Morning Links

Friday, August 12th, 2011

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

64 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Erik | 

    And so we see again that the political spectrum sometimes wraps around and makes strange bedfellows: the porn/terror report from a conservative think tank is quoting Andrea Dworkin, who would probably object greatly to my use of the term “bedfellows” within a mile of her. ;-)

  2. #2 |  David | 

    Oh dear God, that’s the worst graph I’ve ever seen.

  3. #3 |  strech | 

    Wow, there’s a lot of “just asking questions” in that pornography article. It’s hilarious. Terrorists have a lot of porn. Does porn cause terrorism? I’m just asking questions. But terrorists are scary, so we should spend lots of money tracking this possible connection despite there not being any evidence. And the alternate, largely compelling explanation of “terrorists are dudes.”

  4. #4 |  Mattocracy | 

    “Yet pornography now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden.”

    So we should be alarmed that terrorists are in possession of porn? Can someone explain to this person that porn is pretty common thing for people to have along with cell phones, computers, furniture, and whole lot of other everyday shit that terrorists and non-terrorists alike own.

  5. #5 |  Maggie McNeill | 

    #1: I was going to make the same point. This woman is quoting Andrea Dworkin as though she were a serious researcher or something, yet people still pretend that the so-called “left” and the so-called “right” are opposites. If somebody wants to restrict what I do (or watch) in bed, I honestly don’t care what his or her rationale, beliefs or gender is; mind control is mind control.

  6. #6 |  Andrew S. | 

    That porn -> terrorism article may have caused me to lose about 15 IQ points. I lost count of the logical fallacies (though the entire thing is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and my favorite internet logical fallacy, JAQing off)

  7. #7 |  crazybab | 

    A. Barton Hinkle: long on rhetorical “jujitsu”, short on facts or actual analysis.

  8. #8 |  JS | 

    So that’s what I was doing after midnight on the computer-terrorism. Hmm, I never woulda suspected. Where do I turn myself in?

  9. #9 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    “The frequency with which terrorists are found with pornography raises important questions about the possible effects of pornography on our national security.”

    On the flip side, look at the potential benefits.
    How many people would have died if those 19 hijackers on 911
    had, instead of their historic attack, rented some flicks and quietly jerked off that morning…

  10. #10 |  Ginger | 

    The author of the porn article wrote the first sentence incorrectly. In should have read, “The frequency with which men are found with with penises raises important questions about the possible effects of penises on our national security.”

  11. #11 |  Dana Gower | 

    A round-up of various articles on the London riots:

    Washington Post
    LONDON — After four nights of lawlessness, Britain is weighing whether to block statements of violence on social media sites and give police authority to order people to remove face coverings in areas where criminality is suspected, …

    The government is considering whether social media services should be shut off at times of disorder, the British prime minister, David Cameron, has told parliament.
    “Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media,” Cameron said. “Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.”

    British Prime Minister David Cameron again today strongly signaled his intent to bring in former New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton to help reshape Scotland Yard.

  12. #12 |  Robert | 

    RE: The haircut guy. Probably will start a new trend.

  13. #13 |  Mattocracy | 

    Silly me, I thought the London riots were caused by cops shooting an unarmed man, something that would have happened regardless of who is living on Downing Street.

  14. #14 |  Marty | 

    Jennifer S. Bryson, the author of the porn article, studied at Stanford (political science), the Karl Marx institute in Germany (Marxism-Leninism · German studies), and Yale (medieval European intellectual history, Near Eastern Languages and Civiliztions (Arabic and Islamic Studies).

    She has a phd, masters, etc… I think she’s the poster child for who Reagan was making fun of when he talked about out of touch academics in their ‘Ivory towers’.

  15. #15 |  DarkEFang | 

    The whole notion of an “out-of-touch academic” assumes that similar education and life experiences result in similar personal beliefs. The reality is that some people are simply highly-educated idiots. If one were to dig enough, they could probably find at least a dozen other women with a background very similar to Bryson’s who are not idiots.

  16. #16 |  Dyspeptic Curmudgeon | 

    Okay, this is NOT funny:

  17. #17 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    On Terror/Porn: It should be noted that Ladyboy-on-sleeping-Bears-getting-massages-while-fully-clothed-and-some-pee porn has NEVER been found with terrorists. So, that kind of porn is pretty safe thankfully.

