Sunday, January 17, 2010

In a strop

Kevin Boatang (left) and John Demetriou: "I'm sorry, but I can't help noticing that we are considerably more libertarian than yeeeeoooow."

First, if anyone isn't interested in blogging flame wars, I suggest that you skip this post. If, however, you enjoy pseudonymous wankers throwing insults across the web at each other, then read on, dear chap, read on...

Anyway, I don't normally pay any attention to blogging minnows Boatang and Demetriou: not because they are blogging minnows, you understand, but because they are strident, tedious, can't write for shit and, moreover, appear to be vying for the Most Unpleasant Shits On The Interwebs Award.

However, they have been slagging me off quite vociferously recently—and slagging off LPUK—so I have felt it incumbent upon me to wade into the tedious cesspool that is their comment threads—threads usually characterised by one or other of these fractious fools telling perfectly reasonable people to "fuck off".

Another classic trope for Boaty & D (as they like to style themselves) is to maintain that they are, in fact, considerably more libertarian than yeeeooooow. Yes, yeeeooow. Which is why, of course, this pair of numpties spend the majority of their time slagging off libertarians and libertarian bloggers.

Unless, of course, they are just whoreing for visitors—which means that I have just fallen into their cunning trap. But fuck it, this is fun...

So, anyway, as you might imagine, this "more libertarian than yeeeooow" meme is somewhat tiring—especially since the both of them favour considerably more government intervention than I do (your humble Devil is, apparently, "an anarcho-capitalist extremist and possibly a feudalist") and I tend to favour optimum outcomes over pure libertarian ideals.

Still, ever eager to point out hypocrisy in those who set themselves up as leaders of men—as Boaty & D most certainly do—I thought it might be appropriate to highlight a thrilling piece of idiocy from Dumb-ty and Dumber-ty.

It starts with this gem, from J Demetriou, over at the gruesome twosome's place... [Emphasis mine.]
Seriously, we don't think we are the most libertarian out there, and all others less so. We are fucked off that libertarianism has been cornered, hijacked and exclusively defined by a small number of people on the hard right. We seek to expand what it means, not constrict it, and we don't have this 'you're not a libertarian' thing going on, as much as you keep arguing it.

And again, here's J Demetriou denying the truth with all the force of his wee lungs...
You've made the same 'mistake' (or is it more deliberate than that?) as DK. We do not think we are 'more libertarian than yeeeaoow', and we don't seek to arrogantly decide who is and who isn't libertarian.

I ask you to point out any evidence of where we have done that.

Which is weird. Because, you see, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet and... wait! What's this? Oh, on my bad-tempered union post below, the great J left the following comment.
You're no libertarian, you're a joker.

As I said, they are considerably more libertarian than yeeeoooow.

In fact, of course, JD is absolutely right: Boaty & D are not "the most libertarian out there"—they are barely libertarian at all. Which is why, of course, the great JD can post horseshit like this...
But all I see in the LPUK is AnCap [Anarcho-Capitalist] ideals and philosophy. I have not witnessed any reasonable minded, realistic compromise. It is all about destroying anything that vaguely sniffs of people coming together, and the state.

... and actually mean it. This man claims to have been a member of the LPUK and yet he has, apparently, never read the LPUK manifesto: the entire document is a compromise between true libertarianism (or even anarcho-capitalism) and real-world feasibility.

If LPUK were anarcho-capitalist then we most certainly wouldn't support a state-funded voucher system for schools, would we? And as many commenters here have pointedly pointed out, our immigration policy is very far from the open borders ideal of AnCap.

As for the idea that the party is "all about destroying anything that vaguely sniffs of people coming together"... Well, this is just laughable—as anyone who has had to sit through one of my enthusiastic lectures on Friendly Societies will, no doubt, testify.

Mind you, one can hardly expect clarity of thinking from bloggers who claim to be "minarchists" and simultaneously think that minarchism is somehow analogous to—or requires—democracy.

Still, they're pretty hot stuff at Boaty & D, as J Demetriou modestly attests...
At Boaty & D, we do things differently, and I would argue, much better. Much better than most.

"Differently"? I dunno... It looks like the same old ill-informed aggression and petty hypocrisy to me (of which the morsels above are but the tiniest examples).

