10.12.15

When you’d rather do nothing, peddle KickStarter!

Posted in Culture of Lickspittle at 2:26 pm by George Smith

Asinine quote of the day on a most asinine idea from the President of the US of Asinine: “Is that a step that strengthens the bonds of society?” Yancey Strickler of KickStarter asked a NYT reporter of Obama’s plea for Americans to use his crowdfunding site to buy sleeping bags (sleeping bags!) for Syrian refugees.

As humanitarian aid since we’re only taking 10,000, if that.

Wait, though, because it gets better: “Is it the start of a libertarian utopia?” Strickler adds.

Here’s my awesome idea: Let’s use crowdfunding, especially KickStarter, to help Americans directly buy more bombs and missiles and other weapons, like TOW anti-tank missiles, or fuel for the jets and the uniforms for the special forces we’re using to help guarantee Syria remains a failed state along with the other failed states we’ve created over there. It will help continue the proxy war we’re waging with Russia over there, too.

And why can’t we “crowdfund” our national security through KickStarter?

Oh, wait.


Libertarian utopia, strengthening the bonds of society, my ass.

I vaguely knew Yancey Strickler when he worked at the the Village Voice many, many years ago, and I was a regular writer for the alternative news weekly. And I did some reviewing for him when he was an editor at eMusic. None of which explains any of the effervescent shucking and stupidity bubbling up in this.

It does indicate that success in a tech start-up may not always be a product of how brilliant the starter-uppers are. Dumb luck seems to play a role.


More quote, at which point you know the NYT reporter, Anand Giridharadas, is all for joining the tech collective of glib jerk-offs:

Perhaps people will get hooked on helping refugees through Kickstarter, become early adopters of the cause, and evangelize their compatriots to help as a collective. Or perhaps it becomes a cop-out — a method that politicians use to seem like they’re doing something when it’s too hard to do something.

And perhaps it changes the very nature of humanitarianism itself.

Would the meaning of the Marshall Plan be different had it been financed by a thousand self-organized bake sales worldwide?

If you need it explained why this is so intelligence-insulting, you’ve no business reading this blog.

3 Comments

  1. Anonymous Coward said,

    October 12, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Color me confused.

    If you did that for a Palestinian, and any element of the money flow could be linked to what gets termed ‘terrorism’ (sleeping in a shitty hut on a piece of property that may have trees, or water, or maybe just a nice view, these things count), you would be popped by the Feebs and doing hard time pretty rapidly.

    But wait, what about those scare stories that some of these refugees are, in fact, affiliated with terror groups (maybe that young girl that the television personality tripped, on camera… they start young, after all, and who knows how far the pre-crime operations extend these days)? So all this is just grassroots (or astroturf, because you can never have too many money laundering channels in place to front logistics to your pet causes) support of terror, hurrah!

    Libertarian utopia. Gosh. You know, every time I had to deal with a ‘libertarian’ in the tech industry, I asked them what that actually would mean. Usually I would get some Randroid response, or Friedmanite spew about free markets, etc. None of them could slap a coherent definition down, because they largely don’t have a belief-set, they have a fig leaf, a very tiny one covering their very tiny member, with which they intended to selfishly screw anything that moved, thought of moving, may once have moved, might move in the future, might grow moss that could possibly move… Can you tell I didn’t think much of the experience?

  2. George Smith said,

    October 21, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Yeah, you have to tell us more about it and how it came to be.

  3. anon said,

    October 21, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    I once saw a pretty basic definition of a libertarian, borrowed from a definition of a conservative.

    They are conservatives who like pornography, like smoking pot, and dislike the idea of going to church and having the pastor TRY to tell them to behave. The other stuff about liberals, taxation, immigrants, and social programs is pretty much the same.