Categories
alpha males alt-right entitled babies gender policing heartiste hillary clinton homophobia internet tough guy manginas masculinity men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA trump

Heartiste: Defeat Hillary by calling her male supporters “mincing betaboys”

Mad Magazine on Mad Max: Fury Road
Mad Magazine on Mad Max: Fury Road

I admit I probably write about pickup-artist-turned-alt-right-opinion-haver Heartiste a bit more often than he merits. But his combination of furious bigotry and purple prose is irresistible.

Consider his brilliant new plan to defeat Hillary Clinton by impugning the masculinity of her male supporters.

“All politics is gonadal,” he declares in a post on his blog today.

Given this reality, the most effective political persuasion techniques are those that evoke the ancient rhythms of the sexual market.

Rhythms?

Heartiste ‘s favorite “persuasion technique?” Calling people names in order to make them feel bad about themselves. In this particular case, he hopes to make Hillary’s male supporters so ashamed of their alleged betahood that they can’t bring themselves to actually vote.

[I]f sufficiently shamed and ostracized by effective [counterpropaganda] that leverages the power of anxiety over one’s sexual market status, many nominal males who plan to vote for Inmate Hillary can be dissuaded from exercising their right to notarize the featherweight class of their shrunken scrotes.

Yeah, I don’t know why he writes like that.

Much as virulent homophobia can force gays into the closet, Heartiste suggests, shaming male Hillary supporters as “manginas” will keep them from going to the polls.

Just as a healthy and strong society with rock-ribbed shitlord norms can keep gays far enough in the closet that their petri dish flamboyance doesn’t creep out the kids, so can a fearless embrace of immutable and omnipotent sexual market law — and the exploitation thereof — cow mincing betaboys from pulling the lever for thec*nt.

In case you’re having a little trouble parsing the end of that sentence — I had to reread it several times myself — he’s using “cow” as a verb. “Cow-mincing” isn’t a real thing, though perhaps it should be.

Also, thec*nt (with its “u” uncensored) is Heartiste’s favorite nickname for Hillary, though you probably figured that out already.

You may be wondering how exactly Heartiste’s brilliant new strategy differs from the traditional alt-right strategy of calling everyone “cucks.”

For one thing, it uses a greater number of words, castigating Hillary’s male fans as “nominal males,” “mincing betaboys,” and “f*ggy Millennial manlets with incipient bitch tits.” Obviously this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than just calling them “cucks.”

Heartiste also suggests that his fans make use of a helpful visual aid in their efforts to shame the aforementioned “mincing betaboys” into non-voting. Namely. this little meme here.

heartistemadmaxmeme

The picture at the top of the meme is, as you’ve probably gathered, a still from Mad Max: Fury Road.

I’m guessing Heartiste has not seen the film.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
4 years ago

@Jesalin – You’d be hard-pressed to find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than incel forums like SlutHate and r/incel. Bunch of budding Elliott Rodgers, the lot of them. The other day on Reddit, one of them was insisting that date rape drugs (specifically, scopalamine, aka “Devil’s Breath”) should be distributed free to incels so that they could enjoy guilt-free sex with women unable to exercise their free will or form memories. It’s beyond disgusting.

Anyway, I came back in here to point and laugh at “incipient bitch tits”, which has got to be one of the weirdest and most toothless insults ever. Like, “I’m going to call you this crass name, but then I’m going to qualify it with a flowery word that means you aren’t that thing, yet.” I’m picturing Heartiste 100 feet away from the polling station yelling “Potential mangina! Inchoate betacuck!” at men who don’t look sufficiently ignorant and angry enough to be Trump supporters.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

Inchoate betacuck

If only I hadn’t changed my nym fairly recently…

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
4 years ago

@EJ – 😀 Along with Pepe, we need to free Heartiste’s thesaurus.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@Jesalin
The thing that really bothers me about incels is the way they treat people not wanting to have sex with them like rape. Or sometimes they even act like it’s somehow worse than rape and use that to justify rape. It makes me feel ill.

Weird (I voted to show my beta-tude) Eddie
Weird (I voted to show my beta-tude) Eddie
4 years ago

cow mincing betaboys

“cow mincing”?? What the heck is “cow mincing”???

This fool writes like an igno-right propaganda minister. Oh, I forgot… HE IS!!!

