100% Mathmatically Accurate! Manosphere blogger Dalrock on slut-shaming
"Kids Love it!" Another claim that is not 100% accurate.
The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.
This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.
Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
Well, there’s no arguing with that!
Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.
Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.
Posted on November 19, 2011, in antifeminism, bad boys, crackpottery, evil women, misogyny, patriarchy, precious bodily fluids, reactionary bullshit, sex, shaming tactics, sluts, thug-lovers. Bookmark the permalink. 1,285 Comments.
@Molly Ren
Don’t kill. It’s the simplest of requests.
I’m too poor so I kill.
I’m not experienced so I kill.
I’m depressed so I kill.
No one helps me so I kill.
Are any of these valid reasons to kill?
NWO, do you have all your organs still? Because if there’s anything you haven’t donated, your logic makes you a murderer.
zhinxy. Don’t kill. Or am I asking too much?
I would not. Here’s the thing, I don’t like abortion. But I must respect the bodily autonomy of others, and there is no way for me to police their actions. The wrong I would do in using the force of law to prevent abortion is greater than the right I would do. That is how I was raised, that is what I believe. That is how I was a Christian, that is how I am whatever I am now. I believe in supporting women. I believe in providing sex ed and effective contraception (Don’t even say it, I already told you I am against state schools). I believe in bulding a society of peace and plenty, where a woman will not face such harsh choices in whether or not to bring a life into the world. I believe in freedom, and opportunities for teenage mothers, like I was. I believe in life and living. I believe in the right to privacy. I believe in women.
You believe in force, hatred and tyranny.
Well, can I send my baby to *you*, then? It might live as long as it’s in the womb, but I don’t see how I could manage to give it much of a life once it was born.
Are any of them valid reasons to create a new person?
NWO is all over the place. He avoids simple questions wherever it is convenient for him, so he never has to question his own beliefs and can continue blaming women for everything wrong in the world.
Seriously, NWO, how are women as a whole responsible for men dying at war?
Because if you don’t have a real answer, you should shut the fuck up.
NWO, I commend you on your patience skills, how do you do it?
teh Western Woman . Lol :)
Wow, Chuckles here must be really pathetic if zie has to stoop to congratulating NWO XD
“No one helps me” IS a serious problem, NWOslave. How am I supposed to feed the child once the milk runs out? How am I supposed to buy it clothes? Diapers? I can barely afford basic stuff for ME.
If I were ever in the unlikely* situation of getting a woman pregnant, I’d prefer her to terminate it. It would be her choice what to do, obviously, but if I’m going to be honest, I’d much rather not have children.
If (the hypothetical) she and I both want the abortion, then who’ll be the one to punish her? Certainly not me. It would have to be a government body of some sort. As Zhinxy says, it would need to be funded somehow. How is this going to be set up?
*Unlikely in that I doubt I’ll be having sex anytime soon, and I’d definitely use protection if I were to.
At the risk of derailing the thread (and seeming to ignore Molly R’s last post, which, Molly, I swear I’m not, I apologize), may I just say that being a newbie here, I am thoroughly enjoying the kind and often humorous words of all the NON MRA folk: like Molly, hellkell, Joe, Holly, zhinxy, Oz….forgive me whomever I’ve missed. I do look forward to the next Cynikal (sp? sorry dude, having a bad night) post, because he too always usually makes me laugh and writes cool stuff. You guys rawk! Especially on a night like tonight when I had to work, got ill and missed TSO…..damn new anti-depressants…;)
Molly Ren raises some good questions, Slavey, and just so you know–adoption is not always the easy answer! I know of a few hard-working, decent, sane couples who had a shitload of headaches just trying to adopt a child….the US doesn’t always make the process so easy. And again–women are NOT INCUBATORS!! Abortion isn’t birth control, but it is not murder, either. And unless you’re the woman who actually has to carry the child AND bring it into the world (plus often, be the primary caregiver), you have NO idea what a nightmare an unplanned pregnancy can be. I know of NO WOMEN who deliberately get pregnant just to undergo an abortion–ridiculous!!! When women are allowed to plan their families, they do, and quite responsibly. You need to do better research on this stuff, because all you’ve got to support your arguments are OPINIONS….and of a man who can’t get pregnant, at that.
