I refer to a 2/19/2017 commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that I Now "Identify" as an Attack-Helicopter
So, am I catching on? P.S. And, yes, you can rest assure that we will be discussing restrooms (along with a few other accommodations) in the not-to distant future. Big time. (2/19/2017 at 4:30pm).
No, asshole, you are NOT "catching on". You're mocking transgendered people. And not for the first time! Which is why I call BULLSHIT on the statement Willis Hart makes underneath the title of his blog (specifically the 2nd claim).
Socially tolerant? Bullshit! A socially tolerant person doesn't mock transgendered people. A socially tolerant person also doesn't defend a business owner's "right" to discriminate against gay people. Something Willis Hart does. Via some Libertarian BULLSHIT known as the "non-aggression principle".
The valid criticism of this "principle" (as per Wikipedia).
Critics argue that the non-aggression principle is not ethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when they would consider the results of such initiation to be morally superior to the alternatives that they have identified.
Under this application, gay people are denied their public accommodation rights in favor of protecting the "right" of a bigoted business ower to discriminate. Proof (IMO) that Willis is an anti-gay bigot in addition to being a transphobic bigot.
BTW, yes, we are going to be talking about this big time in the not too distant future. The "not too distant future" being this past Wednesday. 2/22/2017 being the day Trump "rescinded protections for transgender students that had allowed them to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, overruling his own education secretary and placing his administration firmly in the middle of the culture wars that many Republicans have tried to leave behind" (source).
But I guess the Hartster has nothing to say on that matter. Except to mock transgendered people. No, wait. He actually did write something on this subject before.
WHY should anyone care who is in another stall in a bathroom? Is Willis saying his worry is rape? That is the lie that conservatives like to repeat. You're different from the norm (transgendered or gay) and you're more likely to rape. Even though it's completely false. BTW, I don't think you can transition to a younger age. So yes, the individual in question probably has some mental problems.
Anyway, by highlighting this individual, is what Willis saying is that all transgender people are "bonkers"? Yeah, I think that could be inferred. I mean, he writes "can we all at least agree"... implying that he thinks ALL transgendered people are "bonkers" - but that everyone who doesn't agree with him on that can AT LEAST agree with him in regards to an adult transgendered person who thinks they are a child.
More proof he's bigoted against transgendered people.
(Note: links in WTNPH's post inserted by me. His original post contained no links).
The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart blogs about the debunked fake news story PizzaGate yet again, this time due to the fact that some Libertarian "reporter" covered it on a CBS affiliate (WGCL-TV in Atlanta GA).
Willis Hart: Finally, the Mainstream Media Covering this Stuff. [video inserted here]. Kudos to Mr. Swann and, yeah, he should probably beef up his security. (1/18/2017 at 10:33am).
Ben Swann is a Ron Paul supporting Libertarian conspiracy theory enthuiast who "questions the official narrative" [1]. (Youtube running time is 5:48).
Swann mentions twice that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, but still asks why the story hasn't been investigated. As I've previously noted, NBC's Tom Costello said (on the 12/5/2016 airing of MSNBC Hardball) "we've talked to the DC police. We've talked to the FBI. They have absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is true".
So they did look into it and found no reason to conduct an investigation. Because the authorities don't investigate when there is no evidence [2]. Why the hell would they investigage because some people WANT the story to be true and have concocted a (conspiracy) theory based on coincidence and pure bullshit?
But apparently this Swann fellow is the kind of reporter who regularly covers unfounded Right-wing conspiracies. A 1/14/2013 Salon article notes that Swann "questioned the official narrative" in regards to the 7/20/2012 Aurora shooting, the 8/5/2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, and the 12/14/2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The "official narrative" being that there was ONE shooter in all three incidents (James Eagan Holmes, Wade Michael Page and Adam Lanza, respectively).
Some people present on the scene (in all 3 incidents) said there may have been one or more additional shooters, but the authorities determined that there were not. I suppose at least Swann wasn't on the side of those who suggested false flag operations, but you still have to wonder WHY the authorities would lie to protect others who might have been involved. Also why Swann would think there might be a cover-up.
