I never see people here talk about it. Unlike other “treats”. If they were defending it out of personal enjoyment I’d expect people to cite that more rather than argue more from an ideological libertarian point of view.
I haven’t actually seen it talked about, or defended, until this thread. Reading the text of the defending here makes me wonder if it was just a low-profile thing for some users until it got brought up here and needed to be defended with misanthropic statements about not caring about the suffering of others and other such examples of “maybe in deep with gambling apps.”
EDIT: I just did a closer read of the poster I was thinking of, and maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s just some broad-brushed ideological puritanism that absolutely demands “no veggies at dinner, no bedtimes” abolishment of any and all restrictions on anything.
There’s that one guy, but besides him most people seem to be drawing parallels to drug prohibition. Which again is understandable because the war on drugs has been an utter failure in the US.
I agree, it has been a failure, but as another poster mentioned, non-Burgerland restrictions on some of the most harmful drugs (as in actually harmful, not some kid with a joint) did have a positive societal effect under socialism.
I suppose the memory of Prohibition (and the ever-vaguer legend of it as it fades further into history) is something some people cling to no matter what, as a sort of indirect American Exceptionalism that implies that if Burgerland failed at it (and how could it not fail considering how easily accessible and everywhere alcohol has always been, and how corrupt the cops were all along) that no restrictions are possible whatsoever, nor should any ever be put in place no matter how harmful the thing in question.
EDIT: The “war on drugs” has technically been a success if one considers it started under Nixon as a means to imprison black people.
I never see people here talk about it. Unlike other “treats”. If they were defending it out of personal enjoyment I’d expect people to cite that more rather than argue more from an ideological libertarian point of view.
I haven’t actually seen it talked about, or defended, until this thread. Reading the text of the defending here makes me wonder if it was just a low-profile thing for some users until it got brought up here and needed to be defended with misanthropic statements about not caring about the suffering of others and other such examples of “maybe in deep with gambling apps.”
EDIT: I just did a closer read of the poster I was thinking of, and maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s just some broad-brushed ideological puritanism that absolutely demands “no veggies at dinner, no bedtimes” abolishment of any and all restrictions on anything.
There’s that one guy, but besides him most people seem to be drawing parallels to drug prohibition. Which again is understandable because the war on drugs has been an utter failure in the US.
I agree, it has been a failure, but as another poster mentioned, non-Burgerland restrictions on some of the most harmful drugs (as in actually harmful, not some kid with a joint) did have a positive societal effect under socialism.
I suppose the memory of Prohibition (and the ever-vaguer legend of it as it fades further into history) is something some people cling to no matter what, as a sort of indirect American Exceptionalism that implies that if Burgerland failed at it (and how could it not fail considering how easily accessible and everywhere alcohol has always been, and how corrupt the cops were all along) that no restrictions are possible whatsoever, nor should any ever be put in place no matter how harmful the thing in question.
EDIT: The “war on drugs” has technically been a success if one considers it started under Nixon as a means to imprison black people.