Rolling Stone and utopian socialism - Equally relevant in the early 21st century

The comments on this article are remarkably racist. Here's to a round of Darby's Dose for all of them. Whatever, not like it's expensive or anything.

Myerson's first two points speak to me particularly. I look forward to a boom in insightful economic thinking like this, due to legalization of marijuana. Presuming, of course, that taxing and regulating it enhances it's consciousness expanding æffects.

JUST IN: Bad man say words, me angry.

Analogies are difficult

Fortunately, all cause and effect reasoning can easily be labeled as non-sequitor or slippery slope fallacies. Also, it's even easier to logi-blast the reactionaries when you pick targets who kind of sound like hillbillies anyway. Just another little tip from you Uncle Martin.

Remember when Hillary Clinton tried to reform healthcare and there was absolutely no opposition to that because she's white?

Sometimes a regressive reactionary is just a regressive reactionary, it doesn't always have to be racial, even if it is an easy way to act like you're Atticus Finch without having to actually do anything or risk any consequences.

I may sometimes come off as some kind of profound philosopher, but really, a lot of what I do is vaguely recall the 1990s, which makes me a deeper political thinker than most of the internet.

What am I talking about though, NOTHING could be more important than cheap Atticus Finch posturing. Why else would one ever take public positions on policy issues? The merits of the policy proposals themselves? Please.

Only the stated, intended effects of legislation can happen, it's SCIENCE!

Phil Kerpen thinks that making it illegal to hire people below a certain wage would somehow negatively affect employment for some people, to which I retort, "Oh yeah, well how about I take a dump right in your mouth?"

I'll make this clarification once this year

Thickies allege: Efforts to ban books on the rise. Sages remind: That is not technically censorship, therefore it is not logically valid to object to it, refer to it as banning, or hold it to be contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment.

Fairly decent for a one month old blog

The best of this blog in 2013:

• First post.
• Speaker of Truth to Power martyred. I was on a roll that day, like an old man sending soup back at a deli.
• Nostalgia sans feces.
• A reactionary is called on his impropriety.
• Racist exposed. The only post so far to get linked to.
• Potential assassin brought to light.
• How to syllogism.
• Pictures speak even more loudly than syllogisms.
• Obligatory response to the duck crisis: Class traitor chastised.

There's been some other pretty good stuff here more recently, but I won't bother linking it because it's still on the front page.

I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon

I was going to rebut this Time piece, but instead I will draw attention to an excellent and broadly applicable point raised by RJWinUK in the comments. A perfectly valid way to demonstrate the falsehood of a piece of rhetoric is to simply substitute the word "Jew" for some word that the speaker/writer actually used, and then see how it sounds.

For instance, one might argue thus: "Bestiality is, all other things being equal, a bad thing, since it risks spreading anthrax while lacking many of the virtues of more conventional sex acts".*

Not to advocate bestiality, but to demonstrate the rhetorical efficacy of this approach, suppose that a person who considered the first speaker a class traitor or other enemy of the People were to respond thusly: "If we were to substitute the word 'Jew' for 'bestiality', what would your statements sound like?"

Here is what it would sound like: "Jews are, all other things being equal, a bad thing, as they risk spreading anthrax while lacking many of the virtues of conventional sex acts". That actually sounds pretty bigoted, doesn't it? Therefore, the first speaker's statement is bigoted (regardless of intent, context, or the actual words that he said) and he should be forced to eat poop.

* I deeply regret equating homosexuality to bestiality in the above illustration. There is literally no other way a hypothetical example like that can be taken, since to mention two things in the same essay or speech is necessarily to equate them, QED. Although it now occurs to me that this axiomatic absolute applies only to world class idiots, class traitors, and other enemies of the People, so never mind.