Apparently Davis Aurini is capable of sometimes telling the truth.
As you may recall, the bald, semi-Nazi stain on humanity released his version of The Sarkeesian Effect (that was officially not his version of The Sarkeesian Effect) last week to something less than universal acclaim, with one critic describing the “film” as “worse than a dead squirrel in your wall.”
Ok, that was me.
Weirdly, it turns out that Aurini actually agrees with some of my criticisms. While still maintaining that his not-version of The Sarkeesian Effect is a “damn good film,” he admitted on a livestream last night that the section of his film critiquing Anita Sarkeesian’s alleged lies was “crap.”
He then suggested it would have been much better … if he’d actually watched Sarkeesian’s videos.
Yep. He spent a year — and tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money — ostensibly making a film about Sarkeesian. But somehow he never got around to watching any of her videos.
ETHICS!
You can hear the whole segment on “Bechtloff’s Saturday Night Livestream: Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour” on Youtube here. (The link should take you to the relevant portion of the livestrean, which starts just short of an hour and twenty minutes in.)
Here are the highlights.
In this first clip, Aurini responds to someone with a question about his attacks on Sarkeesian’s alleged dishonesty.
This clip ends a bit abruptly because Aurini was cut off by Bechtloff before finishing his sentence. Luckily, he went on to elaborate on his point. And threw in in a racial slur while he was at it, because why not?
And here he admits he didn’t bother to watch Sarkeesian’s videos.
It’s about ethics in making an entire film about someone without actually knowing anything about them.
EDITED TO ADD:
We Hunted the Mammoth has obtained this footage of Davis Aurini as a child.
H/T — Thanks to the alert reader who pointed me to the relevant section of the livestream.
Well, there are certain upsides, though that is a correct description of some downsides.
1. Owning an important road would be pretty nice for the owner.
2. People who drive infrequently would probably pay less in tolls than they do in taxes
3. Subject to terrain and various economic factors, it is possible to wind up in a scenario with multiple large competing road companies and have competition drive prices down, though odds are very good that they’ll cut deals or go out of business until there’s a road cartel.
4. Limited applicability, but a person or group with enough money could build a road where they wanted
Additional downside: there’s no point in building a toll road that doesn’t connect places people want to drive between, so if two cities are a hundred miles apart it doesn’t make sense to build a 50-mile segment of road along the path between them. So new roads come with an enormous upfront cost, significantly dis-incentivizing competition and undermining the theoretical cost savings. You could easily wind up with four regional monopolies who have a deal to stick to their own turf.
@Cleverforagirl
Well, I was raised Libertarian, with an Objectivist father,* and now I’m a socialist, so it can happen. I’ve also been able to get my dad to rethink some things, although only after some life events shook him up.
*I say “raised Libertarian” and not “raised Objectivist” because he didn’t talk much about Rand or push her books on me; I only learned he was a fan when I mentioned reading something of hers for school.
But with the land-claiming example, once again, what incentive does anyone else have to back off because you claimed a plot of land first? If they have the ability to take the land by force, why would they recognize your claim? And if they don’t have the ability to take it, why would it matter that you claimed it first?
@ IP
I’ll leave it for a bit in case anyone else want a go.
@Chess Burger Slut or whomever
Actually, I can do that. Not trying to be pedantic, but I can. I might get kicked out of the apartment, but I can do that, and it’s fine because nobody is going to put me in jail over it (except for the state, which has been making the world in even more inhospitable place towards the homeless for sometime). If it weren’t for the state requiring people to pay taxes and shit, the homeless might be able to find jobs, seeing as you need an address for a job and everything.
The laws of supply and demand would eventually even things out eventually, when it comes to roads and such. Or, people can privately fund systems of public transportation.
@katz
That’s where they appeal to magic.
Oh great, so the troll turned out to be a Randroid. Why are these antifeminists so goddamn predictable?
BTW, WeirWoodTreeHugger, you perfectly captured my exact thoughts on how feminists have accomplished more to help male suicide rates than antifeminists or MRAs or whathaveyou. Of course, even if feminists had done zero to help men, my initial statement remains true considering antifeminists are actively detrimental to the cause by shaming men for expressing vulnerability, sensitivity and any other emotion they deem too feminine (a.k.a. all emotions except anger). Not to mention the damage caused by MRA’s continued encouragement of unhealthy amounts of rage.
Anyways, back to discussions of people who think the world actually works like Atlas Shrugged. From what I gather, Libertarians are people would want to receive all the benefits of taxation but share none of the costs. Every benefit given by the government is taken for granted (like isidor’s hilarious example with roads), thus taxation is terribly ‘unfair’ and placing any sort of restriction on anything can’t possibly yield any positive (Let’s see how that fantasy plays out when your Randroid-esque company decides it doesn’t give a shit about health and safety for workers and nobody wants to help them)
Instead, they go on long tirades about how dare they be forced to lift a single finger to help another human being… whilst completely ignorant of all the people who’ve lifted all five of their fingers to help them.
