A Lesson in Libertarianism, Quoting Others, and Word Usage

Saturday, December 5, 2009
Posted in category Uncategorized

I waited a week for some easily offended, left libertarian to post a very predictable comment to my blog on Adam Lambert. To start, I am re-posting my blog post in question for the sake of simplicity.


November 29, 2009:

On the Adam Lambert debacle:

In addition to dragging a female dancer around by the ankles, pushing a male dancer’s head into his crotch and simulating oral sex, walking a pair of male hoofers around like dogs on a leash, and furiously thrusting his hips at every opportunity, Lambert took a moment mid-song to fervently make out with (an allegedly straight) male keyboard player. After the jaw-dropping performance, Lambert told CNN that the forceful smooch was “in the moment” and was not a planned part of his routine.

Notice that Newsweek writer Julia Baird calls the reaction to this “homophobia.” Give me an effing break.

Yet the queers want us to look at this and tolerate it in the name of “diversity.” And by “tolerate,” I do not mean leave them alone to live their own lives and conduct voluntary actions that do not encroach upon the freedoms of others. In the modern, politically correct era, tolerance means to accept, appreciate, take pride in, and defend the perverted behavior of depraved individuals such as the freakish Adam Lambert. Whether this swine is a queer or not a queer does not change the disgusting nature of his actions. Yet he uses his queerness – as do all of the activist homosexuals – to push the queer agenda and to push the buttons of people who would otherwise say “no thanks” to being included in viewing such acts of debauchery. As people know, I am no bible thumper, but let us concede that straight people typically don’t want to see queer men making out and simulating oral sex. But that makes us “intolerant” and malicious. Uh, right. In fact, most people probably don’t want to see the actions described above between heterosexuals, either. (Count me among them.) So therefore, we criticize such uncivilized behavior.

Following Lambert’s gross behavior, the liberal network, ABC, canceled his appearance on Good Morning America. Good for them for listening to the viewers.

Lambert said this in 2009: “My goal was not to piss people off; it was to promote freedom of expression and artistic freedom.” Uhhh…pushing someone’s face into your crotch or licking their tonsils on TV is “artistic expression?” Perhaps if he was to drop his pants and take a nasty old shit on the corner of a busy intersection, that might be artistic expression that we all should appreciate? Thanks Adam, but sometimes definitions do matter.


Of course, I posted that blog for a reason, and some halfwit finally fulfilled my prophecy. Read this blog post: “Karen DeCoster is a Homophobe.” He thought the title would bring some action to his post.

I hate to give any attention to this thing – but a Google alert alerted me, and this post is so bad it’s too great to ignore. There are also some valuable lessons here. First of all, admittedly, I could not have predicted that any simpleton – especially one who calls himself a libertarian – would actually dare to use the word “homophobe.” I thought anyone who can spell “libertarian” was beyond that bit of simpleton name calling. But I was wrong. Well Mr. Thompson, I hate to point out your mistakes, but here it goes. You are far too daft, making this far too easy.

To start, I always ask, but never get an answer: what does homophobe mean? Oh, but wait – here’s what Thompson says:

The language she uses is clearly that of a homophobe, because only homophobes believe that there is a “queer agenda” and that any public display of homosexuality is evidence of said ‘agenda.’ (I know homophobes, having once been one.)

So now, a “homophobe” uses certain “language” (“clearly”!) that can be easily translated into homophobia by the thought police. LOL!, and that’s about all I can say to that. And, there’s no queer agenda? Really? There’s no massive movement to extract special rights from the government for individuals based on their sexual preferences? So I imagine hate crime agendas, hate crime legislation, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the demonization of “homophobia” in society and the schools, and the zillion special-interest homosexual groups that seek special favor legislation to acknowledge their sexual preferences and grant them distinct political rights that obstruct the freedom of others?

Again, “homophobia” is always used to indicate that you do not proactively promote and approve of the victimology designation assigned to people of particular sexual preferences.

And don’t you love the part where he says, “I used to be one” (a homophobe)? That statement is meant to convey that he is now a part of the easily offended, non-homophobia club, and he therefore professes his support for the pc rights. He has apparently righted his past transgressions of social thought crimes and his conscience is clear of such crimes. For to say that there is such a thing as “homophobia” is to indicate that you believe there is such a thing as a thought crime if that thought falls outside of the established benchmarks set by the pro-victimology types who appeal to the ruling class to set thought crime standards and enforce punishment against those who do not conform to them.