But do Boaty & D do hypocrisy, aggression, ignorance, contradiction and vapidity "much better than most"?

You bet'cha!

23 comments:

J Demetriou said...

What a load of absolute flannel. The only part where you might convince your audience that you have an argument against us, notwithstanding your flair for colourful language, is this apparent contradiction:

Me: "You're no libertarian, you're a joker."

Well, to place the quote into context (something you notably failed to do), I said that in response to your article calling for unions to be destroyed. That was me, venturing a view, on an article you wrote.

I would ask anyone to try to convince me that the wanton destruction of trades unions is commensurate with libertarianism.

Other than that, what can I say? Great hatchet job, well done.

bella gerens said...

JD, excuse me, but you claimed not to have a 'you're not a libertarian' thing going on, then you said DK was not a libertarian. Wriggle all you like, but as you put it, 'You can't get away from that.'

J Demetriou said...

I've answered this point on my article on my site. I refer you to that, if you wish to doggedly pursue an answer to this conundrum.

I have visions of the two of you, prior to the above article being formulated, giggling amongst yourselves as you discovered a couple of quotes you could use to blow me apart, sending bits of JD flotsam and jetsam into the wintry waters of the River Thames.

'Tee hee! what you think Bella, I think I've got them with this one!'

'Why absolutely honey, you pop on the net now and put your lil' ol' heart into a good article ripping them two swashbucklin' no-good shysters to shreds'

'All done. G'naaaight Bella'

'G'nite DK'.

Aw, ain't you two just charmin'? You play the lovely, sweet polite missus, while DK is like this bizarre Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde figure, prowling around in his pants eating raw flesh one minute, then exceedingly polite and Old Etonian the next.

I do hope you both succeed in politics. You'd be like an Uber Mr and Mrs Neil Hamilton duo, except hilariously less believable.

Devil's Kitchen said...

JD,

"Wanton destruction"? You seem to imply that I would do it out of spite—not so. It's very carefully considered.

Besides, I have told you: I wouldn't use the law to do it—I merely encourage everyone who is a union member to leave forthwith.

"Great hatchet job, well done."

Thank you: I've been itching to do it ever since I read your first, tedious, pointless, poorly-argued and petty sentences.

And now I'm going to do what I would urge everyone else to do—ignore you.

Tata!

DK

bella gerens said...

JD -

I'll have you know, that is exactly what we did, right down to your comical representation of how Americans talk.

Y'll come back now, y'hear?

Devil's Kitchen said...

P.S. "I have visions of the two of you, prior to the above article being formulated, giggling amongst yourselves as you discovered a couple of quotes you could use to blow me apart, sending bits of JD flotsam and jetsam into the wintry waters of the River Thames."

I think that you severely over-estimate your importance, big man. In every way.

Now, why don't you toddle off—I'm sure it's past your bedtime and you've got school in the morning.

DK

J Demetriou said...

Yeah, you're right. I'm off to suckle some milk and chew on a cookie.

Bye bye.

J Demetriou said...

Oh, before I go for that milk 'n' cookie orgy:

""Great hatchet job, well done."

Thank you: I've been itching to do it ever since I read your first, tedious, pointless, poorly-argued and petty sentences."

Let's be honest, DK. If it were that tedious, pointless and poorly-argued, you'd have come to the conclusion that most others would see it that way. And if you thought most others saw it that way, you'd not have felt compelled to offer substantial responses and rebuttals to my arguments.

You don't like me saying what I say for a reason. So less of the ad hominem abuse, eh. 'Big man'.

Devil's Kitchen said...

JD,

"Let's be honest, DK. If it were that tedious, pointless and poorly-argued, you'd have come to the conclusion that most others would see it that way. And if you thought most others saw it that way, you'd not have felt compelled to offer substantial responses and rebuttals to my arguments."

Oh dear, oh dear: you just don't get me at all, do you?

I enjoy pulling you apart with the kind of "substantial responses and rebuttals" of which you seem somewhat incapable.

And, quite apart from that, I could hardly roast you (or is that Kev's job normally?) for being unable to construct a coherent argument without using a coherent argument, could I? That would be... well... you'd recognise it, John: it's called hypocrisy.