Alex Jones (a nutjob who *does* believe Sandy Hook was a false flag operation) had Swann on his program in September of 2012, and said (of Swann) "basically, he's like a professional, focused, kind of news-style Alex Jones, which I love". I'm betting Willis doesn't know this. Even though Willis has written posts critical of Jones. The Hartster obviously doesn't know that this Swann fellow is cut from the same cloth. Or a similar cloth (according to Jones).
Ben Swann: "So what you need to know here is that in all three of these cases, there isn't just wild speculation that maybe there was more than one shooter. In fact, there's a good reason to question this whole narrative. Because there has been no evidence so far — no evidence provided by police, other than what they told us — that there is only one shooter here". (Sandy Hook truther-reporter? by Alex Seitz-Wald. 1/14/2013 Salon).
And yet only 1 person was arrested and charged in all three cases. Looks to me like Alex Jones description of Swann is accurate.
Also, Swann notes that there are 2 gay men connected to the PizzaGate story, and, as everyone knows, gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. Or that's what the bigoted Right says, at least. Even though the evidence says otherwise (Homosexuality and Pedophila: The False Link). Those two gay men being the owner of Planet Ping Pong (the Pizza Joint with the basement that doesn't exist), James Alefantis, and David Brock (who was in a relationship with Alefantis 5 years ago).
Shame on Ben Swann for using his platform to lend credence to this fake news story (a "reality check", as he calls it). Shame on him also for his (inferred) suggestion that gay men are child molesters (into "boy love"). If you have to keep saying "keep in mind, there is no proof here", then why cover the story? There is NO STORY without proof, only conspiracy.
Frankly, I think the probability the Trump campaign colluded with Russia is a lot higher (percentage-chance wise, I couldn't cite a figure, but it's surely more than 0% probable, which I'd say PizzaGate is). But Willis refers to this as "fake news" and says that Maxine Waters talking about it during an appearance on MSNBC is proof (among other things) that she is "mildly retarded" (false and an insult to mentally challenged people).
Additionally (per Wikipedia), "Swann hosted a segment [titled] 5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta Emails". Like Willis (and Donald Trump) he obviously believes our intelligence agencies (who are all in agreement that Russia was behind the hacks) are lying.
So he buys Right-wing conspiracies and dismisses Left-wing ones (including Left-wing "conspiracies" that are a lot more likely to be true). Despite winning a few awards, I'd say he's a Right-wing hack. Or a "pundit" who covers stories that align with his political biases. Which there is not necessarily anything wrong with (I think he's wrong, but he's got the right to be wrong). I mean, I watch Left-wing pundits on the Tee-vee. I'm just saying that let's not get confused here and conclude that Ben Swann's PizzaGate coverage is actual "news", i.e. unbiased factual reporting.
It seems as though the Harster is confused on this, though. So much so that he's convinced that someone might want to harm Ben Swann... for "reporting" laughable bullshit. Implying that someone would be super angry with him for "exposing the truth". Ha ha ha ha ha. Perhaps Hillary Clinton? Willis *is* convinced that she has murdered before. Or he thinks she ordered at least one murder (DNC staffer Seth Rich, the "real" source of the WikiLeaks material).
Footnotes & Supporting Document [1] Re Ben Swann's support for Ron Paul, "during Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, Swann sought to minimize Ron Paul's newsletter scandal... the scandal that Ron Paul had published newsletters under his name that carried racist content"... (Wikipedia/Ben Swann/Ron Paul newsletter controversy). [2] ...In a statement, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department said it was monitoring the situation and is "aware of general threats being made against this establishment". [Additionally] The FBI said it "does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations". (Fake News Onslaught Targets Pizzeria as Nest of Child-Trafficking by Cecilia Kang 12/21/2016 NYT). This is, however, a reference to investigations concerning THREATS against Planet Ping Pong and it's owner/employees. But, if they're investigating threats, I think that is proof that they've already concluded that the child sex trafficking allegations are 100% bogus. [DSD #50] Willis Hart Writes About PizzaGate, Spirit Cooking & (Ironically) Fake News. 12/7/2016. A catalog of Contra O'Reilly posts on these subjects.
