« i refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few years ago | Main | Marginal utility fellas »

January 18, 2008

Comments

Neil

Great post! I think that the author of that Guardian piece is using "neoconservative" as a redundant qualifier of the subsequent word, "libertarianism". He's actually saying "libertarian libertarianism"! I agree that calling someone a "neocon" is a smear tactic- I imagine the likes of Christopher Hitchens have been tarred with that brush, rightly or wrongly, for example.

Will Davies

Well Hitchens may be closer to the term's more technical meaning, in that he is a Marxist who supports pre-emptive military interventions against what he views as Fascist dictators (or Sadam Hussein, at any rate). Nick Cohen, while not a Marxist, would be another good example.

But yes, the term seems to be doing very little work as far as Facebook is concerned.

J

I believe the thinking behind the article went a little like this:

1. I don't understand Facebook. I don't like it. It's new and different, but not in the nice way an up-and-coming modern dance troupe at Sadlers Wells is new and different.
2. Everybody else loves facebook, even people less intelligent than me, who don't even write for newspapers.
3. 1 and 2 make me feel insecure.
4. Wow! I just discovered the guys in charge of facebook are evil rightwing Americans! That explains why I never liked it - my natural aversion was justified! Everything makes sense now - it's a conspiracy to undermine society! All of it's users are just unthinking consumer drones! Phew!
5. I'll write an article to tell everyone about 4. Then everyone else will stop liking facebook, and I'll feel good about myself again.

ashok

This is excellent - thank you for sharing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

-