Morning Links

Friday, August 12th, 2011

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

64 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Acksiom | 

    First off, I must correct myself; post #39 should have been directed to HO’H, not Mattocracy. I apologize for the misattribution, and I’ll try to check more closely in the future.

    JOR@47: “People ignoring you, or making fun of you, do not prove you right.”

    Except, of course, for when “right” refers to your prediction that they would do so rather than actually addressing your actual points in an actually sensible manner.

    Such as, ‘that not even one of you will post something productive or even just discuss the subject neutrally. So far and as usual, I’m 100% right yet again.’

    So, oh look, I’m still right.

    Unless of course HR’s question was put in good faith, but then OTGH that’s one of the ideas I’m testing — whether the opportunity for profit can overcome the usual sexist conditioning and lead to meaningful dialogue.

    Regarding “It might mean they don’t have any good reasons to disagree with you;” and yadda yadda etc. etc. of more inapplicable burbling based upon the same egregious error of reading comprehension:

    You should go read it again more closely in order to understand how you got it wrong so you can better avoid such mistakes in the future. I didn’t say I was right about the gender issues because of people’s behavior; I said I was right about the prediction about how people would react.

    “You didn’t exactly make a clear case for anything in particular.”

    [sigh]

    [facepalm]

    Aaaaaaaaagain. . . .mothers aren’t trained in appropriate violence skills the way men are by default, and so they’re not raising their children to respect the normal boundaries of civilization.

    What part of that is not sufficiently clear for the average reader? If you’re so far below average that it’s not clear enough for you, I suggest you go get a college education until it is. Or you could try asking a specific and pertinent question. . .politely.

    “where daddies and their mighty penises weren’t being held down by The Woman.”

    [rolleyes]

    Project much?

    “I will also note that if daddies are being oppressed, it is by definition by someone who is more successfully masculine than they are (i.e. someone exercising superior organized force).”

    [sigh]

    Masculinity =/= fathering. Much as femininity =/= mothering.

    Also, for you lurkers — since JOR probably won’t be able to understand this either — it’s not just the oppression (although now that we have debtor’s prison in the usa again, the term certainly fits). It’s the State’s competition with men in the provider market as well, and perhaps even primarily.

    The more the State steps in to protect women from the consequences of their own bad choices, the less women refrain from behaviors that drive their children’s sperm donors away. And likewise, the less women engage in behaviors to attract their children’s sperm donors and keep them involved with the family unit and working hard to support it.

    Essentially, if you don’t give men enough reason to be paternally involved, they won’t bother. If it’s not worth it to them, why should they? Because you neeeeeeeed it from them? Not good enough. Men have too many other options already.

  2. #2 |  Acksiom | 

    HR@45: I’m still working on that. My next line of investigation is the historical record of what goods and services boomed as a result of women’s liberation (rather than as causes of it), then categorizing those, first by direct sales to women vs. indirect sales to them via direct sales to men. BTW, I would expect the latter to contract somewhat as a result of men’s liberation, so if you’re invested in such areas, I would at least consider shorting and selling them.

    After that, I’ll subcategorize by sales to women and men for women directly vs. sales to them for children indirectly, and extract the latter. Once I have some categorical abstract grasp of all that, I’ll start looking for analogues and parallels in men’s lives.

    Good enough?

  3. #3 |  H. Rearden | 

    I was thinking that with the increase in men’s disposable income, porn and the related anti-terrorism sector would be a good bet.

    Best of luck.

  4. #4 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    Herman Hubbard:
    I’m sorry if you found my comments to be foolish, pointless or likely to start conflict. Actually, I was just blowing off steam about the ubiquitous nature of “anarchist” rioters and other such phonies. You might have missed this in the middle of my rant:

    “Right or wrong, this is why nobody takes anarchism seriously. I understand why people consider the idea–I have–but this guy is pretty much the poster boy, like it or not.”

