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.
“Also, I really don’t see feminism as “fundamentally statist” any more than really.. ANY ideology is “fundamentally statist” because we live in a state, and laws and structures and institutions have been created that people of that ideology believe are harmful and must be removed, or changed, or replaced in order to have practical benefits. Whether it’s affirmative action, hate crime laws, anti-abortion bills, anti-gay marriage bills, pro-gay marriage bills, religious-exception laws, etc etc etc… it’s all working through the state to create protections, remove protections, allow things, disallow things etc…”
To clarify what I think and what I think Ami is saying, I just wanted to quickly add that this doesn’t mean “Feminists are as bad as/the same as fundies” in terms of, say, abortion law. It means that everybody in our current system is going to try using the law to get what they want, (And in this case obviously removing abortion laws or loosening the restrictions is something we’d support vs creating laws to ban it or restrict it).
My approach is that of Ron Paul, Non intervention, letting the religious fundamentalists deal with women in their own way, and letting Moslems and Zionists deal with each other without American, including my own, interference!
Also, Meller, I don’t think you’ve mentioned your position on borders, is this one of those things you are/then aren’t anarchist about? One of the things I can’t tolerate in Paul’s interventionism is that it comes along with a closed border policy, something I’m with Great God Murray on – “immigration” restrictions aren’t libertarian. If you have a non-interventionist policy, it’s pretty hollow and cruel to close up the doors and say everybody can just kill themselves outside. Frankly, I think that Paul just gave up on his former libertarian borders stance to throw in with the republicans but kept his supposed non-interventionism is bonkers. So, thoughts? Can people flee those regimes and come to the land of the free, no questions asked, as long as they come in peace? Cause remember, if you want no laws, you gotta admit there are no “illegals”
Yeah, most of these internet glibertarians (as opposed anarchists and the like) are dead set against government or the state unless it supports something they agree with, in which case the state is just fine and dandy.
zhinxy: This is Ron Paul who thinks anti-choice laws are perfectly acceptable. His sense of what is/isn’t intervention is far from absolute in things which touch non-whites/non-women(I keep trying to find a way to say it, since women/POC are groups, and he has no problem with laws that restrict their freedoms, so long as the majority/men are coddled).
Ron Paul also voted for DOMA, with the argument that it was pro-state’s rights, but unfortunately, that means that he’s happy to let a minority lose civil rights because the majority is bigoted. He claims that libertarianism sees a role for the state in defending the minority from the tyranny of the majority (where civil rights are concerned) but clearly that doesn’t extend to some marginalized groups.
The only minority that Ron Paul and his glibertarian cronies want to protect is the 1%. 😉
All right, so Ron Paul is not 100% libertarian, not that he ever claimed to be, and I certainly didn’t ever say that he was! I am campaigning for him as GOP nominee for the United States of America, not (unfortunately) the Libertarian States of America!
He is, at his best, 90-95% libertarian! His positions dovetail with individual rights, as understood by libertarians, NOT socialists, on the vast majority of issues relating to private property, individual liberty, self-responsibility, National sovereignty–withdrawal from UN, WTO, World Bank, etc–and perhaps eventually State sovereignty as well, sound money, and the US Constitution AS WRITTEN.
Contrast this with the other candidates, of the major party (Demoblican or Republicrat). They may or may not support abortion ‘rights’, they may or may not support gay “marriage”, they may or may not support a little firearms ownership, They overtly and explcitly support the Income tax, the Federal Reserve, the American Empire, Consription (alright, it is in a state of “suspended animation” now, but the draft can come back with the stroke of President Obama’s pen, and believe me, ONLY Ron Paul and Americans like him will oppose it) the “preemtive” attack on other countries (President Obama and Sec of State Hillary C said repeatedly that even nuclear weapons aren’t “off the table”) so-called “preventive detention” of terrorists, or anyone whom they decide to call a “terrorist”, indefinite suspension of Habeas Corpus–supported by almost ALL members of Congress since 9/11/2001 EXCEPT Ron Paul.
I don’t know about youall, but that is worth a lapse or two regarding support of agenda driven abortion, gay-“marriage”, and other legislative crackpottery! He is a libertarian WHERE IT COUNTS and that is good enough for me. Can supporters of Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Hillary Clinton (we haven’t seen the last of her), Michelle Bachmann, et al say the same? I don’t think so!!
