Think it’s silly as much as you want, I’ll bet you do exactly the same. Meet a few goths, or punks, or impressionist painters, or whatever — of course you haven’t met all of them, and of course each of them is an individual who doesn’t “represent” the category, strictly, but still you’re forming an _opinion_ of that category based on your _experience_ of people who identify with it. The fact that you don’t represent the FSP is a strawman. By your logic, we shouldn’t be able to talk about categories at all. Democrats? Statists? Neo-cons? All collections of individuals! None of them has anything to do with any of the others, at all! Of course!

Verbos:

The point is I’m making is not what “the point of the article was.” I agree with what the article is saying, yet I don’t go around claiming that my political opponents “love terror” or similar. I don’t need to, I don’t find it enlightening, and I tend to think that people who do are misusing strong terms and engaging in a sort of propaganda. Their arguments are weakened by it.

The airwaves and public discourse are increasingly polluted by this kind of contentless posturing. It’s not a useful way of debating, I’m tired of it and disappointed to see it used in support of ideas I largely agree with. Is that so very hard to understand?

As for the FSP, the people in this movement are wide and varied and thinking I somehow represent them all — or even a subset of them — is quite silly. The only thing they have in common is a desire to see government’s influence over people’s lives wane. That said, I want to see government shrunk down to the point where I can drown it in the bathtub.

For my writing, thanks for the comments. I invite you to read the rest of the site, and perhaps more recent posts. And as always, the comment form is an invitation to discussion on the topics at hand.

If it’s not there just say so, I’ll send it once more.
Best,

WH

The FSP comes in simply because you have recently entered a high level of commitment to it, what with moving to New Hampshire and so forth.

While it would be nice to imagine the FSP as a set of fully self-determined individuals who will never fall into the usual traps of “movements,” it is still a kind of group. And we all know what happens to groups sometimes, despite their best intentions, which is why we observe them carefully and apply healthy skepticism. Like it or not, since you are closely associated to this particular group, your statements will be used by people to help form their opinion of it.

Many fence-sitters are hoping to discover that the FSP is something new, different — a better implementation of liberty-oriented ideas that won’t reproduce the ineffective and divisive bullshit that has gone on for way too long on the mainstream stage, and which has now reached a stage of advanced decomposition. Shrill language about Democrat politicians “helping OMG fnord terrorists” is not a good way of convincing potential allies of this. To those who refuse to be manipulated by the fear-driven propaganda which the state is so fond of using right now, you sound just like Chavez calling Bush “the Devil.”

2) “But if you really think the rest of the site “is quickly deteriorating,” then perhaps you could offer some constructive criticism instead.”

I appreciate your apparent willingness to hear constructive criticism and will make an effort to really spell out some of it, for what it’s worth.

For me Homeland Stupidity shines when you adopt an objective, sober tone that manages to be forceful simply by its reliance on facts, logic and research. You have done this often in the past, and it was unfair on my part to suggest that it isn’t happening anymore. However, I believe that the problems I have attempted to outline, in my previous post and in 1) above, are serious enough to undermine much of your style’s effectiveness.

Even in posts that cover the FSP’s activities and protests — and the FSP certainly doesn’t present itself as politically neutral/moderate — you often manage to keep your writing free of buzzwords and overused memes (“helping our enemies”). That’s what I think you should stick to. Fnords work on true believers and sleepwalkers; free-thinkers see them and are turned off by them.

Besides, there is no need to rely on the power of rhetoric when it comes to (most of) the content you produce. The _facts_ are on *your* side. Reading an intelligent description of the latest encroachment on freedom — backed up by original sources, some of your own original reporting and plenty of common sense — is *much* more convincing than rabble-rousing.

So this is my constructive criticism; and I assure you, I mean it. Keep focused on what you do best: you show an insightful, “technical” mind which you can use to look at issues objectively and then convey that understanding, persuasively, in writing. Keep doing that, and trim all the fat you possibly can. Random jabs at a particular political faction don’t help any of us in the long run; they just alienate part of your audience, are unnecessary, and should therefore be edited out.

Of course, in the end this is your blog, and the above is just my point of view; maybe you completely disagree with it. But you asked, so there.

As for the quality of this site, I admit this wasn’t one of my best posts. Far from it. But if you really think the rest of the site “is quickly deteriorating,” then perhaps you could offer some constructive criticism instead.

That’s a dumb and shrill comment, far more appropriate for the partisan squabbling between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum than a pro-liberty website.

It is embarrassing to watch you posturing and mouthing platitudes about “acting like an adult” and “actual discussion” when this is the way you write. Please feel free to show in a level-headed and logical argument how Gore is “helping terrorists”, or at least how he is doing so any more than the current President and the statist establishment in general.

Sadly, I have to say that the quality of this blog is quickly deteriorating. I used to find it refreshing and convincing, but lately more and more of the above petulant and tired rhetoric is finding its way into your writing. The more of this you do, the faster you will transform your audience into an echo chamber, and reduce any actual influence Homeland Stupidity has in the real world.

I guess you’re “radicalized” now that you have joined the FSF. A shame, then, that your behavior doesn’t do your own political group any favors, but only helps further its reputation as a magnet for disgruntled Republicans and jingoistic nutcases — yet another bunch of narrow-minded angry extremists who like to wrap themselves in the “freedom” flag.

Good job!

WH