Underlore - Latest Comments

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Brandon M. Sergent — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 23:16:29 -0000

"I'm not sure if you are a troll or just plain stup!d."

We both know that's a lie. You do not think I'm stupid. You know I believe what I am saying. And I don't think you think I'm crazy either.

The interesting side question is why you would say something you don't believe. I'll tell you. Because some part of you sees my point and this disturbs you. It reminds you that by your own estimation at some level you are the greedy fop my assertions and your position together imply you to be.

"...they might not be perfect they are good enough."

Good enough to keep a pyramid scam going? Clearly. Ask yourself, why can't I set an upper limit on my gifts? Why can't I cut the fops shitting on the rest of us out of my giveaways? Why do the mods have no problem at all with bot accounts? Why are bundle games devalued if cash isn't changing hands and the ostensible goal is just finding games people will actually play? Look more closely while stepping back.

This place is a pyramid scam and an ad farm lure for bot farmers and traders.

"how you can actually believe that being able to re-gift your games is something one should be allowed to do"

Bullshit. So you'd have me believe that both the concepts of property rights, and having friends or family that can't be dragged here to do it themselves, are so foreign to you as to genuinely believe I am mentally ill for failing to be equally ignorant?

Well. Here, allow me to explain. I believe that a gift given at random belongs to the person who received it. That's the nature of transfer of ownership. Ownership. Transferring.

How do we define ownership? Obviously by the right to do as we please with an asset. Including. Obviously. The right to give away keys to whomever I see fit, like friends or family (you know, those people around you that you apparently don't have or don't care about) including random people. Unless you are saying that giveaways themselves are immoral...

Lets say you see a contest with a sweater your sister might want as a prize. You enter the contest and win the sweater. Did you steal the sweater if you give it to your sister? Are you a bad person for giving a sweater you don't want to your sister? Are you a bad person for entering a context purely to help someone else?

And lets talk about "abuse" of the system.

What does that even mean? Are you saying the contests are rigged? You have to be. Because if the contests are fair and square then it shouldn't matter what a person does with their winnings. Especially when we're already allowed to limit our gifting to specific groups. Whats so bad about people regifting their way into a higher rating? Clearly that's what you're afraid of. But why?

How is regifting this massive abuse but gifting itself isn't? That's the core lunacy of your camp's position. Gifting for profit in the form of games is this grand selfless gesture, but regifting a game won fair and square to join the ranks of the traders and monied at the top is this ethically repugnant abomination.

Classist much?

Steamgifts.com is a pyramid scheme and the people at the top have a vested interest in keeping the great mass of participants at the bottom. That's the entire point of the scam. And like some shitheel ferengi, you don't want a fair system, you want a system, that's unfair that benefits you.

I'll only get 15% credit on my gifts while traders get 100%. And on top of that like 80% of my gifts will go to the upper echelons, and the percentage is only low because they are already so bloated with games that they don't even want what I'm giving away. Another fat percentage will go to bots. Because seriously, did you really think all those people saying thank you and entering within a millisecond were actual humans? Accounts with 50 wins and zero comments and zero giveaways? But they aren't the problem to you people because they only fleece the bottom layer, just like you. They would only be a threat if they rose to the top. But they can't can they, because you've made sure NO ONE can without money or trade assets.

This place isn't about gifting. It's about exploiting people to make games even cheaper for OCD traders and rich assholes, when it isn't providing an overt cash and key sale income to said traders.

The only legitimate behavior on that fucking webpage is the most selfish possible course of action. I firmly believe you already knew that.

As I explained in the locked thread your lazy ass clearly didn't read: If you don't see the problem with gifting being banned on a site with "gift" in the domain name, you're a greedy deadmind.

Get back to your nest. Either you have children to grift or you you have boots to lick.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Dan — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:35:57 -0000

Sir I'll be honest, after going through your post and comments I'm not sure if you are a troll or just plain stup!d.

Each and every rule has a great amount of thought put into it to avoid abusing the system and while they might not be perfect they are good enough.

I just can't understand how you can actually believe that being able to re-gift your games is something one should be allowed to do when that can easily be abused. And the fact that you won't comprehend that makes believe that you might have a mental illness, I'm not even joking, you might wanna get checked.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Brandon M. Sergent — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 02:34:38 -0000

Fifty games gifted, and only level 4. I rest my case. You've been had. It took you nearly two years to trade 50 games for 30.

You're misunderstanding the type of scam they run. I know games are changing hands, that's not the point.

15% is theft. There is zero reason to scale the value at all. You should either be a member in good standing or not. It's a pyramid scheme to fleece people at the bottom for the benefit of the people at the top.

"There are lengthy discussions and explinations for why these rules exist and I agree with them."

That's because you're either hateful and greedy, or ignorant:
http://www.steamgifts.com/d...

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:08:18 -0000

I just stumbled on this page somehow and after reading through your comments I have to say you are very wrong about the site.

I have been a member for about 1 1/2 years, I have only ever given away bundled games that were leftovers that I didn't want and yet I have won 29 games. 6 of my wins are unbundled games including The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - Legendary Edition, Saints Row IV: Game of the Century Edition, Killing Floor 2, and Fallout: New Vegas.

The site is clearly not an "Ad scam" as you called it considering they only have 1 spot on the site for an ad and most people use an ad blocker. If it was an ad scam they would have a lot more ads.

You do get rewarded for giving away bundled games. You get 15% of the full price on Steam. I have given away just over 50 bundle leftovers and my contributor value is level 4.