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
4 years ago

Funny thing is, by the definition of Heartiste and his ilk, I am a beta. I generally put the needs of my friends and family at the same level as my own, I actually listen to people (including ‘gasp’ women), I eagerly sacrifice my own time and resources to help out other people, and I will always do all in my power to support my significant other. I used to think that was called ‘being good people’. I have now learned that this is also called ‘beta-male behavior’. Who knew?

My father is exactly the same way. In fact, he’s so beta that when his father passed, he’d drive up to Montana three times a year to help his mother keep up her house (grans arthritis made it difficult for her to do a lot of the bigger things, like setting up the sprinkler system in spring or re-roofing the house before winter). Then, when it became clear her dementia was too far progressed for her to safely look after herself, he took early retirement to move up to Montana and care for her.

My fathers father was also the same. He was so beta that when the family business went under in Southern Minnesota and his siblings moved to Canada looking for work, he stayed to look after his parents (that would be my great grandparents). Why? ‘Because that’s what the oldest son did back then’.

It works for us (if it didn’t neither my father nor I would exist). Contrary to what the self-proclaimed ‘alpha males’ tell themselves, many women actually respect a person who will treat them as fully realized human beings, share decision making with them, and who will always have their back. Many women will even respond in kind (you know, like regular people do).

Also, we’re voting for Hillary. I voted last Monday. Dad’s voting on election day. Grandpa’s dead, but if we could swing it, he’d vote for Hillary too (I’m sure he’d be as offended by Donald Trump as the rest of us are).

Betas for Hillary 2016.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
4 years ago

Also, I’d never heard of ‘incel’ before. After reading the comments, I don’t think I want to learn more about them.

For the record, for about a decade, I assumed I was never going to be in a romantic relationship, but I never blamed that on anyone but myself. I just wasn’t interested enough in romance to put any effort into it, I knew that, and I wasn’t particularly unhappy that way.

Then I met my spouse, and I changed my mind 😉

It’s been Disney (as far as the relationship goes, at least) for the past year and a half. Here’s hoping that trend continues.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

The other day on Reddit, one of them was insisting that date rape drugs (specifically, scopalamine, aka “Devil’s Breath”) should be distributed free to incels so that they could enjoy guilt-free sex with women unable to exercise their free will or form memories. It’s beyond disgusting.

There was once an economist (whose name I don’t want to look up) who made the argument that if you have sex with someone who doesn’t remember it afterward, no crime was committed. The rationale was that the trauma of rape is in the memory of the rape, so no memory = no trauma, and no trauma = no crime. It would actually be an efficient use of resources and increase the world’s utility.

He claimed he did not pose this as something he was arguing to be true, but rather as an interesting discussion question for his students and others to examine.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@PoM
This guy would totally be okay with it if we drugged him and tortured him, then, as long as we kept him drugged long enough for all physical wounds to heal before his mind is able to form memories again. Right? Just an interesting thought experiment I came up with. I’m not arguing for it to be true or anything.

(/s, in case that wasn’t obvious)

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

Congratulations, joekster. I hope it continues to be Disneyland for as long as you both want it to be.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

@kupo

As I recall, a similar argument was made back at him (would he feel the same way if he was the one being raped) and he calmly asserted that his opinion wouldn’t change. Most of the action I saw was happening on a message board online and you can guess what kind of responses resulted. I found his sense of privilege a little breathtaking – it was obvious that the threat of rape wasn’t real to him.

Jesalin
Jesalin
4 years ago

Re: incels

I could wax lyrical in my extreme distaste for these..individuals, but I doubt I’d say anything that hasn’t been said before. I usually have sympathy for anyone afflicted with social anxiety, I deal with it myself. But instead of doing anything constructive, these useless piles of sentient toxic shit cry and rage like it’s the end of the world and dream about rape being easy and legal, just because they can’t get their dicks wet. If my *only* problem in life was a lack of sex I’d be freaking ecstatic…

Yeah, I think I should stop before I have an aneurysm.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
4 years ago

@EJ: Thanks 🙂

@Jesalin: yeah, I hear ya. If a person wants to have sex and isn’t having sex, than it is in no way the responsibility of anyone to provide that person sex. Sex is not a service or a product to be provided, nor is anyone not currently sexually active being ‘deprived’ sex. It’s an activity to be engaged in by two mutually consenting people.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

It’s been awhile since we had an incel troll here, but even the ones who say they’re not in favor of rape and don’t hate women are still pretty bad. They have the unpleasant tendency to treat every space as a free therapy and dating advice service and make everything about them and their sad boners all the time. If we express a desire to not spend all our free time lavishing them with attention, then we are meanie pants who can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be rejected or feel insecure and awkward. When it’s pointed out that their self centeredness is likely a big part of why they have trouble finding a partner, it doesn’t even register. They just go right back to assuming no woman would ever date a shy guy.

