As you may or may not have noticed, we have this lefty cancel mob thing these days, which is not going away as quickly as some hoped. And I have been thinking about this whole accusation of extremist views from the left. The was ehm… triggered by the whole YouTube sword nerd incident I mentioned at some point, but it is not linked to it in any way. Thing is, socialists, which we can agree are in most cases both evil and stupid, have considered right wing extremism anything to the left of Lenin. But lately even more “mainstream” left got onto the bandwagon, and I would argue extreme left views have been quite increasing among them. Though of course they do not see them as extreme.
Now, we libertarians are well used to even mild libertarian opinions to be screamed at as extremist. Religious social conservatives as well. But it seems to me that more and more even milder conservatives are called extremist. Certainly, many accusers know well they are talking bullshit, but use it as a political cudgel. Although, this got me thinking of the other side. What opinions are becoming more mainstream left that I would consider extremist?
I would say the government should decide everything about children’s education and the parents should have no say in it is quite extremist.
The government should control every aspect of healthcare is quite extremist, especially since in places like England there are calls for NHS to deny care to people deemed “racist, sexist, homophobic” while they still have to pay the tax.
Hate speech cannot be defined in any reasonable objective way, so people should be arrested for hate speech is an extremist position. Making it illegal to say “offensive” things is even more extremist. Considering speech as violence if you don’t like it, the same.
Judging a person by their immutable characteristics is extremist. Irrespective of which side does it. Saying someone is privileged or oppressed solely on this basis is extremist.
Punishing the exact same crime differently based on either the perpetrator or victim being part of a special group by declaring “hate crime” is an extremist view. Falsifying history due to this, the same.
Pushing science to be concerned with “diversity” or “social justice” instead of searching for objective truth is extremist.
Allowing criticism of every religion except Islam and making criticism of Islam hateful is an extremist view.
Dismissing the past as hateful because it does not fully conform to modern sensibilities and ignoring past achievements due to this is an extremist view.
The government and corporations should censure the internet to the point of eliminating all things offensive is an extremist position.
Any call for a tax rate above 49% is extremist, as – regardless of what libertarians think of taxes – I would say someone should keep at least half of what they earn.
Practically banning any and all forms of self-defense is extremist. Arresting people for fighting muggers or burglars is extremist. Trying to ban large kitchen knives because certain young gang members stab each other is extremist.
Wanting to eliminate online privacy or anonymous speech is extremist.
Trying to control what people eat or drink by outright bans is extremist.
Destroying the economy to please the climate gods is extremist.
Trying to take away people’s livelihood over political opinions is extremist.
Forcing speech and association are extremist views.
Claiming a 6 year old can make life altering decisions is an extremist view.
Requiring blind trust in “experts” and “science” is an extremist view.
These are some thoughts of mine. I am not going from a pure libertarian angle, in which all X taxes are extremist, any form of gun control is extremist etc. I am trying to formulate a “common sense” definition of extreme views. What else you got? Did I get something wrong? Did I leave something out? Comments bellow.
Any call for a tax rate above 49% is extremist, as – regardless of what libertarians think of taxes – I would say someone should keep at least half of what they earn.
A former college roommate of mine, upon hearing that J.R.R. Tolkien was in Britain’s 98% tax bracket at one point, said, “If you make that much, you deserve to get taxed that much.”
There was a reason for the 10 Commandments, namely “Thou shalt not covet.” ‘Cause that is all that comes down to, in the end.
Government employees should be taxed on their imputed income of their provided offices, computers, phones, transportation, driver, security detail, kitchen staff…
Is he a former roommate because he is now buried in a field?
You say 49% is too much.
I say 0.49% is too much.
We’ll tax the pennies on your eyes.
I’m sure that person is gleefully paying every tax imposed.
Well done, Pie.
Couple of quibbles,
Shouldn’t it be “anything to the right of Lenin”?
Also, I’ve always been annoyed at that chart. How come “Authoritarian” is at the top? Should be at the bottom, “Freedom” on the top.
Authoritarians are keeping freedom down.
A: It’s alphabetical
B: The Authoritarian segment tends to come out on top
C: Spin the chart around if you’re offended.
yes right mistype
In Florida anyway, removing taxpayer support for the DEI and LGBTQWERTY++ grifters on college campuses is extremist.
Success!
Legalizing shoplifting is extremist.
Eliminating cash bail is extremist.
I first read that as “Legalizing Shopping is Extremist”
They’re getting there.
No one needs 23 different types of deodorant.
Shiva.
Shiva needs 23 types of deodorant, as the destroyer of worlds has many arms.
They were simpler times.
When Chi-town has city run grocery stores, that won’t be an issue.
Meh on the cash bail bit. If someone is too dangerous to be free pending trial, bail is inappropriate. If someone is not a threat, why are you keeping them in jail when they haven’t been convicted of anything?
Bail is supposed to be the carrot that draws the defendant back to trial. You get the bail back when you show up.
Of course it has been used as punishment instead.
A: You can’t declare someone a threat without a conviction.
B: Bail payments are to encourage the defendant to appear in court and get their money back.
C: It’s about flight risk not danger to the community. The court doesn’t give a damn about danger to the community, just whether the defendant is going to waste their time.
A. Yes you can.
B/C. Flight risk? Someone doesn’t show up, they don’t get bail ever again. Hold their passport for collateral.
A: Sounds like a violation of Innocent until Proven Guilty. Clearly anyone parading through the capital is a threat, eh, comrade?
B&C: Most people don’t have passports and there’s a lot of this country to hide in. Fugitives tend not to go international.
A. If nobody is a threat until convicted, then “self-defense” isn’t a thing.
B/C. The country is not that big, and most people can’t live off the grid.
And for those that can live off the grid — if they want to stay in the woods eating berries and avoiding other humans, how exactly is this less effective than imprisoning them?
Why said anything about off the grid? Most fugitives just blend into a different populace. Only a few nutters try to go into the backwoods.
Also, Self Defense is a judgement at trial determinging the homicide to be justifable.
You’re going to take someone’s word that a homicide was justified when their innocent, unconvicted victim isn’t able to tell their side of the story because they were homicided? Very Paranoia, citizen.
???
The burden of proof to show justified homicide is pretty high. It’s not often a successful defense.
Where are you getting “Taking their word” from? Everyone is presumed innocent as a starting principle, then the Jury corrects the record based upon the available evidence.
Maybe you’re conflating the ability of an individual to assess risk from the ability of a court to declare risk from a gap of time and distance. The court cannot say someone is dangerous until adequite evidence has been presented and reviewed. The person in the moment may make their assessment, but is subject to review after the fact.
You said:
This was in context of a discussion on bail, and thus the courts.
I expected the context to be understood.
And courts determine that (unconvicted) people pose a threat all the time.
So since you were being silly, I was playing along with the gag.
“And courts determine that (unconvicted) people pose a threat all the time.”
+ 1 restraining order
The amount of bail is much more related, for most people, to “danger to the community” than “flight risk”. People charged with serious crimes get higher bail, even if there is no reason to think there is much of a flight risk.
Now, someone is more likely to flee serious charges, but I think the actual thought process is more “This person (probably) did a bad thing, so they get high bail” than “This person is likely to flee, etc.”
The notion that “fairness” can be defined at all, much less by government functionaries, is extremist.
There are no extremists on the left, all educated people know this.
Reality leans left or whatever.
Cthulhu swims left.
(In all reality, the idea that history bends to the left is one of the most destructive ideas that has come down the pipe in a long time. It gives every excuse to do evil in the supposed search for “good”.)
I don’t know that “left” is an apt descriptor for an entity moving through non-Euclidian space.
Cthulhu swings back to the future?
Extremism in the defense of social, environmental, and economic justice is no vice.
— Bizarro world Goldwater
I like this article. I am slammed all day in meetings, might catch you in the morning.
Paying immigrants, particularly illegals, government benefits is extremist.
Now Drake, most of those illegals are being supported by NGOs using government grants, rather than being supported by the government. Totally different.
Great article, Pie. I can’t really think of anything you missed.
Pushing science to be concerned with “diversity” or “social justice” instead of searching for objective truth is extremist.
They don’t believe in objective truth (or Truth). They gotta find something to fill the gap.They worship bastardized “science” the same way they worship “climate.”
This. A fundamental premise of leftist philosophy is that there is no objective truth, or at least humans can’t access it. Of course, this undercuts any claim to legitimacy by leftism as well as what leftism is tearing down, but that only matters if you care about logic and consistency.
‘Punishing the exact same crime differently based on either the perpetrator or victim being part of a special group by declaring “hate crime” is an extremist view.”