There are still ways for people to try and cheat the system to gain levels and get better odds at winning games, but the rules that are in place now are very good at preventing cheating and each rule is there for a good reason. If you search the discussion forums on steamgifts, you will see threads where people ask about not activating wins and regifting. There are lengthy discussions and explinations for why these rules exist and I agree with them.

Those are just the points I wanted to make off the top of my head after reading through your posts. I know there was a lot of other things I disagreed with, but I don't feel like reading through it again.

Re: Banned from Hand of Fate

Brandon M. Sergent — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:34:45 -0000

And it's possible to dig a basement using a melon baller. So what? And I didn't say it strengthens an argument, so why are you using quotes?

That's why Ad Hominem is a fallacy in the first place. It isn't an argument. It does not strengthen or weaken it.

Look again at my example. At no point will addition of insult make the world flat. The argument's merit is based on its parity with reality.

I was not banned for being wrong, I was banned for not kissing boot.

Re: Banned from Hand of Fate

EO_XE — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:05:37 -0000

Arguments are very well possible without insults. Using insults to try to "strengthen" an argument by unsubstantially bashing the opponent weakens your position instead.

Re: Banned from Hand of Fate

Brandon M. Sergent — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:23:09 -0000

That's because you have no respect for freedom of speech or journalistic integrity. Further, an Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy only in and of itself. An argument of substance which also contains an attack is not a fallacy.

Example:
Ad Hominem = You're a moron.
Argument = You're a moron if you still think the earth is flat after watching a boat disappear hull first while sailing into the horizon.

Grabbing the "moron" part and saying it refutes the argument is absurd.

Indeed, banning the use of logical fallacies is absurd as well.

Ad Hominem prohibition is a power trip.

Re: Banned from Hand of Fate

EO_XE — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:28:46 -0000

I see no issue in a rule forbidding ad hominem attacks

Re: Banned from Hand of Fate

Brandon M. Sergent — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:45:35 -0000

Yeah because rules are intrinsically good. Thanks for clearing that up. >.>

Meanwhile back in the real world the complexity of a rule isn't the defining aspect of its ethical value.

Re: Banned from Hand of Fate

EO_XE — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:48:53 -0000

You really have a problem with simple rules lol, and always using ad hominem attacks, no wonder the result

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Brandon M. Sergent — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:52:58 -0000

Before we begin... You realize this is my blog right? I don't need to let you talk. In fact I can edit what you've already said. But I don't feel the need to either censor you, or manipulate you. That should REALLY tell you something, but of course it doesn't.

"this drivel"

Anyway... Yeah, drivel. Sure thing :) Being held to some kind of moral standard is drivel.

"I believe a site's rules should be followed"

Get over yourself. And screw your self serving exploitative rules.

I play by a set of rules that matter.

http://underlore.com/the-apex/ (You wouldn't understand.)

"taking gifts only to profit from them is bad"

What amazing mental gymnastics you must be capable of.

Tell me, is keeping a game not profiting from it?

So I own a game I win enough to own it as a library entry, but not enough to own as a number, or as a gift?

And giving something away... profits me more than keeping it?

O.o

XD Wow you must think yourself very selfless indeed I bet you've kept everything you could get your little mitts on and you're like "Look how selfless I am I'm keeping everything!"

Meanwhile back in reality, a person who receives a gift profits if it's a worthwhile gift. And people who care even give gift receipts so exchanges can be made. How sad your life must be to not even know that.

Many of the contests I enter are for other people. And you know what? I'll keep entering them when my suspension is up because I care more about them. Being forced into the bottom echelon means I won't be winning very much anyway, so a week or two between gifts to friends is totally worth it to me. I'll keep doing that until you parasites make it even more obvious that the point of your page isn't about anything even in the same galaxy as generosity by banning me, if you haven't already because I dared speak truth to an insider. Or until my friend's want lists run dry. Whichever happens first :)

"I won't bother responding to the rest of your comment, as it only shows you have problems that aren't fixed by something like logic. "

Says the guy who white knights for a site called steam GIFTS that expressly prohibits GIFTING XD (lol4r no joke, you make me laugh at my computer, thank you.) And I'm the one with broken logic?

I literally can't even satirize that it's so on-the-nose with it's absurdity. Guy defending a gift ban at xgifts.com, questions *my* logic. Nope, that's the ground floor of contradiction. Well done.

Responses... From evil people... XD I'm well away of how pandemic fact and logic immunity are, especially among the hopelessly corrupt. (So ironic that you'd even use the word to me.) http://underlore.com/avoid-...

I've known for a fact, for years, that I can't talk sense into you ethical defectives.

If it's anything me-related, I'm mad at myself for taking that worthless site on face value.

You're right, I should have been a cynical hateful fuck and read every line of the FAQ combing for bullshit, but I got carried away. I thought "Woah! Something good and kind and useful, from fucking coders no less." I was EAGER to be wrong. And I let that desire blind me.

If ever the phrase had utility it's right now: I should have fucking known.

So fuck off back to your pampered baited little newb fleecing hole and trader circle jerk. You have children to exploit and kindness to punish and holidays to ruin.

"you are the ****ing problem in all of this."

Yeah, the guy that wants to give something back rather than stuff it in his personal vault to never be played just because he can... That guy is the problem. Sure thing pal.

See, if I'm a problem, because gifting... On steam gifts... is the problem, then steamgift.com is a scam, and oh hey look, that's my Entire Point.

As far as I can tell because you chumps ban and silence all who agree with me, I'm the only one without "a problem" in all of this. That shady exploitative if not fraudulent context is the problem.

Bottom line is this. I am an honest generous person. Not even my enemies deny this. (They accuse me of other flaws.) If you're suspending me, if my actions are forbidden, then the rules are broken or evil.

