The idea this is laughable to you is an amusing glimpse into your arrogance. He has his following for a reason, and is censored for a reason. He questions the status quo, and models that which make sense of it.
Your arrogance (including calling be a "baby", and essentializing conspiracy theorists as "wackjobs") is further typified by assuming you know everything I've read and been through, all while claiming I "don't know half" of the other way around.
You adopt anarchist aesthetic, to paper over your desire to get away with unethical acts, while not seeing consequences for them. It's why you promoted Russia as an example of a sex-positive society; you don't actually have any interest in statelessness.
Nope. There's no "religious fundamentalism" in abstinence - the fact that people can do it for religious reasons is not evidence that all reasons are religious. Patriarchy doesn't exist, but calling me a conspiracy theorist while pushing that CT? Amusing.
1) No, yes, yes. *built 2) No they aren't, and only if you want to. 3) Completely untrue, and a direct result of the media lying to you about it - as evidenced by "muh Twitter" when it's on all platforms. 4) And? What do you suggest replacing it with?
5) He was way better than you, and you have very limited "interesting bits", if any. 6) No. 7) The state agrees with and loves this take. Anarchists shouldn't. 8) Yes. 9) No. We should all get fit enough to destroy what destroys us, and not be unhealthy.
10) No it isn't, and fortunately, few people care what you think. 11) Vague statements like this are worthless and require no thought or knowledge. 12) Ancoms are libertarians, and political libertarianism started w/ ancoms. You diss libertarian org tho.
"Muh NAP" is not the basis of libertarianism, nor is abiding by it.
Certain thoughts can render one not libertarian, at a foundational level, without action, or rights violations, and simply "not violating rights" isn't the foundation of liberty or libertarianism.
The belief in free will, and the meritocratic notions which spring from anti-determinism - THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF LIBERTARIANISM - are the foundation, not muh NAP.
Believing one's value is determinist, and not by their will, is anti-liberty. Can't be anti-liberty libertarian.
Like even NAP as a phrase even came so long after political libertarianism. This isn't a thing. Even in American right-libertarianism, muh NAP ain't the root, and it got on fine without it for many years.
Libertarianism didn't poof into being when the NAP was coined. Ridiculous.