Over on his little chateau, otherwise known as a blog, the pick-up Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy suggests a rather unusual role model for young and not-so-young men hoping to impress women with their alphaness: Chris Brown. Not for being a charismatic singer, but for that time he nearly beat Rihanna to death.
Oh, you don’t have to literally beat up women to be an alpha. Just work on making them uncomfortable and insecure.
Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.
You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.
In addition to everything else that is horribly wrong with this quote, let me just say that “lit up like a vagina tree” is not a phrase that I hope works its way into the vernacular.
So far, so good.
Steele: Or they provide motivation to be corrupt more cleverly. There’s really a corruption/preventing corruption arms race here.
Effie: IQ is a… problematic measure, for a host of reasons. (Ask Darksidecat, zie’s more familiar with it than I am.) Also, it’s important not to essentialize groups, especially if it feels good to do so; not all conservatives are dumb bigots, and not all liberals are smart and unprejudiced. And while I don’t have access to the study, I think I heard something about one of those politics-and-brain-type studies having an *extremely* shoddy methodology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPaDgBPbTqA Here’s some french Jazz-Punk, for those here who could count that as brain bleach.
Wait a sec, lemme try that again:
Excuse me. I have spent far too long debating with babbling idiots and rebutting ridiculous anarchist philosophy. Where does the time go? Ah, well.
@Cloudiah: *blushes* i’m honored! You totally have my permission!
We need more METAPHOR MEN on patrol!!!!!!!!!!
Hahahahaha! Good one.
Wait a sec . . . that was supposed to be a joke, right? I mean, no one would say that and seriously mean it. (Well, no, that’s not quite true: I can totally see Owly saying that with nothing but utter sincerity. So no one other than Owly would be more accurate.)
Guys, I’m honestly confused. I really can’t tell whether or not scrapemind meant that as a joke.
I’m at a loss here.
Does scrapemind seriously think that government began when God created Adam from the dust of the ground and gave him dominion over the Earth?
As far as creation myths go, I actually rather like Genesis. I know a lot of religious people read it as a metaphor. And that makes a lot of sense, given all the symbolism in the story.
But it sounds to me like scrapemind believes that God literally told Adam that he had dominion over the Earth and that governments themselves are derived from the literal bloodline of a literal Adam. And while I’m fine with metaphorical readings of Genesis, I have a bit of a problem when people start taking it as literal truth, especially if they are going to do so in order to attempt some bizarre justifications for why the world is the way it is. And it seems to me like scrapemind is doing the latter.
Should I point out that there never was a literal Adam? The human population never consisted of just one man and one woman. I doubt the human species would have survived such a bottleneck. If by some miracle, the human population did indeed go through such a bottleneck, then we should be able to see that in our DNA. But we don’t. We do, however, find evidence of much less severe bottlenecks in our genes. There was never any point in human history where there weren’t hundreds. (The lowest the human population could ever have possibly reached is about 1,200. Now, I’m not a geneticist, so it could be that more information has come out since or that I’ve misinterpreted what people who actually understand the field have told me and that this number doesn’t really account for the whole population. In which case, the lowest point that the human population ever reached would be higher than 1,200.)
that’s what we keep saying but you won’t stop stalking us
What’s the bet that, even though only two or three people out of a dozen or more were advocating for Anarchism, he flounces off to OOF to claim he won a battle with the Anarchist/Feminist hivemind?
What’s this? Squirsteele is trying to evolve!
Dun-dun-dun-dudun-dun
Dun-dun-dun-dudun-DUN!
DUN-DUN-DUN! TADADADA-TADA!
Congratulations! Squirsteele has evolved into Warchortle!
I don’t totally advocate hard anarchism, at least not right away, I think that it would be far better to slowly transition towards it, allowing governments as we currently know them to become obsolete and dissolve themselves through social progress and/or technology. I guess I’m a bit of a softie that way.
it’s like when he told us that he snorts derisively in real life, except somehow…. even lamer than that
Nuts. Now that the Jester’s fool’s merryandrew’s harlequin’s clown’s patsy has gone, I’d better get back to studying.
Anathema, I’m not convinced scrapemind believes anything zie says. I’m pretty sure zie’s just trying to stir up shit.
Varpole: Typical misunderstanding of Objectivist philosophy. The state should exist to provide a framework for great men to rise to prominence and a medium through which others may acknowledge his greatness; it is only in the economic sector that Objectivism calls for minimal government intervention (that is, laissez-faire capitalism).
Oh sweet suffering Jesus. The state exists to make people acknowledge the greatness of great men? Bullshit. If they are all that great they don’t need the state.
