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.
as for libertarian candidates for president- if they don’t get media attention its not because of a conspiracy, its because nobody cares enough for them to get it. the media is a business, they run what sells, and the libertarian party is a product nobody is buying.
-Nor should they, the party sucks and free is overpriced!
basically.
but even why i was a high school libertarian i recognized that people were aware of the libertarian party and they still didnt care, and i didnt blame it on anything except the failure of the party to get their message out. they behave like they have a right to be taken seriously because they claim they can trace the lineage of their ideas back through a bunch of old writers, but as a movement they havent personally done anything to earn anyone’s respect.
politics is still politics, even if you think youre fighting a holy war.
As far as overturning the “Marshall rulings” on the Constiution, and overturning the “bedrock foundation of how our government operates”, wouldn’t that be an important priority for exactly that reason? “Our” government is a patholgical, corruption-ridden, maniacally violent, and utterly insolvent monster whose operational foundation MUST be overturned as quickly as peaceably as possible, consistant with the future growth of liberty and private propery.
I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, if, upon doing this, the result will be a real constitution, a revival of the articles of confederation, a collection of “anarchies” around the North American continent more or less in trade and cooperation with each other, or–most likely of all– something we can’t even imagine now–replacing a discredited and bankrupt empire under a “constitutional” cover that we once knew a “the United States of America”. .
Well, Sherculese, you, your fellow sheeple, and over 100,000,000 people like you, keep “buying” what the Demoblican politicians have to sell you. The outcome won’t change whether the LP wins any races or not, whether the noisemedia pays attention to them or not, and for that matter, even if the LP folds up shop altogether
.If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you always got!
We still have the problem of crawlling out alive from under the rubble. How will your successful and media hyped cretins, crackpots, and clowns–given all the attention they can buy–help us there?My guess is that we will be worse off in many waysfollowing the authoritarian leaders of the empire, than we would be if people recognise liberty, property, and self-responsibility as an alternative, but I’m only a libertarian, so what do I know?
Next case!!
No, for a couple of reasons. First, the rulings that paul most frequently assails, are clearly correct, and paul doesnt ever give a good reason why they wouldnt be. like i said, i’ve read his constitutional ‘scholarship,’ its mostly lazy and unserious, and his knowledge of history could charitably be called ‘patchy’. Further, when talking about the constitution, even non-originalists view the interpretations of those close to the founding as indicative of how the constitution was intended to work, and marshall is up there among the most authoritative. that doesnt mean you cant make arguments about original meaning that contradict marshall (he got some things wrong, definitely) but just kind of saying the court got it wrong isn’t good enough.
as to wanting to pull apart the foundations of our government, that’s not a constitutional argument, that’s an argument about outcomes. like i said, i think there are viable constitutional theories that would produce a lot of the results you want. i disagree with them, but i think theyre viable. but heralding this line of thinking as a ‘return to constitutionalism’ is dishonest. its just another way of looking at the constitution, because you dont like the one people are currently using, and its certainly not a return to how the framers viewed the constitution.
yeah, i dont vote libertarian so i must identify as a democrat or a republican. that is some high quality thinking going on right there.
Paul is not running as a third party in this election, he’s vying for the Repubican ticket. As a member of a rather small third party myself, who has done volunteer work with other small third party campaigns, I have a fair understanding of how much ridiculous shit that involves. But Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket and contending for such at a national level, that’s patently not marginalized third party politics issues right there.
The federalist papers don’t always say what right wingers think they do, and, often, the actual actions of federalist administrations were contradictory to those early statements, even of federalists who were directly involved in the writing of the federalist papers (one of the federalist papers, for example, lays out a case in favor of judicial review, but Madison suddenly hated the very thought of it when he became president and controlled the executive branch and the court did things he didn’t like).
