Comment: which would be why I refer

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Oh yeah...I read the bitcoin stuff (see in situ)

which would be why I refer

to her as a "faux-narchist." xD

It's one thing to be wrong about something (as a truly enlightened individual is a constant work in progress, and would readily go Socratic cruise-matic admit that all one is certain about, is that one does not know...anything, in the finality), but it's wholly another to be downright preachy condescendingly arrogant, call others names to the likes of Julie Borowski who never said anything mean to her in the least, along with slandering/libeling Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul and his fellow libertarian scholars/intelligentsia, not 'just' "racist," but "SUPER racist"!! LOL.

Which, is directly out of the SPLC playbook, with ZERO proof as usual, and uses a wholly intellectually dishonest baseless premise to build her whole public persona around it, especially within the definition stickler-y-obsessed libertarian nerd-vana, dang it! A perplexing move, to be sure.


Plus it'd be one thing, if her baseless critique was once or twice honest misunderstandings, but this seems to be her de facto modus operandi.

Please observe the following; mind you, this is daughter of legal scholar & AnCap Butler Shaffer, Bretigne Shaffer, an accomplished libertarian/AnCap intellectual in her own right & a published author, rebutting Cathy Reisenwitz, correctly:

Cathy Reisenwitz Remains Confused
by Bretigne Shaffer
Friday, July 11, 2014

Last January I wrote a piece for EPJ on “Libertarians and Privilege” in response to an online debate between Cathy Reisenwitz and Julie Borowski on the topic of “privilege.” In it, I argued against Reisenwitz’s position that libertarians ought to not only oppose the initiation of force, but should also be concerned with “...the cultural attitudes, ignorance and prejudices that form the basis of (the desire to preserve unearned power)” I also reiterated my rejection of the term “privilege” as she uses it, and explained my reasons for rejecting it. Yesterday, re-posted my article and Reisenwitz responded here.

Reisenwitz starts off by chiding me for focusing on this particular debate but failing to cite her contribution to another online debate - a contribution she wrote some five months after my article had appeared. She then takes me to task for claiming that she failed to address the criticism she had received regarding her claim that shaming is a form of coercion. She writes:

“...the first mistake Shaffer makes is to claim I failed to address criticisms to my “shaming is coercion” article that I actually did address. In the follow-up article.

“...Also funny: When writers don’t do their due diligence. In fact I clarified that although I do acknowledge that shaming can be a form of coercion (something I’m not the only writer to assert) that fact doesn’t justify using even more coercion to punish it.”

In fact, I did read Reisenwitz’s follow-up article. Far from “addressing” the criticism she received, she simply redefined the word “coercion” to make it appear that there was no problem with what she had said. She writes:

“In my mind, this is the key difference between coercion and persuasion: persuasion is pointing out the natural consequences to another person of possible courses of action for them. Coercion is creating those consequences.”

So, while you and I may have grown up believing that “coercion” refers to the use of violence or the threat of violence to get others to do what you want them to, in Cathy-Land, coercion means “creating negative consequences” for actions or behavior.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul