Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So I got perma-banned from Reddit today. I don't even know why. There's a note to check my inbox for more information, and there's nothing there.
This was my last post, and it has me wondering if I was deemed unfit for discourse (which is what perma-banning means if it means anything), or if it is simply symptomatic of the people in charge.
So let me tell you the story leading up to the Anthony Polito case, at UNLV in Las Vegas, Nevada. December 2023.
Like so many rampage shooters, Anthony was suicidal, but HOW he was suicidal, is what makes his case interesting, because Anthony wanted to live in Las Vegas. He was a college professor, and he wanted to work at UNLV, so that he could have his day job, but also too, probably, access the city's prostituion market, although it's possible that he was just an avid gambler.
But either way, that was his motive, for going on the multiply murderous spree. And then he "died in a shootout with the police", which is ofc, we all know, "suicide by cop". That's the proof that he was suicidal, because he went into a situation where he knew beforehand that it was likely to "end in a shootout with police".
People obsessed with sins like gambling and prostitution and liquor and drugs are usually libertarians. So therefore Mr. Polito wasn't Left or Right, he was a centrist, a libertarian. Not a conservative, not a progressive welfarist.
My actual rant:
Principled libertarians all believe in personal responsibility. While libertarianism is architecturing to dismantle and decimate government, it is offering as a counteroffer, personal responsibility. i.e., libertarians don't want an unregulated, unsupervised society, they want one which is regulated and supervised by the individuals living in it, which is what libertarians claim personal responsibility will do for society.
The problem is that the personal freedom promised by libertarianism isn't well advertised to only be HALF the story, with the other half being personal responsibility. The reason this is a problem is because, if you have people without personal responsibility, and they hear about libertarian political ideology, they're almost all of them going to find large swaths of it attractive. At least the half dealing with their personal freedom and liberty.
They may not find the personal responsibility edge to libertarianism attractive, or even coherent. They may even have no idea what libertarians are talking about with personal responsibility.
My real actual rant:
Libertarians are actually terrible at conveying their politics. This is in part because so many of them don't even fully believe in libertarianism, because c. none of them can articulate how extreme personal freedom necessarily entails personal responsibility, they are like two sides of one coin.
And what this means is that if libertarians did actually understand their own position as well as they ought to understand it, they would actually be conservatives, like Matt Walsh.
Libertarian personal responsibility is a constant pressure, gently applied. It's not hard, but there's no weekends, holidays or vacations away from it, you always have to have personal responsibility. This is why I know the killer was not a principled libertarian, but a reckless individual, unfit for human society.
His ideology was broken because he was broken. If he had been a true libertarian, truly understanding the libertarian infinitely hard logical connection between personal freedom AND personal responsibility, he'd o'been a conservative, like Matt Walsh.
What I'm saying is that Matt Walsh understands libertarianism far, far better than Polito did, and far more than MANY other libertarians too. He understands that the invincible link between freedom and duty obv entails that we have the collective and moral political power to regulate things writ large. The libertarian persuasion against government regulations like this is, is wrongheaded both on its face (merely decrying big government or government encroachment), and at its root (that somehow we're being immoral if our assumption is not that we should not intervene (as opposed to, by analogy, to do no harm).
And my finally real rant:
How do you get a society full of personally responsible people? obv you must rear children to have it. obv it is important enough to supersede, to override, individual parents, if they are failing to rear their legal children to have personal responsibility. Our society depends on literally everybody being personally responsible, and our ideology, as true, principled libertarians, is basically totalitarian when it comes to rearing children. By hook or by crook, we are going to make sure that we can intervene in the process of child rearing, writ large, and systemically, and intrusively! if need be, because our society depends so much on it.
This was my last post, and it has me wondering if I was deemed unfit for discourse (which is what perma-banning means if it means anything), or if it is simply symptomatic of the people in charge.