But Thompson says, in his post, that I am the one who is “offended.” Another mistake on his part because of his overall lack of brain power and ability to think about words before he uses them. Nowhere do I state that I am offended or otherwise convey such nonsense. Where is the quote sir? In fact, as I state often on my blog and in emails back to folks, I despise nothing more than people who write me and tell me “I am offended by……..” Because I really don’t care if people are offended by anything I say. In fact, it is Thompson who is completely offended, enough to make him post his raging blog assigning to me a whole host of personal disparaging remarks. I am merely conveying *criticism,* and as I have blogged before, easily offended pseudo-libertarians like Thompson oppose any criticism whatsoever coming from someone who is not a pro-debauchery social leftist. Therefore we see the anticipated use of the word “prude” to describe me. Well, I’ve been called a lot of things, but never anything resembling “prude.” And that probably has something to do with my eleven years of writings and posts that are anything but prudish!

Let’s get real for a second, to help Mr. Thompson along. “Prude” to Thompson (who has a really bad habit of misusing words) means that I don’t subscribe to or endorse the gross behavior of pop culturish, low-IQ, promiscuous dullards. I have made similar comments about the MTV spring break lowbrow crowd and their deviant tv acts, as well as the philistine breast exposure conduct once undertaken by Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake on national TV. Yet, since these were acts of heterosexual infantilism, where was Mr. Thompson to call me a “heterophobe?” Why wasn’t that “bigotry” on my part? Surely, there can be no such comparison according to people like Thompson who subscribe to the scores of thought crime theories put forth by petty victimologists. There cannot be thought crimes against heterosexuals unless they fall into some other victimology class based on gender, race, etc.

Let’s see: Lambert thrust his crotch into the face of men on stage, and put some guys on dog collars, walking them around the stage as they crawled at crotch level, on all fours. This was done for shock effect, to play to the dumbed-down, low IQ general TV audience that generally watches those kinds of shows on the boob tube. Anyone with at least a few IQ points in their favor knows this, if they understand anything about TV, marketing and hype, and the intelligence level of the general viewing audience. Except Mr. Thompson, who refers to himself as a “radical libertarian,” doesn’t seem to get it.

Mr. Thompson, like most bloggers who essentially float in nowhereland, resorts to nothing but name calling: homophobe, prude (can we please stop being so predictable?), and bigot (more of the same). Yet if you look at the way people (mis)use words, homophobe and bigot mean the same thing in the pop culture language of easily offended people. Count how many times these words are used in his blog post.

As I stated, the Beltway and Left-Libertarian crowd hates social criticism if it is deemed to be “conservative” in nature. So, if you believe in the use of intelligence, morals, and having concern for the impression you give others before you act out your crazed impulses, this is a *bad* thing, according to them. This is exactly why Thompson has posted his raging and disgruntled blog.

Another riotous error on the part of Thompson is that he states the following passages:

I would hope that as a libertarian she would defend Lambert’s right to express himself and his sexuality.

…A person who is unwilling to defend Adam Lambert’s right to gyrate and thrust in public is unwilling to defend free expression, which is a libertarian idea, not a ‘politically correct’ one.

First, “free expression” is NOT a “libertarian idea,” Mr. Thompson. See more on that a few paragraphs below.

Words have meaning. Twice Thompson invokes the “defend” argument, even after he quotes my comment that states, “In the modern, politically correct era, tolerance means to accept, appreciate, take pride in, and defend the perverted behavior of depraved individuals such as the freakish Adam Lambert.” A quick definition of defend is “to protect from….”, “to speak or write in favor of…….”, or “attempt to justify….” Of course, using proper definitions, I don’t “defend” Lambert’s behavior. I criticized Lambert’s vulgar actions – but I did not ever make any claim that such actions should be illegal, that he should be put in jail or the gas chamber, nor did I say such actions should not be allowed on television.

Yet Thompson goes on to say this: “A libertarian changes the channel if she doesn’t like what she sees on TV, she does not accuse the person on TV of trying to brainwash or coerce her.”