  18. #18 |  Robert | 

    I got it! You could call it the “HALFRO”!

  19. #19 |  Robert | 

    Aww man, someone already beat me to it….

  20. #20 |  MacGregory | 

    And all this time I thought porn only caused rape, spousal abuse and drug addiction. Someone needs to compile a “cause and effect” reference book. I can’t keep up with all this shit.

  21. #21 |  freebob | 

    That’s how mostly how Hinkle works. Every now and again he’ll write something wroth reading about the drug war but most his work follows the lines: the state passes draconian regulations meant to shut down abortion clinics, Hinkle writes about how liberals are supposed to love regulations. That’s an oversimplification of the article, but that’s mostly how he works, find some similarity between two overly broad generalizations then go to town. I realize columnists have deadlines to meet and word counts to fill, and Hinkle is pretty good at that.

  22. #22 |  Goober | 

    Yet pornography now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden.

    Uhhh, that’s because pretty much every guy on planet Earth has porn somewhere. You are finding porn on terrorists regularly not because terrorists are drawn to porn, or because porn causes terrorism, but because terrorists are human males, and human males like porn.

    I would question what the rate of prevalence is on finding porn on terrorists compared to any other criminal class being arrested and having their items searched. My guess is 1 to 1. And if you performed searches on every other male on earth, you’d find it pretty close to 1 to 1, also.

  23. #23 |  Acksiom | 

    No. The London riots were caused by the State’s attacks on fathers, fatherhood, and fathering. 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 we’re seeing in the UK and here is not a descent from the norm. It is a return to it. These wilding mobs are normal baseline human nature in direct demonstration, not aberrations.

    And nobody else appears to be talking about it. The only general reason I can find believable is the idea that the taboo against objectively comparing men and women to women’s disfavor has become so omnipresent and overpowering that society overall has gone into genuine clinical denial.

    That’s one of the reasons we get such nonsense as the pr0n = terrorismistarchy! article, BTW. It’s the result of cognitive dissonance between patent reality and pampered idealism.

    And yet, not one of you totsy-swotsies will address this productively, because it applies to all of you just as much as it does to the journalist moeity of Our Beloved Modern Aristocracy. You can’t even allow yourselves to just conceive of the possibility, let alone discuss it neutrally.

    But by all means, please do go right ahead and prove me wrong.

  24. #24 |  omar | 

    With regards to Acksiom, I’d love to prove you wrong, but

  25. #25 |  Lefty | 

    “Likewise, pornography is not a sufficient cause for terrorism….Yet pornography now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden…. Would those terabytes of pornography and such more aptly be dubbed “terrorbytes”? “

    this man is pure genius

  26. #26 |  H. Rearden | 

    I will strap on a bomber’s vest if you take my porn away.

  27. #27 |  Acksiom | 

    But instead, you’re proving me right.

  28. #28 |  Serpentio | 

    “Yet bottled water now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden.”

    OMG! Bottled water causes terrorism!

  29. #29 |  Leah | 

    omar, I chortled.

  30. #30 |  Acksiom | 

    And so’s Leah.

  31. #31 |  ClubMedSux | 

    And yet, not one of you totsy-swotsies will address this productively, because it applies to all of you just as much as it does to the journalist moeity of Our Beloved Modern Aristocracy.

    1. I’m not a totsy-swotsy. I’m more of a drinksy-winksy.

    2. If you’re not a fan of Our Beloved Modern Aristocracy, you should check out Our Beloved Revolutionary Sweetheart. I swear there’s not a single anti-father song on the entire album.

  32. #32 |  Lefty | 

    States are notorious father haters. And good for them. Fathers must be stopped!

  33. #33 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    This is the uprising of the working class,” said a London anarchist taking a momentary break from smashing things on Monday. “We’re redistributing the wealth.” Said another, “[We’re showing] the rich we can do what we want.”

    LMFAO! So you want to start a wonderful new society based on…wait for it…theft, arson, intimidation and various forms of aggravated assault? And this society will be better than the current one how? Wow, I’m glad my college education didn’t suck my brain out through my fucking nose!

