Let’s celebrate this lovely February day with some random stupidity from Alcuin, a brave anti-misandrist intellectual titan who is single handedly bringing about what he calls “the Intellectual Renaissance of the Western Tradition.” Mostly by blathering on and on about how much ladies suck.
Some highlights from recent posts.
The history of achievement is, in fact, the history of male achievement to such an extent that, were women absent from human history, we might still be where we are today, but were men absent from history, da wimmin would be in the caves, screeching ‘n hollering at each other. …
Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. Feminists crafted VAWA, the beginning of the end of western freedom.
Shakespeare changed the English language. Sharon Osbourne laughs about the female mutilation of men.
Socrates established a way of thinking and reflection on the virtues that still inspires us. Women falsely accuse men of rape on a weekly or even daily basis.
Feminism is the KKK with tits. The only difference is that western women don’t have any shame, so don’t cover up with white bedsheets. They are openly supremacist. That is why their starting point parallels the KKK, but they tend towards Nazism as well. The Hitlerists were no more ashamed of their supremacism than western women are of theirs. Both bigoted groups, in fact, are quite proud of their prejudicial thinking.
Racial supremacists running around with bedsheets are cockroachy – they run to the darkness whenever light is shed on them. Feminists, like Nazis, prefer the limelight. Will we soon see Nazi-like rallies with tens of thousands of banshees and their manginic self-hating male bozos?
Everybody Loves Raymond, and your female supremacist mom
Men are made into buffoons by Hollywood because male buffoonery sells. Women eat it up as greedily as they inhale chocolate cake and buy useless luxury goods. “Everybody Loves Raymond” is Everyman. Why does your mother like that sitcom so much? Because she’s a female supremacist. Why does your girlfriend like that show? Because she’s a female supremacist.
That’s why the lady is a tramp
Life is too easy. It’s too easy for a woman to become a tramp, and experiment sexually and socially, so she does. What are the consequences? Our society has so much surplus that we’ve eliminated the consequences of bad or irresponsible behavior, at least for women. We are wealthy enough to reject the concept of shame. Thus, we have shameless hussies.
Perhaps because men are still the most creative movers and shakers of our society, men as a whole class have been pushed into being the responsible ones, the moral adults. Women are let off the hook, able to remain perpetual moral children, responsible for none of their behavior, such as drunken sex. Non-issues such as faulty breast implants or police warnings about slutware enrage these people because they face no real injustices or hardships.
Slutware?
Also, here are The Undertones, with “Life’s Too Easy.”
“, the only areas of feminism that can logically intersect with libertarianism would be the right to work outside the home and keep her earnings, the right to own and use her property independently of her father or her husband’s authority, the right to select or refuse her mate, and her right to sign contracts in her name, and with her own resorces. These are questions which have been resolved, at least to most feminist’s satisfaction, in the XIX century.”
…
Even though you don’t get to determine that, (see: Who The Hell Made You Head Libertarian, Part 9, “Who Are You, Anyway, And WHAT About Sexy Collector Dolls?,” Section B.)
I note that when I’ve mentioned the rights to contract, property, and mate choice, you’ve hemmed and hawed and said, WELL I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT!
So, again, still very, VERY relevant.
*hugs ami* 🙂
Also, I didn’t and don’t mean to imply when I point out that your knowledge is bizarrely stopped at a certain point that you have any particular expertise before that point. When you’ve displayed knowledge of historical libertarianism and libertarian works, it’s been full of holes. And not to brag (Because there’s nothing to brag about, most of the stuff you cite is very, very basic), but I don’t recall you ever bringing up an author or work I wasn’t familiar with. So your “WELL, YOU MAY BE UP TO DATE, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE VAST LIBERTARIAN HISTORY, OH LIBERTARIAN LADY THAT IS A HISTORY MAJOR” tack is not that advisable.
But the chicken doesn’t want you to stop. The chicken is very, very close now.
FREE EVAN.
I can see why people characterize DKM as having the vapors (all those exclamation points), and it certianly does piss him off in a lovely way, but I actually *imagine* his response as more that of a florid bulgy man with muttonchop whiskers wearing a too-tight waistcoast who is sputtering and frothing so much out of indignation that he can barely get intelligible sentences out (oh, I see DKM types lots of sentences, but emphasis here is on intelligible).