Meller, the articles of confederation didn’t work. They were unsustainable, which is why they were extremely short lived in practice and ineffective. There is a reason why Washington is generally counted as the first president even though there had been ones under the articles. Not to mention that the Articles of Confederation where in no way shape or form establishing a “collection of anarchies”. State governments had their own significant powers and establishments (as I pointed out earlier on this thread). In fact, though the Constitution strengthened federal powers, it greatly, greatly diminished the powers of state governments. Hence the debates about “state sovereinty”. The idea that the states had sovereign powers before the Constitution and maintained some of them afterwards was considered largely a truism at the time, the debates were over which powers and how much were surrendered. This is an extremely basic concept in federalism, so this makes your statements about the federalist papers seems even more silly.
Look, Meller, you can be a constitutionalist and not think the current one is perfect or the best (I, in fact, feel that way), but your historical claims are continuously total and absolute nonsense.*
*This message brought to you by the ghost of Vladimir Lenin (if he could legislate a decade after his death, there’s no reason he can’t sponsor thread posts almost a century later) XD
“like i said, i think there are viable constitutional theories that would produce a lot of the results you want. i disagree with them, but i think theyre viable. but heralding this line of thinking as a ‘return to constitutionalism’ is dishonest.
Agreed.
“as to wanting to pull apart the foundations of our government, that’s not a constitutional argument, that’s an argument about outcomes.”
Precisely. I “want” this, but I’m an anarchist, and I’m not claiming constitutional reasons or rationales for it.
There’s a lot of have it both ways when it comes to this issue. To put it mildly.
yeah, i dont vote libertarian so i must identify as a democrat or a republican. that is some high quality thinking going on right there.
-But it’s TRUE!
I heard there was this other party called the greens once, but Greens don’t exist, and are REDS, which are republicans, for just one example! Don’t you know there’s only three slots!
Paul is not running as a third party in this election, he’s vying for the Repubican ticket. As a member of a rather small third party myself, who has done volunteer work with other small third party campaigns, I have a fair understanding of how much ridiculous shit that involves. But Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket and contending for such at a national level, that’s patently not marginalized third party politics issues right there. – YES!
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.
We still have the problem of crawlling out alive from under the rubble. – Which is what the whole “build the new society in the shell of the old” thing is about. Although that’s work, hard work, and takes a lot of allies, and you can’t be all prophet of doom…
*This message brought to you by the ghost of Vladimir Lenin (if he could legislate a decade after his death, there’s no reason he can’t sponsor thread posts almost a century later) XD – He’s gonna come back, why do you think they preserved the body so well?
@dsc
one of the reasons i love that passage from no 33 i quoted above so much is that its a direct slam on strict constructionism, and roberts relied on language from the same essay defending his ‘textualist’ interpretation of the treaty clause in medellin v. texas without noticing that passage or the fact that 33 addresses the supremacy clause as a whole, not the treaty clause. wingers- they dont get more honest just cuz you put them in black robes.
One of the unpleasant features of electoral democrazy, is that only actual results are recorded. If you don’t vote for–and support and promote–libertarian candidates, and Demoblican racketeers win, your support for that outcome can be inferred, not because you, in fact did, but simply because voters and vote recorders and reporters aren’t mindreaders, and the results cited are the only ones that they have to work with.
It is in some ways even worse than you are suggesting. If your don’t vote (and campaign) for an alternative, everyone records you as being a voter for, and supporter of, a thoroughly defective status quo. This is rendered even worse by the fact that elections, no matter how rigged and dishonest, are themselves important guarantors of the legitimacy of this system, rotten as it is!
I don’t know what the answer is, but it would involve knowing that support for Ron Paul (or someone like him) campaigning for him, and promoting a real opposition politics to the extent that you could safely do so, is the FIRST step toward a freer economy and society. Even after a Libertarian (or Ron Paul) victory, the really hard work would just be beginning!
I never said that Ron Paul was running as a “third party” candidate, nor to I suggest that he do so! I used the third party simply as an example to get away from the major party–the Demoblicans!