You have codified greed and criminalized generosity. You lumps are so selfish, that you have to actively Forbid kindness, generosity, sharing because your evil is so concentrated that such things are an actual threat in your mind.

Simply amazing. You should buy stock in Monsanto.

"You want to believe that you are a victim of some evil site"

I'm not the real victim here you moron. I don't give a shit about my 7 games. You think all this rage comes from 7 games I would never have played? I went there to give them away genius! XD

I'm Angry on behalf of the hordes of kids right now giving away their games wondering why their rank isn't going up. Trying to be good and decent, people, joining contests for games for their friends and family because hello not everyone has money and hello it's like a week from Christmas you walking shit... And it's even worse if they win because they'll be so happy when they win, and then you'll suspend them or punish them somehow and fucking Ruin it.

You'll literally ruin Christmas for kids trying to be nice. Drink that in. Let that soak through your lizard scales, maybe deep down it'll cause a tingle, something to remind you that in point of fact you were born a mammal. Jesus, you're like literally the Grinch, and you think you have moral authority to scold me!? XD

On top of ruining xmas for some kids, you'll even blame it on them, and kids being what they are might even fucking believe you and feel stupid. It's literally hard to imagine deeper evil this side of criminal activity or resorting to abstract multipliers.

I imagine you absolving yourself with the same shit lawyers do. "You didn't read the FAQ, fuck you kid." Maybe even priding yourself on making them bitter, like it's a life lesson. That's where my rage comes from you ethically bankrupt waste of carbon.

I didn't expect nor desire a meaningful response from you. This post is about warning other fucking people. Getting to tell one of you fucks what fucks you are in this comment is just a bonus from the gods for me.

So yes... Shame is absolutely what you would be feeling if you weren't completely defective. And that is absolutely what you should feel.

I'm sure you'll have a merry xmas. Monsters always seem to.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

DeltaBladeX — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:15:52 -0000

And back from work. Must say, finding this drivel in my inbox wasn't fun.

Apparently, because I believe a site's rules should be followed, and that taking gifts only to profit from them is bad, _I_ should be ashamed of myself? You are a real piece of work.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your comment, as it only shows you have problems that aren't fixed by something like logic. You want to believe that you are a victim of some evil site, while not realising you are the ****ing problem in all of this.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Brandon M. Sergent — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:36:56 -0000

"I only wanted it so I could profit from it", well that's a bit of a **** move. That is why you are expected to enter for games you want."

Then why can't I enter one contest multiple times? Why don't my unused points roll over? They DON'T want us to limit our entries, they want us to keep coming to the site multiple times a day to enter everything or else feel like we wasted an opportunity. It's an Ad scam. Not a gifting platform.

"Second is to prevent cheating"

That's an industry problem first of all: it should be possible to confirm a key without redeeming it. Secondly, there are a billion better ways to do that then to criminalize generosity. A dead key is a risk I as the regifter am willing to take. And can be easily solved with a user rating system. It would be trivially easy to remove fake key gifters if "gifted" were a key receipt option.

Besides if I was permitted to just sit on keys, I could wait until the final destination (actual account redemption) clears, and then the resulting confirmations would domino back to the source.

"Right now, such users do exist, but when they enter a high level giveaway, the scam they were pulling is quickly discovered and they tend to get a permanent ban for all involved users."

I already proved you also have a whole CSGO key farming bot net that you don't care about. Yet I get an instant suspension for calling out your greedy bullshit. You didn't care about my unredeemed keys yesterday, but I comment on a regift thread and in 2 minutes I'm suspended? Please. Your intentions are crystal clear.

"Still, I'm sure you must be able to at least understand why we have this rule in place."

Oh I understand Completely. The Obvious point of the page and thus the rule is ad revenue and to fleece generous newbs and reward monied traders.

You might as well pose as a salvation army ringer and spend the change you get on hookers just because in tiny print on the bucket you said spending was at your discretion.

"let me point out you are the one *****ing about a site being a scam where you break site rules. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with your own actions here?"

News flash bootlicker, rules can have a moral gradient. Breaking a rule isn't intrinsically bad if the rule is bullshit.

Your piece of shit scam fest is fleecing generous newbs. You intentionally bury the lead even within the FAQ about the regifting ban. And you BAN GIFTING on a GIFT site in the fucking first place! Hell no I don't see anything wrong with my actions.

In fact I didn't regift the keys expressly BECAUSE I was playing by your bullshit rules. You punished me for it ANYWAY because you wanted to censor me and punish me for disagree with you and calling out your bullshit. Now, I did trade my costume quest key before I knew regifting was banned, because why the fuck would it be? And because you buried the lead like I said. I actually did skim the FAQ. But it Initially read like common sense stuff.

Fuck me for trusting you right?

No, I absolutely have the moral high ground here. You're running a classist scam. Tricking low income gamers out of bundle keys to attract other low income gamers lather rinse repeat all so a clique of monied OCD traders and yuppie larvae can gift eachother games and have their pick of free bundle games on the side. You're essentially making it cheaper to be rich. Like everything else in this piece of shit market.

Look at what I want to be able to do, and tell me at what point it's immoral.

I want to be able to give away assets I won and therefor own. The End.

Unless you can make an ethical argument for how giving away stuff is intrinsically wrong, which would by definition also apply to steam gifts, you don't have any game to bring to this table.

You give me NO OTHER WAY to prove my generosity or trustworthiness in the context of the gifts system. I may ONLY buy it, or trade for it which is the same thing. You give me NO OTHER WAY to consistently spend my points on the games I'll actually play. You give me NO OTHER WAY to make use of my bundle keys. I am FORCED to sit on them because I'm not a trader shithead.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

DeltaBladeX — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:07:31 -0000

On the first part, there are a few problems with it.

