Sometimes you write articles that you’re really proud of and you took great care in polishing–careful that every point was crystal clear. My last one was not one of those articles but it got more views than all of my other ones combined. I’m usually pretty laid back and mostly write about boring bitcoin stuff now. This reaction was unanticipated as it was just meant to be a silly rant, but it also had to be said.
I apologize for nothing.
But I do want to clear up some points because they seemed to have been missed. The article was meant to be a bit outrageous to be sure, but the subjects (except Ron Paul) involved have produced much more intentionally offensive content. I’m not a fan of outrage culture, but I thought I’d vent out some amusing frustration. Turns out, a lot of people felt the same way but had experienced censorship or silence when their concerns were brought up because even libertarians have their sacred cows immune from criticism. Others have weighed in on what I got wrong and I went on Free Talk Live to give my side of the story.
First off, I have no problem with donations as I said. The language was hyperbolic to make a point but that point was not that you should donate to nobody (unless you’re broke) but that your donations would be better spent on activists with better track records. Some people asked me for solutions but another point was to do your own research. There are very few groups I donate to: Antiwar, Bitcoin Not Bombs, Ross Ulbricht’s Legal Defense Fund, Sean’s Outpost Homeless Outreach, and individuals who are in need or whose work I value. But unless you have vetted someone, don’t waste your money.
I’ve been accused of trying to divide the movement. Your movement isn’t worth shit if it can’t handle a little low brow criticism. It produces enough content of the same every time one of the people I criticized writes (or has someone ghostwrite that they later don’t pay) or makes attention seeking videos.
Some people wanted to argue semantics (shock!) but if you’re too dense to realize the way I am using the term welfare, especially after I defined the term “libertarian welfare queen”, then I can’t help you. If you are living off of the donations of others to fund your lifestyle, you are using some form of welfare and no welfare does not have to be coercive it can be voluntary. Words have multiple meanings. I learned some libertarians should get better at reading comprehension.
I don’t think you have to have a job to be a productive libertarian. Many people balance day jobs and activism; I do and am privileged to be able to have a job that allows flexibility. But there are full time, successful activists out there that don’t work a “slave job” too. I wasn’t demonizing activism in the least, just unproductive activism.
I was also amazed (well kind of) at how uncritically thinking my critics were. Calling me a communist, bootlicker, butter faced cunt, or SJW is the best you got? I got called worse and more creative names in middle school. The three people I focused on are the biggest name callers in libertarianism and even revel in being known for it. And please learn the correct definition of ad hominem. Saying Chris Cantwell is a big, fat crybaby =/= Chris Cantwell’s points are invalid because he is a big, fat crybaby. Now yeah it was name calling and even a little bit of shit talking, but that’s the nature of rants. These are grown men who can take it and who really shouldn’t be worried that some insignificant blogger is going to interrupt their cash flow.
But maybe some of them are afraid of a little lady? One of them, Chris Cantwell, wrote a lie filled blog post as a response and then blocked me from commenting–which is fine because it’s his property. But if you give money to someone, shouldn’t you be a little curious about why they are trying to silence their critics?
I don’t make jack shit from my writings but do take donations and allow all non-spam comments. Even the mean ones. Even the ones that might prove me wrong.
But I’m not going to stop criticizing any movement when I think the people it puts in leadership positions are swindlers or ineffective. I want to thank the people who have contacted me offering their support. If you want something to succeed, you should be willing to examine when someone casts a harsh light on the people with more followers and influence in your movement, even if the critique was meant to be saucy or humorous.