"Rant on Personal Responsibility vs. Free Will: Insights from the Anthony Polito Case"
We almost never start watching a movie and right away we're witnessing a violent scene. Almost never, that's not usually how movies are told. Movies usually start with a story of some sort, and then if there are violent scenes as part of the movie, when we get to them, we have some context.
With a mass shooting, we always ever get right to the violence. We have almost literally no context, and whenever a movie IS told this way, such as in Saving Private Ryan, it's kind of excruciating. We have no idea what's going on, but we all universally report that THIS IS AWFUL!So let me tell you the story leading up to the Anthony Polito case, at UNLV in Las Vegas, Nevada. December 2023.
Like so many rampage shooters, Anthony was suicidal, but HOW he was suicidal, is what makes his case interesting, because Anthony wanted to live in Las Vegas. He was a college professor, and he wanted to work at UNLV, so that he could have his day job, but also too, probably, access the city's prostituion market, although it's possible that he was just an avid gambler.
But either way, that was his motive, for going on the multiply murderous spree. And then he "died in a shootout with the police", which is ofc, we all know, "suicide by cop". That's the proof that he was suicidal, because he went into a situation where he knew beforehand that it was likely to "end in a shootout with police".
People obsessed with sins like gambling and prostitution and liquor and drugs are usually libertarians. So therefore Mr. Polito wasn't Left or Right, he was a centrist, a libertarian. Not a conservative, not a progressive welfarist.
My actual rant:
Principled libertarians all believe in personal responsibility. While libertarianism is architecturing to dismantle and decimate government, it is offering as a counteroffer, personal responsibility. i.e., libertarians don't want an unregulated, unsupervised society, they want one which is regulated and supervised by the individuals living in it, which is what libertarians claim personal responsibility will do for society.
The problem is that the personal freedom promised by libertarianism isn't well advertised to only be HALF the story, with the other half being personal responsibility. The reason this is a problem is because, if you have people without personal responsibility, and they hear about libertarian political ideology, they're almost all of them going to find large swaths of it attractive. At least the half dealing with their personal freedom and liberty.
They may not find the personal responsibility edge to libertarianism attractive, or even coherent. They may even have no idea what libertarians are talking about with personal responsibility.
My real actual rant:
Libertarians are actually terrible at conveying their politics. This is in part because so many of them don't even fully believe in libertarianism, because c. none of them can articulate how extreme personal freedom necessarily entails personal responsibility, they are like two sides of one coin.
And what this means is that if libertarians did actually understand their own position as well as they ought to understand it, they would actually be conservatives, like Matt Walsh.
Libertarian personal responsibility is a constant pressure, gently applied. It's not hard, but there's no weekends, holidays or vacations away from it, you always have to have personal responsibility. This is why I know the killer was not a principled libertarian, but a reckless individual, unfit for human society.
His ideology was broken because he was broken. If he had been a true libertarian, truly understanding the libertarian infinitely hard logical connection between personal freedom AND personal responsibility, he'd o'been a conservative, like Matt Walsh.
What I'm saying is that Matt Walsh understands libertarianism far, far better than Polito did, and far more than MANY other libertarians too. He understands that the invincible link between freedom and duty obv entails that we have the collective and moral political power to regulate things writ large. The libertarian persuasion against government regulations like this is, is wrongheaded both on its face (merely decrying big government or government encroachment), and at its root (that somehow we're being immoral if our assumption is not that we should not intervene (as opposed to, by analogy, to do no harm).
And my finally real rant:
How do you get a society full of personally responsible people? obv you must rear children to have it. obv it is important enough to supersede, to override, individual parents, if they are failing to rear their legal children to have personal responsibility. Our society depends on literally everybody being personally responsible, and our ideology, as true, principled libertarians, is basically totalitarian when it comes to rearing children. By hook or by crook, we are going to make sure that we can intervene in the process of child rearing, writ large, and systemically, and intrusively! if need be, because our society depends so much on it.