First is the moral problem. If you bought someone a gift, and they were "**** you, it sucks, I only wanted it so I could profit from it", well that's a bit of a **** move. That is why you are expected to enter for games you want.

Second is to prevent cheating. Regifting being allowed would mean that support would be unable to confirm giveaways were real, so any ****wit could make fake giveaways for every new game under the sun for their friends, and when it comes to confirming they actually happened, no proof either way. Right now, such users do exist, but when they enter a high level giveaway, the scam they were pulling is quickly discovered and they tend to get a permanent ban for all involved users.

I'd go into more detail on the problems, but I have to leave for work shortly. Still, I'm sure you must be able to at least understand why we have this rule in place.

Before I leave though, since you claim that I have a problem, let me point out you are the one *****ing about a site being a scam where you break site rules. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with your own actions here?

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Brandon M. Sergent — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:53:18 -0000

The point is why am I required to activate my keys if they are supposed to be MINE? It's not a gift if I don't own it. Once the keys are mine I should be allowed to do as I please with them.

The FAQ buries the gifting prohibition, that's why I circled it in the screen cap. And it should because the domain is named steam GIFTS! Am I seriously expected to read the fine print to determine if gifts are ok to be a thing on a page called steam gifts?

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

So I'm the problem eh? Explain to me what is wrong with wanting to gift my winnings? What possible rational opposition could there be to regifting generally? (Especially regifting outside of steam gifts.)

P.S. My suspension happened today (2015-12-17) I posted this scam post like almost a month ago.

Also, they only looked into me when I commented about the regifting ban being greedy bullshit.

It's a spite ban, plain and simple. I didn't even regift any keys.

I'm happy to stipulate I broke some greedy bullshit page rule. The point is that the rule is greedy bullshit.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

DeltaBladeX — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:18:08 -0000

You didn't activate two of your wins, and complain that your bundle games aren't worth a lot.

The FAQ makes a lot of things obvious, and here you are complaining about them after getting suspended for breaking site rules.

SteamGifts isn't the problem in this scenario.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Brandon M. Sergent — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:55:32 -0000

You're trying to be funny but you're proving my point.

Steam "gifts" isn't about "gifting" any more than eBay is.

It's like everything else in the pampered western luxury economy. It's about rich people giving stuff to other rich people while a mob of poor people fight over the crumbs.

You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves.

You assholes scammed me out of 7 games before I realized I wasn't being credited for them because they are icky poor person commoner bundle games.

It's blatantly a scam to bury the fact that they will suspend you for gifting the keys you win.

Think about how monumentally greedy that forces, forces, people to be.

Steam gifts is simply the fleecing of generous newbs.

No wonder everyone turns to piracy. Every "legitimate" venue is filled with assholes like you.

Re: Steamgifts.com is a scam

Snillum — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:26:48 -0000

yeah this site is a scam, pls people don't enter! (so we have more chances of winning)

Re: Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a Crock

Brandon M. Sergent — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:57:15 -0000

Re: Libertarianism is Camouflage for Republicans

Brandon M. Sergent — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:59:44 -0000

> ...to make up positions I don't hold, and present them as if I do...

True or false:

You're not in favor of any sort of government, yet you balk when I call you an anarchist.

You accept no intrinsic responsibility to your fellow humans to which you submit to being held to by force, yet you balk when I call you social darwinist.

You balk at being called 1% puppets, yet you mouth their talking points and vote in lockstep with their puppet party. Failing that, you fatalistically encourage disengagement from the process which is clearly what the right wing wants with their voter fraud sham.

You are to me functionally a right wing republican if any of the above is true, let alone all of it.

> from which a lot of your problems arise, and ditto for your opponent

That is the root of your delusion. You think just because you dismiss both sides you aren't serving one or the other.

Don't you get it? Your disengagement serves them every bit as much as a republican vote.

If you vote on lost causes, or don't vote at all, that makes them your proxy. When you don't vote you are equal to a felon in terms of the process. Your headcount will be gerrymandered into usefulness, your lack of vote entirely exploitable as an asset.

> you wrap yourself in a veneer of quasi-intellectualism

Asking why I talk funny? Really? My intelligence and command of the language annoys you it seems I assure you this is how I actually speak and actually think. I can provide ample evidence.

Even as a child I had well above average linguistic skills (except for penmanship and spelling.) My psych evaluation is somewhere on my blog also even. It comments on this fact. I'm not "quasi" anything in this context.

> I have no reason to expect anything going forward except more of the same vitriol and misrepresentation.

I asked you point blank for example which elements of government you would keep and you essentially said none. You dismissed force outright. That's baby and bathwater, big time.

Deny my core points above. Tell me what government you'd see, tell me what responsibility humans have to other humans in your view that's worthy of enforcement, tell me why you vote and who you vote for, tell me what human authority is legitimate.

Am I wrong that your answers are essentially in order: None, none, I don't, and none?

If those are your answers essentially then you have not refuted my core assertion.

> And these are just basic, factual misrepresentations of uncomplicated statements.

And yet you don't offer a single claim of factual error specifically. You just keep asserting I've made them hoping the label of error will stand in place of citation of the error.

I happily accept my burden of proof. I'm perfectly fine with being wrong. Pick a factual error you see of core relevance to the assertion that libertarians are functionally identical to republicans in that the both serve the 1% goal of "deregulation" and a general exploitative agenda.

I don't have to make a straw man for the pyre. What you are is more than sufficient kindling. If I'm wrong then you aren't a libertarian.

