Like Chairman Mao, the MRA blogger Alcuin is a massive douchebag with intellectual pretensions far outstripping his limited brainpower. Also like Mao, Alcuin is perhaps best appreciated in tiny doses. Most of his posts are rambling, pretentious messes; yet many of them contain wonderful little nuggets of anti-wisdom that I feel compelled to share with you all.
Mao had his Little Red Book. Here’s part one of Alcuin’s Little Red-Faced Book. Click on the titles for the full posts.
[A] woman only thinks of her next meal, and which man can provide the best one for her. … Allow them to run organizations and society, and they will destroy everything. … Women are too emotional and self-centered to build civilization.
All Feminists are Doctor’s Daughters:
Feminism, the domain of doctor’s daughters, is for snobs. Men with dirty fingernails are haughtily ignored and dismissed. … Ironic, ain’t it, that feminists can be both perpetual victims and upper-class snobs at the same time, with the same remark and arrogant flick of the hair, as she puts her nose in the air and walks past. … Uppity cunts.
Dare to Struggle, Dare to Backlash:
Because feminism has attacked humans so viciously, injecting its hate-filled venom so deeply into both men and women, the “reaction” will not be a mere rainstorm. Deep, psychotic imbalance such as the type wrought by feminism and by liberals in general will necessitate a fucking shitstorm the likes of which we’ve hardly seen.
Constant rape accusations are ridiculous, given the sexless marriage epidemic. How many bored, asexual women stuck in a sexless marriage would love to be taken?
Modern miseduated western women fear their femininity, fear their natural beauty, and run away from it. … The hags we currently see in western countries resemble a clear-cut, eroded mountain. A contemporary western woman reminds one of the landscape created by the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, ugly and unnatural, a place of evil and sadness.
More to come; Alcuin’s idiocy is a renewable resource.
As an asexual woman, I’ve never fantasized about being “taken.” And now my brain hurts after reading all that bullshit.
“I’m not the hypocrite here, but go ahead and keep calling a published author with a Ph. D. ‘stupid’ because you disagree with her.”
Just because someone has a Ph. D. doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes, Hengist.
…now it just dawned on me what he meant by “taken”. Does he even know what asexual means? Does he know what rape means?
What a douchenozzle.
I’m not sure he knows what “the” means.
We called her stupid for the same basic reason you call an astrophysicist who claims evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics stupid, dude. It doesn’t matter how many publications you have or whether you have a PhD if you get amazingly basic shit outside your discipline wrong (Unless your publications are solely in your own field; in that case, you’re a crank outside your field and potentially a genius in it).
She’s said a lot of stupid things about the poor and gender dynamics. A Philosophy Doctorate does not prepare you to make statements about the dynamics and systems people operate in. What is her *good* work? Because it isn’t anything she’s done that’s political. I’ll concede she survived her thesis defense, but what has she done past that that should make me respect her?
Two other notes:
1. It does not bother me in the least htat other people are famous and respected. If it did, I have much better targets than Hoff Summers, like Limbaugh or Chuck Norris.
2. Really, I’m pretty sure Hoff Summers is more or less a nobody outside of the anti-feminist movement. Set your sights for hero worship a little higher.
So, this happened a while up, but I just want to make a comment about what you said, Hengist.
I’m pretty sure “everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, no matter what their education or credentials” is a fallacy too. :p
Dude, that’s not a fallacy. “Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong” is the argumentative position. Seriously! That’s what it means to have an argument: you put forth your position, and then make the case that anyone who disagrees with that position is wrong.
Now, acknowledging that sometimes you should lose arguments, and be persuaded by the other side, is important. But you should enter every argument with the conviction that if you’re going to argue it, you’re going to produce the case that everyone who believes with you, regardless of their credentials, is wrong.
Oops. Seems it’s been covered. Nevermind little old me, then.
US fiscal policies did not include mass arrests and incarcerations, though, which is what Amused was talking about. That’s deliberate policy, not an accident. The Ukranian famine was also due, at least in large part, to policy decisions made by the Soviet government. Deaths due to starvation in the US during 1932-1933 simply did not happen on the same scale.
Nor did any US regime busy itself with purging its own operatives.
Deaths due to starvation in the US during 1932-1933 simply did not happen on the same scale.
That should have read “Whether or not that was the case, deaths due to starvation in the US during 1932-1933 simply…”
Erl, it appears we have a psychic connection.
DSC, I really think there is no comparison between Hoover and Mao. Economists didn’t understand how to fight depressions in Hoover’s day and FDR made some of the same mistakes; it was WW2 that really got things moving again.
Mao by contrast killed millions on purpose and millions more through radical and often simply nonsensical economic “reforms” that, among other things, had peasants melting down everything they owned that was made of metal. He exported food in the midst of the mass famine caused by his “reforms,” and refused to change course after it became clear that his reforms were a disaster. There is no need to “pad” the numbers by including those who died of old age during his purges and during the famines directly caused by his policies. When people talk of deaths from the famines they’re talking about “excess deahs,” not those which would have occurred naturally.
No one knows how many died, but if you make a guess based on the estimates of various scholars you arrive at a figure of roughly 40 million.