But first, I have more definition instruction for the sagging Mr. Thompson. Coerce is a term that means “by force or threats.” This is the essence of what government does, because it has a monopoly on coercion, and this is why people like me are libertarians – because we stand in opposition to the use of force. Mr. Thompson, where did I say that Adam Lambert tried to “brainwash or coerce me?” I happily link you to my post to read it again. “Coercion” is a fightin’ word, and Thompson is stating outright lies at this point. It is not possible, by definition, for Adam Lambert to “coerce me” into watching him on TV. Yet Thompson lies and uses these words to paint me as evil and bigoted and homophobic because he disagrees with the way I think about Lambert’s actions and the lack of desire for quality among the TV viewing masses.

Of course, when overly sensitive people like Thompson are outraged and personally offended, they digress into name calling, misquoting, and the misuse of simple words to support their indignation. Lastly, Thompson ends with this:

Libertarians value freedom of expression, so while I support De Coster’s right to say whatever bigoted things she wants, I also support Adam Lambert’s right to perform sexually suggestive dance routines on television.

Thompson, please start using a dictionary before you blog (or just stop writing altogether).  The word “support” is used to convey “approval” and “encouragement.” Of course I don’t encourage or approve of Lambert’s behavior, which is why I wrote the blog post – to provoke people like you. He is perfectly free to engage is lewd behavior if the property owners – the television station and the awards show that hosted him – approve and allow such actions. And some stations are okay with his actions and have invited him to come onto their property, unlike ABC, which has denied him the use of their property for his gimmicks. Such is the greatness of private property and the ability to exercise control over that which you own.

And that leads to another lesson for you Thompson: no, libertarians don’t value the “freedom of expression.” Libertarians value private property rights, and your “freedom of expression” (get a vocabulary outside of cliches, Thompson) is subject to property rights and the permissions of owners. If Lambert chooses to thrust his penis into the face of his pals on stage, that is not “expression,” it is an action. And I judge each action – individually – before I “value” or approve of them. As a libertarian, I have never claimed that actions I don’t approve of shouldn’t occur when and where they are welcomed by the property owners and/or conform to the non-aggression principle. No such thing can ever be found in any of my writings. Such is the glory of property rights and the ability to choose among various product choices provided by markets. And the market demands property rights in order to function and satisfy consumer demand. And this is why Thompson can find no such words in my blog post, as he claims, and instead he drifts into personal attacks, misquotes, and the perversion of word definitions.

As the property owner of www.karendecoster.com, I am free to post opinions and criticisms of others, based on my own values and the way I view social mores and acceptable behavior. Mr. Thompson is also free to do so on his website. However, the market, as it works, values honesty, as well as appropriate support for critical points made by authors that attempt to define what someone else said. Mr. Thompson made up a whole host of ideas and erroneously ascribed them to me, and he is therefore an unethical creature of sorts. He is also ignorant for not understanding words and definitions. He should have stuck to just criticizing my opinions with his own counter opinions, but instead, he manipulated non-libertarian arguments to try and claim that I was unlibertarian. That is his failure. He is not well read and he is uninformed as to the basics. He can’t possibly be a (“radical”) libertarian until he understands what that means.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to A Lesson in Libertarianism, Quoting Others, and Word Usage

  1. Alan von Altendorf says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 10:48 am

    A few words about property. A broadcasting license granted by the government is ‘clothed in a public purpose’ and subject to regulations that transcend secular ordinances (land use, taxes, tariffs, crimes). One wonders if today’s political elite have encouraged obscenity and violence as a means of stupifying young people and ending debate?

  2. John says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 11:15 am


    Excellent response to Thompson’s accusations. People often confuse debauchery for liberty or freedom. Whenever I talk about the disgusting ‘War on Drugs’, simpletons assume I must want 6 year olds to be shooting up heroin. I always have to explain that I would not condone the use of such drugs, but rather I don’t think anyone has the right to prevent someone from putting something in his body.

    Here’s an example for Mr. Thompson to consider: fat, disgusting men with speedos at the beach. I think if you are fat, you should not wear a speedo; I do no want to see that. Certainly there should not be a bureaucrat on the beach measuring people and telling them whether or not they can wear them. Anyone is free to do as they please (within the bounds of property rights of course). Will Mr. Thompson defend these skimpily clad walruses? Somehow I doubt it. Of course, that means he’s a fat-aphobe, or some other such nonsense, who wishes to ‘oppress’ fat people. What if old fat gay men wore such speedos? Would he be a homophobe for opposing such disgusting displays? Under his logic, he would be. Of course, my argument assumes he would oppose the wearing of speedos by old fat men, which he may not oppose.