But the thing is, the great good news of all of this, is that the compassionate thing is also the most efficient thing in so many contexts. Just like adding oil is better than replacing the engine. It's like the healthcare debate. (Single payer is both cheaper and better.) And the efficacy of the UBI. Economy of scale and the cost effectiveness of prevention. The asymmetric impact of money. The diminishing returns of accumulating it.

The cost is that you can't enshrine individual freedom above everything else because some people want truly toxic things. Serial killers are the obvious example, but pathological wealth hoarding is arguably even more toxic.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.c...

Re: Libertarianism is Camouflage for Republicans

Undead Rufus — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:06:56 -0000

What I actually think — and, hell, what I've actually taken time to plaster in black and white right in front of your face — really is of no particular concern to you, is it?

I fully expect you to disagree with me on some things, but your willingness to make up positions I don't hold, and present them as if I do, has become frustrating and foreboding. I'm pressed to isolate a single reply of yours that accurately reflects anything I said previously, including your contrived group list and rather sardonic attempt to justify your earlier insults. For someone who is so quick to accuse others of committing logical fallacies, this is strange behavior.

> "(and yes there is something to lose here)" <

Yes, namely the continued expenditure of my time on someone who's already thrown the Talking Stick on the campfire. Your pro-state article is a mass of confusions, poorly defined or undefined terms and concepts (from which a lot of your problems arise, and ditto for your opponent), alongside the odd salient point. I even agree with a lot of what you say on this website. But, for me, why bother now? As evidenced more than once, you wrap yourself in a veneer of quasi-intellectualism, but you don't actually seem that interested in an honest exchange with anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I have no reason to expect anything going forward except more of the same vitriol and misrepresentation.

And these are just basic, factual misrepresentations of uncomplicated statements. I'm loath to combat the straw-man onslaught of an in-the-trenches philosophical exchange along these same lines. I have the time, and never said otherwise (another of your petty fabrications, when what I actually said was that I wanted to give your claims their due diligence), but you've frankly made the prospect something of a ridiculous joke.

Re: Libertarianism is Camouflage for Republicans

Brandon M. Sergent — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:51:25 -0000

> Rand Paul himself has denied being libertarian...

lol4r

Ok, so you tell me. What percentage of the American political landscape that calls itself libertarian actually is libertarian in your view?

The point was to show you as being evasive about taking responsibility for the actual actions of the group label you apply to yourself. I still see you being evasive.

> I'm somehow claiming that Ron Paul isn't a real libertarian?

You're strongly implying that any libertarian in the American political landscape isn't actually a libertarian. In which case you shouldn't even be talking to outsiders. You should be cleaning house.

> Yeah, because you average voter is so conscientious of the actual score that he goes to the booth to defend human rights. Uh-huh. :|

Wow. That is not even close to the point. What's the practical upshot of that monumental condescension? How much right to exploit and torment them does this implied stupidity give you and your party?

Because that's a hallmark of the label, excusing all manner of exploitation and neglect on the grounds that your victims somehow brought it on themselves. If the entire point of your political identity isn't abandoning the vast majority of humanity, then you are truly applying the wrong label to yourself because like it or not that's the essence of libertarianism in the eyes of the world as judged by the positions and actions taken by the majority of those who adopt the label.

> You have yet to even demonstrate a willingness to accurately parse what I'm saying. / have no reason to think you even know what a libertarian is

But see this notion of accuracy is a filter you use to make sure only the good stuff about the identity sticks to you personally. Like I said, you're using it like Christians do when you tell them god is an evil fuck for even inventing cancer.

Every thing I say about libertarianism that you find unflattering you dismiss as intrinsically "inaccurate." To whatever degree I am wrong about your thoughts and behaviors, is equivalent to how wrong you are about the actual practical meaning of your chosen political label.

> The alleged right-wing beast-starving project has achieved piss-poor results.

Don't confuse incompetence with agenda. The right wing doesn't actually want smaller government, it wants captured government. That's why this alliance between libertarians and the right wing is foolish. And again before you say there isn't an alliance, you should look at the practical behavior of 99% of people who publicly self identify as libertarian.

> I would prefer society not to collapse into chaos and ashes, but I'm increasingly aware that what I actually think is irrelevant in this discussion.

Prefer and think are different things. You clearly think collapse is imminent, and either you welcome it because of delusions of readiness, or you are rightfully terrified. Either way you're not thinking straight.

If a collapse comes the survivors will be chosen at random, and virtually all of us will see a huge chunk sheered off our longevity. There is no being ready. If you're scared, then get in the fucking game and try to avert it realistically, not fatalistically surrendering preemptively in search of some twisted I told you so satisfaction from a self fulfilling prophecy.

Vote properly and encourage others to do so. You talk shit about alex jones types but those are the very types that don't vote, and you are yourself clearly advocating yet another line of reasoning that leads to throwing up your hands and saying fuck it, grab marshmallows because the fire is coming.

Here's the political reality you seem unwilling to face: How you vote and how you impact voting determines the vast majority of your political impact unless you become a politician yourself.

> Sigh.

Sigh is not an argument. If you don't like being a 1% puppet or lumped in with social Darwinists then pick a different label because the one you are wearing now is a registered trademark at this point, fair or not.

> Higher voter turnout is unlikely to bring about whatever revolution you desire

I don't want a revolution, I want a handful of repeals and a general movement towards compassion and rationality in politics. And I'm going to get it too. Higher turn out is coming and it will bring me exactly what I want.

> They have no motivation to do so. In fact, their livelihoods depend upon ensuring that problems are never actually solved.