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao
Despite the greater death tolls under Stalin and Mao, I still think Hitler was the most evil figure in 20th century history, because his central guiding principle was hatred of the Jews, but Stalin and Mao were plenty evil.
I always look forward to DSC’s hilarious attempts to equate Western political figures and ideology with explicitly gencidal campaigns by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
I always look forward to DSC’s hilarious attempts to equate Western political figures and ideology with explicitly gencidal campaigns by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Shut up; DSC and I disagree but you showing up here to snigger pointlessly does not make this any better for my position. And the extent to which Stalin’s actions were “explicitly genocidal” is widely debated (this is related to my field of study).
If you apply similar methodologies to India during the same time period, you get 100 million deaths. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize winning economist, attributes the differences in medical distribution of China vs. India caused roughly 4 million deaths per year more in India than would have been experienced under the Chinese medical system.
We also have a history of ignoring the horrible ongoing brutality in this nation against poor people, people of color, and people with disabilities.
This sort of shit was happening during Rosevelt’s administration
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122058404&ps=rs
How many black people died because of the US government’s support of segregation during those years? How many Native Americans? Remember, the US has had some groups of people kept in prisoner of war camps for well over a century.
You can argue that US imperialism has cause 27,000,000 deaths rather easily http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/americas-death-toll-on-the-world-27000000/
Between 1901 and 1929, more than 1,200 documented lynchings in the south (by all accounts, few were documented).
What about Wilson’s adminstration attacking black people and leftists for the Red Summer of 1919 when conservative whites launched massive race riots across america? What about sending in federal troops to gun down hundreds of black people in some cities that summer? According to one white observer (who was himself a known segregationist), the federal troops in Elaine engaged in a “crusade of death” that killed a thousand people (many official reports only count white deaths, and almost all ignored deaths of black bystanders). 122 black people were indicted regarding the “riots” in Elaine where white landowners raised a mob and attacked black sharecroppers who were attempting to organize and no white people were indicted. Ida Wells-Barnett said of the incident “If this is democracy, what is bolshevism?”
So, yeah, when Woodrow can directly have hundreds of black people gunned down by federal troops in the street (and round up and jail so many socialist the ACLU was created to respond )and not widely referred to as an authoritarian genocidal maniac, the fact that famine deaths of supporters and economic depression deaths of supporters is grouped as such for Mao is a flagrant double standard.
I am not objecting per se to counting gross mismanagement, esp. targeted gross mismanagement as genocide/mass murder, but this constant double standard pisses me off. Make your standard, and then apply it universally and see just how many monsters you find.
Nobody knows how evil Hitler really was, nobody clearly knows where in the Nazi hierarchy those decisions were made, everything is based on the interpretation of nonexplicit language in such writings as the Wannsee Protocol.
I am not objecting per se to counting gross mismanagement, esp. targeted gross mismanagement as genocide/mass murder, but this constant double standard pisses me off.
What I’m objecting to is your equivocation of gross mismanagement with policy decisions. The famines in the Ukraine were not an accident. The Gulags were not an accident. The Soviet regime didn’t purge itself in a fit of absentmindedness. These are categorically different things.
Between 1901 and 1929, more than 1,200 documented lynchings in the south (by all accounts, few were documented).
One thousand deaths over twenty-eight years, while horrible, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Great_Purge#Number_of_people_executed>is the number of people the Great Purge probably killed in a week.
Aaand…HTML fail.
the number of people the Great Purge probably killed in a week.
Oh, sorry: in a day. 1,000 per day between 1937 and 1938.
Nobody knows how evil Hitler really was, nobody clearly knows where in the Nazi hierarchy those decisions were made, everything is based on the interpretation of nonexplicit language in such writings as the Wannsee Protocol.
Shut. Up. The Wannsee documents are explicit as fuck, and, while we don’t have a piece of paper with SINCERELY HITLER at the bottom, in a regime structured like the Nazi regime there’s no way any of that would have happened without approval at the highest level.
@VoiP:
Shut. Up. The Wannsee documents are explicit as fuck, and, while we don’t have a piece of paper with SINCERELY HITLER at the bottom, in a regime structured like the Nazi regime there’s no way any of that would have happened without approval at the highest level.
Please, again as last time, at least keep it polite. With you I feel like in the comment section of The Frisky.
b2t: I don’t think that the Wannsee protocol is very explicit.
a) never, in this important document is the outright killing of Jews discussed, to reach this conclusion an interpretation of the phrase “the possible final remnant will, as it must undoubtedly consist of the toughest, have to be treated accordingly” is required.
b) Heydrich is recorded as discussing a “final solution” that involved the forced evacuation “to
the East” of all the Jews of Europe, including those in countries that were not under German military control at this time.
Simon sounds rather like a Holocaust denier.
Keep the comedy coming, DSC. I’m laughing my ass off. You’re better than Louis CK.
@Moewicus:
What a silly comment. Don’t you think that there’s a massive difference between a detective who has doubts about who the murderer was and a detective who doubts that the murder even took place?
I’m saying you harp on points that Holocaust deniers also harp on. Your question, on the other hand, seems like it should be settled by a perusal of Mein Kampf.