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart professes to be opposed to discrimination against gay people, but he's deluding himself.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that a California Judge Recently Ruled that the Internet Dating-Site, Christian Mingle, Must Allow LGBT Applicants. How ludicrous is that?
a) The proprietors of that site apparently don't feel comfortable serving gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. and it shouldn't be the role of the government in a free society to force them to do it at gunpoint. b) It's a huge slippery-slope (what's next, forcing a Jewish dating-site to allow the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to sign up with them?). And c) There are more than enough alternative dating-sites (some of them actually meant for gay Christians - HELLO!!) that would be more than willing to take the money and so why in the hell would someone want to give their hard-earned cash (20 something dollars a month) to someone who apparently doesn't want it and where you probably wouldn't get any dates? It makes zero sense and enough already with this virtue-signalling and coercion cocktail. (8/22/2016 AT 3:56pm).
First I'd like to point to a possible tiny point of agreement. This concerns an internet business, so, unlike with a brick-and-mortar establishment, it's A LOT easier for someone to take their business elsewhere. Unlike say, in a small town where there may be any one florist or baker, and the gay customer the "Christian" business doesn't want to serve CAN'T take their business elsewhere.
But Willis is in favor of allowing these "Christian" businesses to discriminate in ALL cases. But I ask, why should a gay customer think first, before entering a business intending to purchase goods and services, "is my business wanted"? And, how are they supposed to know the business owner in question doesn't want their business? A "gays not served" sign in the window?
And, if you saw such a sign, would you not think "this business discriminates". So, I've got to wonder, why are some varieties of discrimination acceptable to Libertarians like Willis Hart, whereas others are not. Would he be OK with a sign in the window that said "Blacks not served"? Or "disabled people not served"?
Which is why the tiny point of agreement I previously identified as "possible" isn't. Even if it's easy for the gay customer to take their business elsewhere - especially when we're talking about an online business - WHY should any kind of discrimination be OK? I think most of us know the answer. Which is that it is not OK.
So, while Willis CLAIMS that his concern is "coercion" of the anti-gay business owner (and why don't they just take their business elsewhere), the FACT is that - the way he thinks things should work - that "Christian" business owners should be able to discriminate (against only gay people?)... it enables bigotry.
And what's the difference between actual bigots and bigotry enablers? Not much from the point of view of the person being discriminated against. Which is why I say Willis Hart is an anti-gay bigot. I mean, he fully and vociferously supports this kind of bigotry (with MANY commentaries on his blog).
You're either ant-discrimination, or you're pro-discrimination. And Willis Hart has made it VERY clear which side of the issue he comes down on. He's pro-discrimination. VERY pro-discrimination. He frames it as an opposition to "coercion", but I say, "what's the difference". People get discriminated against whatever the argument is.
And yes, I absolutely view ALL Libertarians who use the ridiculous "anti-coercion" argument to enable discrimination as bigots and possibly racist. Depending on whether or not they think placing that "no Blacks served" or similar sign in a store window is "coercion".
BTW, "virtue signaling" is another of the Hartster's favorite terms. Along with "SJW" (Social Justice Warrior). But he knows the judge was doing this, how? Much more likely the judge was simply following California law? According to what I read the "Unruh Civil Rights Act [is] an anti-discrimination law in California that requires businesses to provide full and equal accommodations regardless of sexual orientation".
Perhaps the judge was even a Conservative that was personally opposed to "coercing" Christian Mingle into accepting gay customers, but had no choice? Because of THE LAW? What a dope. Also, I read two article, and neither identified the judge by name. Might it be hard to virtual signal when people don't know who you are?
I mean, given that virtue signaling is done "primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker". So HOW can the social standing of a speaker be enhanced if the identity of said person is unknown? OK, so obviously some people know who the judge is. So maybe whoever the judge is, they were "virtue signaling". But I doubt it very much. More likely is that the judge was simply IMPARTIALLY following CA law.
Image: Should signs such as this one be allowed? Or should the law "coerce" business owners into removing such signs? Note that the article the image (below) is attached to is "1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds" (6/4/2014 MSNBC article by Morgan Whitaker). Religious grounds, or the EXACT SAME reason WTNPH strongly argues that business owners should be allowed to cite in defense of them discriminating against gay people.
