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.
…
You would vote for someone you don’t have a clue whether or not he’s fit for the job? It’s not even intelligent to wonder about it? 0_o
If so, why not just picking a name in the phone-book, the odds are as good…
Meller, you’re casting Ron Paul as the hero in a fictional, conspiracist “end of the empire” scenario. There’s no way to respond except to tell you that’s an excellent story, and I’d like to see the movie too.
Okay, to the extent your comments are reality based, I will just say that, charitably, even if Ron Paul is completely serious and honest about “restoring constitutional government” and would create a version of minarchy I would find basically acceptable as a libertarian society (And again, I’m not a constitutionalist Libertarian, and I think we should work towards a future of anarchy, not a return to 1776, but whatever.)
“obody has ever turned a degenerate crooked, and vicious kleptocracy/fascism/ corporate State; itself with no real analog to previous polities (although several very smart people have looked at parallels with ancient Rome c. 330-450 AD)–into a prosperous, soundly free market, private property based politically free Consitutional republic with firm safeguards at both the Federal and State level for personal and economic liberty!”
And when it comes to trying to turn back state power, history DOES show us it doesn’t work very well. See –
I agree with Stephan Molyneux here that it’s not going to be feasible, that even if he was incredibly successful in real world terms, it wouldn’t get us far along, and he’s likely to hurt the libertarian movement by his inefficacy OR conversely “efficacy.”
Will the repeated bailouts, subsidies, “loan guarantees” and other privileges granted the elites, while tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of us are going bankrupt and homeless, FINALLY convince the majority of us idiot SHEEPLE that the government, and its primary institutions ARE NOT accountable to us, are not our “representatives”, that this is no more a “democracy”–still less a Constitutional Republic–then were the Third Reich or the USSR Bolshevik regime, and that any loyalty to, or compliance with, those criminal elites is NOT patriotism, it is suicideal folly on our part!
Okay (And did you really use Sheeple?) – You must realize that many, VERY MANY a libertarian believes that using the electoral system to effect “change,” even by electing THE GREATEST LIBERTARIAN EVER is folly, and grants the very system legitimacy. Also, Ron Paul and his supporters is still not a big group you can speak for.
Also, if by some strange miracle he wins the republican nomination I might “support” him over Obama, should I feel the need to vote defensively. But as a libertarian, I should feel NO obligation to support ANYONE in the REPUBLICAN primary. (Or anyone in any election.).
And again, I think the situation is “bad,” but there is no NEW WORLD ORDER.
I have no faith in “top down” solutions for libertarians, regardless. To the extent I might throw support behind paul, it would only be a “lesser of two evils” situation – Not because Paul himself is “evil” but because in real world terms, this is not the way we should proceed.
Can the support given him, and his Presidency, continue even if the NWO criminals–who have everything to lose, murder him (and perhaps as many of his influential supporters as they can get their hands on)? Can such assasination conspiracies be forestalled or prevented effectively without destroying what remains of our civil liberties?
Can enough of us keep our heads, and keep planning and organizing for ourselves and our communities, even when Obama and the criminal class in DC and Wall St. “never let a good crisis go to waste” in former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s infamous words?
…………………………………………….
-Insofar as you are recommending planning and organizing and resisting, regardless of the “dead president”- I agree. WE NEED TO GO FOR IT. It’s our shot at building a libertarian society. And so why bother electing “an anointed president” at all? Nobody has to get shot, nobody has to fight washington, and we get to do action that has a chance! Let’s put that support behind a free society, not a man who will bring it to us by using electoral politics. Then, even if there IS a NEW WORLD ORDER CONSPIRACY, they don’t have a figurehead to shoot! Just the endless tentacles of the freedom octopus! Sound good?
I want to note that Vladimir Lenin died in January of 1924 and hence was not actually getting up to a lot of lawmaking in the 1930s. Meller, how many times do I have to inform you that Lenin and Stalin were different people?
“Will the repeated bailouts, subsidies, “loan guarantees” and other privileges granted the elites, while tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of us are going bankrupt and homeless, FINALLY convince the majority of us idiot SHEEPLE that the government, and its primary institutions ARE NOT accountable to us, are not our “representatives”, that this is no more a “democracy”–still less a Constitutional Republic–then were the Third Reich or the USSR Bolshevik regime, and that any loyalty to, or compliance with, those criminal elites is NOT patriotism, it is suicideal folly on our part!”