So, yeah, sputtering and frothing out of pure undiluted outrage at the harridans and shrikes who keep contradicting him, showing him up, and refusing to acknowledge his manly manliness manly penile godhood.
ALSO:
FREE EVAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
OMG – I hope Evan is ok!?
zhinxi-February 12, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
And David didn’t mean to imply that you were an expert in anything at all! Just because David suggested that you were too focused on current studies doesn’t mean that I was suggesting your knowledge of modern affairs was correct, or accurate!
As David brilliantly noted above, which Zhinxi (and Ami Angelwings) probably struggled to understand, “Libertarian feminism” is simply impossible! Oil and water do not, and can never mix, and neither can Libertarian principles and the vileness you call feminism!
David has never “hemmed and hawed” on the rights to contract, property, and mate choice! In fact, it has been the exact reverse! It is you, Zhinxi (and Ami Angelwings) who have “hemmed and hawed”! It is you who appear lost and confused, struggling to keep up with ideas you have very little comprehension of! I have made my opinions on the matter clear and obvious!
Again, David has better things to occupy his mind with than to come here and argue with feminists who will not even take a precious few minutes to read my brilliant analysis! Trying to teach feminists is like trying to teach a wooden log to hunt! It’s impossible and David has other things to do!
Irene – please just tell us if you’ve heard from or seen Evan recently?
Sample of how DKM responds to people:
Sample of how Irene responds to people:
Um… I don’t think that’s Irene behind the computer… :
Meller, using your lady lovely’s screen-name? Even for YOU, that’s low!
http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm
There’s good copyright stuff there, Kinsella’s and otherwise, by the way. Cutting edge, and all that. 😉
Ok, my acknowledging the creepiness was NOT a call for taking it up a notch.
I’m surprised it took DKM so long to figure out the obvious response–although it doesn’t really matter because his unique and exclamation point prone style is nothing like the more restrained and sophisticated one of the REAL Irene!
FREE EVAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
zhinxy, DKM has a sort of victim-blamey comment in moderation directed at you; let me know if you want me to let it through or not.
Also, Irene seems to be posting from quite a ways away from DKM’s location. Maybe she escaped?
DavidFutrelle, Please, I can handle it, and I’ve been asking him about that for a long time. 🙂
“A business that hires women to execute mens’ jobs, and mens’ responsibilities, is not using its labor resources, and probably other factors in the most value productive way! ”
And this is true WHY, head libertarian?
Have you proved the Marginal Theory of Women Suck in some profound way? Then don’t hold back?!!!
I thought Mellertron had better things to do xD
What are “men’s jobs” and “men’s responsibilities”? o_O
I’ve recommended Lessons For the Young Economist to you before, and I would like to do so again. It’s a wonderful, up to date lesson series on macro and micro economics from a mostly Austrian perspective. I think it would really, REALLY help your understanding of the theory. As it is, you keep regurgitating some really, really odd pseudo-Austrian stuff at me, and it’s kind of sad, really.
And no, I’m not fully subscribed to the Austrian School, but deeply indebted to it. As it is I have a dash of chicagoite, public choice, and newer variations of mutualism. I’m not a perfect example of any strain of libertarian economics, because I don’t think a perfect strain of libertarian or any other economics exists yet. Regardless, the worlds you spin are clearly INFLUENCED by Austrian works you’ve read, but they’re deeply incoherent. I’d tell you to read Hazlitt again, but I think there’s some flaws in his explanations that haven’t helped you so far. Lessons For the Young Economist is probably your best bet.
“Libertarian feminism is, as far as one can see, if not an oxymoron, than a vision with a LOT of inconsistancies. ”
How would you know? Again, just claiming it’s not your interest when you WON’T SHUT UP about it doesn’t work. I’ve given you quite a lot on the subject, most of it very brief, and you come back with very little of value in return, except some comical misunderstandings of what you manage to read. When I go into detail about your ridiculous LIBERTY VS. EQUALITY pseudo-paleo jibberings and how theyr’e dealt with, you give me hnothing but SCROLL UP AND SEE WHY WOMEN SUCK!
Again, you’re a guy with his dolls. Why should I think of you as any sort of learned libertarian, the way you obviously think I should?