Extremist:
https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2023/09/25/black-teens-who-killed-white-youth-outside-lebron-james-i-promise-school-found-not-guilty-of-involuntary-manslaughter/
All of these positions are bog-standard for the Democratic Party now. Yet I would bet a significant percentage of their voters are not aware that they are voting for this stuff.
Correct. Owning a big propaganda machine is working for them. But on a handful of issues (such as the border and school choice) reality is finally biting them in the ass.
The Trump vote is largely reactionary, but the Left is also reactionary against him and the rural rubes.
The main difference being that the Left has convinced itself of its inherent superiority and that whatever it spouts is Gospel.
Funny how the media labels right wing positions “hard right” or “extreme right” with no such equivalent descriptions on the left.
There is no left. Only center, right, and extreme right.
There’s “common sense” and NAZI.
That’s because there is no extreme left, that’s just a right wing talking point from the right wing controlled media empire.
That pesky right wing hate machine.
A significant percentage of Dem voters don’t care that they are voting for it, even though they don’t buy in. Voting is an exercise in identity affirmation, nothing more, nothing less.
Yep. Case in point is my wife. I started in on the trans bs the other day. She shot back that not all Democrats believe the same. I foolishly challenged her to name one elected dem that is standing up to it.
Foolish not because she could name any but be a I don’t want to sleep on the couch.
[standard libertarian disclaimer]
My new pet proposed constitutional amendment: Limit federal government spending(no off-budget bullshit either) to 15% of GDP*. Limit federal goverment revenue to 16% of GDP*.
With a Colorado TABR style refund (even acknowledging all of its issues) if more than 16% is collected.#
*it would actually be GDP of 2 fiscal years previously, because you are setting 2024 budget during 2023 so 2022 would be the last year you know.
#My suggestion would be 1/2 comes as a permanent rate reduction^ and 1/2 as a check to everyone over 18.
^My suggestion would be reduce the 2nd lowest tax bracket (in closet units of .01%) until it disappears, then move up to the next bracket and so on. So right now, the 12% bracket would be reduced until it reaches 10%, then the 22% bracket would be reduced, and etc.
[/standard libertarian disclaimer]
That is, of course, more than I want, but that would make me happy. Its not minarchy, but its better than what we got.
In too local news, it appears that the bad people are trying a TABOR end-around. I don’t fully understand it, but I’ll be watching.
Yeah, they seem to try it every year. The Ds hate collecting money and then not getting to spend it. So they try to “send it back” in a way that is them spending it.
Analysis
Fast-fashion retailers like Zara, Shein and H&M are using resale platforms to reduce their carbon footprints, but the programs are projected to do little to reduce emissions, a new study released Tuesday found.
The brands could more effectively reduce their toll on the environment if they redirected those efforts to their supply chain, such as by using more sustainable materials or investing in recycling innovations, according to the analysis.
The study was conducted by Trove, which helps brands like Lululemon and Canada Goose implement resale programs, and Worldly, a data analytics firm that focuses on ESG, or environmental, social and corporate governance. The study’s methodology was validated with third parties and reviewed by Deloitte, McKinsey and University of California, Berkeley, among others, Trove’s founder and one of the study’s authors Andy Ruben told CNBC.
The study analyzed five brand archetypes, spanning fast fashion to premium apparel, and how reselling previously owned items could affect their overall carbon emissions between 2023 and 2040.
——-
The findings come as a slew of companies – from apparel retailers like Gap to home goods companies like The Container Store – implement resale programs to capture customers who care about sustainability, or might just be looking for a deal. The initiatives allow companies to make money off of items they’ve already sold and show investors and consumers they’re focused on sustainability, especially as they prepare for new ESG reporting requirements from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
What is the carbon footprint of this sort of masturbatory posturing?
Just pass a law that says all clothes must be made of hemp or recycled newspapers. Problem solved.
The hate for so-called “fast fashion” is because it allows the plebs to get cheaply something pretty darn close to what the self-styled elites have. Class hatred pure and simple.
Remember, Donald was the fascist.
California Wants to Know Your Emissions
Sacramento moves to enforce CO2 disclosures on companies nationwide if they do business in the state.
“Doing business” in California is defined as having annual sales exceeding $610,395, or more than $61,040 in property or payroll, in the state. Almost any medium-sized business with a single worker in California would have to report its emissions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-emissions-requirement-businesses-gavin-newsom-334f02fc?st=3iw04t43thy1yoo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
You just have to shake your head at the tedious stupidity.