In short, as a libertarian, as a Constitutionalist, as an American, I would take Ron Paul for President over the other candidates, of either party, in a heartbeat, and am proud to do so!
As for the alleged ‘racist articles” allegedly written by Ron Paul that some jerk found in 2007, don’t even go there! I don’t think for a moment that Ron Paul even wrote them, or ever read them, but even if he had, I would still prefer him to the collectivist, statist, imperialist ignoramuses and slobs that we have running against him in 2012. Even a “racist” Ron Paul–if one could ever exist–is worth more than that whole sorry lot of disreputable crooks and morons offered to us by the Demoblicans in 2012, and you heard it here first.
agenda driven abortion, gay-”marriage”, and other legislative crackpottery!
Am not a libertarian, but you know, I think the “my libertarian issues are IMPORTANT SRS” and the issues that OTHER people bring up in regard to state control of individual liberties are “crackpottery” is YET MOAR PROOF……that DKM is a misogynist.
I supported Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election and am rather sorry she didn’t win. I think Obama had too little knowledge of how the system works in D.C. to be able to make the impact he thought he could make.
OOPS, html fail. The italics should end after “crackpottery” (DKM’s words), and mine start up the next paragraph. Eating lunch while posting leads to attention slippage.
Ah, Meller. Only he could view a documentary about a man who owns 100 sex dolls and conclude that this means that the women of his country are insufficiently adorable due to being evil feminist bitches, rather than that there may be something a little odd about the man in question.
The same sort of logic explains his support for Ron Paul.
See, DKM, this is where we differ. Restricting a women’s reproductive control is oppression in my book. The income tax, not so much.
Oddly enough, though you claim to be a Constitutionalist, the income tax is specifically permitted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which permits amendments specifically for the purpose of adapting to changing times and circumstances. It’s a good thing the Founders were more far-sighted than you.
I haven’t really given much thought to immigration and naturalization, so I would have to get back to you on that. There are drawbacks to both the immigrant as welcome, and the immigrant as invader perspectives, and I suspect that these drawbacks, and maybe some answers, may be obtained at a local, county, or State level, NOT the Federal one, I will respond more fully in a few days.
Meller isn’t upset that the candidate he supported is a known racist. Given his pro-segregation speeches, this is the least surprising reveal in the history of the world.
the XVI Amendment, like all of the additions to the Constitution after 1865, really are fake amendments, often ratified in a blatantly unlawful way, and designed to circumvent any actual constitutional protections the States and the people have.
You can tell the difference by observing that before 1865, each of the Amendments all were distinct PROHIBITIONS of Federal government action, and after 1865, they all contained the clause “Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this amendment by appropriate legislation”. The effect was to turn the Constitution inside out and make it a charter for National government power, instead of a charter for securing local and State sovereignty AWAY fFROM the central government!
If it makes youall feel any better, Ron Paul accepts the CONSTITUTIONAL viewpoint that Abortion, if it is a public issue at all, is an issue that should be addressed at the State level, NOT the National, as in Roe v. Wade 1974. He is a medical doctor Ob/Gyn, and concerned himself for many years with the health and well-being of women and children, so that I suspect that his opinions regarding abortion, when human life begins, etc. probably have more thought behind them than his critics, and maybe his opposition to the procedure is justified, both morally and medically.
Meller: He is, at his best, 90-95% libertarian! His positions dovetail with individual rights, as understood by libertarians
If by libertarians you mean racist white men.
I don’t know about youall, but that is worth a lapse or two regarding support of agenda driven abortion, gay-”marriage”, and other legislative crackpottery!
Nope. Someone who will say, “we can ignore those people’s rights, because it’s good for us” isn’t actually espousing liberty.
To be, BTW, opposed to an income tax is to be opposed to the US Constitution.
Article V Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Since The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
is the 16th Amendment, duly passed, and ratified, it’s the law of the land, righ up there with the 2nd and 10th, of which Libertarians are so fond.
Me, I happen to think the 9th is the most important.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Combine that with the 4th and 5th and one easily establishes things like a right to privacy. Combined with the 14th and equal rights for women are Constitutionally mandated.
