My First Banning!

I got banned from a political website for the first time thanks to my political views as posted here on this blog. The blog in question, Alas, a Blog, belongs to the cartoonist Barry Deutsch aka Ampersand, the fine gentleman pictured below. It's the typical liberal blog, albeit much more radically feminist, ironic since Barry is apparently a man.

It started on a thread regarding libertarianism and gay marriage, which I responded:

The problem with Rand Paul is that he is not very good at explaining his views, which is lethal to any libertarian politician. Also, he tries to pander to everyone.

If you want to read a coherent libertarian view of same-sex marriage, I would suggest reading this article by Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

Another poster on the blog responded with:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

—Myca

However, the "omg ur a racist" comments soon started coming at me. A pleasant fellow named joe wrote:

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

Try http://www.theagitator.com as a ‘good’ representation of libertarianism.

At least he plugged Radley Balko. Then a gentleman named Chris responded:

I would agree with Joe. Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities. The first kind of libertarian can be debated against, the second kind is only worthy or scorn and mockery.

To which I replied:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

Perhaps. I’m far more politically incorrect than most libertarians. Also, I’m not a corporation-worshiper like the Beltway libertarians, since I recognize that most corporate power comes from government-granted privileges, pro-corporate laws (i.e. DMCA), and corporate welfare.

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

I’m hold views that most would consider to be “sexist,” yes, but that’s not the same as misogyny.

Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities.

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

Also, I’ve been a libertarian for several years and I did adopt my opposition to civil rights laws because they infringed on property rights. My views on race didn’t evolve until much a few years later.

Chris responded, complete with a request for my banning. Liberals realize they can't win against HBDers - the statistical evidence is just too strongly against them - so they seek to silence us"

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

TAS, some of the post titles on your blog are “Screw Single Mothers,” “Obama Nominates Jewish Dyke to Supreme Court,” and “Blacks Ruin Everything.”

That is called hate.

This bigot should not even be allowed to post here.

I cordially invited him to comment on my blog if he felt offended:

If you have a problem with something I wrote on my blog, then feel free to comment on the relevant posts there. I have a very open moderation policy - the only comments I generally delete are spam.

He declined and decided to stop talking to me. Liberals are basically overgrown children. Also, he claims to have commented on my blog. I think he's Souza, the bastard son of a single mom, who enjoys calling me a racistsexistclassisthomophobe on various posts of mine. Both Chris and Souza seem to have very similar political positions, are quick to anger, and are highly childish.

I have commented on your blog, TAS. I find engaging with you a fruitless exercise, so this will be the last time I respond to you directly.

Then mythago joined in:

Rand Paul’s website says that he has been married for 19 years. If he believes government should be out of marriage, why didn’t he and his “loving wife” go for private contracts rather than state-sponsored marriage? Or, if that were not possible 19 years ago, why don’t they now legally divorce and use private contracts to arrange their affairs?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course.

TAS, “politically incorrect” is the PC, euphemistic term for what, in pre-PC days, used to be called “loudmouthed bigot”. I don’t understand the current fashion for tiptoeing around calling something what it really is.

Finally, the big man (in multiple ways) himself, Ampersand joined in, issuing his banning edict

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

Notice how he doesn't even bother to respond to anything I posted on my blog or commented on his. He saw my HBD/racialist views and decided not to talk to me. Liberals fear people who recognize racial and gender differences. They realize that no amount of social engineering and brainwashing can change the fact that blacks and whites are not equal and that men and women are different. Thus they to avoid conversations about such topics entirely and silence those who believe that racial and gender differences exist.

The irony is that I wasn't even disagreeing with anything in the original post. I didn't attack gay marriage, I in fact criticized Rand Paul's flip-floppy, pandering view on the subject.

I posted a response to Ampersand, though I doubt it will make it through moderation which was deleted from the moderation queue:

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

I figured this would happen. Liberals generally do not like debating people who understand human biodiversity.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

No problem, although it’s worth noting that I allow pretty much anyone to comment on my blog, including feminists, socialists, and other leftists.

If any liberals from Alas are reading this, I'd like to reiterate once again that unlike Barry, I do not fear people who hold different political opinions. I do not ban people or delete comments unless they are spam. It doesn't matter if you are a libertarian, neocon, Christian conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, anarchist, or Black nationalist; I welcome people who wish to debate or argue with my about my posts.

Blood Alcohol Content Limits and Gender Discrimination

It takes women fewer alcoholic drinks to get drunk than it does men. This is because of a number of reasons, such as the fact that the average woman weighs less than the average man and the fact that women have more body fat than men.

I'm surprised that the ACLU or other feminist litigators have not sued to have DUI laws struck down under the 14th Amendment. Since DUI laws prohibit driving while having a blood alcohol content above a certain level and it takes women fewer drinks to reach that level, the government is discriminating against women by requiring them to drink fewer alcoholic drinks than men in order to be able to drive without (possibly) being arrested.

Sure, the idea that BAC limits constitute gender discrimination may sound ludicrous. But consider that the branches of the United States military have more lenient physical standards for women than men. In similar fields, such as police, firefighting, and corrections departments, height standards have been eliminated due to their discriminatory nature. In many cases, especially police departments, physical standards have been made "gender neutral" - meaning in order to allow for an acceptable number of women to pass their physical tests without resorting to different physical standards by gender, the tests have been made so easy that any man in better shape than a WoW player is capable of passing.

Now, I am not a true believer in the typical conservative mantras that the military "protects our freedom" and the police are always looking out for us, but physical performance is essential to jobs in such organizations, those organizations are a necessary part of any safe and functional society, and watering down standards for women in such organizations is dangerous. If it is okay for the military to hold women to lesser physical standards and for police to water down their tests in the name of Equality, then surely it would be okay for states to allow women to drive with a higher blood alcohol content then men so they can have the same number of beers as men, because it is clear that Equality trumps society's safety.

"It's safer than the United States."

One idea I've found commonly espoused on websites and TV shows related to travel and geography is that many countries in the world are safer to travel to than the United States. I've heard or read most European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Iran, and even Mexico described as such. Many liberals have picked up on this and use these countries as evidence as to why America needs gun control or better social services.

Of course, the real reason why those countries are safer to travel in than the United States is that none of those countries have large urban black populations. When people travel they often visit cities, which in America are filled with blacks. If you go to Tokyo you will find Japanese; if you go to Aleppo you will find Arabs; if you go to Berlin you will find Germans. If you go to a large American city, you will find nice, white enclaves with shopping districts, museums, parks, and tourist attractions surrounded by black ghettos. Note that you'll never hear anyone talking about a non-Arab African country as being safer to travel to than the United States.

As with most things in modern America, the key to understanding why it is less safe to travel in America than it is in many other countries is race.