Since this might have been a bit unclear – I basically agree, less histrionically, and I think this also applies to using electoral politics to try and get “our man” in – Even if he’s great, the system is too broken, and many a libertarian finds voting immoral, for that matter.
And going off Molyneux – If Ron Paul comes up, actually TRIES to implement his libertarian vision, and it’s a mess – Then hey, for at least a few generations, it’s even more “LIBERTARIANISM DOESN’T WORK” only this time it’s “REMEMBER WHEN RON PAUL TRIED?” – We don’t need that around our necks, now do we?
I want to note that Vladimir Lenin died in January of 1924 and hence was not actually getting up to a lot of lawmaking in the 1930s. Meller, how many times do I have to inform you that Lenin and Stalin were different people?”
DSC – ROTFL, i actually missed that. Well, they did come off the same clone batch, didn’t they? Or were they polyps?
Okay, to the extent your comments are reality based, I will just say that, charitably, even if Ron Paul is completely serious and honest about “restoring constitutional government” and would create a version of minarchy I would find basically acceptable as a libertarian society (And again, I’m not a constitutionalist Libertarian, and I think we should work towards a future of anarchy, not a return to 1776, but whatever.)
Whether ron paul is serious about ‘restoring constitutional government’ is kind of irrelevant, because ron paul is NOT an authority on the constitution, and his constitutional ‘scholarship’ is wildly inaccurate and full of really basic errors of history and analysis. it would also be impossible to implement because it involves overturning marshall court decisions that are pretty much the bedrock of how our government operates.
there are plenty of ways to interpret the constitution, but libertarian originalism isnt one that can be taken seriously. its not analysis so much as a wish-list of libertarian goals transported back to the founding. as my con law professor used to say ‘it’s fascinating how when randy barnett became a libertarian he discovered all the founding fathers agreed with him completely’. the ahistoricality of their vision is exemplified by the ironically named cato institute. cato (probably the pseudonym of influential new york governor george clinton) was a staunch anti-federalist who opposed the ratification of the constitution because he though it would effectively obliterate the states through the creation of an all powerful federal government. if you told him that 250 years later people would use his name to argue that the constitution established a minarchist paradise you would have been laughed out of the room.
if libertarians want to advance a view of the constitution that restricts federal power, i think there are frameworks that support that and i’m all for novel constitutional arguments. but attributing those arguments to the framers isnt analysis, its chicanery. the anti-federalists lost at the Convention, they lost again at the state conventions, and they don’t get to rewrite history to evade that. to quote hamilton from federalist 33:
there are plenty of ways to interpret the constitution, but libertarian originalism isnt one that can be taken seriously. its not analysis so much as a wish-list of libertarian goals transported back to the founding. as my con law professor used to say ‘it’s fascinating how when randy barnett became a libertarian he discovered all the founding fathers agreed with him completely’. ”
Yeah, I agree. “restoring constitutional government” is a libertarian pipe dream that doesn’t even make sense AS a libertarian pipe dream.
And I personally think that even if it DID establish a libertarian minarchist paradise, it didn’t really do so in a particularly libertarian WAY,…
http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/09/17/international_ignore/
“The Constitution, in its origins, was an act of naked usurpation: the imposition of a government on millions of sovereign individuals and all of their descendents. Many of those who were asked did not consent to it, and the vast majority of the population of the Americas at the time (who were by turns unpropertied, Black, Indian, and/or female) never were asked whether they wanted it or not. Certainly you have not, 218 years on, and neither do I. If I got together with a group of my buddies at the coffee-shop, wrote We are your Grand High Poo-bahs, and you must do as we say on a napkin, signed it at the bottom, and then (just to be sure you understood) scrawled This is a Constitution for the United States across the top, you would consider me a lunatic if I went around insisting that the napkin I was holding obligated you to do as I say. Yet in what relevant respect are the obligations imposed on us by the U. S. Constitution any different? Did a self-selected gang of ambitious delegates somehow gain the prerogative to impose a novel, centralized, invasive government on other people against their will—the same prerogative you would think I was crazy for asserting? If so, how did they get it? If they had some kind of right, under natural law, to impose a new order of government when they saw fit, then why don’t I have the authority to do the same, for myself, whenever I decide I don’t like what they set up? (Is it because they wore powdered wigs?) If neither they nor I have the right, under natural law, to impose a new order of government, then why do their written commands have any authority than the orders of a mafioso (which may be quite consistently enforced, but which few would consider themselves morally bound to obey)? If they did have the right to do so but only with the consent of the governed, then what obligation has the Constitution ever had over those who voted against ratification, or those who never were asked for their consent? (Which, today, means everybody.)”