But you don’t care. What you want is white men in charge, and women as slaves. If you have to ignore the Constitution, to get it… you are happy. If your hero thinks those are pointless things, things he can trample to create his vision of people being denied rights, while he has gol coins in his pocket, you are happy to pretend it’s hunky-dory and in keeping with “The Constitution™”.
It’s not libertarian, it’s authoritarian, and you want to be the authority.
If it makes youall feel any better, Ron Paul accepts the CONSTITUTIONAL viewpoint that Abortion, if it is a public issue at all, is an issue that should be addressed at the State level, NOT the National, as in Roe v. Wade 1974. He is a medical doctor Ob/Gyn, and concerned himself for many years with the health and well-being of women and children, so that I suspect that his opinions regarding abortion, when human life begins, etc. probably have more thought behind them than his critics, and maybe his opposition to the procedure is justified, both morally and medically.
His being a physician is in no way relevant to the laws.
The “Constitutional” viewpoint on abortion is neutral. It’s not mentioned. Not once. Go on, find the article, or amendment, which discusses it. I’ll wait.
I’ll argue (and do) that the 9th amendment makes it a national issue, as the rights of privacy, and bodily autonomy are individual rights, guaranteed by the constitution (like speech, assembly, bearing arms, the right to be secure in my person and belongings from unreasonable searches and siezures, right to not be compelled to incriminate myself, etc).
But go on, show me where the Constitution says Abortion is an issue to be decided by the states. You can do it. I’m sure you can.
Peace and Freedom.
DKM, socialists burned their draft cards too. Socialists were arrested for draft-dodging or had to flee to Canada. Socialists protested the draft and were beaten or arrested for it.
The same is true of anarchists, pacifists, many Democrats, etc. Being against conscription is not a libertarian-only position.
the XVI Amendment, like all of the additions to the Constitution after 1865, really are fake amendments, often ratified in a blatantly unlawful way, and designed to circumvent any actual constitutional protections the States and the people have.
Then get then repealed.
Until then, deal with it. Because they are the law of the land.
I’m against a draft. I’m certainly against any draft which has deferrments, esp. if those deferments are de facto exemptions.
There are arguments for a draft; the most convincing are based on it being a way to prevent the military becoming too isolated from the broader culture.
And any credible argument for a draft needs to make it plain that money, nor influence, can keep anyone from being called up.
I’m against the draft, and I’m a socialist, and used to be a communist. I’m also a feminist.
Looks like being anti-draft isn’t actually a position exclusive to MRAs and libertarians after all, huh?
I too want MEN in charge, but those men need not be white. :p
Feminism probably should be statist, but I really hope they embrace socialist-anarchism so they can see for themselves what anarchy is like for women(RAEP!).
You’re so shocking, Mr. No Name. I’m shocked so hard. My monocle lies shattered on the floor.
…Why do you guys always assume that without a state it would be all rape all the time? Women have families and friends to defend us, we have weapons and self-defense skills, and we also have the advantage of the fact that most men aren’t rapists just waiting for their chance. An oppressive state that places certain people above the law is going to invite more rape than actual anarchy.
CassandraSays and Ozy42–
Only Ron Paul had–and does–agree with you,unlike all of these “socialists, anarchists. pacifists and many democrats” who may have once burned their draft cards, but haven’t done anything to repeal registration since 1980 (When Democrat Jimmy Carter was President), over three decades ago,
Looks like it is only Ron Paul, doesn’t it, abortion or gay “marriage” notwithstanding?
Doesn’t the X Amendment say that “…powers not granted to the Federal government, are reserved to the States, or to the people”?
You are correct, Pecunium, nowhere does abortion, or the right to ‘regulate’ abortion, get mentioned in the Constitution. It, and its regulation or prohibition, is thus a non-enumerated power, and hence reserved for the “States, or to the People”.
Abortion is considered to be a form of “murder” by its critics and opponents. “Murder” is also a crime that has traditionally been prosecuted, tried, and punished by the several States (except when committed on Federal territory, military bases, embassies, and so on). There is no Constitutional mandate for defining it as “murder”, but States are not precluded from doing so, either. Again, If not explicitly enumerated for the Federal government, it goes to states or people.
Ron Paul 1–critics of Ron Paul-0
You’re suggesting that people should vote purely on the issue of the draft? That’s remarkably silly even for you, Meller.
Economy? What economy?