One of the unpleasant features of electoral democrazy, is that only actual results are recorded. If you don’t vote for–and support and promote–libertarian candidates, and Demoblican racketeers win, your support for that outcome can be inferred, not because you, in fact did, but simply because voters and vote recorders and reporters aren’t mindreaders, and the results cited are the only ones that they have to work with.
or i could be voting for a third party other than the libertarian party. seriously, did you not think that through at all?
Sigh.
Just sigh.
Meller: Nobody knows what Ron Paul could or could not accomplish if he was elected President! It cannot even be intelligently speculated upon, because he, and we, are all in uncharted terrritory!
Which means there is no good reason to vote for him.
Seriously.
If there is no way to even speculate on the things which will happen should someone be elected there is every reason to not vote for them.
But you are wrong when you argue there is no way to speculate, because we have examples of what happens when someone who is opposed by the leglislative arm of a government is elected to the excutive office. That result is pretty much that they are stymied at introducing any significant change; and often stymied at getting things which are run of the mill business accomplished.
There is no good reason to suppose that Paul has the ability to persuade either party to do things which are against their general interest, esp. when it is a minority opinion in the electorate.
That Paul has been unwilling to run as a Libertarian; when he has had the strong support of his disctrict speaks against his being able to navigate that sort of political arena: he was unwilling to work to create the idea of a Libertarian plurality. That speaks to a lack of actual political savvy, implying he is more demagogue, in tune with the zeitgeist of his district, and dressing it up as a higher political purpose to cover those of his personal idiosyncracies which are at odds with the party in which he is serving.
Meller: Is the Military prepared to defend the Constitution, or are they (both enlistees and officers) going to “just follow orders” in the wake of impending, or ongoing, bankruptcy of the United States? If there is a split, how many will be wise enough, and patriotic enough to see Ron Paul as our only hope?
What
The
Fuck,
Dude?
Did you, mister, “I’ve never served because anything but the immediate defense of US territorial borders is immoral”, just advocate for a military coup to install a libertarian by force of arms?
Yes, yes you did.
No I didn’t! I simply was offering (one more) hypothetical scenario when civil government breaks down–as an inevitable outcome of Federal overrerach, “emergency powers, bureaucratic incompetence, currency collapse, and ordinary incompetence–how the military might respond, with or without Ron Paul.
We are afflicted with a criminal political/financial/bureaucratic elite that cannot govern the country, or what is left of it, even in relatively ordinary times. How the military will be affected when lines of authority and chains of command break down is an entirely reasonable question to ask. just as it is a reasonable question to ask what they will think of–and do about–the civilian ‘authorities” whose misconduct and shortsighted greed and stupidity brought what was once the greatest country in the world down to third-world levels.
dkm, why, in the event that the military had the opportunity to install a leader, would they choose ron paul, rather than someone less critical of the military industrial complex? and i say this as someone who thinks that ron paul’s criticism of the military industrial complex is perhaps his only good point.
seriously, does that not strike you as nothing more than wishful thinking?
Meller: 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?
Because a president with no power is as dangerous as one with all the power.
When you add that third party candidates are more often cannibalising from the party they are most like they end up being spoilers (from Hamilton’s disquiet about Adams second term; which allowed Jefferson to be elected: futher compromised by the convolute methods and motives of Aaron Burr, to Stephen Douglas giving a win to Lincoln, to the possibility that Perot and Nader weren’t running for the office, so much as they were running against [Perot to see Bush lose and Nader to see his son win]), and there is very good reason to oppose them.
Paul, from the Republican POV, increases the odds they will lose to Obama.
Here’s the thing – civil government is not breaking down in the US, nor is public order. I know that it probably feels that way to someone who thinks that our entire social order is insufficiently old-school, but in fact the government and public order are both doing just fine.
Just because you feel like the sky is falling doesn’t mean that it actually is. Much like the issue with the dolls, the fact that you are upset that things are not the way you wish they were is not actually a crisis for anyone except you.
For now…