    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. I know there are a few principled anarchists that visit The Agitator, but this POS is pretty much representative of the people who proclaim, out loud, to be anarchists. They use the term to impress or intimidate fellow college students, dudes at the night club or anybody in a uniform. If they ever go out on their own and mummy and daddy stop paying for everything, they will probably turn into Right-wing reactionaries before they turn forty.

    I do sympathize with the motives of SOME of the people in the streets in the UK right now. I think most Agitator readers would agree with me on that much. But these riots, like most riots, are largely an excuse to steal shit (anonymously), break stuff (anonymously), fight with cops (anonymously) and act like a psychopath (anonymously). And they will lead to, you guessed it, a more aggressive State. Nice going “anarchists.”

  34. #34 |  Me2 | 

    Porn = Terrorism:

    ANYTHING can be made illegal so long as it can be argued -however loosely- that it could either harm children or help terrorists. The area of behavior normally reserved for “Responsible Adult” will eventually be so narrow that, when not being treated like children, we’ll all be treated like terrorists. Everyone can play this game! Radley should make the case that prosecutor immunity leads to pedophilia or that tazers are Al Qaeda’s new favorite weapon! Whee!

  35. #35 |  Mattocracy | 

    What exactly are we proving or disproving again? That we all hate fathers or that men and women aren’t the same?

  36. #36 |  Robert | 

    This is very interesting:

  37. #37 |  Acksiom | 

    @CMS: Agitatortots = totsy; people who are all study and no action = swotsies. I doubt it’s mutually exclusive with alcoholics who have eye tics. As for albums, I already have Biafra and Nixon & The Toadliquors ‘Prairie Home Invasion’ here, which I suspect is at least a tiny bit pro-father, rather than just merely not anti-father — .

    @Mattocracy: 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.

  38. #38 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    #37 Acksiom:

    “@Mattocracy: 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.”

    Well, maybe they don’t want to talk to rather obvious trolls, Acksiom. But I’ll talk to you a bit because I’m in a naughty mood ;)

    So what are you rambling about? The riots in the UK are the result of the State dissing daddies? So is that a father’s rights argument? Is it an anti-woman paternalistic screed? I will say it is an entirely new take on the situation. I’ll give you points for originality. And I do get a kick out of indignant pussies, so that was worth the read too.

    Hey, whatever man. Believe what you want. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone–And you aren’t taking out your manly aggression on these “inadequate” ladies, are you, Acksiom? You damn sure aren’t seeing any of them naked with that attitude!–stealing peoples shit or violating other peoples’ rights, then talk all the shit you want. And I’ll do the same: Honestly, it sounds like you just found some pro daddy/anti-mommy cult on the internet and drank that fucking Koolaid right up, am I right Reverend Jones.

    And Acksiom, as far as the “…as usual, I’m 100% right yet again,” part goes, I’m guessing you are a malignant narcissist, a frustrated grad student, or a straight up cultist. All three might apply. You haven’t by any chance written any snotty, pretentious e-mails to Radley about English language usage lately, have you?

    Man, the people you chat with on blogs these days. Phew!!!

  39. #39 |  Acksiom | 

    [shrug] Thanks for proving me right too, Mattocracy.

    I’m not trolling, I’m challenging. I don’t care about your poow poow pwethiouth *feeeeeeeeeewingth*. I don’t care how worked up people get. You’re grown adults; you have the primary responsibility for your own emotional states.

    But I know from long experience that I if suggest these things mildly and submissively, it’ll just get ignored. So you can just cut the deck and deal with it already. Behave seriously and I’ll respond to you seriously. I’m mainly posting for the sufficiently open-minded and intelligent lurkers anyways, and every time you folks blow me off and mock me, it just makes me look better to them by comparison, so by all means, do please keep it up.

    BTW, for you lurkers — the tech trends (telepresence, automation, ubiquitous AV recording, etc.) are going to cause a huge expansion in men’s liberation, just as they did for women’s liberation (i.e. lowered infant mortality, cheap safe reliable birth control, labor-saving appliances, cheap industrialized food prep). A similarly massive expansion of men’s discretionary income will most likely follow. If RISUG or a comparable alternative hits, it will be even worse, because pregancy rates will drop and the usual cycle of resource transfers from men to women to children will be further interrupted, with men keeping more of their resources to spend on themselves.

