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.
*Googles for images of 12-week fetuses*
…though by the end, it has largely stopped bearing a resemblance to a newt.
Is there a German word for feeling horrible about laughing about something?
Not quite sure if it applies here, but yes.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schadenfreude
802 comments! 1,000 comment thread, here we come!
Given the acknowledgement of good organization, that seems no more anti-anarchy than pro.
Anarchy is not opposed to organization, it is opposed to force, and in my particular form, inequality of authority. 🙂 The fact that there is good organization, that we can come together and in the best sense of democracy do SO MANY wonderful things, is all the more reason we can build sane, consensual, peaceful government without the State. 🙂
It got better?
Which you were going to make by talking about what the ‘big boys’ want instead? You wanted to talk about how everyone behaved by singling out the elite? Okay, but you’re not very good at communication.
I wasn’t talking about how everyone behaved at all. Seriously, I was only talking about the elite, not singling them out. Sorry for the communication problem. 🙂
NWOslave | November 20, 2011 at 9:56 pm
@zhinxy
Please stop with your, “I’m anti-state” nonsense. You support killing, a right granted by the State. The State says you can kill. Rule #1, don’t kill. If you have to run to the State to cicumvent this rule, you’re an ally of the State. You demand the right to kill for any reason or no reason at all.
What a completely lame arguement you make to prove you’re not a sponser of the State. “Oh the State won’t let me kill after a certain week.” That has got to be the lamest arguement I’ve ever heard. I wanna kill on week 30 and the State won’t let me. Not killing innocent people is too much to ask. And feminists like yourself actually believe this is an infringement on your rights.
Ah NWO’s back! 😀
I’m not even sure what you seem to be referring to with Zhinxy supporting state killing o_O She supports not having a state. You claim to support not having a state but you want a state to be patrolling everybody’s lives and what they do o_O You appear to be the one who wants lots of state stuff xD
Besides, I thought you believed feminism CONTROLLED the state. That the state does EVERYTHING we want… o_O So shouldn’t abortion be completely and totally legal everywhere?
You still need to prove that this is murder neways xD Who defines it as murder? You? The state controlled by you? Religion chosen by the NWOrld State? xD Your beliefs?
Look NWO, if you consider abortion murder, you don’t have to abort the fetus you’re carrying ok? xD If you want to make it state LAW, then that’s a different story xD
For example: If I said, “the bush administration lied about WMD for their own ends and got us into war,” (Which is what I was referring to in a general sense, actually) – Would I be considered amiss for not mentioning any popular support for the war in the time I had?
“My mother was in labor for 36 hours with me before they finally did the C-Section. (Later, they found out that the cord was wrapped around my neck three times.) It saved her life, but for some reason the epidural didn’t work. She felt everything when they cut into her. Could you force someone to do that against her will without quailing?”
I’m going to take a wild guess here and speculate that Slavey might actually be thrilled by that idea. After all, pregnancy is women’s punishment for having sex.
(Our punishment for not wanting to have sex is rape, in MRA world. So basically we’re going to be punished either way.)
In the case of an aborted person then, that’d be a silent scream.
It would be a hoot to actually hear just what slaughtering the unborn sounds like. It’s not like it’s a, “sacred moment” or anything. Hey, now there’s an actual 1 in 4 stat feminists can tell the truth about. 1 in 4 babies don’t make it past the abortion slaughterhouse.
Sweet dreams kiddies! Well, for all of you who were graciously granted the right to life anyways.
NWO, again… you know there’s LOTS of ppl who wouldn’t exist right now if their parents hadn’t had an abortion BEFORE. So by YOUR logic, you wish they’re dead xD
I’m in a pretty crummy mood today… for personal reasons and TDOR reasons… too bad NWO flounced xD He’s missing an opportunity! XD
I’m not saying he had good government. But he was really good at making his wars popular, and popular because of nationalism. That was extremely frightening to Metternich, seeing as he ran a state comprised of multiple ethnic groups that were subjugated, and it’s not like many of the other big players wanted similar ideas spreading either.
No, but what you haven’t done is spared any of the usual rhetoric of your position. It’s always the state, and every single hector in against DKM or Slavey has been “Haha, you want big government, you asshole”, apparently freely mixing large and evil. I was under the distinct impression that in not mocking libertarianism and just holding off, referring to the assholes as, well, individually stupid assholes, as opposed to imputing it on their philosophy, or something like it. Or at least, not their philosophy of government; I was asked to be respectful, so it seemed natural that similar consideration would be given back. It would appear I was awry.
