RSS
A tweet storm from “liberaltarian” journalist Will Wilkinson, of the Niskansen Center and sometimes of The Economist:
That Google memo was almost perfectly crafted to out people who don’t grok social-forces explanations of inequality.
As Chairman Mao said to Chinese intellectuals in the late 1950s: “Let 100 Flowers Bloom.” (Then, after those dopes tell us what we’re doing wrong, we’ll know who among them are the independent thinkers and can exile them to the pig farms.)
If you think memo is state-of-art reasonableness about unequal gender representation, it’s hard to see it as morale-killing shit-stirring.
He was just trying to help! And look where it got him!
But we don’t actually know much about how biological differences are expressed in labor markets.
Uh, I’m sure you don’t know much on this topic, Will, but you shouldn’t presume to speak for everybody.
Culture heavily mediates behavioral manifestation of natural attributes. And we’re still deep in legacy of pervasive patriarchal culture.
This is the intellectual crux. We treat, raise, shape boys & girls differently, and not just because boys and girls are naturally different.
For one reason, they demand to be raised differently. Boys and girls are really good at nagging until they get what they want, such as boy toys or girl toys.
For example, when I was a kid, experts thought running a marathon might make a woman sterile. I PERSONALLY REMEMBER THIS.
The medical name for this form of (hopefully) temporary sterility is amenorrhea. From Runner’s World:
Why Do Female Runners Get Amenorrhea?
Loss of a menstrual cycle during training is a result of an energy deficit.
By William O. Roberts, MD WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013, 12:00 AM
In contrast, when I was a young man in the 1980s and 1990s, experts, the media, and the public thought the best women would soon be running marathons as fast as the best men, perhaps as early as 1998. I PERSONALLY REMEMBER THIS.
As I co-wrote in National Review on December 31, 1997:
Everybody knows that the “gender gap” between men and women runners in the Olympics is narrowing. Everybody is wrong.
by Steve Sailer and Dr. Stephen Seiler
Published in National Review, December 31, 1997
Everybody knows that the “gender gap” in physical performance between male and female athletes is rapidly narrowing. Moreover, in an opinion poll just before the 1996 Olympics, 66% claimed “the day is coming when top female athletes will beat top males at the highest competitive levels.” The most publicized scientific study supporting this belief appeared in Nature in 1992: “Will Women Soon Outrun Men?” Physiologists Susan Ward and Brian Whipp pointed out that since the Twenties women’s world records in running had been falling faster than men’s. Assuming these trends continued, men’s and women’s marathon records would equalize by 1998, and during the early 21st Century for the shorter races.
This is not sports trivia. Whether the gender gap in athletic performance stems from biological differences between men and women, or is simply a social construct imposed by the Male Power Structure, is highly relevant both to fundamental debates about the malleability of human nature, as well as to current political controversies such as the role of women in the military.
When everybody is so sure of something, it’s time to update the numbers.
My 1997 analysis of Olympic running performances demonstrated that the gender gap in running had widened after 1988 due to better testing for artificial male hormone (steroid) abuse and the downfall of the East German Olympic women’s doping complex.
You might think that my debunking in 1997 of the then pervasive stereotype of the inevitable narrowing of the gender gap was a major accomplishment in the human sciences of the late 20th Century, but that’s only because you read me and I harp on it a lot. In the real world, the fact that the conventional wisdom was completely wrong on this subject due to feminist indoctrination has been totally memory-holed.
Wilkinson rolls on:
It’s crazy to think this sort of thing didn’t have formative influence on women & men of my gen. & doesn’t shape labor market patterns.
WE DON’T KNOW how bio sex differences express themselves in a much less patriarchal/more egalitarian culture.
Actually, we do know a lot about this subject, and more all the time. If you read the scientific research carefully, you’d know that.
For example, the more pro-feminist the culture, the lower the ratio of young women to young men studying computers. From Ross Douthat this week in the New York Times:
Men and women are different. On this, almost everyone acquainted with reality agrees. How different is the more controversial question, to which there is one particularly interesting answer: A little more different than they used to be.
