The annoying thing about this is that while I 100% agree that we should not legitimize by sharing a platform debating fash, responding to them effectively requires accurately understanding them. And the academic left can't stoop to recognizing the lowest tier arguments have pull.https://twitter.com/miniver/status/1254863806750064641 …
So are Yarvin's big problems just extensions of Rothbard's big problems, since he's basically just aping Rothbard with a few edgelord opinions thrown in? Or is it deeper than that?