It’s like talking to a brick wall. I can’t imagine why they would have trouble in the dating scene.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

@PoM, I don’t recall the argument specifically, but that sounds like Robin Hanson from Overcoming Bias. Considered a founding father of the Dark Enlightenment, that one. He’s practically a contrarian for contrariness’s sake – he won’t write anything on his blog which doesn’t defy some convention or another. Takes particular joy in claiming that there is no virtue but only virtue signalling, no goodness but only selfishness, and no ethics beyond stark utilitarianism. He does have good ideas and can really make you think about stuff, but he’s the sort of armchair philosopher that provides excuse to monsters. His ideas have been chewed up and expanded on by the pseudo-rationalists, and now propagate far and wide across the manosphere.

He’s an… interesting read.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
4 years ago

I love (by which I mean hate) the way they don’t (want to) realise there are a great many people in the world who struggle with communication (not just with women) and who don’t feel entitled to other people’s attention, let alone sexual or romantic interest. I really hate how they use, for example, the fact that non-neurotypical people exist as an excuse for their shitty behaviour. It’s not unhappiness that creates (their) feelings of entitlement; it’s feelings of entitlement that determine how they see their unhappiness.

teiresias
teiresias
4 years ago

As one might guess from my chosen nickname, people can impugn my masculinity all they like. I’m not using it anymore.

Dalillama
Dalillama
4 years ago

@Scilfreja
Nah, it’s a Rochester U econ professor named Steven Landsburg, although he appears to share Hanson’s taste for ‘look at how edgy I am’ bullshit.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

Economists. Ngh. They need to remember that the idea of a rational economic actor is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. They teach this in undergraduate courses, introductory stuff, and then proceed to throw it aside. Blegh. Never heard of this Landsburg, but I can practically hear his arguments already!

Snowberry
Snowberry
4 years ago

People are economical rational actors in the same way that they’re spherical and exist in a vacuum. (Physics joke)

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

The idea that people are rational actors is not complete nonsense. If you disregard individuals and look at groups in aggregate, they behave in predictable ways if you correctly account for all inputs. The problem arises when you try to move from aggregate to individual, and when you fail to account for all inputs. The assumption that happiness can be adequately measured with willingness to pay, for instance, erases a lot of inputs that do not exist in a transactional state, and it skews others.

It’s not like economists are unaware of the skew problem, and it’s not like there have been no attempts to fix it. But, like the way that GDP is a terrible indicator of a country’s overall health but it’s still used because it’s easy to calculate and it has inertia on its side, attempts to fix the limitations of the money-as-proxy model turn into great PhD theses and then collect dust on shelves forever after. Using money as a proxy for happiness makes the equations easy, and it has hundreds of years of inertia on its side.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

As someone who isn’t an economist but reads quite a bit of it in the attempt to self-educate, the frustration I have is that there is no notion of empirical testing. People seem to be happy with expanding hypotheses into models into theories without any attempt at falsifiability. Is this just my physics-chauvinism speaking or is this a fair complaint?

@Snowberry:
Spherical masses in a vaccuum is why I picked astro as a field. It’s fun!

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@EJ

Is this just my physics-chauvinism speaking or is this a fair complaint?

Porque no los dos?

Dalillama
Dalillama
4 years ago

@EJ (TOL)

Is this just my physics-chauvinism speaking or is this a fair complaint?

Completely valid. The Austrian school is the worst, inasmuch as they explicitly deny that empiricism has any place in economic theorizing*, but there’s a lot of it going around (mostly, IME, among right-leaning types who keep trying to find a way to claim that austerity works, in the face of all historical evidence. This is, as Galbraith put it, merely a way to try to justify their sefishness )

* Von Mises, in Human Action, says that in ‘praexology’, as the Austrian school likes to call their ‘theories’ “[Economic] statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts.”

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

As someone who isn’t an economist but reads quite a bit of it in the attempt to self-educate, the frustration I have is that there is no notion of empirical testing. People seem to be happy with expanding hypotheses into models into theories without any attempt at falsifiability. Is this just my physics-chauvinism speaking or is this a fair complaint?

comment image

(Finally I get to use this gif.)