    So I am not really dissing anarchism. I am making fun of the “usual suspects”. Their presence at “anarchist” events virtually gurantees that we will not be able to have a serious discussion about the idea. I HAVE explored anarchist theory more than you might expect. In fact I have been looking at the Center for a Stateless Society website on and off for awhile recently. This is in addition to other research I have done through the internet and books. I am not being dismissive, though I don’t quite accept the legitimacy of the theory. I am just saying that with “friends” like these, anarchists don’t need enemies. Again, sorry if you felt my tone wasn’t serious enough, but sometimes I, like other commenters come on here to rant a little bit.

  5. #5 |  Nancy Lebovitz | 

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/10/over_1_000_arrested_in_uk

    An overview of abusive policing in London, including frequent arbitrary searches that were an anti-terrorism measure.

    Unfortunately, the damage done by the riots is brushed off by the interviewees, but the material about the police and about peaceful protests being ignored seems plausible.

  6. #6 |  mad libertarian guy | 

    Is it really anarchy to protest the government taking away your free cheese?

  7. #7 |  Acksiom | 

    So no; HR’s question wasn’t actually serious after all, and thus I’ve been proven right yet again.

  8. #8 |  H. Rearden | 

    When no one discusses your daddy issue seriously, at what point do you realize that no one takes you seriously and that, perhaps, you’re bat-shit crazy?

    Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

  9. #9 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Right or wrong, this is why nobody takes anarchism seriously.

    Ugh. Which anarchism are you talking about? First, learn about society without a state. Then try to comment about it.

    No one cares about who takes “anarchism” seriously. What, will the anarchists lose the next election? They must be all mad at their anarchist dinner and fund raiser.

    There will be an opportunity to live very well and safe in a land not controlled by a state. It will have a currency, security, nice views, and it won’t be a place liberty-hating scaredy-cats will want to go to. But really smart folks who’ve grown up enough to not need mom telling us what to do? Yes, we’ll be there…and we’ll marry your daughters and bring them with us!

  10. #10 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Is it really anarchy to protest the government taking away your free cheese?

    Skinner: “Lisa, what are you rebelling against?”
    Lisa: “Whaddya got?”

  11. #11 |  Acksiom | 

    HR@58: Any time you want to actually make an actual assertion that is actually falsifiable, please go right ahead and actually do it.

    Sorry, but I’m not crazy; rather, you’re just in denial and engaging in projection because of your own cognitive dissonance.

    If I’m so wrong, how come not one of you could be bothered to post a rational counterargument instead of the mockery that I accurately predicted?

    I know it’s disturbing to think that you’re so psychologically conditioned to engage in particular irrational behaviors that a complete stranger can correctly anticipate it happening, but really, you should overcome that and be grateful that I’ve bothered to point it out to you.

  12. #12 |  Goober | 

    Actually, Acksiom makes a point that might bear further looking into. In the segments of our society where fathers have become increasingly irrelevant, violence and criminal rates have likewise gone up.

    I am unwilling to make the connection without further study and therefore risk a post hoc fallacy, but it does seem to, at least upon first, quick blush, make sense.

    The single motherhood rate in the black community, for isntance, is very high. Likewise the crime rate in those mother’s sons. Is the lack of a father causing this?

    I guess if you weed out the rambling, anti-woman parts of Acksiom’s comments, what he is saying makes sense. Its just that I’m not certain that I’m willing to claim that such is a failure of women to properly raise their children so much as it is of fathers who take no part in their children’s lives.

  13. #13 |  Acksiom | 

    Thank you, Goober.

    Would you please point out where you think I was “rambling” or “anti-woman”? Because I’m really not seeing it, and I can’t change what I don’t perceive.

    The only statement I’ve made here that’s even remotely about women is this:

    . . .mothers aren’t trained in appropriate violence skills the way men are by default, and so they’re not raising their children to respect the normal boundaries of civilization.

    That’s pro-female, if anything, since it places the onus for that failure less on women in particular than it does on society in general’s soft bigotry of low expectations towards them.

    My analysis doesn’t blame women in particular for this any more than it blames men for not participating in a system where the normal incentives have been reduced to a level below the costs and risks.

    I honestly don’t understand how people get “anti-woman” from that, or anything else I’ve posted here.

  14. #14 |  Acksiom | 

    And that’s is why I don’t play competitive online games, either — all the cheaty little cheating cheaters with their cheat-ass cheatquitting.