This growing difference seems to be a striking aspect of modern Western life. In societies where both sexes have greater freedom — and women have more educational and professional opportunities relative to men than in the past — the sexes’ academic interests tend to diverge relative to more traditional societies. And not only their interests but their personalities as well: The more officially egalitarian a society, a credible body of research suggests, the stronger the differences in stereotypically male and female personality traits.
Wilkinson continues:
If you think we’ve gone as far toward non-patriarchy as we can or should, it’s tempting to infer sex differences from current patterns.
And if you infer natural sex differences from observed patterns, it’s tempting to think we’ve gone as far toward equality as we can/should.
A big issue is that nobody remembers nuthin’ they aren’t supposed to remember. I’m a weirdo in that my memories of my personal feelings don’t take up as much space in my brain compared to what I remember other people saying and doing. You are supposed to constantly dredge up and recount to yourself how women were discriminated against in the increasingly distant past. But you are never supposed to remind yourself of all the many decades in which feminism has been the conventional wisdom. That belongs in the Memory Hole.
“Patriarchy” wasn’t made up by PC cultural warriors. It’s a historical fact, & better validated empirically than science of sex difference. …
Lots of us are traumatized from the destabilizing *start* of our culture’s move away from patriarchy. Can’t be *over* if we’re still alive.
Fortunately, we whites of a certain age will die and leave the world to the pure.
The Google memo’s blithe indifference to recent history & cultural context of “findings” about sex difference is thus very shady.
“Recent history” as in pre-1969. Post-1969, on the other hand, isn’t “recent history,” it’s the forgotten dark ages.
But it doesn’t look shady to those who, for whatever reason, can’t acknowledge established empirical facts about our history and culture.
Which is why they don’t think it looks benighted and silly to stand up for it on principled free speech grounds.
For my part, I think the dude was way out of his lane, and I would have canned him in a second for hurting team morale and the company’s PR.
Will Wilkinson is no Ron Paul.
Steve, have you seen the list of this year’s Hugo Award winners?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/female-athletes-compromise-fertility-intense-training-dieting/story?id=11539684
It may not be “sterile” technically, but for those women who can’t afford expensive fertility treatments, it’s sterile from a practical standpoint.
Get back to normal weight and ovulation and fertility returns in a couple months. I also suspect it was the injections of make hormones that increased the muscle ratio
Because so many ballet company directors are gays who think slender 10 year old boys have ideal figures, ballet dancers are often too skinny to ovulate. I think the ideal is 5'4 90 to 80 pounds. It wasn't always that way but it is now.
I remember a lot of hysterical articles about anorexia in the 1980s and 1990s.
In a few years the hysterics switched to obesity. The anorexia hysteria, like heterosexual AIDS, was just liberal hysteria like global warming and trans gender today.
Again and again I see male SJWs write in an absurdly feminised way. Yass queen.
Incidentally, American women don’t choose tech jobs. Women in Iran, Russia, Romania, India will do tech jobs. Countries without the tedious gender mau-mauing. Woman in Sweden and the US don’t go for these jobs because it is it is not really serious which profession they choose. They are not going to starve. They can afford to be trivial and infantilised.
Can you make one with "Goober" (the character from the old Andy Griffith Show) and then put in the quote about how reading a day-old newspaper makes you feel smart because you already know what happened?
Thanks.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @syonredux, @Randal, @reiner Tor, @guest, @guest
Well, I guess Mary Beard would say that Science Fiction writers are really black African females!
Indeed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement
How many of today's modern hundred flower programs are based on roasted seeds or roasted ideologies?
No room for guys like Damore in this world. If the rest of us just turn from our evil ways and do exactly what the SJW’s tell us to do, we’ll be fine… right?
Never seems to work out that way. The more you yield to liberals, the more they demand. If you give them an inch, you had best be ready to give up one mile after another unto perpetuity. The goal posts move again.
This is why it makes no sense to argue with them or listen to their drivel. They see us as enemies, and they’re not interested in taking anything we have to say seriously. We should view them the same way. That chap from Australia Steve blogged about thinks Google has been infiltrated. What a wonderful idea.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @syonredux, @Randal, @reiner Tor, @guest, @guest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._K._Jemisin
We waz kangz and we gonna be kangz again
Answer carefully, Mizz Jemininsimison. Your status depends upon it.