But, like, it seems it would be hard to test economic models, tbh, because you have some systems that work well small scale but shit large scale and there’s no real way to really test that without fucking a lot of shit up or something? Like, you can test something on a hundred people and it’s work, maybe even a thousand, but then you get up to hundreds of thousands and shit falls apart do to a variety of factors. (For instance, it seems communism works better on small scale but impractical on larger scale, at least as far as I can tell?)

IDK. How would one empirically test economics?

Dalillama
Dalillama
4 years ago

@Handsome Jack

IDK. How would you think one could empirically test economics?

…By looking at what actually happens when various economic policies are implemented? Obviously there’s some complex maths involved in actually checking that, but the principle is pretty straightforward.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

@Jack:
That’s a great gif. I apologise for nothing but I adore the gif.

The way that you would test economics is the same way that we test astrophysics. We can’t create stars or planets any more than we can run experiments on economies, and you’re right that things which are true for small things may not be true for large ones. However, what we can do is to observe partially-known systems and make predictions about them. If our theories are right then as we discover more about the system, our predictions will turn out right. If our predictions are wrong then our theory must need to be revisited. Over time and with enough data, this allows us to hone our theories.

Does that make sense?

@Dalillama:
Well, Ludwig von Mises can go and take a seat in the “intellectually dishonest people who can shut the fuck up” corner. I had heard that he was worthy of contempt, but that quote is remarkable.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

…By looking at what actually happens when various economic policies are implemented? Obviously there’s some complex maths involved in actually checking that, but the principle is pretty straightforward.

I mean, I did bring up communism for a reason–we have small scale communes that work on communism just fine and then we had Soviet Russia which fell apart and now we have China which is…yeah. Billions of people, millions dead, only a few happy–not great. (And I feel I’m picking on communism here as I’m a fucked-over cog of the capitalistic regime but, like, it’s just the first economic model I thought of off hand.)

But there’s still other, untested models of economics out there. I mean, if all we needed to do was look at people’s policies and histories, why would we need economic models in the first place? And how do you test the unused economic models? The ones we’ve just made up?

IDK, I know shit about economics and the scientific method, so I’m talking out of my ass, but I’m just genuinely unsure how you can test something like that thoroughly and properly (especially experimental models) without it taking decades upon decades and millions of people possible getting fucked over.

However, what we can do is to observe partially-known systems and make predictions about them. If our theories are right then our predictions will turn out right. If our predictions are wrong then our theory must need to be revisited. Over time and with enough data, this allows us to hone our theories.

Yeah, but, like, again, how can you do that without fucking over possibly millions of lives? I mean, sure, people will likely sign over their lives and the lives of their family to be apart of a test, but still.

Like, I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it seems really impractical, especially since we only have, like, one planet, several billion people, a few thousand countries and only so much resources to figure this shit out with.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Dali

By looking at what actually happens when various economic policies are implemented?

I wanna stress this. It’s likely functionally impossible to rigorously analyze, for example, social democracy from scratch. Too big, too many moving parts. What you can do is look at individual policies or facets of it

To continue the natural science comparison, a theory is a collection of related observations not an observation in and of itself. Quantum mechanics wasn’t proven all at once. Individual experiments and equations supported each other over time. Also, you don’t go in tryna invent a theory. You follow the evidence. The biggest problem I see with economics as a field is that it incentivizes grand theorycrafting to the detriment of more modest research

Don’t tell me that capitalism/feudalism/anarchism/etc works. Tell me which policies and principles lead to what outcome under what circumstances. We can get to the broader framework later

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Isn’t Von Mises the one that was really impressed with Pinochet?

Dalillama
Dalillama
4 years ago

@WWTH
No, he died just about when Pinochet came to power. His protege Rothbard loved the hell out of Pinochet though, and so did Friedman and the Chicago School.

@Handsome Jack

I mean, I did bring up communism for a reason–we have small scale communes that work on communism just fine and then we had Soviet Russia which fell apart and now we have China which is…yeah.

Goddamit, do I have to explain again that Stalinism is NOT FUCKING COMMUNISM, because it’s a TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT OWNING EVERYTHING, which is literally the opposite of fucking communism? Because I swear I’ve written that one half a dozen times on this blog in the last 6 months.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I must’ve been thinking about Rothbard. I try to avoid libertarian “thinkers” so I mix them up sometimes. I’ve yet to find libertarian writing that’s anything other than long winded and boring.

comment image

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

Goddamit, do I have to explain again that Stalinism is NOT FUCKING COMMUNISM, because it’s a TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT OWNING EVERYTHING, which is literally the opposite of fucking communism? Because I swear I’ve written that one half a dozen times on this blog in the last 6 months.

