QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 27th April 2012, 9:26pm)
GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.
You're right - it's shallow and one-dimensional.
The real question, to me at least, is whether or not there's moral equivalency here. There's the usual argument over whether or not "geek libertarians" are geeks (or libertarians) by
choice, or if they're born that way due to some sort of genetic defect. But it's not just that; have "geek libertarians" been systematically denied economic and social opportunities merely because of their attitude, quasi-ideology, and inability to dress in a way that makes them seem more sexually attractive to others? Are "geek libertarians" targeted for violence and hatred by bigots and extremists merely because of the color of their neck-beards and pocket protectors, or the number of copies of
Atlas Shrugged they own? We know they're often unfairly stereotyped in the media, but are those stereotypes genuinely insulting, or do they in fact make it easier for them to "pass" in the larger society for what they want others to think they are - i.e., intellectual, wealthy, totally non-empathic - even if they're actually none of those things?
I guess I would say that "geek libertarian," like "cabal" and "Wikipediot" before it, is a
term of art. Mr. Beadgame may believe the people so described are "evil," but I suspect that he thinks of them as victims of a pernicious and, yes,
evil quasi-ideology just as much as he thinks of them as having been born evil, and using "geek libertarianism" as a justification for their misdeeds.