In any event, I tried reading some of Jemison's excreta, but it was too painful so I gave up.Replies: @Brutusale
Modern day “libertarians” often come off as nothing but Cultural Marxists. The CATO institute always comes down on the side of whatever policies hurt White people the most.
They also support globalist wars of choice.
It's really a stealth globalist /left wing movement. 99% of the time they support 'libertarian' ideas like open borders, gay marriage, and other 'freedom' but, strangely, never ending affirmative action (or just lip service) or lunch counter laws. .."Wrong.These are not traditionally far-left concerns but always (somewhat mischaracterized )Libertarian ones because they protect the process and right to choose. The far-Left has begun giving them lip service, but notice the difference: the Libertarians say you have the option, the far-Left wants to impose its new cause on everyone while not getting real results. The Libertarians bring unity, the far-eft/-right only division.Replies: @The True and Original David
So, like a good Libertarian, Wilkinson is arguing that we just need to get to Year Zero by way of coerced equality, because market something-something?
I thought Libertarians were supposed to look deep into the camera and say blithely “well, if women were superior coders, one company would hire them all and make a tidy profit” and then engage in some electoral masturbation?
I asked my 15 year old son to read the “manifesto,” after he got back from camp. He’s into computers, and I thought he might find it interesting.
He agreed with it, and was genuinely amazed that the guy was fired.
My 12 year old daughter was also amazed the guy got fired. She didn’t read it (ahem, evolution calling…), but I explained it in a fair balanced way (really, I did.)
Now, if you think they agreed with it because their father agrees with it, you are not, and have never been, a parent.
Just a little ray of hope to cheer you all up.
You’re welcome.
I remember reading this guy years ago and watching him descend into the abyss as his worldview was altered by the woman in his life. I am pretty sure he went to Georgetown and that was the beginning of my realization that “Catholic” higher ed was anything but. Somehow he has retained a writer’s gig, perhaps old money? Or wifey money? But truly what a lack of testicular fortitude… an embarrassment to the gender.
paid work as long as he stays on message.
Better watch out, Whiskey, you could be next!
Never seems to work out that way. The more you yield to liberals, the more they demand. If you give them an inch, you had best be ready to give up one mile after another unto perpetuity. The goal posts move again.
This is why it makes no sense to argue with them or listen to their drivel. They see us as enemies, and they're not interested in taking anything we have to say seriously. We should view them the same way. That chap from Australia Steve blogged about thinks Google has been infiltrated. What a wonderful idea.Replies: @bomag
Exactly. Look at Wilkinson’s last line:
And the next writer would have canned him in a microsecond; the next would not have even hired him; the next would not have let him be born; etc.
I couldn’t quite figure out the writer’s point.
. As I understand it, libertarianism is totally pro capitalists exploiting workers. That’s why they favor open borders and as The Economist calls it, free movement of labor. The more workers there are, the lower are wages and less security and worse working conditions. That’s why libertarians favor open, uncontrolled, never ending immigration.
You misunderstand it.
Where did you get this nonsense? GOOGLE Libertarian International.
The libertarians are for voluntary economies, which may include voluntary capitalism, voluntary socialism, co-0perativism, etc. In the US they're the ONLY party standing for unrestricted right to unionize. As for immigration, they want to see a world like the internal USA as a minimum of free borders, trade, and democracy.
Have you ever taken an economics course? Even Marxists aren't this silly. If more labor lowered wages here, it would raise them elsewhere given less labor so in time it would balance out. In fact, more labor means a wage rise for all in a tolerably free economy.Replies: @The True and Original David
He’s a bozo. He has no understanding–that I can detect–about pretty much anything. He certainly doesn’t seem to know anything about biology, or even psychology, much less have given any thought to evolutionary biology or psychology. He’s one of these writers who is not only neither math/science oriented or trained, but also hasn’t studied history either. So he’s out there just flapping his yapper. I mean seriously bring *something*–some little bit of knowledge or insight–to the table.
Steve just trots him out as an occasionally as punching bag, because he’s the sort of feather weight “intellectual” who spouts obviously clueless stuff but seems to nonetheless be able to eat well in our society.
Er, scratch that, doesn't look like he even knows that any more.