Also, I love Steve’s comparison between Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged:
Also, is there any other political movement that is based around the idea that some magical infinite-energy-creation-machine actually exists?
Fuck, I’d sooner believe that I’m a muggle and that wizards exist.
@Galt
First! I apologize for being a bit upset at you last night. I was pretty cranky myself. In recompense I will ignore the insults in your reply, and hopefully we can put them all behind us from this point on.
http://iambrony.steeph.tp-radio.de/mlp/gif/50534___safe_fluttershy_animated_artist-archonitianicsmasher.gif
Second, and to your reply! I adore facts! I am an information scientist by trade, and knowledge engineering is my bread-and-butter, as it were!
I am, however, still waiting for some facts. You have yet to present any! I’ve just dug through all of your previous posts, starting on page 4 of this thread, and so far I’ve seen nothing but a middens of assertions, baseless refutations, and demonstrable ignorance. Here, I’ll pick one, it’s one of my favourites because it so excellently captures the problem.
There are so many things I want to say to this! I’ll start gentle, I promise.
First – you’re right, in a very important sense! The advance of technology is causing havoc all across society. Jobs are being eradicated by automation and globalization, resulting in record-breaking corporate profits along with an increasingly disenfranchized and struggling middle and lower class. This is an issue, and I’m 100% behind you – education is a huge part of the answer! That actually is part of what I do in the real world – working to improve the education system!
That said, there are two problems here. First is that you lay the blame for this at the feet of feminists. How is this the case? The governments of western countries are largely run by men, and often driven by lobbies representing corporate interests – corporate interests who are *very* interested in keeping labour cheap and uninformed. Where does feminism fit into that?
Second, the extension of “focusing exclusively on women’s educational needs”. Yes – because women and girls are culturally pressured into performing poorly in schoolwork, especially in STEM fields! I mean, look at this:
http://secretsandra.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/1024x/0dc2d03fe217f8c83829496872af24a0/t/o/too-pretty-to-do-math-womens-white-t-shirt.jpg
There are books dedicated to proofs of this point.
On this one point I can bring to bear the work of hundreds of individuals representing thousands of hours of study, at minimum. I can do the same for anything else you would like to dredge up.
Do yourself a favour – be more critical with your opinions! Start assuming that your personal opinions are wrong and go investigating! It’s what I do, and it’s what an ethical, thoughtful person does.
Give that book a read, or at the least try to approach conflicting ideas with a bit of charity – you might be pleasantly surprised!
@WWTH,
What a great way to put it! Capitalism is a great lever, but – well, even in its heyday it relied on crushing everything pinned under the fulcrum in order to do its lifting. Sometimes it crushes people (1900’s and thereabouts, today); sometimes it crushes the environment (well okay, all the time), but it relies on destruction to get the job done.
And destruction is a part of change and creation – but it needs to be balanced with preservation to be valuable.
Yes, it is a great idea you have had! A fantastic lens to put on the concept. Thank you!
Actually our conversation was about how he believes, as a libertarian, that it’s entirely possible to live in a community without depending on others who also live in that community, not about whether or not he should support the government paying for more roads and road maintenance. So. You’re wrong in your assumption there.
Okay, as long as you acknowledge that a private investor can charge you however much they want and change that price whenever they feel like it if you want to use their service, and you have absolutely no say in the matter even if they own every single road in your community – including the roads in your neighborhood. Where you live, and whose roads you must use. Gosh, that’s almost like a tax, except you have no say in how much tax you’ll pay to the private company for the road you must use!
Actually my response to that is, I never claimed to be a socialist/commie/anarchist/whatever. You can be a capitalist and acknowledge that there are problems with capitalism that require rethinking and reform – not that I am saying I am a capitalist except by default that I live in a capitalist society. I don’t know enough about economics to know which type I would support, if I would support any of the current types. Is it your opinion that capitalism is absolutely perfect and above criticism in any way?
Remember: These are people who believe that if we give more money to people who are already obscenely rich, it would end poverty since those rich people would give the extra money to charity. Because people aren’t selfish and greedy, see!
I.e. they don’t live in reality and don’t care about facts.
Orion, in general I only engage people IRL, so I tend to have a pretty good idea going in if they’re going to be receptive or not, but I am super stoked that talking and reasoning can work with some people. (Welcome to the dark side!)
Since I only recently stopped avoiding politics on the web, I’m just a little surprised at how many hateful shitlords are out there. (Hi Galt!)
@katz
To be fair, it does say “…your brain like billiards…” so I believe it does qualify as a simile. However IIRC a simile is a type of metaphor, so it’s a bit of a moot point.
@Scildfreja
I love your Fluttershy troll replies so much, please never stop.
@cleverforagirl,
I totally sympathize with the “Avoid talking politics” perspective. I actually avoid it in person, generally – mostly because I’m incredibly socially anxious and would rather not bother with the stress! If I can ask, what made you want to start engaging politically online?