but yeah, anyway, constitutionalist libertarianism and electoral politics not my bag, baby. XD
yeah, i know you’re not one of those, i just couldnt stop myself from taking up that rant. It really pisses me off when paul’s supporters go on about how only he takes the constitution seriously, because if you look at it objectively he doesnt really take it very seriously at all. constitutional analysis is hard work, and paul’s take on it is incredibly lazy.
Oh, yeah, no problem. XD It’s definitely a rant that needs to be a-ranted!
And I personally think that even if it DID establish a libertarian minarchist paradise, it didn’t really do so in a particularly libertarian WAY,…
yeah, i mean i don’t think anybody would disagree with that.
that post is… very angry. i think the author makes some great points about all the groups excluded from the process (and some points where all i could think was ‘im a dworkinian. im just never gonna agree with you there) but i was frustrated by how blithely zie treated the ratification process. im gonna guess the type of person who writes a radical libertarian blog is not the kind of person who geeks out about constitutional history, but the description was so vague as to basically be useless.
Well, he is oddly fond of ANDREA Dworkin… 😉
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. And I think he’s got a number of posts that are probably way better on that front, but I’m lazy and not gonna dig for them. 😉 But again, yeah, radical left libertarian anarchist blog. Kinda what it says on the tin.
That’s a rather odd claim, considering that these areas already had governments and in many cases had, even if you limit government being considerd solely to colonialist powers (which I wouldn’t…) for centuries. I’ve read eminent domain cases from the early 1800s that were settled soley on state law in state courts, states were anything but non-governed in the early US. There were governers and charters and state constitutions and courts and legislatures and tax collectors…I don’t really understand this notion that state governments are somehow automatically less oppressive and that the US was ungoverned prior to the Federal Constitution.
i think that bit was only meant to modify the part immediately following it, in which case the author is correct, but given the over-the-top nature of the post im not sure.
but if that bothers you, definitely dont click through to the part that conflates the constitution with individual SCOTUS decisions.
“i think that bit was only meant to modify the part immediately following it,” That’s how I read it. If it means it the way you read it, DSC, I renounce. re-NOOOOUNCE my quoting !
I quoted the paragraph cause it was fun polemic, and linked to the rest of the post cause it wasn’t MY fun polemic.
DSC, in your opinion do “pansexual” and “agender” count as queer identities, and why specifically does asexual not count,? And is it primarily or all about “shared oppression” rather than “non-het or-cis sexuality” I’m not trying to be defensive, but trying to sort out the reasoning.
WRONG THREAD!
I quoted the paragraph cause it was fun polemic, and linked to the rest of the post cause it wasn’t MY fun polemic.
– And adding, radgeek is definitely one of my favorite bloggers, and I’m not entirely with him on the conflation and some of the other reasoning there, but did love the paragraph I quoted – My own reasoning on the constitutional/scotus history is somewhat different, though does boil down at the end of the day to “And why is this what we’re talking about because ANARKEY!”
Though I think what he’s going for with the conflation is spooneresque “either it gives us the government we have now, or it was powerless to stop it” reasoning – The powers that be read it this way anyway, so what’s the guarantee, and how good can it be, etc. His interesting (and I tend to agree, but need to think on it, specifically) arguments for exactly why it’s impossible to consent to nation-states factor in to his reasoning there, too, I’d say.
See:
http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/01/08/can_anybody/
The one question that is not raised, much less answered, is why are the stooges and empty suits of the establishment so afraid of Ron Paul–and before him, some Libertarian Party candidates, such as Harry Browne (1996 and 2000), and the far more moderate and compromising Ed Clark in 1980? For that matter, we saw the same “blackout” of news of the Ron Paul candidacy when he ran for President on the LP in 1988. Devoid of the internet and the “social network media”, there was no way that they could even challenge the blockade, much less break through to public controversy and visibility?