CATO is surfeited with Evangelicals, like nearly all of Libertarianism is. Few people know that Ayn Rand was one of the US’s biggest Holy Rollers.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @syonredux, @Randal, @reiner Tor, @guest, @guest
I’ve long acted upon the view that the utility of non-genre literary awards is primarily as a warning of works to avoid as likely being pretentious, politically correct, and generally hugely overblown.
There was a time when that didn’t apply to genre awards such as the Hugo, but that appears to have changed some time in the past few years.
The “Liberaltarians” are funded by the Kochs to sell their agenda to gays and secular urbanites. They have a lot of niche orgs they fund to appeal to different subgroups. WW will never lack for well
paid work as long as he stays on message.
Yeah, but what does this have to do with drilling for oil?
Oh, wait . . .
It’s not really sterility. It’s just that when a women’s ratio of fat to muscle and bone goes too far down, she stops ovulating because the eggs don’t ripen.
Get back to normal weight and ovulation and fertility returns in a couple months. I also suspect it was the injections of make hormones that increased the muscle ratio
Because so many ballet company directors are gays who think slender 10 year old boys have ideal figures, ballet dancers are often too skinny to ovulate. I think the ideal is 5’4 90 to 80 pounds. It wasn’t always that way but it is now.
I remember a lot of hysterical articles about anorexia in the 1980s and 1990s.
In a few years the hysterics switched to obesity. The anorexia hysteria, like heterosexual AIDS, was just liberal hysteria like global warming and trans gender today.
Disgusting.
Kevin Michael Grace has a theory that libertarianism functions as a gateway drug to the Alt-Right. He says that most of the major Alt-Right personalities he knows, including himself, could be described as disgruntled former libertarians.
It isn’t quite true in my case, as I never was a libertarian. I am more inclined to agree with James Burnham, who found libertarianism to be shallow nonsense. He wrote (I think it was in the introduction to The Machiavellians) that after weening himself off the full strength ideology of communism, he just had no taste for the half-baked ideology of libertarianism.
I think the influx of former libertarians is going to be something of a problem for the Alt-Right going forward. With their basically Godless and utilitarian worldview, shot through with what are really just Whiggish cliches substituting for eternal verities, they do not have the philosophical prerequisites to articulate a consistent program which adequately addresses the problems of our era. I have always maintained that the Alt-Right (I prefer Greg Johnson’s phrase “True Right”) must be founded on Traditional Christianity. Otherwise it will be nothing more than a highly fractured niche movement of Stormers and spergs, united by their common (and correct) hatred of the status quo but not much of anything else.
Well bless his heart. So young, so unformed, so inexperienced . . . so certain.
Well that means there’s hope for him, then. One of the biggest and most effective redpills is a stubborn memory, and it’s a redpill that grows in potency as one gets older.
“Now, wait just a second. I thought I remembered that…” is probably the first step a lot of less-statistically-inclined people make in their journey to the Dissident Right. Yes, it’s true that memory is an imperfect instrument. Still, it’s one thing to accept the received wisdom about things you know only secondhand, from stories your parents and grandparents used to tell. But when the received wisdom starts stretching the truth about things you’re old enough to remember clearly — that, I’d wager, is the tipping point for a lot of folks. Some folks are able to make the necessary mental adjustments, but certain obstinate types can’t manage it.
It makes perfect biological sense that women under physical stress (like, say, burning 5,000 calories a day or starving themselves and carrying super-low fat stores) aren't very fertile. But Wilkinson is a "Clever Silly," and men telling women facts about their bodies is off-putting and offensive even if true. He literally has less biological sense than a fifteen year old 4H student in Nebraska who has never been 50 feet from his place of birth, and who knows he needs to change his ewes' feed before trying to breed them.Replies: @Mr. Blank
First Krugman, now Kaepernick and Wilkinson.
Better watch out, Whiskey, you could be next!
He is not young – he is 44. (He also did not go to Georgetown at any stage of his career, so maybe everyone has him confused with someone else?)
He knows which way the wind is blowing.
Er, scratch that, doesn’t look like he even knows that any more.
Years ago I saw a stand-up comedian start out his act with, “Hey, people, I’ve gotta say something: women are a whole lot smarter than men.”
(Huge applause, cheers from women in the audience.)
“And you know why I say that? Because women really like it when I say that.”
I assume Wilkinson’s stupid opinion is similarly motivated.
"Now, wait just a second. I thought I remembered that..." is probably the first step a lot of less-statistically-inclined people make in their journey to the Dissident Right. Yes, it's true that memory is an imperfect instrument. Still, it's one thing to accept the received wisdom about things you know only secondhand, from stories your parents and grandparents used to tell. But when the received wisdom starts stretching the truth about things you're old enough to remember clearly — that, I'd wager, is the tipping point for a lot of folks. Some folks are able to make the necessary mental adjustments, but certain obstinate types can't manage it.Replies: @Alec Leamas
Perhaps but he seems to be selectively or purposely misremembering it. I doubt he could find sources from 30 years ago stating that female marathon runners become wholly and permanently sterile (his claim), but I can recall sources claiming that marathon runners and gymnasts miss periods (which is true) as long ago as the last summer Olympics. (Where the female gymnasts’ puberty/menses is delayed by their excessive exercise and low fat stores).
It makes perfect biological sense that women under physical stress (like, say, burning 5,000 calories a day or starving themselves and carrying super-low fat stores) aren’t very fertile. But Wilkinson is a “Clever Silly,” and men telling women facts about their bodies is off-putting and offensive even if true. He literally has less biological sense than a fifteen year old 4H student in Nebraska who has never been 50 feet from his place of birth, and who knows he needs to change his ewes’ feed before trying to breed them.
My point is that if he can keep "remembering" stuff, there's hope for him.
Thank you for the pointer, James. (May I . . . ?) If he’s 44, a good bit of my sympathies evaporate. Maybe he’s just been in a bubble, but he always struck me as somehow callow, and maybe I just interpreted that as naive youth. I will provide the caveat that I haven’t seen much of his work.
You have to fear the great and invisible Patriarchy, which is almighty but completely veiled, just like the witches of yore. The burning must continue!
One thing we older readers have to keep in mind is that young people – even those in their mid-forties – have grown up with this stuff; it’s been drummed into them since first grade and before. It’s all they’ve ever known. In this respect, they’re the conservatives and we the hellion revolutionaries. They not only want to resist us because they believe they’re right to do so. They also want to resist us because our ideas make them feel everything they know is wrong. In a way, the very passion attracted by and directed against an outlaw like Damore is a very very good sign. The most desperate fighters are fighting desperately against their own doubt.
Someone (perhaps more than one) made the observation that what leftists like Wilkinson mean when they say “Patriarchy” in the broad sense is “culture.” It’s just the organization of society beyond tree-dwelling, foraging apes. So “patriarchal culture” is just a redundancy, like “cultural culture.”
Sorry, but I don’t listen to people who (still) use the word grok.
It always brings to mind an image of a bearded, chubby grad student wearing Birkenstocks. One who thinks he knows more than you do.
He just doesn’t understand how ridiculous he sounds, or why we think the way we do. He just doesn’t get it. You know, he doesn’t grok it.
Mr. Education Realist makes use of the term. I think he's about 55 (pension in 4 years, boo yah!). (He brings to mind Hush Puppies, striped shirt, Dockers, necktie, receding hairline with what's left kinky, untrimmed, and badly combed; mustache, wire-rimmed glasses, peevish bad temper).Replies: @Jack Hanson
The hundred flowers campaign reminds me of the Emperor’s contest to grow flowers from the seeds that he provided. People came back with lavish plants, except for one little girl who couldn’t get her seed to grow. Turns out that the Emperor had roasted the seeds and they couldn’t grow. At least there was one honest contestant.
How many of today’s modern hundred flower programs are based on roasted seeds or roasted ideologies?
People may look upon her works and despair in earnest. When she has remaindered copies of her oeuvre, then her cat box will be well-supplied.
There are a great many absurdities inherent in the leftist worldview, but the belief that random ideas arbitrarily impose themselves on the world is among the most bizarre and ludicrous. This is apparently the root of all social behavior. One day, for absolutely no reason, people started believing that women aren’t interested in engineering or computer science. And then everyone else came to believe this, and because everyone believed so reality came to reflect this invented and arbitrary belief. Similarly, whites arbitrarily declared that blacks were unintelligent, which made them unintelligent. Then at a different time they randomly declared that East Asians were smart, and so they were smart. And so on. Why should people think these things? Sometimes lefties will play the “whitey invented these beliefs to oppress others” card, of course, but much of the time this makes absolutely no sense. Why randomly believe women don’t like computers? Why randomly believe blacks sprint fast? What does evil whitey get out of this?