Cunts.
It was a sad day indeed when SCOTUS went along with the notion that you are doing business in any state that you mail something to.
And, naturally, the grifters are swarming over those reporting requirements. There’s no end of “consultants” working that to maximize ESG scores.
I’d nail this to the door of the Capitol like Luther’s 95 Theses, but that would be considered extremist.
Insurrectionist!
FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power
Amazon makes it to the big time. Joins the list of super-successful companies that the FTC decides need to be destroyed.
Unreal. And how exactly was Amazon able to crush competition?
Oh, that’s right! Shutdowns, bitches!
It’s not illegal to beat the shit out of your competition.
Vito wholeheartedly agrees.
It’s sure a lot easier when the Mafia destroys them.
I shop at Amazon specifically for this. I don’t want to pay extra shipping or wait a week or more.
Would individual sellers be able to deliver goods as quickly and inexpensively if they didn’t use Amazon’s service? Would it not be costly if they shipped overnight by Fedex or UPS?
Same here.
Still Prime-free here.
The one drawback is there are some grocery items they won’t ship to me. Otherwise I have no problem waiting a couple days extra and ordering at least $25 so I never pay for shipping.
Not everything from Amazon counts as Prime, and I’ve even ordered some Prime things that took over a week to be delivered.
God forbid they provide a service customers value.
Fifteen years in prison for burning an LGBT flag is extremist.
Allegedly, one can still burn a US flag and nothing will happen to you…
How much of the sentence was for the flag buring and how much for the theft and threatening arson?
A bit more than burning a flag.
Fire and brimstone preachers just changed which heathens what should be ensmotted.
Guessing she would deny that and use “queer” instead. Because this is a picture-perfect example of the difference.
When I see “identifies as”, I take them to mean someone is claiming to be something they aren’t.
So, is she a lesbian or not? And why “gay woman” instead of “lesbian”, anyway. Is Eileen actually a man?
“That time a horse sneaked into a cycling race”
Hell, yes.
🙂
I’d imagine since (fit) humans can outrun horses over long distances, bicyclists could do it that much easier.
“only” 20km.
Speaking of horse races, the Belmont Stakes is going to be held at the local track next tear.
Horse racing and betting are a dying industry.
I wonder why not at Belmont?
Apparently Belmont Park is going to be renovated.
https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/lifestyle/real-estate/2023/09/26/ravens-nest-haycock-tavern-for-sale-1-25-million-bucks-county-real-estate-bar/70930903007/
Anyone want to go into the restaurant business* with me?
*Please have more than $1.25m available.
That’s pretty cool.
Do it.
Sorry I’m tied up in real estate at the moment
I’m too tied up in paychecks I haven’t earned yet.
“Investors”
An influential group of institutional investors has called on governments to remove policy barriers to help unleash an estimated $275 trillion in new clean-energy investments over the next three decades.The Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, whose members oversee $11 trillion of assets and include Allianz SE, Axa SA and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, said governments need to tee up clearer and stronger policies to move the global economy from fossil fuel dependency to a low-carbon future. In a report published Thursday, the NZAOA said that while its members have committed to support the transition and reach net zero financed emissions, government support will be essential if the required economic transformation to deliver net zero emissions is to occur.“This is an opportunity of a generation and we want to be part of that, and there’s just some small levers which governments need to pull or assist with,” said Olga Hancock, co-leader of the group’s work on public policy and head of responsible investment for the Church Commissioners for England. “We want governments to hear the message that we — as capital allocators at the pinnacle of the food chain — want that to happen,” she said in an interview.
If it’s such a great idea, why does the government have to make it happen by force?
Because pollution is a negative externality that the clean energy producers can never overcome.
Existing infrastructure provides too much of an advantage to allow an upstart industry to overcome.
Those are the excuses I can come up with.
A reliable energy grid is a positive externality that the clean energy producers can never deliver. I say we call it a tossup and move on.