There would be no need to suppress such challenges if they were in fact completely helpless to change policies, even some of them, in a more or less “freedomward” direction. Why the hysterical efforts at calling Ron Paul (or Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin), to name a few examples, as somehow “unelectable” as if clowns like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich (UGH!!) are surefire slam dunks into the oval office in 2012? Why the endless ad nauseum attacks on Ron Paul as an “extremist” or a “lunatic” and his followers in similar terms? Is there anything that one can say about Ron Paul that one cannot say far more truthfully and pointedly against any one of Ron Paul’s moronic opponents, and, for that matter, about President O’bomber himself?
The people behind the campaigns of Romney, Perry, Cain, Obama, Bachmann, know far more about politics–REAL politics, rats, cockroaches,lice, and all–than any of us do from out copies of the Federalist Papers, No Treason-Constitution of No Authority, and For a New LIberty! They are CHAMPIONS of that particular game, where it counts, and if they are afraid of Ron Paul because of his being “unbought and unbossed”, it may be given their expertise in politics and politicking, wheeling, dealing, and stealing, that they know Ron Paul won’t play ball, and that is the reason why he–and we–are being marginalized. Otherewise there would be no point in suppressing third party and independent support, the Kennedy and KIng assasinations would make no sense and be just ordinary senseless murders, Ron Paul’s electoral victory would be no more disruptive to the status quo than O’bomber’s victory over King George the Stupid in 2008, prompting a number of congratulatory statements and worshipful press releases, and not much else. Instead, every impression by the political and media classes corrupting our society says that a second term for the banksterpuppet in the Oval Office, or his replacement with a Romney, Perry, Gingrich, or the anti-Paul of the month is entirely “rasonable” and that the Presidency for Ron Paul, to these people, is as unthinkable as Revelation’s apocolypse! Do they know something that we are overlooking,, or is Ron Paul’s run for the Presidency more significant than we can appreciate now? Say what you will, they may know nothing about managing an economy or society, rule by law, or even ordinary decency, but they are all poltical experts–experts who are to their understanding the exercise of despotic power–where Gary Kasparov or Bobby Fischer, at their tops, were to chess, where Babe Ruth was to baseball, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, or Mohammed Ali were to boxing, or Tiger Woods was to golf. They are GRANDMASTER CHAMPIONS, and their fear or hatred of Ron Paul, and the growing prospects of his Presidency, must relate to something!
Again, to the degree that what you said makes sense, I actually agree there’s a “conservative/msm media blackout” of Ron Paul . I don’t think they’re scared of a genuine loss, however.
Basically, I agree with Jon Stewart here –
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012—corn-polled-edition—ron-paul—the-top-tier?xrs=playershare_fb
No, I don’t think they are political grandmasters. I think it’s just politics as usual. They have no great evil wisdom. They’re in the shit, but they aren’t ascended shit masters. They do find paul annoying and want him “silenced,” but it’s not that they’re quaking in their boots. They aren’t particularly frightened of Paul, it’s just that any voice leaning too far towards a third party platform is treated this way – That we DO see so much of Paul is more tribute to how he dovetails with elements in the Republican Party, I would say.
As for other libertarians, yes, of course our attention from the mainstream media is woeful and often error ridden and dismissive when it does happens – Far more so than republican Paul, I would say. And the same is true for any political alternative. So I would say what we should do, in so far as electoral politics works, is to give up the national, and focus on the local. Any “third party” not just us. Build a base, build a party, stop going for the Presidential Ring. Stop wasting all the money and energy. I’d ask if you were a porcupine, but I think we’d all rather you skipped the free state project…
if anything ron paul receives attention disproportionally larger than his electoral/political success deserves. he’s a republican back bencher with a couple of vanity runs for president.
also
from out copies of the Federalist Papers
dkm, if you had actually read the federalist, there is absolutely no way you would spout the utter lies about the constitution that you do. the oldest trick in the book is to insist the federalist has to support your position (i wrote a paper that addresses john roberts use of this device) but it doesnt work on people who actually care about american history.