That's intellectual cowardice and a nirvana fallacy. At any given moment we are at some degree of a turning point. But at no point is a permanent solution at hand. It's always going to be a fight vs something or other. You seem afraid to face this state of permanent war, but that is the nature of life itself.

Even if we as humanity get our shit completely together it'll still be a war against gamma ray bursts and the cold and heat death and isolation and so on. It seems very much to me like you've given up on any real solution because you've realized there can never be a perfect solution.

But as a gamer, you tell me, is that really such a bad thing? Isn't a game more fun if there's always going to be another quest? On a related note, would your game be more fun if you felt actual accurately intense physical pain when your character received an injury? (No.)

Point being, we do have a fight on our hands, but there are things we can do that will have staggering impact.

> I literally wrote the opposite of what you're claiming I implied.

No, you really didn't. The take away from all your comments in the context is disowning what the rest of humanity thinks (with good reason) when you say "libertarian." Assuming you're right, and I will for argument sake, I'm sure it's frustrating to have a label that suits you co-opted but either you're a tea party equivalent, or you need to find a new label.

> Varied goals, same means.

That doesn't refute my earlier reply. You are still saying sanders and trump are qualitatively identical because they are applying for the same job. That's a hilariously delusional extension of your political fatalism with literally zero basis in evidence or reality generally.

It's intellectually lazy in the extreme. Rather than parse the very real differences of impact they would have as presidents you are just throwing up your hands and saying the presidency itself is evil and using that as an excuse to both give up and think no more deeply into the subject.

> So I'm a rube, a 1% puppet, a member of the social darwinist party, and a misanthrope. This has been amazingly productive so far.

Rube/1%: Because you're letting yourself be used to bloat the roster of a totally captured political group to help people who wouldn't piss on your gums if your teeth were on fire.

Darwinist party: Because the entire point of libertarianism is never being forced to do anything, especially help people you don't feel deserve it. (As if it's even possible for a single living human to not deserve their basic fucking needs met.)

Misanthrope: Because you clearly expect and desire a cataclysmic collapse of some sort that will magically leave you to rise from the ashes and lead us to a new golden era of greed and homogeneity.

> Trump vs. Sanders would be a YouTube sensation and meme-a-thon, probably with a fair bit of hilarious shouting.

Actually it would be a lot like the democratic debate was. It would be Sanders owning the stage with compassion authenticity brilliance and wit, while Trump did his very best to work "socialist jew" or the like into as many sentences as he could.

Your joke isn't funny to me because 1 I haven't given up, 2 I care about other people for real, not just as something I type online to blend in, and 3 it depends on the delusion that they are politically equivalent in any meaningful sense.

> Which libertarians?

/facepalm

The other bad not-really libertarians I'm sure, not you. You're special. /smh

> I don't believe you are careless or stupid enough to think I said that

You seem to think there's a difference between explicitly saying something and making no other conclusion possible from previous statements.

You've made it abundantly clear that the political world can be useful carved into three groups from your perspective, and if you don't actually believe this then you have a lot of revisions to make.

First group: True libertarians, that think as you do more or less and present a generally flattering picture of the movement.

Second group: False libertarians, that claim to think as you do but actually don't as evidenced by their unflattering behavior or statements.

Third group: All other political identities, as evidenced by your insane assertion that trump and sanders (and presumably everyone in between, which is like 99% of all other political identities since sanders is a socialist and trump is obviously a literal fascist) are qualitatively identical and ultimately foolish or evil some how compared to true libertarians.

Thus... The only people that have a chance of being different from group three must be wearing the libertarian label.

It's logically inescapable given your previous positions. You don't have to come out and say it explicitly, thus failing to do so won't save you. At least not from me.

> I wonder why it matters.

Because each time you do you make it clear that this is more about your ego than anything else. Which I don't judge by the way, I'm just saying it tells me about you.

> I have found myself cringing at some of the delivery even as I'm generally unmoved by your responses.

So he's group 2 and I'm group 3. /smh

> stints between Guild Wars runs, working, and chasing kids around the house. But if you want to be that petty, then suit yourself.

Nice hedge.

So if you lose this debate, (and yes there is something to lose here) it's not because you're politically wrong or demonstrably unethical, it's because you have more important things to do.

Well, I have a life too guy. You don't see me throwing up my real life conditions as excuses.

If you don't have time, don't fucking reply. It makes no sense to whine about not having time for a reply, in your reply.

You could reply a full year later and I'd be fine with that. Your only hurry is your own ego.

Re: Libertarianism is Camouflage for Republicans

Undead Rufus — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 13:35:02 -0000

> "Yet your reply again implies they aren't true to some degree or other. You're doing the same things theists do." <

I'm beginning to roll my eyes already. Rand Paul himself has denied being libertarian (though admittedly has confused this issue, such that I don't think he even knows what he's saying sometimes). Gary Johnson is not as libertarian as I would like, but I just directly told you that I have no cause to deny him the label. Your desire to manufacture some kind of fallacy here is compelling you to attack things I never wrote.

> "More no true scotsman."

Invoking Ron Paul's name doesn't give you street cred, and a lot of Ron Paul supporters are Alex Jones PCTs, and so I'm somehow claiming that Ron Paul isn't a real libertarian? You might hurt yourself bending like that.

> "And how dare they want a better life for themselves without being some corporation's human resource, right? I guess you don't believe in human rights." <

Yeah, because you average voter is so conscientious of the actual score that he goes to the booth to defend human rights. Uh-huh. :|

> "You're just making my argument for me."

You have yet to even demonstrate a willingness to accurately parse what I'm saying.

> "they've become a tool of the right wing's starve the beast, safety net slash and burn, project."