In some quarters, that’s becoming harder to achieve. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s announcement Wednesday that he would roll back some green-energy policies threatens to jeopardize the UK’s pledge to achieve net zero by 2050. In Germany, the governing coalition has watered down policies on home heating in the face of protests, while Dutch politics has been rocked by opposition to plans to scale back emissions from farming. Even Sweden, an early adopter of green finance, is off track on meeting its long-term net zero target.Rishi Sunak’s decision to water down a key part of the UK’s green agenda represents a gamble that conceding some ground to the climate-skeptic political right will appeal to Britons buffeted by a cost-of-living crisis. “If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people,” he said.There also are concerns some finance firms that rushed to commit to net zero a few years ago are failing to live up those pledges. That’s come amid an energy crisis that’s made fossil fuel investments more attractive, as well as attacks by US Republicans on sustainable finance strategies.The NZAOA, nonetheless, wants governments to do a lot more — reduce financial support for fossil fuels; increase subsidies and tax breaks for clean energy; pass green-friendly regulation; and introduce new carbon pricing tools.A successful transition in line with limiting global warming to 1.5C could result in “climate investment opportunities” totaling as much as $275 trillion by 2050, according to NZAOA. By contrast, a failed transition could reduce global GDP by up to $6 trillion per year by 2050, the report said, citing data from McKinsey Global Institute.
Fuck objective reality, just look at the model.
“Advantageous policy environments are a key enabler of uptake,” Günther Thallinger, chair of the NZAOA, said in a statement.
Buy this electric car or we’ll kill this dog.
He sounds like a super villain.
Good list Pie. The collectivists are getting all they have strived for since….well, the dawn of time. As an I individualist I look at your list and think, yeah? And?
The ‘and’ being what is to be done about it.
The more they get the more people will suffer until it reaches a breaking point. The average person will no longer have too much to lose by pushing back hard. To the lunatic utopians such as the WEF it will never be enough. They are pushing too hard too fast and I dont see this coming to a good end.
Just got off the phone with my youngest. She’s away at school, and yesterday her boyfriend started Navy boot camp. Poor kid’s crying her eyes out. She did talk to her RA, and that girl’s boyfriend is deployed, so at least she has someone to talk to. Right now they’re meeting to go to the gym.
Was this a surprise to her?
No, he signed up this summer. But she’s 18 and this is new to her. She’s also part of a generation that can contact anyone at any time, she’s never had to write letters or schedule calls. It’s going to be an adjustment, but it’s part of growing up. Maybe she should read the Stoicism posts.
Understood.
Good luck.
Poor kid. I hope she works through it.
The gym is always a good plan
Sounds like a tough time, but as you say: it’s part of growing up.
Hope she handles it well.
Great she has someone that understands.
Riots in 3,2,1…
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/us/police-shooting-charges-eddie-irizarry/index.html
There are no riots here. Just mostly mainly peaceful protests of the fiery variety.
Flames are cheery! Reminds me of a cold winter night, around the fireplace.
That guy doesn’t even have a LatinX name. Nobody will riot for him. Might as well be white.
I was gonna say, that kid ain’t Blaq! And only Blaq lives matter.
Rioters would just be assholes taking advantage. But that was definitely a bad shoot from start to finish, including when they falsified the police report.
I’d really like to see a case wherein someone fatally shoots a police officer at a traffic stop and claims he did so out of fear for his life because he thought the officer had a gun.
“because he did not speak English well. He had moved from Puerto Rico to Philadelphia seven years ago, she said.”
Not at all excusing the cops here.
Seems like 7 years is a good long time to understand that when cops are yelling ‘show your hands ‘ or similar that you might want to comply with that request.
Anyway, seems like the cop found the right judge.
Kind of hard to comply when they shoot you in your car through the window seconds after being pulled over.
I’m just addressing her comment. I didn’t watch any video.
I wonder when she said that. Initially the cops reported that he was out of the car and making a “lunging” movement. Complete bullshit disproven by their own body cams and other cameras around the area. They knew the shooting cop fucked up, and immediately tried to cover it up.
Seems like 7 years is a good long time to understand that when cops are yelling ‘show your hands ‘
Just not fucking relevant.
No weapon in sight, no threat. Don’t fucking shoot. Same fucking rules that we have to live under.
I am reminded of the case a few years ago when the police shot and killed a pedestrian because he did not respond to police commands. The pedestrian was deaf.
It’s relevant because it was in the article.
Is it relevant to the shooting? I don’t think so.
“Comments bellow”
Roar!
Here we go again.
How does “fuck off” grab you?
Sitting in my office.
It’s like waking up from a three year long nightmare . . . . except you realize this IS the nightmare.
Being held without bail and then being given multi-decade sentences for peacefully exercising your constitutional right to petition about grievances – on a retroactively determined “wrong day and place” — is an extremist position.