It also sounds like you dig religion, or even church, Slavey…but it makes me wonder what sort of ….stuff your pastor is feeding you. Hooooboy……..
For NWO: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/mississippi/this-is-not-a-difficult-concept/
zhinxy: Yeah, I’m not pretending that, if I *did* end up in this situation, it wouldn’t suck balls. If I had more faith in my mental health and the adoption system I’d consider bringing an accidental pregnancy to term… but as me with sole breadwinner, and failing at that? It would be an impossible situation.
Ultimately, by the way, I’m with Zhinxy here – I’m not pro- or anti-abortion, I’m pro-realizing it’s not my decision to make. Some people get abortions that I think are bad decisions, and that’s their right. (Some people go through with pregnancies that I think are terrible decisions, and ditto.) I get to disagree; I don’t get to stop them.
The question for me isn’t “is abortion right or wrong?” I think it’s right sometimes and wrong sometimes, but I also think that what I think shouldn’t matter here. The real question is “is it right to forcibly prevent people from having safe abortions?”
I don’t think that’s something the state should get a say in.
NWO, are you personally going to take care of these unwanted babies or support charities that do?
Until you personally can have a kid or you’re 100% willing to do what I sad above, you might think about shutting up about abortion.
^
What Holly said.
@Ami: A giant GEISHA robot! That will serve him perfectly in all things! It’s like a really horrible manga!
Or a really awesome one.
Oh my god, he’s like a demented parrot. He learns a new word or phrase and won’t let go.
So… pretty much like every parrot, then.
Pterygotus, pretty much, only real parrots don’t have evil intent. NWO, on the other hand…
Also, NWOslave, before you start in on your idea that abortions are all the result of State indoctrination, abortions were illegal until the 70s in the United States. Abortions still happened, at pretty much the same rate. The only thing that changed from legalisation was making the procedure safer for the women involved.
By making abortion illegal, you’re not saving any “babies,” but you are ensuring that more women die – living, breathing women; with actual lives, with memories, with families and loved ones; women who can feel joy and pain; women who have far more value than a literally brainless lump of cells.
Yes, what Holly–and hellkell–said. I notice the loudest pro-lifers NEVER want to help a child AFTER it’s out of the womb. And–surprise!–not everyone has what it takes to be a good parent. I know I sure don’t!!! I’ve never liked kids, even when I WAS a kid. So, I do the best I can in family planning, and my husband and I have agreed that there will be NO TWO-FOOTED CRITTERS. Ain’t gonna happen. My body–my choice. Besides–my species eats its’ young….;)
I’m personally pro-abortion, actually. I would, without exaggeration, rather die than be pregnant.
How the hell are you going to enforce me not having an abortion, NWO?
I’m pro-apendectomy. Everyone should have one, and it should be enforced by law.
10G – Speaking of eating its young… you ever keep hamsters?
Some species of animal can actually reabsorb fetuses into the womb if the mother is underfed or under stress. Others will just straight-up kill and eat the babies.
I’m not saying humans should do that, just pointing out that “natural” is a very funny standard for morality.
You know when I think it is okay for you to kill someone, NWO? When they are residing inside of your uterus or other bodily organs. Well, I actually believe that you have the right to remove them even if it kills them, which is a distinction that rarely makes a difference, as a practical matter.
There are other, extremely limited circumstances when I think it is okay to kill, but defense against imminent threat of death, serious injury, or serious violation of bodily autonomy counts in there. If someone is trying to sedate you in order to steal your kidney, a lobe of your liver, and/or several pints of blood (all of which, fyi, puts you at less risk statistically than a pregnancy of death or serious injury), and you must kill them to stop it, I think that is morally acceptable.
Again though, most aborted fetuses are not seriously disputable as being anything but non-persons, so they don’t warrant that level of consideration to begin with.