    Those who can overcome their conditioning enough to recognize the massive upcoming profit opportunities in marketing to men will make fortunes. It’s going to be raining soup; those with the brains and the freedom from normal sexist conditioning to recognize it ahead of time should start getting their bowls ready.

  40. #40 |  Mattocracy | 

    I guess I’m glad I proved you right in your own mind, even though I still have no idea what in the fuck you’re talking about. You haven’t written a single thing that makes sense yet.

  41. #41 |  Acksiom | 

    No, I just haven’t written a thing that makes sense *to you* yet. And I’m truly sorry, because I would rather not leave you out of the conversation, but the return on explaining it in small enough words for you to comprehend doesn’t appear to be anywhere near worth the investment of effort it would require in compensation.

  42. #42 |  Face-Ripper Monkey | 

    Bart Hinkle – bringing the journalistic truths once again. Just like he did when writing for our high school paper back in 1986, I might add.

  43. #43 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Re; Porn and Terror; That so many terrorists are found to possess Porn is surely a sign that all their Religious Ranting is a smoke screen. They aren’t religious fanatics, they just like blowing sh*t up and killing folks.

    Re; Jim Hood; “you call him a weasel and tell him he smells bad and he goes into a goddamned swivit!” – Spenser, from one of the late Mr. Parker’s novels.

  44. #44 |  Herman Husband | 

    I’m an anarchist and long-time lurker that wishes to address some of the things brought up by the various commenters and Mr. Hinkle.

    First, concerning the content of the article in question: I am somewhat at a loss as to what Mr. Hinkle’s point is; after beginning with a quote from a self-described anarchist (let’s all be real and keep in mind that these are mostly kids engaged in the rioting, and that they’re just as fickle as teenagers anywhere else in the world), he moves from the streets of London to the U.S., highlighting differences in American opinion now and of TEA Party activists in the U.S. two years ago, only to end with a slam(?) against progressives for not supporting the tactics of the protestors. Got that? Because I’m a little lost. These tensions have been brewing in Britain for quite some time, and concern (1) affluent young people who are experiencing a crisis within the higher educational system and (2) lower-class youth who are dealing with the implications of that crisis on their own communities, which are experiencing a lack of available work as jobs, even physical labor gigs, begin to favor those with degrees over everyday workers (who don’t have the money to go to school to get a degree to be a bricklayer). Many within the agitated class blame harsh austerity measures for this, and thus we see the events of the past week unfolding before us.

    Now, to the grand query: what does any of this have to do with the TEA Party? No, no, I see–the American media machine (and the two-sided “progressives” who supply it with endless amounts of journalistic slag) have a vicious double-standard. Liberal protestors are given concessions while conservative ones are vilified for their actions. How else could you explain the sudden switch in opinion? Allow me to offer up some thoughts: The TEA Partiers and the London rioters consist of utterly opposed demographics; TEA Partiers are generally older, middle-class, and white, while the rioters in London are generally younger, lower-class, and of recent immigrant stock. What the rioters in London are rebelling against is the hopelessness of the future that seems to loom over them. They have few opportunities for jobs, little say in the political system, and are getting messages from the government that seem to imply that they are worth less concern than others (and the government itself is looking pretty corrupt after these revelations of payoffs for police in the Murdoch scandal). The government seems to be pushing them out of the picture at a time when they feel least able to assimilate successfully into the market. Thus, their response is thoroughly anti-market, to the extent that it destroys the “proper” conceptions of political upheaval and protest. Maybe the young chap was a bit out of line when he said he was “redistributing” the wealth–a better word might be “destroying.” Their actions constitute an Event outside of the normative reality of daily life in the U.K.

    What about the TEA Party? Did their uprising constitute anything resembling an Event? No. Being older, middle-class, and white (it’s impossible to understate the privilege that white people receive in America), their crisis can be understood as an aspect of generational gap and relative values change in America. It’s not hard to come to the conclusion that (consciously or not), TEA Partiers at the town hall protests were addressing latent concerns of waning racial privilege and culture change (rather than hard economic change, that is; it’s clear that our healthcare system is a huge strain on the economy and that a change would probably benefit rather than harm them). Generational change is constant and the conflicts that comes from it should not be confused with cold, hard economic realities.