I’m a 24 year old high school graduate with no secondary education. The last time I took an economics class was in 2011 and it concentrated on capitalism which I didn’t fail, I assure you. I don’t read every comment or every comment section on this website, I certainly don’t remember them all, and this is the first conversation on economics I can remember, uh, “contributing” to.

With that in mind, you don’t need to educate me on anything. You don’t need to explain to me anything. Just because I asked questions doesn’t mean you have to answer them, especially if you think it’s a waste of your time or you feel you’ve explained it enough before. You can ignore me and I won’t feel bad about it, I assure you, especially if it’s a question that upsets you or makes you angry in anyway.

I’m sorry I confused communism and Stalinism. I’m clearly in over my head here, so I’ll be bowing out now. I’ve been stepping on too many toes here recently.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Dali
C’mon, don’t snap at Jack. They didn’t deserve that. Not cool…

Diptych
Diptych
4 years ago

On the one hand, I’m as happy to write off Leninism as a ruinous deviation from socialist ideals as anyone. On the other hand, all the biggest, longest-lasting and generally most prominent examples of governments calling themselves communist and stating their goals to be the advancement of communism have been right villains, so, well, much as it pains me to say it, if that’s not what communism meant before, it probably is now.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Jack, you didn’t do anything wrong.

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
4 years ago

I’m a bit late, so apologies, but had to say:

@Jack of Handsome-ness and best gifs,

Please don’t bow out – or not for long, anyway? We’ll miss you too much! I don’t know about anyone else, but I haven’t seen you stepping on toes at all.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

1) I don’t care if I did or didn’t do anything wrong, 2) I’m bowing out of this thread, which I should maybe have clarified I guess, and 3) I’m just not in the right headspace right now and I’m not trying to be a victim or self flagilate which I felt I might have been doing and it seems I did because now you guys are doing that sympathy stuff and it’s making me feel I’ve made Dali is in the wrong when, no, Dali is NOT in the wrong, 4) but I was being serious about all those things I said and they apply to whatever I say because, like, it’s the internet, whatever, some questions aren’t worth answering, 5) Dali can “snap” at whoever she wants for whatever reason, myself included, and finally 6) just ignore me and talk about economic stuff because while I’m not gonna post in this thread anymore doesn’t mean I’m not gonna read it. I’m stupid and need education and it’s free here.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ handsome jack

I’m stupid

No you’re not; don’t ever think that. You write some great stuff here.

Robyn Blanpied
Robyn Blanpied
4 years ago

Economics is like magic and prayer.
Believe all you want, but don’t bet the ranch on it.
Because it’s all academic theories. Little ‘T’ theories. Best guesses, gussied up with charts and diagrams to impress the rubes.
Like other Social Sciences, Economics is a squishy mixture of observation, second guessing and intellectual fencing.
Never, never take it as gospel.

Robyn Blanpied
Robyn Blanpied
4 years ago

S’okay, Handsome Jack.
You learn by asking. Besides, all economics theories, from Maoism to Randism, fall somewhere on a bell curve.
It’s anyone’s best guess, and is closer to magic than math.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

@jack, I feel about as dumb as you say you feel, pretty often ’round here <3 I understand your reaction.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Like other Social Sciences, Economics is a squishy mixture of observation, second guessing and intellectual fencing.

Social sciences are not a squishy mixture of observation, second guessing and intellectual fencing. Social science is science, and the alternative to having social sciences is to leave huge swaths of our environment unexamined and unstudied.

Dalillama
Dalillama
4 years ago

@Jack
I didn’t mean to say you were stupid, farthest thing from it, and I’m terribly sorry I came off that way. You post a lot of very incisive stuff.
Leninism and its various derivatives, especially Stalinism and Maoism, are a particular sore point for me, and it’s one that’s been hit a lot this election season, so I’m kinda hair-triggered. And also just really pissy lately.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@PoM
^QfT

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

@PoM
^QfT

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

Okay, Imma post one more time because, people, this isn’t economics.You all fail reading comprehension. Why don’t you tear into Robyn Blanpied and their terrible observation of social sciences instead of giving me unneeded sympathy?

@Dali

I didn’t mean to say you were stupid

You didn’t. Just because I said I’m stupid doesn’t mean I thought you said I’m stupid. I am keenly aware when people call me stupid, which you didn’t.