And yes, they really are everywhere, aren’t they? I’m an optimist, but I have found myself taking the long view – I don’t think I’ll convince anyone in a given discussion, but if I give them something to think about, maybe in a year or two it’ll trigger some critical thought. That’s the only reason I engage, really, and why I try to be nice about it when I can.
@PI, RCBS
Why do you use duo-lingo for French? Assuming you haven’t heard of it and have yet to try it, I suggest you get Assimil, ESPECIALLY if you’re learning French. It can be a tad expensive, but there are places on the internet where you can find that product. It’s very good, and you can learn a lot of French in a short amount of time with it.
http://www.angryflower.com/murgal.gif
@dlouwe
http://i.imgur.com/W2GhR.gif
@cleverforagirl, I’m in the same boat as Orion. Politically, I’m the black sheep of the family because I’m the only liberal, and I have convinced my quite conservative father about a few things (pro gay marriage is the most recent example). However, I have to admit, I have always been skeptical of my family, even as a child, when they said nasty things about liberals, and the nasty things they said are what made me look more deeply at liberal politics.
@GenJones, omg, that comic is hilariously brilliant
I sometimes think libertarians are deliberately self defeating. The have a weird little niche ideology that could only be implemented if it got something close to 100% support, so what do they do? They spend all day every day trying to alienate anyone who’ll listen to them.
It’s almost like they love the dream of living in Galt’s Hull but are (understandably) terrified of the reality.
@ galt,
That is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. How about you find a single country/economic situation where that makes sense?
This may help:
https://www.homelessworldcup.org/homelessness-statistics/
Logistically, how does this even work? Are there going to be toll booths at every road? Who decides where the roads stop and end? Is there some unit of measurement that a single proprietor is ‘allowed’ to own? Do these toll booths take credit cards? How do you deal with people who drive down a road and don’t realize they’ve traversed on a road built by someone else and subject to a different fine? Who handles those disputes when they (inevitably) arise and how the hell is that more ‘effective’ than a system where no such disputes could ever happen?
In an hour long drive, how many times will I have to stop my car and pay a toll? You claim your system is more effective, but all it really seems like is a drastic pain in the ass that’s also way more expensive.
Logically, we can assume that there will be many different types of roads available to people. How do you avoid discrimination? Because if this were to actually happen, you can bet your ass you’ll see racist signs such as ‘this road is not open for gays’ and other bigotries.
Also what about when they’re only one way to get to a specific place such as a bridge or other high-density chokepoint? Let’s say I own the golden gate bridge. What’s stopping me from pulling a martin shkreli and quadrupling the rates overnight? People who live on one side of the bay and work on the other are completely screwed, and have no other options because in the (paraphrased) words of Ayn Rand, “Fuck them, they should have just built their own damn bridge”.
Economics 101: Market failures are a thing. Some goods, due to their nature and/or properties, cannot adequately fit the capitalist model of supply and demand.
Anyone with even a high-school understanding of microeconomics knows that goods with externalities (such as cigarrettes, and the externality being the long-term health impact) or public goods (such as roads, where regulating who’s using the service is too logistically complicated to be feasible) are market failures. The market literally is not capable of providing these.
You wanna know what roads would look like in a Randian paradise? My guess is there wouldn’t be any.
@Moocow
Is a category that excludes right – libertarians of all stripes.
@isidore
“Okay, as long as you acknowledge that a private investor can charge you however much they want and change that price whenever they feel like it if you want to use their service, and you have absolutely no say in the matter even if they own every single road in your community – including the roads in your neighborhood. Where you live, and whose roads you must use. Gosh, that’s almost like a tax, except you have no say in how much tax you’ll pay to the private company for the road you must use!”
Supply and demand will figure that out. If people charge too much for someone to use the road, people will stop using it. If people stop using it, then in order for it to be profitable, they will have to lower the price on it. Eventually, when they run out of money, if people start using the road anyway, they won’t be able to acquire a police force to stop people from using it, because they won’t have the money to pay for the police. There’s always the possibility that someone can be incentivized into lowering his price, if enough people get upset.
@Sir Bodsworth Ruggelby III
“Gault’s GULCH” not “Gault’s Hull.”
@Nate
Well, do you actually have anything to prove me wrong with? I just looked at that link, and all it did was talk about homeless people statistics around the world; I’m not sure that was supposed to prove or disprove anything or what? Don’t give me a bunch a junk that’s too much to read, a simple paper or something will do. And please, don’t link me to a bunch or books or anything.
@Imaginary Petal
No, I know full well that people are greedy; that’s why socialism doesn’t work, and I’m an AnCap Objectivist. Private vice leads to public virtue, as Mandeville says.
No, don’t you see? If the homeless didn’t have to pay taxes, they would be able to find a job to afford a home, because if they had a home, they’d have the address required to get a job!