@zhinxy
“I would not. Here’s the thing, I don’t like abortion. But I must respect the bodily autonomy of others, and there is no way for me to police their actions.”
If you respect bodily autonomy than you must respect the autonomy of the unborn. A borne child is autonomus yet it is fully dependent. So is an unborn child, they are autonomous and fully dependent. Don’t kill, it’s as simple as that. You’ve people have been brought up indoctrinated to devalue life. The word, “right” has been shoved down your throats since you were born. You were born because you were alive at conception. If you weren’t alive at conception you could never have been born. You’re an adult today because you were a fully autonomous being at conception. You could never exist as an autonomous being unless you were always an autonomous being.
“Others will just straight-up kill and eat the babies.”
Really? Shows how much I know about biology… up until now I thought only the males in a species ate babies, ‘cuz they only wanted their genes to be passed on.
You don’t really know what “autonomous” means, do you slavey?
Well, that’s silly, because what about before I was conceived? Was my ethereal spirit a living, autonomous being 500 years ago?
Molly Ren – Nope, it’s not just the males; hamster mommies (and probably lots of other species too) will eat their babies if they’re malnourished or overstressed.
Holly P–yeah, but they never reproduced….guess I got lucky and missed that fun aspect of hamster ownership! ;) And holy buckets, I never knew about the re-absorbing of fetuses….the killing and eating of the young I did know. Makes me wanna keep Venus Flytraps from now on…;)
Fetuses are by no means autonomous. Autonomy requires the being to be able to think and make rational decisions. They, however, do not yet have brains capable of independent thought.
Hey… I bet you guys all a kajillion Space Dollars that NWO is pro-death-penalty.
@Holly Pervocracy
“Well, that’s silly, because what about before I was conceived? Was my ethereal spirit a living, autonomous being 500 years ago?”
That’s a pretty stupid thing to say. You didn’t exist before conception. Nobody existed before they were concieved.
NWO, if abortion was illegal, what do you suggest my dear friend should have done after she miscarried most of a fetus, but still had (what would have become) the skull trapped in her tube?
@Spearhafoc
“Fetuses are by no means autonomous. Autonomy requires the being to be able to think and make rational decisions. They, however, do not yet have brains capable of independent thought.”
How about a newborn? Do they think and make rational thoughts/decisions?
But you just said someone has to have always existed to exist now…
*head a splode.*
Definition of AUTONOMOUS
1
: of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2
a : having the right or power of self-government
b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained
3
a : existing or capable of existing independently
b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole
4
: controlled by the autonomic nervous system
— au·ton·o·mous·ly adverb
I’m wondering which of these definitions applies to a human embryo in utero.
@Holly Pervocracy
I didn’t say that, you know it as well as I do. Don’t kill, it’s that simple.
But what do I do with the baby AFTERWARDS, NWOslave?
Can I kill a hamster? A hamster is a lot larger, more self-aware, more able to perceive pain and fear, and more able to live without feeding on my own blood and body than an early-term fetus.
Also, can I kill a fetus if the father wants me to?
(Can I kill a hamster if a man wants me to? This question is purely for symmetry purposes..)
The sperm and egg existed. Life is a continuum. It doesn’t “start” at any one point.
In terms of defining the beginning of personhood, I think putting it at the point when an organism is capable of independent thought makes far more sense than placing it at fertilisation or implantation.
The idea that a single cell can be a person requires one to believe in ensoulment. A soul is a purely religious idea and has no place in deciding laws in a secular government.
I’m starting to think NWO is senile. It would explain his failure at reading comprehension, his tendency to ignore the majority of questions asked to him, and how often he cycles through his buzzword of the week.
Honestly, man, I can’t tell if you’re fucked up in the head or if you’re just an asshole, but you seriously need to get a hobby.
“you seriously need to get a hobby”
As do we all, Lauralot. As do we all. ;)
Although a newborn requires lots of care, it is capable of existing without the specific support of the mother–it can be cared for by nearly anyone. A fetus, however, cannot exist without the use of the mother’s–and only the mother’s–body.