    The truth about protests in America is that they rarely occur with the vitriol and energy that accompanies protests in Europe (probably has something to do with many, many more years of simmering class tensions). So when, very suddenly, a bunch of older white people get up and start complaining about a black president, the implications seem to speak for themselves. Did the media overreact? Yeah. But that’s their job (what else would they fill 24/7 coverage with?).

    Finally (sorry for the length of this post, but who doesn’t like thorough debate?), to the comments about anarchism, particularly those by Helmut O’Hooligan: these kinds of comments are foolish, pointless, and breed unnecessary conflict. We all don’t like big government, so why bicker about other stuff? Leave it for later. But in the meantime, it would benefit everybody if we treated one another with a little bit of respect. Anarchism is a legitimate school of political theory with a long history and many practitioners. Not all of us are insurrectionary (what you seem to be equating us all to); the diversity of thought within the anarchist school is as extensive as within liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism. And not all of us are lazy and just out to shock. I’m a Worker–I labor over 50 hours a week a three different jobs to support myself. All working people are my Brothers and Sisters, because we are united by a common condition, and we could get a lot more done together than apart. Just some food for thought.

  45. #45 |  H. Rearden | 

    Acksiom, I’m intrigued and always on the lookout for new business investment opportunities. Do you have any predictions on new or expanding markets?

  46. #46 |  JOR | 

    People ignoring you, or making fun of you, do not prove you right. For example, people treat creationists in this manner all the time. It does not prove them right. They don’t prove you wrong either. All they do is refrain from engaging you. It might mean they don’t have any good reasons to disagree with you; it might mean they do have reasons they feel they can’t give justice to in argument form; it might mean they’re waiting for someone else to say what they’d say better than they would; it might mean they expect you to be a waste of time (my impression is that you’ll turn out to be quite the tarbaby); it might mean they’re just not interested or they just don’t like you.

    You didn’t exactly make a clear case for anything in particular. I’m not sure if you’re claiming that the rioters are fed up dads finally striking back at The Woman, or if they’re a result of the state not being dudely enough to restrain humans’ baser violent instincts, or whatever. I will just note that states and everything they do are a product of “basic human nature” (as is every other result of human action, including anti-statist philosophies, feminism, anti-feminism, and everything else – humans have complicated natures) and this says nothing about whether they or anything else good or desirable or whatever. Everything that happens is nature.

    I will also note that riots and wars and violence (and pacification and genuine peace and cooperation) have occurred in many times and places that were not “sissified” or where daddies and their mighty penises weren’t being held down by The Woman. 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).

  47. #47 |  JOR | 

    “So you want to start a wonderful new society based on…wait for it…theft, arson, intimidation and various forms of aggravated assault?”

    That’s basically what we already have. I’ll take statist whining about chaos and violence more seriously when they find a way to make their system work without terrorism and theft. To me it all sounds so opportunistic, like a bully crying for sympathy after some intended victim gives him a taste of his own medicine.

    Which isn’t to say I think any of these people are likely to be principled anarchists or that what they’re doing is justified. They’re ‘anarchists’ in the same way that anyone taking matters into their own hands (in a good or bad way) is an anarchist, the same way a head of state is necessarily an anarchist. At the very best, they’re just wasting everyone’s time.

  48. #48 |  croaker | 

    So now the decision whether to buy porn or MREs is now moot: Both are considered signs of terrorism.

  49. #49 |  c andrew | 

    @36 Robert,

    I almost was looking for the Onion byline. But then, the first time I heard
    about these two I was looking for the Onion byline.

  50. #50 |  Mattocracy | 

    No Acksiom, you haven’t written anything that makes sense to anyone yet. But if you can’t write anything that’s coherent, I’m done. Later.

  51. #51 |  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.”



    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.”


    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).”


    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.

  52. #52 |  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?

  53. #53 |  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.

  54. #54 |  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.

  55. #55 |  Nancy Lebovitz |

    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.

  56. #56 |  mad libertarian guy | 

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

  57. #57 |  Acksiom | 

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

  58. #58 |  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.

  59. #59 |  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!

  60. #60 |  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?”

  61. #61 |  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.

  62. #62 |  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.

  63. #63 |  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.

  64. #64 |  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.