20 Responses to Mukti!

  1. Soviet Onion July 9, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    But Roderick, what if some some Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist/Jain fundamentalists wanted to secede from the Imperial Indian state and go there own way? Should they not be supported? How can we know that there’s something wrong with the criminalization of homosexuals?

    It really says something about the priorities ALLies have these days when the rights of “freaky-deaky” sexual minorities matter more than the cause of pan-secessionism against the now plainly totalitarian humanist Indian state!!!

    • Danny Shahar July 10, 2009 at 12:22 am #

      I’d anticipate that Dr. Long would want to peg this under the “thick libertarian” argument…

      • Micha Ghertner July 11, 2009 at 11:31 am #

        Please, let’s leave the pegging out of this discussion.

  2. Darian July 9, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    will return to this thread tomorrow with figurative popcorn

  3. Brandon July 9, 2009 at 11:34 pm #

    Obviously India no longer cares about the children.

    Won’t somebody please think of the children?

  4. Darian July 10, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    Oh crap! I just realized that this means us homosexualists are on the side of the state! We must side with “the people” if we find a poll that shows a majority of Indians want homosexuality illegal! Now let me find out where the ruling class stands on chopping off the hands of pickpockets, so we know what our position on that issue must be. 😉

  5. Life, Love, and Liberty July 10, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    Roderick “Screaming Sexualist” Long? Might be time for a name change

    ( :

    • b-psycho July 10, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

      I was waiting for someone to note that Dr. Long has been…endowed with a perfect porn name.

      • Aster July 10, 2009 at 10:22 pm #

        ‘Sexualism’ sounds like a great name for an avant-garde arts movement.

        ‘Screaming sexualist’ sounds like a cocktail drink or a designer drug. May I please have another one?

        BTW, my thanks to Roderick for keeping an eye on this sort of thing. Keith really goes to town in the comments section… I must congratulate him for some of the most creative bigotry I’ve ever encountered. I’d protest or something, but it took me at least six minutes to stop laughing. Shall we debate the merits of transspecies equality and the intergenerational love movement? Does the Mofo Alliance deserve our solidarity and support? I’m concerned their cultural politics might be incompatible with left-libertarianism; they’re reputed to be badasses.

        Oh, and you people all have filthy minds. For shame. Poor Roderick. 🙁

        • Dennis July 10, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

          As long as they have mountain-man beards and dress in black t shirts (usually with jeans) the Mofo Alliance is welcome in Left Libertarian circles. I kid, I kid. Oh, and the Screaming Sexualists are a really awesome roller derby team in Salina, Kansas.

  6. Gene July 10, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Rod Long…

    • Brandon July 10, 2009 at 4:23 pm #


      • Roderick July 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

        People often ask me why my Auburn email address is longrob rather than longrod. The short answer is that it’s the one that was assigned to me when I was first hired here (and at that time I was here for a one-year job and so didn’t much care what my email address here was).

        But there’s speculation as to why they gave me the name longrob. Here are the two dominant hypotheses:

        1. They were trying to avoid giving me an email address that sounded like the name of a porn star.

        2. They were simply confused or incompetent.

        (1) is the more interesting hypothesis. Some support for (2), though, is the fact that the IT people also originally had my first name listed as “Roberick” (but I don’t know which came first, longrob or Roberick).

        • Brandon July 10, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

          Well, the interesting thing is that the FBI starts using “Longrod” as a short form around about page 45 of your confidential file (right where they document your efforts to assassinate Castro using explosive cigars in the 70s), eg. “That night Longrod engaged in a profanity-laden phone call with President Nixon which ended abruptly when…”
          It’s almost as if someone at the FBI knows you personally, even while setting up a whole bunch of phone taps, and…well, I…I’ve said too much.

  7. Marja Erwin July 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    I feel the need to address some of Keith’s comments on the other blog.

    “Or, let’s say that in the context of a revolutionary coalition there included militant animal rights groups whose membership included “transspecies” persons, some of whom would “self-identify” as a dog, put on collars and run up the street barking.”

    This canard circulates in both trans-hating and trans-ignorant circles. I would normally attribute this to ignorance, but given the past disputes, ignorance, hatred, or some combination all seem like possibilities.

    The simple answer is that two human brains are virtually identical. One human and one non-human brain are very different. There are minor differences in the hypothalamus; the BSTc is thought to be involved in body-mapping and other tissues are thought to be involved in hormone regulation. (None of these are involved in gender roles.)

    The best studies to date show typically-female structures in the brains of trans womyn (assigned male at birth). http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

    Different hormone levels account for most of the differences between male and female fetuses, and it has been suggested that prenatal variations in the fetus’s or the mother’s hormone production might affect the differentiation of the brain at critical moments.

    There is no known mechanism to explain why a human fetus would have a canine, or any other non-human brain. Other species have diverged from humanity, and each species has gained and lost various developmental pathways. Each species has distinct developmental pathways. Both sexes of any one species, however, share the same pathways.

    • Roderick July 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

      I also doubt that an animal-rights activist who self-identified as a dog would put on a collar. 🙂

  8. Anon73 July 11, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    At any rate Keith suffers from a slight lack of prescience; the internet has already produced such individuals:


    A picture of a guy in a dog suit holding an anarchist flag would be best to go with this topic but I couldn’t find any.

    • Roderick July 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm #


    • Marja Erwin July 11, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

      I doubt it.

      I’m not familiar with either furry or cross-dresser communities, but from what I’ve read, furries and cross-dressers seem to have far more in common with each other than with transsexual people.

  9. socialprincipal July 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    If furries or ‘trans-species persons’ were regularly harassed, excluded, attacked and killed for how they identify–as transfolks often are–then yes, I would stand with them too.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes