2 definitions by ShootThemByProxy
In theory, one who believes in limited Government only to protect our liberties. Libertarians should be allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't conflict with the liberties of others.
In practice, modern libertarians feel they should be able to do whatever they want. Liberties of any who disagree are often hypocritically cast aside with fallacious excuses to rationalize the libertarian's actions. This especially applies to the realm of capitalism. In an economy with finite resources, limited government ensures capitalists can act with impunity & the rights of individuals, doing as they please, & perpetuating few wealthy & many poor. The adoption of libertarianism is often not due to a refined comprehension of the constitution, but rather, parental indoctrination.
Many opinion-based beliefs of such libertarians include: all rich earned it w/ hard work & will, all poor have only themselves to blame, no one's entitled to anything (not even healthcare), & success & failure are b&w. To them, sociological advantages & disadvantages are nonexistent; all people have to work equally hard to attain & retain wealth. Being born mostly into high-income families, they're accustomed to security & resources. They have little concept of hardship. Psychologically, they ascribe notions of hardship to experiences most people of lower socioeconomic strata know to be frivolous (feeling entitled to great gain, wealth they're accustomed to, but with objectively disproportionate effort).
In practice, modern libertarians feel they should be able to do whatever they want. Liberties of any who disagree are often hypocritically cast aside with fallacious excuses to rationalize the libertarian's actions. This especially applies to the realm of capitalism. In an economy with finite resources, limited government ensures capitalists can act with impunity & the rights of individuals, doing as they please, & perpetuating few wealthy & many poor. The adoption of libertarianism is often not due to a refined comprehension of the constitution, but rather, parental indoctrination.
Many opinion-based beliefs of such libertarians include: all rich earned it w/ hard work & will, all poor have only themselves to blame, no one's entitled to anything (not even healthcare), & success & failure are b&w. To them, sociological advantages & disadvantages are nonexistent; all people have to work equally hard to attain & retain wealth. Being born mostly into high-income families, they're accustomed to security & resources. They have little concept of hardship. Psychologically, they ascribe notions of hardship to experiences most people of lower socioeconomic strata know to be frivolous (feeling entitled to great gain, wealth they're accustomed to, but with objectively disproportionate effort).
Person: "Did you hear about Brenda? She had to get chemo. She grew up very poor, so she has student loan debt from getting her Master's deree. She works hard and makes good money, 50k a year, but they're not paid off. And she pays for her own insurance. They said they'd only cover 75% of her chemo. So she'll be in major debt. Wish we had universal health."
Libertarian of 2011: "Why? So we could all be sick and dying like in Canada, Uk and France? No thanks! It's all her own fault. Not the cancer, but her finances. She'd be ok if she weren't a lazy bum. She'd have better insurance if she shopped around like me. I pay $50/month into some magic, shitty HSA through same company as her and I think they'll cover 100% of anything. Makes no sense, but I swear it's true. And she should have gotten a better job like me. My dad didn't just give me the job because he's the CEO. I had to work my butt off through 4 grueling years of college. She should also start a side business, invest in stocks and bonds, and a bunch of other stuff I can only easily do because I was always wealthy."
Libertarian of 2011: "Why? So we could all be sick and dying like in Canada, Uk and France? No thanks! It's all her own fault. Not the cancer, but her finances. She'd be ok if she weren't a lazy bum. She'd have better insurance if she shopped around like me. I pay $50/month into some magic, shitty HSA through same company as her and I think they'll cover 100% of anything. Makes no sense, but I swear it's true. And she should have gotten a better job like me. My dad didn't just give me the job because he's the CEO. I had to work my butt off through 4 grueling years of college. She should also start a side business, invest in stocks and bonds, and a bunch of other stuff I can only easily do because I was always wealthy."
by ShootThemByProxy April 4, 2011
A tactic used by snipers in FPS video games. Older than the COD franchise, this tactic has been made heavily popular with COD: Modern Warfare 1 and 2. One of the biggest debates surrounding quick scoping is whether or not the tactic requires real skill, how much skill, or if it's just a matter of repetition and blind probability.
The tactic itself involves utilizing quick reflexes to spot an enemy, center them on screen as best as possible, and then zoom into your scope only to then fire as soon as the crosshairs are visible.
Some view it as an exploit. This is due to the fact that the crosshairs essentially "lock on" briefly and allow one to achieve relatively easy one-shot kills. A missed shot usually means one need only quickly repeat. Since it's primarily dependent upon reflexes and simple visual cues, sufficient practice by any player eventually leads to the ability to quick scope repeatedly with a diminishing overall vulnerability while doing so.
The tactic is helpful for snipers while they're on the run, in close quarters, in place of a weaker secondary weapon. However, abuse of the tactic as a primary method of fighting has lead many to view it as the "cheap" preference of noobs. Many who rely on quick scoping have furthered this stereotype by abusing it repeatedly, even going as far as ridiculing those who snipe in more traditional fashions (often calling them "hard scopers" in a derogatory manner).
The tactic itself involves utilizing quick reflexes to spot an enemy, center them on screen as best as possible, and then zoom into your scope only to then fire as soon as the crosshairs are visible.
Some view it as an exploit. This is due to the fact that the crosshairs essentially "lock on" briefly and allow one to achieve relatively easy one-shot kills. A missed shot usually means one need only quickly repeat. Since it's primarily dependent upon reflexes and simple visual cues, sufficient practice by any player eventually leads to the ability to quick scope repeatedly with a diminishing overall vulnerability while doing so.
The tactic is helpful for snipers while they're on the run, in close quarters, in place of a weaker secondary weapon. However, abuse of the tactic as a primary method of fighting has lead many to view it as the "cheap" preference of noobs. Many who rely on quick scoping have furthered this stereotype by abusing it repeatedly, even going as far as ridiculing those who snipe in more traditional fashions (often calling them "hard scopers" in a derogatory manner).
Man, I was playing Modern Warfare 2 last night. I kept getting killed by this noob who did nothing but run around and quick scope. His hits were like 1 in 10, but he did it so frantically that he got enough kills to annoy us. His team still lost, though.
by ShootThemByProxy December 16, 2010