The alleged right-wing beast-starving project has achieved piss-poor results.

> "But you're a rube"

This is going downhill.

> "Nothing you are saying refutes my core argument"

Almost nothing you've written here constitutes an actual argument.

> "That's cynical lazy wishful thinking on your part."

Not according to the reality I observe.

> "since your group"

What group would that be? Libertarians? I have no reason to think you even know what a libertarian is, and so it's doubtful you would be able to ascertain the tenets, motivations or goals of libertarians (which, to be fair, are not always uniform).

> "...a delusional belief that the chaos and ashes will lead to your phoenix-like ascension."

I would prefer society not to collapse into chaos and ashes, but I'm increasingly aware that what I actually think is irrelevant in this discussion.

> "...since functionally you're nothing but 1% puppets."

Sigh.

> "And cynical fatalism is the Kool-Aid of the 1%. Who benefits most from a 30% turnout?"

Higher voter turnout is unlikely to bring about whatever revolution you desire, because most voters aren't informed or even particularly rational, or at best are seeking a lesser relative evil that they seldom manage to actually install. Establishment politicians (including His Holiness Sanders) will never substantially change anything for the better, either. They have no motivation to do so. In fact, their livelihoods depend upon ensuring that problems are never actually solved.

> "That's because you're a member of the social darwinist party" <

Sigh.

> "Dude. Every time you implied..." <

I literally wrote the opposite of what you're claiming I implied.

> "I could just rest my case right there."

Based on your insults and misrepresentations, I would say you haven't made much of a case to rest.

> "But that's on it's face absurd."

It's actually possible for Sanders and Trump to be "qualitatively identical" in the sense that they both intend to force their ideas upon society with aggressive violence, without holding qualitatively identical ideas. Varied goals, same means. This is what I actually said. Of course, you again ignored reality in lieu of manufacturing a position that you could more easily respond to.

> "(And more than a little misanthropy judging from your tone.)"

So I'm a rube, a 1% puppet, a member of the social darwinist party, and a misanthrope. This has been amazingly productive so far.

> "You also on a side note have the deeply fox news habit of thinking a quip is an argument."

I don't believe I've offered any quips that did not accompany at least a somewhat reasoned (albeit abbreviated) response. The "quip" in question was a misguided attempt to bring some humor into the discussion, which clearly failed since a torrent of insults was the result. But c'mon, even if you've convinced yourself that I'm a greedy social darwinist who drowns kittens and homeless people for weekend thrills, you gotta admit that Trump vs. Sanders would be a YouTube sensation and meme-a-thon, probably with a fair bit of hilarious shouting.

> "...is that libertarians ironically believe"

Which libertarians?

> "...anyone failing to wear the label, is the same as anyone else not wearing the label"

I don't believe you are careless or stupid enough to think I said that — which makes me wonder, partially tongue-in-cheek, what you're actually trying to accomplish with this site. See, if I were to sit down and compile my own profile of a "1% puppet," the types of anti-libertarian invective and misrepresentations you're offering here would be near the top of the list.

> "I wonder how many times you'll reply here without reading the state post."

I wonder why it matters.

> "It's telling that getting in a reply as quickly as possible is more important to you than doing the homework."

Your "argument" is ~35,000 words (I moved it into Calibre and sent it to my phone for offline perusal). A chunk of those words are not yours, but I'm slogging through a not-insignificant amount of content and linkage anyway. I'm pretty sure the person you were arguing with was half-assedly parroting Stefan Molyneux, and I have found myself cringing at some of the delivery even as I'm generally unmoved by your responses.

Anyway, going roughly a day between replies is hardly indicative of me hovering at the keyboard. Your own responses have been coming in rapid-fire compared to mine, most of which I've composed in short, probably typo-ridden stints between Guild Wars runs, working, and chasing kids around the house. But if you want to be that petty, then suit yourself.

> "Two mouths and one ear :)"

Whatever you say, man.

Re: Libertarianism is Camouflage for Republicans

Brandon M. Sergent — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 05:48:24 -0000

> I said that I'm not a fan of Paul or Johnson.

Yet your reply again implies they aren't true to some degree or other. You're doing the same things theists do.

If a target libertarian does something good it's your ism that deserves the credit, but if they do something bad it's individual failure.

> invoking his name isn't exactly unassailable street cred

More no true scotsman. Keep going down this road and you'll be the only representative example of a libertarian in your world view.

> most voters will consistently vote to give themselves more benefits at the expense of others, because it visibly costs them little but the time in line to do so.

And how dare they want a better life for themselves without being some corporation's human resource, right?

I guess you don't believe in human rights.

You're just making my argument for me. You are mouthing the exact right wing profit-as-purpose garbage the 1% need to shove down all slave throat.

http://underlore.com/bait-a...

I say Libertarians are anarchists in suits because ultimately they want zero government and in order to achieve that end they've become a tool of the right wing's starve the beast, safety net slash and burn, project.

But you're a rube because the right wing doesn't want anarchy, they want majority shares in a global corporate oligarchy, and damned if they aren't close to getting it in part because of groups like libertarians that can be aimed with ease.

Nothing you are saying refutes my core argument, and it can't because the moment it did, you'd no longer be a libertarian. And that's the real terror for many, having to not have a label or a group identity.

And to be fair I know how hard it is. I can only be labeled issue by issue or if you ignore a handful of deal breakers, based on whatever label might apply. Seriously, pick a political identity label for me, I'll falsify it.

> Reform is always possible, but positive change through electoral politics is a revolving door of bullshit and gold-paved roads to hell, and only change of another sort will enable changing anything else.

That's cynical lazy wishful thinking on your part. Technology is constantly changing and it's technology that drives political change. The political process is just about at what speed the political landscape adapts to the technological one.

Such irony, since your group is all about austerity and whining about dead weight (the free rider "problem") when a central tenet is to drag your feet politically (or join the right wing) because fatalism and cynicism.

Also a closeted (or not) sadistic desire to watch society burn because of a delusional belief that the chaos and ashes will lead to your phoenix-like ascension. Like a survivalist teenager genuinely believing with all his heart that the rise of the zombies would lead to him personally saving humanity because he knows how to start a fire and has 2000 rounds of 9mm under his bed.

On the plus side, I'm glad you've given up politically. Your group staying out of it would be the best thing for humanity since functionally you're nothing but 1% puppets.

> The major parties are more alike than different / electoral politics is the Kool-Aid of nationalism

And cynical fatalism is the Kool-Aid of the 1%. Who benefits most from a 30% turnout?

> The tragedy of the commons isn't a compelling start, but we'll see.

That's because you're a member of the social darwinist party that sees the common people as sheep to be butchered if they can't be yoked.

You axiomatically oppose any force that stands in the way of your hypothetical profit, even if the process of gaining it destroys the culture you live in, because as before you are convinced you'll rise from the ashes of any fire started by your greed.

> Where exactly did I conclude that?

Dude. Every time you implied that voting and engagement is qualitatively pointless or that politicians are qualitatively identical.

> Bernie Sanders wants to use aggressive violence to force his sociopolitical and economic vision on 320+ million people. That makes him like Trump

I could just rest my case right there.

You're asserting that because the government exists and they are both running for a position of authority in it they are qualitatively identical. But that's on it's face absurd. If you don't believe in the process, why adopt a political label at all? At least anarchists are logically consistent. /smh

Either you believe Trump and Sanders are qualitatively identical or your don't. If you do, you're delusional, if you don't, then you need to politically engage. But you don't want that because cynical fatalism. (And more than a little misanthropy judging from your tone.)

You also on a side note have the deeply fox news habit of thinking a quip is an argument.

> What does that even mean?

So do you genuinely not know and you're asking sarcastically to hide the fact, or do you simply lack a counter argument entirely while yet having an instinctive opposition because what I said is unflattering?

What it means is (for future readers, not you) is that libertarians ironically believe that anyone outside the party, anyone failing to wear the label, is the same as anyone else not wearing the label and that only the people who wear the label have even a chance of being qualitatively different from the mindless herd.

I wonder how many times you'll reply here without reading the state post. It's telling that getting in a reply as quickly as possible is more important to you than doing the homework. Two mouths and one ear :)

Re: Libertarianism is Camouflage for Republicans

Undead Rufus — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:51:26 -0000

> "...then you go on to imply that Rand Paul or Gary Johnson aren't true libertarians."

I said that I'm not a fan of Paul or Johnson. I think a case can be made that Paul's libertarianism falls far short of his father's, and he lacks social testicles. He's called himself a conservative and waffled amusingly on identifying as libertarian, referring to the label at one point as an "albatross." Calling him not libertarian is probably a fair assessment. Gary Johnson is a constitutionalist with a PC love of flag porn, but I never said (or implied) he isn't a libertarian. Like most big-L LP candidates, he's a mixed bag. C'mon, man. You're making stuff up as we go.

> "So don't think I'm clueless about the label."

Ron Paul was largely a fad and, to be frank, I encountered a lot of supporters during his prez runs who were either clueless about libertarianism or lingered in some Alex Jones-inspired fantasy world. He had plenty of libertarian support, sure, but invoking his name isn't exactly unassailable street cred.

> "...then you make the same contradictory voting is pointless assertion they do" <

Voting is largely pointless, especially national voting, but I belong to the Lysander Spooner school of thought in that I believe voting can be an act of self-defense. On the aggregate, however, most voters will consistently vote to give themselves more benefits at the expense of others, because it visibly costs them little but the time in line to do so.

> "...express zero belief in the possibility of reform"

Americans currently live in the largest, most expansive police state in human history, and huge swaths of oblivious people wave flags and cheer for it. Reform is always possible, but positive change through electoral politics is a revolving door of bullshit and gold-paved roads to hell, and only change of another sort will enable changing anything else.

> "...all politicians are identical."

The major parties are more alike than different, and I think a lot of public discourse is contrived and superficial. But again, this is a sentiment you invented, not anything I actually said or implied. To borrow from Bakunin, I don't fancy the idea of being beaten with a stick, even if it's the People's Stick, but under duress I suppose I would concede that it's preferable to the People's Crowbar.

> "Put simply, if votes are worthless, why do they bother buying them?"

Put even more simply, votes are not worthless. The value of voting to increase liberty is highly suspect, but electoral politics is the Kool-Aid of nationalism.

> "The rest of your comments are addressed in the essay already in your job stack :)" <

The tragedy of the commons isn't a compelling start, but we'll see.

> "...and yet conclude that all politicians are ant-like in their homogeneity" <

Where exactly did I conclude that?

> "Do you honestly think Bernie Sanders for example is identical to Donald Trump?" <

Bernie Sanders wants to use aggressive violence to force his sociopolitical and economic vision on 320+ million people. That makes him like Trump (and every other candidate) in one of the most significant ways, but they're far from identical. I don't expect they would get along in a face-to-face encounter, though such a "debate" (I use that term loosely) has epic and hilarious potential.

> "Do you believe that in order to be different one has to (ironically) wear the same libertarian label?" <

What does that even mean?

> "Thanks again for the read and the reply" <

Sure, and happy belated Thanksgiving.