Meller let his cover slip! I think he’s talking about the Gilded Age (what with the heavy implicit scare quotes around “liberty”, “private property”, and “justice”). So we know Meller’s at least 150 years old or so. O_O
“There is no money monopoly but that means that owners of investment capital must be extra careful as to where they put their funds, whether they are “stuffy white guys” or not. ”
Err, well, people must certainly not run into big, inflation-crazy schemes on the assumption of bailouts, and so prudence in that sense is necessary…
But are you really so unfamiliar with the idea that breaking the money monopoly also leads to a climate where failure is not abject ruination, opportunities abound, and people can pick themselves up and try a new tack? That’s usually implied to be a great good, you know? Vibrant market and all that? You seem to love the idea of people being economically forced into destitution or compliance with your order, and a free market system does not predict that, no matter how much you say it does.
You’re OBSESSED with crazy levels of scarcity, and capital in the hands of the Prudent Who Are Like You, and despite your constant repitions of THIS IS HOW IT IS GOING TO BE. WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT IT WILL BE LIKE THIS. THIS IS A FREE MARKET. I READ SOME BOOKS AND STUFF,…
You don’t have any reasons WHY.
You seem to love the idea of people being economically forced into destitution or compliance with your order, and a free market system does not predict that, no matter how much you say it does.
Bingo. xD
That’s the problem with all the MRA “IN A WORLD WITHOUT THE STATE” thing… like NWO. They all want a world where everybody not them is forced by threat of death or poverty to be subservient to them. If you point out ways that won’t happen, they get very upset and insist NO THAT’S WHAT WILL HAPPEN >_>
They don’t want a world where ppl can pick themselves up, they want one where ppl (that they don’t like) get stomped on.
Meller: I see some of your problem (well, I see lots, but we’ll try to limit this to things you might pay attention to).
You think (as did Bud) that you ought to be believed, just for having spoken.
My answer was treated as if I had not responded at all. After an apology that I am “sorry that I wasted your time’, My reply was taken as if I had actually wasted the questioner’s time! If my replies are not even going to be read, I am not going to pursue anything like a steady effort to reply to you!
As you say, right in there, you are being read, it’s just that you are either not actually responsive, or aren’t convincing. When aren’t being responsive, you are wasting people’s time, because they do read what you say.
I also won’t criticise you when you try to add some nasty, stinging red wasps to your butterfly collection, won’t say a word when you cuddle your cactus, or, as per examples cited above, try to cook you food in the freezer, or chill it in the oven.
And you are again, pretending that not swearing is being polite, or not saying, “you are stupid” is the only way to criticise is to be overt. You are a passive aggressive shit… I think you really want to be excoriated, so you try to push people’s buttons in the hopes they will abuse you.
The nonsense that my posts “excused” or “justified” the abuse of women? I repeatedly said, along with the continuous denouncing of domestic violence of any kind for any reason, that a man wants his woman to love him, respect him, and appreciate his company. He would therefore, for his own reasons, regardless of temperment, be inclined to treat her with gentleness, consideration, and love. He would no more want to beat her, stab her, rape her, or otherwise terrorize her than he would try to cook his supper in the refrigerator, or keep ice-cold drinks in his oven! Such action would, and could, NEVER yield the desired results, even with pets or livestock, much less with his nearest and dearest!
Again, this is nonsense, in the first, you aren’t condemnig abuse, you are saying that it won’t do what you think is the aim of men in relationtiops.
But let’s ask a few simple questions.
1: What should happen to a man who abuses his partner?
1a: What should happen to a woman who is abused.
Addendum: Please be so kind as to explain any variance from any previous answers to either of these questions.
2: What should happen to a woman who chooses to not take the work she is, “offered” in the brothel should she have sex without permission from her father?
2a: What should happen to her if she decides to leave the brothel?
2b: What if a woman wants an education?
3: If Everything else, even the “right” to vote, to “hold office” to “sit on juries”, to receive an abortion, etc. are law-granted PRIVILEGES, not rights! who shall grant them in Mellibertopia.
3a: Why should those people be the ones who “grant” those privileges? What shall give them the “right” to confer those, “privileges.
3b: What if those to whom they wish to deny those, “privileges” don’t accept their authority to grant them, and refuse to accept the authority of those people?
4: How is liberty incompatible with equality?