I wonder if NWO’s autobiography (which I’m sure he’s alrdy been writing xD after all, there needs to be a record of the brave rebel against the 21st century feminarchy right? xD ) starts when he was a child, or from his memories in the womb… or at conception xD I hope there are chapters about how he felt when he was “existing” as an egg and a sperm xD I’d want to read those chapters! 😀
Well… I don’t exactly know what to say in response to that. I never asked you to not insult their positions vis a vis the state, and only criticise them as individual assholes. I very much do not think you should “have” to do that, and certainly not just because of my delicate feelings, or, something 😉 I really, really am sorry if you have felt this way, I had no idea at all.
So, I guess, all I can say is that I’m very sorry if you had that impression?
Feel free to attack their libertarianism, and I shall attack them for NOT being libertarian enough, and we can have fun attacking each other, but I do not know how you thought I told you you had to not criticise libertarianism or ANYTHING else. I didn’t say that, and I never told Ami to tell you that.
Truly… I am sorry, if that’s what you mean, and I don’t know what gave you that impression.
Of course against a “Fellow anti statist” troll I’m going to point out that their “statism is showing” – And if YOU like, you can say that their anti statism is stupid. 🙂
I never said otherwise, not once. I’m very sorry. I don’t know what else to say here?
*Begins head desking repeatedly* Putting aside philosophical objections to what you just said for a brief moment, can you see any possible way you might have problems communicating if you warp the meaning of the term ‘the state’ such that it doesn’t actually refer to a government?
I could rewrite the whole history of anarchist thought and terminology all you like, getting right on that, right now 😉
o_O This is getting very dramatic. I didn’t say you can’t attack Libertarianism, Rutee, but that you should hold off on attacking Zhinxy as a troll because she’s not a troll and she can expose Meller and NWO’s ignorance of their own claimed beliefs. Which she has, pretty effectively actually xD Pecunium often exposes people’s lack of knowledge about the military, or about Catholicism too, but it doesn’t mean therefore people aren’t allowed to criticize those institutions. And if this is a debate that’s important to you to have, Zhinxy is fine with it, but as long as you realize she is debating in good faith and isn’t a troll. :3
Also, the context currently is talking about hypotheticals and about theory and philosophy,. She hasn’t said that she’s lobbying currently against laws (or selective laws, like NWO and Meller are against… ) and if you want, I’m sure she’d be happy to tell you how in current PRACTICAL terms, she’s not against socialized health care, or trans protection laws. She can even make a Libertarian argument for the validity of current domestic violence laws.. But in the context currently, she hasn’t had to because she’s fighting two idiots who aren’t anywhere close to that, but if you want she can keep putting a disclaimer about how she’s not in opposition to a gender identity inclusive ENDA or Bill C-389 in Canada… :]
Brandon: What would you do if Ashley got pregnant? Just asking…
In terms of “government without the state” specifically, anarchists may not be referring to “a government” – But we certainly believe in order and organization. Really, this is a bit like yelling at feminism for having “new bad definitions” for “privelege” – Or yelling at LGBTI activists for their new bad use of “phobia”
We have political theory, legal theory, and etc. 🙂 Of course we do, and it goes back a long, long time. And I love to talk about it, if you’re curious. Rutee, you can debate my ideology, dislike, it hate it, love it, want to make it move to Sweden or buy a cat… But all I ask is that you not assume things about how my ideology applies to how I live my life, my motives in being on the internet, or what I fight for.
This really feels as if you are simply redefining all governance you like as not the state and all governance you don’t like as the state, which is really, really begging the question.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state Those seem like the pertinent common use definitions of the terms, none of which make such an arbitrary seperation of the meaning of government and state.
You can be opposed to the latter two and not be an anarchist, you can be, at least by a number of theories, okay with the latter two and be an anarchist. You play fast and loose with definitions a lot.
So are pregnant people like, anti-witches? “She turned a newt into me!”
*hugs everybody* 🙁
I feel like somehow I’ve started something bad and ppl are getting hurt now and stuff 🙁
I’m sry 🙁
I’m v rubbed raw today, from personal things and from TDOR and trying to write a post about it… so I rly am not in a state of mind to be in conflict w/ my friends right now, or be in the middle of a conflict between my friends 🙁
Only on Man Boobz does a post about Human Centipede evolve into a discussion about abortion and then zips off to debate anarchy vs. the state. 😛
No, it isn’t, because we actually define those in discrete ways rather than just saying that anything we don’t like is in X category and anything we do like is not X. There is a difference between “terms of art” and goalpost shifting.
And now we should talk about cats and hippos :3