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.
Even Meller seems to get this…
@CassandraSays
Go wiki-knowlege. You do know wikipedia is opinion based, right? Well if the UN says it’s so it must be true. Let’s give them more control! I mean thank the goddess in all women the UN went in to kill lotsa people in Libya, because….. Well who the hell cares really. The UN said so. That’s what matters.
haha nwo did NOT read the link
You didn’t notice how it referred to guidelines that are in the DSM too? Learn to read, Slavey.
You really should look into treatment options, it might make you a happier person.
XD
SO Meller’s now into “I’M RIGHT BECAUSE I AM!” and NWO is “You’re a STATIST NO MATTER WHAT, NO DEBATE”
xD
Some ppl are just a LITTTLE scared to actually debate Libertarianism with Zhinxy hmmm? xD
What’s to discuss? Whatever you pretend to be, you’re a statist.
Oh? How is she a statist? Outside that in your world, a person who doesn’t believe in government control (like Zhinxy) is a statist and somebody who desperately wants MORE government control (like you) is not XD
um OKAY NWO
I actually realized last night that NWO doesn’t stand for New World Order… it stands for New WORD Order… (it explains why he can’t spell or write)
this new definition pretty much explains how he can go “I AM A TOTAL LIBERTARIAN” while… y’know… not being one xD
You HAVE read her posts NWO, that’s why you’re so scared to actually TALK now… you’re pretty much in “oh f- she knows stuff.. I… can’t even name a Libertarian writer… ” mode now xD
NWO has a hilarious bug up his ass about Wikipedia. It’s only antique Britannicas for him!
in Inmalafide, they call Libertarians LIEbertarians…..
i confused them with Librarians once….
Hang on – are we talking about big-endian eggists, or little-endian eggists?
Wouldn’t all of the arguments regarding ‘sluts” and the “cause” and “cure” of “sluthood”–sexual overactivity and promiscuity by females–be rendered obsolete if girls were subject to closer and more consistant supervision by their families, communities, and the larger society from early childhood till marriage?
You can’t have “sluts” if the sexual availability of girls is strictly contained or forbidden, if unmarried girls from good families are simply unavailable for use, and even for observation without the knowledge and consent of the father, mother, and perhaps older women of the family, along with close and trusted friends or neighbors to say nothing about, (if called for) the local constabulary!
This is where legal, and even praiseworthy “prostitution”, may be useful, if not indispensible
There would, of course, be a number of “independent” or rebellious women who would chafe at the restrictions upon the women of such a society! these women would resort to promiscuity and sexual license as an expression of independence, ruining them for marriage, but certainly not for the entertainment of men!There are, of course, in any society and economy, also a number–perhaps even a large number–of women who can only gain a livelihood–so to speak–by sexually servicing men. these women have been abandoned by their familes and are for all practical purposes, nameless and homeless. Why not, instead of outlawing their behavior, put it to good use for the benefit of everybody concerned?.
Unmarried women with no status or family associations, would be freely and confidentially available for the use of men in the community to whom access to virgins–and the wives of other men–was forbidden. Those women would also be kept clean and well trained by their house and its management.
These women, or, more likely, their employers, who kept, trained, and protected them, would be well paid for girls’ sexual availability and skill, as well as for any other entertainment offered to their guests.
The girls and the houses which managed them would thus also act to help protect the virginity and purity of the girls from good families, and hence the issue arising from the existence of female promiscuity would be peacefully and profitably resolved to the benefits of all concerned!
Now isn’t all of this worry about so-called “sluts” and female promiscuity really overblown?
If he really cared, he’d have to care about men other than himself — in fact, he’d have to care about men who are not white and not straight and not working class and all these other things that the milkslave passionately hates. The milkslave just likes keeping the idea of the state threatening to throw him in prison as material for his masturbatory fantasies.
Which is fine. Masturbate to whatever you like, milkslave. Just keep it to yourself, dude.
now I’m picturing an anarchist librarian’s library XD
Hmm. I guess since the DSM is less than a century old it must be evil feminist propaganda, despite the psychiatric profession being rather male dominated.
I bet if she wanted to debate Star Wars EU with you though, you’d jump right in. I’m starting to wonder if that’s the only thing you’ve actually ever read xD For all your talk of being TEH LIBERTARIAN GOD, it seems like your REAL expertise might be in Star Wars novels. xD
Are you planning to avoid ever talking about your stateless society again? How ARE you going to avoid her XD Face it NWO, you’ve based your entire persona and cred here on being a supposed “Libertarian” (even though as I’ve pointed out over and over, you’re one of the biggest statists here… you want to control SO MANY ppl’s bodies and personal lives xD ) and now… you’re in trouble b/c somebody is actually on that same game space as you’ve been exposed as a fraud xD
You can still be the Star Wars expert tho! 😀
Wouldn’t all of the arguments regarding ‘sluts” and the “cause” and “cure” of “sluthood”–sexual overactivity and promiscuity by females–be rendered obsolete if girls were subject to closer and more consistant supervision by their families, communities, and the larger society from early childhood till marriage?
You can’t have “sluts” if the sexual availability of girls is strictly contained or forbidden, if unmarried girls from good families are simply unavailable for use, and even for observation without the knowledge and consent of the father, mother, and perhaps older women of the family, along with close and trusted friends or neighbors to say nothing about, (if called for) the local constabulary!
What if they don’t want to be? Then what?
Who is going to contain or forbid them if they don’t want to be? o:
@zhinxy
Do you have the right of life, property, autonomy, and vote? Well that’s all there is there ain’t no more! You must want something extra.
If you want equality, that’d mean no more abortion, (the right to life). No more alimony, (the right to property). 100% equal custody in divorce, (for lack of a better term, property). No Title IX, AA, quotas, ect.
So how’s that equality sound now?
now I’m picturing an anarchist librarian’s library XD
Been there! Well, it wasn’t her own personal library, but I’ve been to a library with an anarchist librarian!
wait, just a general question, if I am a single male and on Saturday night, not out and trying to get laid, does that make me a MGTOW by default?
Meller why is it so important to you to control people? o_O I thought you were for personal freedom and people not being controlled :3
You have your dolls if you want to play with things :3 Which you do! (I still think this is adorable xD )
@Ami Angelwings
A little boy pretending to be a girl.
I doubt there’s too much you could teach me about reality.
zhinxy, was the shelving anarchic?
I got to say, it is useful and sometimes-comforting* information that there really isn’t any such critter as a misogynist who is not nuttier than a wholly squirrel-owned nut factory.
* Except when it is so, so incredibly NOT comforting.
stoner – you are only a MGTOW if there are hordes of sluts disappointed by your staying home 🙂
Hahaha, this is the funniest perversion of libertarianism ever:
NWO’s libertarianism is apparently the kind where the government steps in to prevent abortions and where it dictates the terms of marriage contracts. SO LIBERATING!
Now isn’t all of this worry about so-called “sluts” and female promiscuity really overblown?
Yes it is, but only in the sense that’s it’s not actually something to worry about.