  3. Richard Laplante says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Sometimes a thing, or a fool, speaks for itself.

    The agenda of the homosexuals appears to be the same as for all the other ‘special interest’ groups.
    Last night, I happened to channel surf onto a congressional black caucus event on CSPAN2 just as the chairman (I believe a representative Lee from California) rattled on about the wonderfulness of thework of the group(s) in attendance – especially since ‘hands that once picked cotton…’ now do something even more slavish, take government grants and use the force of congress to extract wealth from other who (like cotton pickers) toil for their benefit.
    I wonder when any of them picked cotton. I know they pick pockets, and so do the homosexuals through their lobbying etc.
    No one would be surprised if a few people just stop giving their money (taxes) to them – now would they?
    bah – humbug :)

  4. Karen De Coster says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    John, indeed, Thompson is all mixed up, and PLUS the problem is that he is so angry that my opinions do not conform to pc-ism that he is desperately seeking libertarian principles to support his victimology claims and denounce me as unlibertarian. He was so easy to smash. I am anxiously awaiting his apology and admittance to error in using libertarian principles.

  5. cousin lucky says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Having a website does bring out the rants of misconception harbored in the recesses of human minds. I have many relatives who are ” artists ” and they just do not understand that other people are not required to share their beliefs or share their morals. Everyone is free to have their own beliefs; but I am free to have my own opinions about my beliefs and I am free to have whatever opinion I want to about the beliefs of others. I have learned a long time ago to not to try to change the opinions that other people have embedded in their brains; it is much wiser to just walk away from them and leave them to themselves!!

  6. Bob Roddis says:

    December 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    Libertarians are NEVER going to get anywhere until it is understood that conservatives and religious people have every right to live in a private neighborhood that (if they so choose) forbids even the presence of anyone that might not measure up the ideals of the owners of the neighborhood. The same as promiscuous gays and monogamous gays. And nudists. And Muslims.

    Libertarianism is merely a political philosophy of negative rights, and is not by itself concerned with how one lives one’s life so long as one does not interfere with the rights of others. Whether one should be otherwise socially tolerant of gays, nudists, Muslims, porn stars, Methodists or Keynesians is a completely different matter.

  7. traderpaul says:

    December 6th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    I watched the Adam Lambert performance at the AMAA and, overall, I liked it! Easily the most entertaining performance in an otherwise milquetoast program.
    I find it hilarious that the controversial acts, that comprised about 10 seconds total out of a 220 second performance, could cause such an uproar. It’s just so American!

    Artistic integrity? Of course there was. The character Lambert was playing was a user and taker, no one was immune to his wishes. The character was not someone to be admired, but to be wary of.

    The performance was no different from the antics of a long list of rock/pop performers who wished to shock their American audience. Why are Americans so gullible?

  8. Karen De Coster says:

    December 7th, 2009 at 7:20 am

    Paul – the gullible people are the ones that call that “art,” “free expression,” or a “performance.” The rest of us stand back and say, Wtf? Definitions matter. To be someone who desires that kind of “performance” is what is “so American.” ‘Tis we know why TV is at the level it currently is. Because it’s what people want! So yes, the marketing types who create pop stars for the mainstream are very smart. Sorry, I’ll take Bach or my Jack Benny’s Greatest Hits DVD……

  9. Mike Tuggle says:

    December 7th, 2009 at 8:37 am

    Hmmm. This gives me an idea.

  10. traderpaul says:

    December 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    The reason why I say Americans are gullible is because Americans have a knack for blowing non-events like this out of proportion, unwittingly aiding the real agenda. Analyzing each second of the performance and finger-pointing at other commentators for gay agendas, anti-gay agendas, violence against women, what is art or not art, what about the children?, etc.
    That segment of the AMA had only one agenda. Promotion for Adam Lambert. And with the predictable over-analysis, name-calling and moralizing from the MSM and blogging community, mission accomplished!

    Absolutely, definitions matter.
    There was nothing in the Lambert performance that would disqualify it from being included as art in the modern pop/rock genre.
    The performance did not promote violence against women or pornographic gay sex. In fact, the crotch thrust and kiss happened so quickly I did not actually note the gender of the participants while watching the show.
    Bach it wasn’t, but Bach is a completely different genre.
    Jack Benny it wasn’t either. More along the lines of another comedic artist, Buddy Hackett!

Leave a Reply