"You don't like me saying what I say for a reason. So less of the ad hominem abuse, eh. 'Big man'."

My dear boy, you really aren't one to start getting on your high horse about ad hominems: anyone who visits the comment threads referenced in the article will see that for themselves.

Oh, but you're right—I don't like you saying what you say. This is because what you say is demonstrably false and traduces both myself and the party that I lead.

I thought that it was time that you got a dose of truth. Whilst I admit that it is doubtful—judging from the course of those comment threads—that any of it will actually take root in your tiny mind, but I felt that I had to try.

I like to think of it as charity work.

DK

J Demetriou said...

Well, us libertarians are all in favour of charity, DK.

Hey, did you see what I did there? I acknowledged you were a libertarian? Is that allowed? I mean, if I can't say something or someone is unlibertarian, does that also imply that it would be pithy of me to claim that person was LIBertarian?

I think we need some rules here, to define things a little. Ah, but hang on; the imposition of rules is unlibertarian.

Ah, fuck it! There I go again. Christ on a bike, I'm bad at this. I should just go back into my little shell and just shrivel up and die. A bit like in that Sinatra song.

Pavlov's Cat said...

I agree, JD. You should go. I disapprove of your references to Dk's audience and "most others" when you can only speak for yourself.

All you have to offer is spite.

F-, must try harder @ your trolling

one would hope you would know better than to cross somone more wizened, experienced and mature than yourself. But sadly it was not the case!

Bill Sticker said...

After reading the above, why does the aged axiom "Self advertisement is no recommendation." pop into my mind?

Ah. Remembered now. Oh dear.

JuliaM said...

"First, if anyone isn't interested in blogging flame wars..."

Nah, no chance. Everyone likes to watch a slow motion train wreck... ;)

Anonymous said...

What a grown up response by the head of an apparently ambitious political party.... Jesus, you guys aren't even trying are you?

g1lgam3sh said...

I totally agree DK, you definitely wouldn't want to go in the trenches with either of these two.


Pah!...if they're not bitching and whining over at OH's they're doing it somewhere else.


I used to read their blog until I got utterly sick and tired of their constant petulant frenzy

J Demetriou said...

Gilgamesh the weirdo continues, stick and hanky safely swinging from his Hobo-like shoulder, to bound aimlessly from blog to blog repeating the same tired old adjectives in opposition to Boaty & D. How very boring.

As for Pavlov's Cat, I can't say as I have a clue what he is talking about. I offered an assessment of the piece and what impact it would have on the reader, I didn't presume to speak for anyone.

Oh, and this 'World's Most Unpleasant [add harsh Noun here]' thing is getting very amusing, I hope it carries on.

I love seeing pure, unadulterated Irony in action, it's almost poetic.

DavidNcl said...

"us libertarians are all in favour of charity" ...

err, the Randian's aren't. And I think they're right.

g1lgam3sh said...

"stick and hanky safely swinging from his Hobo-like shoulder, to bound aimlessly from blog to blog repeating the same tired old adjectives in opposition"

Project much do we? I'll give you credit though that was almost funny.

You probably haven't noticed or cared, why should you, but I only make those comments when you arrive on someone elses Blog doing your self righteous skit.


Apart from that I never think about you, after all there are so many good blogs out there.

Oddly enough I don't always disagree with your views but I usually find the way you express them disagreeable. No matter.


w/v torierch...how very apposite.

Anonymous said...

DavidNcl, I don't think Rand had any objection to charity per se - what she objected to was the idea that charity was a moral duty.

Pavlov's Cat said...

"The only part where you might convince your audience that you have an argument against us"

Bing! Speaking for DK's audience!

FAIL.

Chris Edwards said...

Can I point out that DK is correct about unions, they are authoritarian through and through, as are all instruments of the left, and for that the far right, libertarianism is fragile and way to easy to subvert, the Dems have been doing that for a century or so.

DavidNcl said...

Anon is quite right. Rand was principally interested in attacking the idea that it was a moral duty.

She said "There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them."

And I'd agree with that - who wouldn't.

Charity has come to mean something else in our society though.

J Demetriou said...

So, the case has been proven and I was right all along.

Thanks for clearing that up.