Leninism and its various derivatives, especially Stalinism and Maoism, are a particular sore point for me, and it’s one that’s been hit a lot this election season, so I’m kinda hair-triggered. And also just really pissy lately.

I figured, which is one reason I’m not talking about it anymore. People don’t “snap” at people for no reason. Besides, I don’t understand fundamental points of economics (the difference between Stalinism and communism for instance), so I don’t have the ability to ask the right questions. Besides, I’m stressed out about the election as well, and this talk of “emperical economics” is, like, “well, I guess we’ll have a pretty good test for a failing economy in the next four goddamn years if Trump wins”. I’m not a fan of gambling with people’s lives. I hope that makes sense.

Also, for real, not gonna comment on this thread anymore, goddamn, you people.

Dalillama
Dalillama
4 years ago

@Robyn Blanpied

Besides, all economics theories, from Maoism to Randism, fall somewhere on a bell curve.

No, they really really don’t. Which is to say that arguably everything between Maoism and Randism does, but that’s because both are aristocracy under different names. (Yes, I know that’s a political system, but economics is inseparable from politics. ) Both hold, essentially, that wealth should all be in the hands of a small elite, by virtue of their supposed superiority to the commoners.

It’s anyone’s best guess, and is closer to magic than math.

Keynes has loads of maths backing him up. So has Piketty, and Chang, and quite a lot of other economists. The thing is, the maths all say that too much concentration of wealth screws the economy, and the people in whom all the wealth is concentrated don’t like that answer and keep funding economists who say things they do like and ignore the maths. Much like the same people spend a lot of money to claim that there’s debate about climate change. The problem isn’t that the answers can’t be found, it’s that powerful people don’t like them.

@Jack
Since you’re still reading 🙂

, and this talk of “emperical economics” is, like, “well, I guess we’ll have a pretty good test for a failing economy in the next four goddamn years if Trump wins”.

Most definitely. See, the thing about empirical economics is that a whole lot of policies have been tried, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, so when those policies are discussed, it’s totally possible to look and say, e.g., ‘hey look at all these places that have tried single-payer healthcare systems. See how they spend less money and have better health than places without?’ or ‘wow, when we implement workplace safety regulations, fewer people are injured or killed on the job, we should look into more of those’ or the like. Conversely, we can see from history that cutting pensions increases poverty, especially among the elderly, so that’s a bad idea. Etc.

Besides, I don’t understand fundamental points of economics (the difference between Stalinism and communism for instance),

A lot of people, on the left and on the right, have done a lot to obfuscate the difference; and if I believed in such a place as hell, I’d wish every last one of them into it. The short answer is that communism, as an economic system, favours worker-owned cooperatives, rather than hierarchical models where the boss decides and everyone else does. Whether the boss in question is a capitalist* or a commissar is of little moment. Lenin decided that people weren’t becoming communists fast enough, and the answer was for better people (i.e. him and his friends) to take over and shoot everyone who argued with them. And then that they should run things until everyone else was fit (in their opinion) to actually implement communism. Which, of course, led to forming a totalitarian state where anyone who question the party line was disappeared or shot. And, funny enough, they never did get around to giving anyone else a say. So they ended up with something basically equivalent to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, only with different titles.

*In this case meaning ‘person who controls a large amount of capital’, not ‘person who favours a capitalist economic system’, although the former are almost always also the latter.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

@Jack:
You are not stupid. You may not know as much as some people do in their areas of speciality, but I’ve interacted with you for a while now and you’re definitely not stupid. Every question I’ve ever seen you ask has been a valid one.

If you want to leave the thread then that’s your call, but I would find this community a poorer place if you weren’t here to ask questions, and this thread is no different.

@Robyn Blanpied:
The social sciences most assuredly are sciences. Let me run slowly through this for people who aren’t familiar with science.

What is a science? The philosopher Carl Popper studied this question, and concluded the following: a science is something where a) there is an objective truth, and b) we use real-world data to tell whether an idea is right or not. This is called the Popperian model of science.

Using the Popperian model, we can see that psychology is a science, because every time they have an idea they run experiments to check whether it’s true or not. The same is true for other social sciences.

When you say that social sciences are “all academic theories… little ‘T’ theories… best guesses, gussied up with charts and diagrams… a squishy mixture of observation, second guessing“, you are speaking the truth, and not just about social sciences. Every science is like this. Observation and best guesses are all we ever have and all we have ever had; and they are enough.

Paul
Paul
4 years ago

For some reason, Heartiste’s name calling only reinforces my determination to never ever ever support anyone like Trump.