks on Catallarchy: Whaddya want? A cookie? and The N-Word.

First:

Kane–right on. Ghertner’s views are schizophrenic because he is in thrall to the incoherent standards of the PC left.

Nesbit, a few points. First, I speak only for myself. So Garrison need not be “embarrassed” by me.

Second, I am calm. Very calm. This is all a joke to me, as a matter of fact. I don’t take any of the PC gnats seriously.

Third, who gives a rat’s ass if Ghertner “supports” Hoppe? With friends like him, who needs enemas?

Fourth, my “ridiculous accusations about a comedian being quoted” are no more ridiculous than the bleatings of Ghertner and his brainwashed, hypocritical, leftist, dimwit-Serioso ilk about HHH being a “bigot”. HHH is a great man who devotes his life to promoting liberty and individual rights for all; and in person is warm and gentle and does not have a bigoted bone in his body. If Ghertner could get his head out of his ass and have a bit of humility, and not be a snot-nosed punk like all the youngsters now apparently are becoming, he might see this, or at least bite his fucking tongue before making such stupid, evil statements.

Fifth, don’t even imply Hoppe has made bigoted statements. It’s a lie, and anyone who makes such lies is a lowlife scumbag. You don’t want to be a scumbag, now, do you, Nesbit?

Second:

You don’t like being caught up in the hypersenstiive standards of your own making do you?

HHH does not have “anti-homosexual views”.

Stupid, silly, petulant brat. Hypocrite. Grow up. Why are today’s boys such PUSSIES?

***

“They are upset at me because in the past I have called Hans-Hermann Hoppe a bigot for his anti-homosexual views.”

Thank God you are such a nobody that no one has to be “upset” with what you say. You are just useful as an example of the brainwashed leftist punks college is generating nowadays.

***

“My problem with Hoppe has never been with his use of a particular epithet, but with his ordinary language hatred of homosexuals,”

You brainwashed, insippied moron. He nowhere does that.

“and his equating them with all sorts of (libertarian defined) criminals.”

And he equated childern and old people with criminals too! He’s ageist too! Gasp! What a PUSSY!

“As I explained then, this doesn’t mean that I hate Hoppe or think that he is terrible thinker or person.”

Oh, how fucking GENEROUS of you! What petulant brats we see nowadays.

“We all have our flaws, and much of what Hoppe has to say about economics and libertarianism is valuable and important.”

Really? Then why did you join in the Not Reason ridicule and jeering of the idea that he is a world-renowned and important figure? You asshole.

“But that does not mean that he should be given a free ride when he says hateful things about homosexuals. If we wish to remain thoughtful and reasonable people and not fall into the ideological traps that many orthodox Objectivists, Marxists–and for that matter many mainstream Democratic and Republican party activists fall into, then we must be willing to criticize each other’s flawed views.”

Not when your comments are tantamount to character assassination and libel that are serious charges that demand more than your silly, college-boy politically correct Princess and the Pea standards, boy. Not when you join in the jeering of a great and significant thinker by a bunch of jealous, envious, malicious loser nihilists. Prove yourself before you dare to comment on a man as great as that. Punks, fucking punks.

As for your little lecture on racial epithets, do you really think anyone needs you to explain to us in kindergarten language the various types of racial epithets? Please.

“These critics were trying to make me look inconsistent or hypocritical for criticizing Hoppe’s anti-homosexual bigotry, and they did so in an abusive, unserious, and troll-like manner. That is not the kind of argument that deserves a reasonable response.”

The reason you got such a reply is that YOU do not deserve a reasonable response, you irresponsible ingrate punk. YOU are the one who blithely joined with the PC mob in hurling the damaging “bigot” charge, based on stupid, flimsy, paltry “evidence,” and using ill-defined, vague, self-contradictory, incoherent, arbitrary, unjust, but obviously hair-trigger standards–standards which would no doubt ensnare your own comments. The point is to show that your STANDARDS ARE RIDICULOUS since they catch even you. You can tip-toe all you like and bend over backward trying to mollify the PC police but nothing you say will ever be good enough for them. To do this is to make the mistake of granting them the right to be the grand inquisitors, as if their character and standards are beyond reproach, or at least better than yours; when, far from it, they – and you, who have joined them – are far worse.

Grow up, be a man, and get a conscience.

I hate it when people put their name in the signature line of emails in a stupid, large, different-colored, script-like font. Like they are gonna fool me into thinking it’s a “real” signature? Morons!

Also: people who use quotation marks for emphasis, or inappropiately. E.g., on a sign in a restaurant, it might say, “No cell phones, please.” What are the quote marks for? What do they add? Are they trying to specify that they are quoting someone? If so, what would it matter? Dumb dumb dumb.

I feel like a big fish in the small pond that is the world.

What’s worse–a hypocrite or a bigot? Answer: someone who’s both (2). And speaking of obsessed losers, from my post at Not Reason:

Tom Palmer and his fellow Seriosos have made themselves laughingstocks and their silly little foot-stamping petulant cries of “bigotry” into ignored yelpings. Just as blacks have taken on the N-word and use it familiarly among themselves–in part a backlash from it being used as a pejorative against them; so we “bigots” (and that means everyone alive–we are all bigots according to the Princess and the Pea standards employed by our ridiculous, self-enthroned Grand Inquisitors) are doing to treat the word as the joke it has become. Ya dig, mah bigot?

This inspires a new term to use for these yelping, petulant idiots: bleaters. Daddy like!