Oh, I have one. It’s knitting. ;)
…Well, that and mocking bad baby names, making costumes for comic conventions, writing, reading, posting about feminism on the Internet, cooking, hanging out on Regretsy…
Don’t kill what, milkslave? We kill lots of stuff all the time. We kill animals to eat and make shoes out of, and we kill animals that threaten animals that are of greater value to us. We kill organisms that threaten our health and even some that don’t threaten our health. We kill insects that intrude into our houses. We even kill people in war and in the criminal justice system, when it suits us. And we allow people to die because they’re not rich enough to buy the right health insurance; we let them die of totally curable diseases and don’t blink an eye. Don’t try to tell me that we value “life,” or even that we value human life. It just ain’t so.
Dude, if “mocking bad baby names” counts as a hobby, I am adding it to my list *right now*! :P
@captainbathrobe
None of those applies to a newborn. Toss one in the woods and see. That newborn has no chance of self governing, existing, responding, reacting to it’s surroundings. You could come at that newborn with an axe or a bottle. Not gonna know the difference. Not controlled by it’s nervous system either. In fact, killing a newborn, according to your definition, is the same damn thing.
Is this what your offering as an excuse to kill? Don’t kill. For someone who value’s life, the concept of legal murder is abhorent. I don’t have an ideology which promotes murder as a right. Amazing how in just 40 years a society slips from valuing all life to legalized slaughter. America the vile.
@Molly Ren: There’s an entire forum dedicated to it: http://bigbadbabynames.net
Both of these statements are false. I did not exist at conception. There was a thing which eventually grew into me, that existed at and before conception (well, before it was technically two things).
That’s a nonsequitar. Also, again “I” as “me” did not exist at all at conception.
You could never exist as a being with hair unless you were always a being with hair…see, that argument is againly structually invalid.
A borne child exists outside of a uterus. While it is dependent, it is not dependent on the use of a specific other person’s body. This differs from a fetus, which does use a specific other person’s body. You can’t give the fetus use of another’s body without denying that person the right to their own body. You can, however, give an infant its needs without denying a person the right to their own body (namely, by having a system which allows them to reliquish phsyical care of the child to others, sometimes referred to as “surrendering custody” or “giving up for adoption”). The fetus cannot be transferred to another if the person refuses to support it, the infant can. The infant can exist without infringement on another’s rights over their own body, the fetus cannot.
You kill every time you swallow. You kill by living, and in order to live. You would also kill if you died. You kill, just by existing, organisms more complicated than a fertilized egg on a minute to minute basis. Even if you were a vegan, this would be the case. Killing is in no way as ethically simple as you present it. But, for the sake of argument, let’s discuss killing of moral persons (which the vast majority of aborted fetuses aren’t). Are you a pacifist, NWO? If not, you clearly think there are cases where it is acceptable to kill other persons. EVen if you are, there is probably some limit on what you think you must give up to protect the lives or wellbeing of others. Should we be allowed to force blood and organ donations that risk your death, that cause permanent physical changes, etc. without your consent if we believe it will save others? Do we have the right to use you for medical experimentation without your consent to save others? Can we force you to work the labor that we choose, against your will, if we think it will benefit another? How far do you think a person is ethically required to go in order to protect the life of another? How far do you think it is ethical to force them to go?
NWO, I want an answer too!
I have deeply held moral objections to mocking “bad” baby names! Every baby name is beautiful in its own way!
Although I do have a friend named Siera because her parents didn’t know how to spell “Sierra.” And I used to know a girl named “Chyrstal” for similar reasons. Chyrstal.
And this other girl (It’s usually girls. There’s a smaller range of boy names, but parents get “creative” with the girls) I worked with was named “Princess.” Legally Princess Smith or whatever. She was only 18 when I knew her, but she was very concerned about getting older–was she going to upgrade to “Queen” at some point, or was she going to be a 60-year-old Princess?
Worst baby name I’ve ever seen is “Enola Gay.” Though “Squirrely Jellybean” is a very close second.