You realise that what you just described is not all that far, in the first half, the basis for Stalin, and Solon, and Idi Amin, and Khameni, and Caligula, and Domition and Justinian, and Tamerlane, and Ivan Gromky, and Robespierre, and Papa Doc Duvallier, and Juan Peron and every other tyrant people like you use to show how evil the, “wrong”, sort of government is. The second half is discredited because there is no such beast as a gov’t market which is laissez-faire, in the way you praise it. Those are gov’t markets meant to enrich certain interests. If you are one of those interests (a Carnegie, or a Rockefeller, or an Armour Meats), you do well. If you aren’t, the Big Boys crush you.
I chortle – because I simply believe the basic assumptions to be erroneous. We are naturally inclined to selfishness; capitalism is thus the only form of economicity that accomodates for our natural state of being.
Dude… you need to brush up on the actual functions of non-monetary economies; say the Tiv, or the ways in which Islamic non-state markets managed to function on the credit of reputation. The economic model you worship, is that of a interventionist state reifying coinage, and allowing for debt-peonage. Slaves and masters is what your vision of the best of all possible worlds is.
Your Hobbesian idea of how people interact, is bogus dude. Really, you need to brush up on the actual basics of non-state managed markets. They work. The just don’t work in the ways that make money the purpose of trade.
Ridiculous. As John Locke notes, it is in our own self-interest to create a fair, just and working government; in this Social Contract, we give up some basic freedoms in return for protection, community and a vastly increased quality of life.
So you admit an arnarcho-communism can work. You are growing in wisdom Grasshopper.
One guy can’t seize power. An army can, but armies take money. If money isn’t the medium of exchange (and it doesn’t have to be), or if that money doesn’t work in the areas the armies are operating in… the Army will fall apart. People don’t get themselves killed for someone else’s glory. Imagine, if you will, an Army; the most powerful army in the world, invading a country of only 30 million people. Imagine those 30 million people (or just a significant minority) having the means, and the will, to resist.
Will that Army prevail? Ask Petraeus. Ask the Nato Commander in Afghanistan right now.
Power isn’t as easy to take as you think. It’s harder to keep. To keep it, even for a tyrant, requires the acquiescence of the people. Absent that, it’s like holding a non-newtonian fluid. The least loss of pressure and it oozes away.
Varpole: Indeed, you can, and clearly many people are. Others are working against them. This is how the Contract is supposed to work – negotiation amongst the people.
I thought the purpose of the contract was for Great Men to use The System, to demonstrate their greatness and be praised while The Market ran around doing Stuff, so that other Great Men could have all the money while the Proles suffered and praised the Great Men.
Now I find out it’s supposed to have negotiation? What about Galt?
Excuse me – so what are you arguing against? Capitalism, or government? These are two different things, you know.
This is true, and not true. Capitalism requires capital. Capital requires gov’ts, because capitalism is the work of making Money become Commodity become More Money (M C M’). In its purest (and least stable form), it’s about making Money become More Money (M M’). To do that requires a Gov’t to make reify theoretical (and quite useful) value of the money into some sort of absolute.
You suffer from the problem of having already reified the money, so that aspect of the problem is invisible to you, and you think it a constant factor in all relations between people. But it’s not. The basis for all transactions between people is actually a sort of communism, and it’s quite functional at the scales most people lived their lives in until quite recently. Money is useful, but money ; and markets, are tools, creations of people. We “choose” the forms they take, but the forms we are using aren’t defined by some sort of natural law; we define them.
Ithiliana is memorialized on my very silly, parasitic blog:
http://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/book-em-ithiliano/
Umm, shall I go get some more kitties to relieve the tension from prior unpleasentness?
Here’s the corgicam again while you wait.
@pillowinhell WTF with that Spearhead thread. Holy…
This one reminded me a bit of the “scented fucking candles” rant.
I guffawed. Others may have tittered.
I snickered.
Wow….”calculated level of discomfort and insecurity.” Not surprised he wrote this, not at all. It’s very Symbionese Liberation Army type stuff. He seems to be admitting, “Why would a woman stay with me unless she had a knife (metaphorically speaking) at her throat at all times?” Whew. Well, at least that dude admits that he can’t achieve a “relationship” without some big time mind fuckery. It’s true, dude. You couldn’t….ever. At the same time, there seems to be some wish fulfillment going on here. He claims he uses this tactic, and is bragging about it, even though he doesn’t have any anecdotes to make it more believeable that it did happen.
His figures of speech? Ewww. Yeah, my college profs would have fried his balls for breakfast for his utter lack of thoughtfulness and talent. Jesus, they would have red inked his ass until he understood analogies, metaphor and hyperbole.
@aworldanonymous: I like this one better.
http://youtu.be/OJ-RjokL3TQ
That would explain a lot, actually.
Sorry for the massive wall-o-text response to scrapemind there. (It didn’t seem that long when I was typing it.) Even if scrapemind actually believed what they said, I doubt they’d actually be convinced by things like facts anyway.
So I guess it’s back to dealing with Steeledude and his mangling of the English language, then.
pre-fuck you to the haters, pink floyd rules
not political, but just to re-establish my punk cred
political again and probably the best song conor oberst ever wrote