I went to school with a guy whose legal first name was “Sir Michael”. He had a brother who had “Lord John” on his driver’s license, and their sisters were “Saint” and “Lady”.
@Bee
” Don’t try to tell me that we value “life,” or even that we value human life. It just ain’t so.”
Don’t include me in your, “we” of feminist ideology. You don’t value human life. Someone who has never committed an act of ill-will towards anyone, the unborn, so casually off-ed and dismissed. No rights, no defense, totally helpless. All hail Ceasar! What will Ceasar do? Thumbs up or thumbs down? Live or die?
Well, I tend not to mock baby names, but there are exceptions:http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/parents-adolf-hitler-lose-custody-newborn-020633900.html
NWO – what should my friend have done after her partial miscarriage?
So is “Ceasar” the new “Big Daddy”?
It’s Caesar, by the way.
NWOslave, what if the unborn child is female? She’ll grow up to be one of your oppressors, indoctrinated to think that you’re a rapist. And when she grows up, she’ll take another man’s job.
NWO, what are your thoughts on the death penalty? Just curious.
Then why the fuck were you yammering on about a fetus or a newborn being an autonomous being, mikslave? It seems like you could remain consistent for at least a period of three consecutive comments.
@Magpie
“NWO, I want an answer too!”
Everybody wants an answer. Me too.
What’s a good excuse to murder an unborn child who has never committed even the slightest offense to anyone?
Is the answer…..feminism?
Hey Slave, do you think abortion is a new thing? It’s been around for centuries.
Someone else could care for a newborn, slavey. No one else can carry a fetus to term.
In any event, you were the one who applied the term “autonomous” to describe fetuses, not me. A fetus is not autonomous, and neither, really, is a new born. So what? I don’t see a fetus as a full human being–and, even if it was, it’s extremely problematic to require a person to devote their internal organs to preserving the life of another.
HEY NWO WHAT IF THE FATHER WANTS THE WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION?
You seem to be avoiding this one. What if it’s not a woman committing the “murder”–is it still murder then?
Do they think and make rational thoughts/decisions?
Depends upon what you mean by “think” and make “rational” decisions (I don’t see much rationality in what you post here, for example).
But, short answer, yes, babies are much more “conscious” than was thought for many years; they begin imitating behavior around them, and learning from very early on. They have an amazing capacity to learn:
Language Acquisition
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/learn.jsp
http://www.utdallas.edu/bbs/people/detail.php5?i=61
In the early 1960’s it would be fair to say that human infants were regarded as vegetables, requiring regular feeding and watering. The intervening years have shown that from birth human infants organize their world in very adult-like ways and, perhaps most importantly, begin to learn with incredible efficiency from the moment they are born.
moar about babies mad thinking and learning skillz
Babies learn while they sleep
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=166454
Children do learn differently
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/350/350-055/350-055.html
But they learn
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=44&articleid=186§ionid=1212
While there’s a huge creation of neurons during the first few years, we can keep our neurons growing and connecting all through life by learning new things.
What new things have you learned lately, NWO?
@Bee
“Then why the fuck were you yammering on about a fetus or a newborn being an autonomous being, mikslave? It seems like you could remain consistent for at least a period of three consecutive comments.”
I am being consistent. That was in response to CBs arguement on why it’s OK to slaughter the unborn.
How about you? Will you field my question? I’ve answered tons today.
Here it is.
What’s a good excuse to murder an unborn child who has never committed even the slightest offense to anyone?
By your logic, you are a murderer if you haven’t donated all your organs. Are you a murderer, milkboy?
At some point, I think I’m a murderer just for not being pregnant right now. There’s a hypothetical child out there that I haven’t conceived, and I am murdering that child.
Toss one in the woods and see
WTF?/ Goalposts whizzing past.
A shitload of adult human beings could not survive if they were tossed into the woods, naked, including yourself!
Look at the number of deaths of hikers and climbers and such every year–and they’re freaking equipped.
WTF does that have to do with anything?