Wilkinson also uses the classic “egalitarianism must be assumed” perspective. This approach is used by absolutely all egalitarians. He talks a lot about what we don’t know. Ignoring the fact that he’s full of shit, ignorance of the facts doesn’t inevitably lead one towards a belief in egalitarianism. We don’t know X so therefore my perspective should be assumed to be correct? Why should egalitarianism be the null hypothesis? The opposite is actually true–our understanding of biology and heredity pretty well demands that behaviors should be assumed to have some substantial biological basis. That women aren’t interested in computers is evidence that women inherently aren’t interested in computers. It isn’t definitive proof, but it’s definitely evidence. Just like the failure of blacks all over the world to create, maintain or function in advanced societies is evidence that blacks are ill-suited for such societies relative to other races. But to the Wilkinsons of the world, until we have an absolute and ironclad understanding of how biology may influence social behaviors then we must assume that biology has no influence. Why have this assumption? I know why: cause when your position has no factual basis whatsoever simply assuming it to be true is the only way to smuggle the position into an argument. You just have to hope the other party is too stupid to notice.
I remember I used read Wilkinson a bit regularly like a decade back. God what a ridiculous piece of shit he is. What the hell was wrong with me? I don’t quite remember him writing so like a teenage girl back then, though.
You have only one fallacy.
You assume that liberals are susceptible to logical arguments. They are not. There are a few quasi-liberals such as Damore, who maintain that they share the premise of leftists, but are not real leftists, since they are actually persuaded by evidence and reason. Sooner or later, they are cast out and exposed for what they truly are: empiricists.
But, back to the fallacy, except for the quasi-liberals, no leftist is going to be persuaded by your arguments (or any arguments that do not accept their preformed notions). Therefore, those who already accept your logic will appreciate it, and the targeted leftist will simply dismiss it offhand.
I know your reply already. You will say that of course you don't expect leftists to accept your logical argument.
Pretty good parody.
Can you make one with “Goober” (the character from the old Andy Griffith Show) and then put in the quote about how reading a day-old newspaper makes you feel smart because you already know what happened?
Thanks.
One problem with his moral grandstanding…I mean, argument, is that almost every profession was at one point dominated by men. But, today, some professions are roughly equally split between men and women, like law, and some are dominated by women, like psychology, while others remain dominated by men, like engineering. We’ve seen before that sexism within a profession isn’t always enough to ensure that men forever dominate that profession.
“King Ozymandias”
We waz kangz and we gonna be kangz again
This is a point worth repeating.
Will Wilkinson has severe modifier illness.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @syonredux, @Randal, @reiner Tor, @guest, @guest
Everything is contaminated by them. They cannot stand the very existence of pockets of freedom, however inconsequential. They need to go there and destroy them.
She named her cat Ozzymandias? Is that after Ramses II, the Pharaoh who must have been black because Egypt is in Africa? Or [dramatic music] the poem by Percy Shelley, who was a WHITE MALE!
Answer carefully, Mizz Jemininsimison. Your status depends upon it.
Lmao Steve for someone who is banging his drum about “people unable to face hard truths” you sure have some of your own you can’t face while rattling your tin cup.
It makes perfect biological sense that women under physical stress (like, say, burning 5,000 calories a day or starving themselves and carrying super-low fat stores) aren't very fertile. But Wilkinson is a "Clever Silly," and men telling women facts about their bodies is off-putting and offensive even if true. He literally has less biological sense than a fifteen year old 4H student in Nebraska who has never been 50 feet from his place of birth, and who knows he needs to change his ewes' feed before trying to breed them.Replies: @Mr. Blank
Right, but I suspect he hasn’t lived long enough to experience the whiplash effect yet: “Wait, we’re at war with Eastasia now? And you’re telling me we’ve always been at war with Eastasia?”
My point is that if he can keep “remembering” stuff, there’s hope for him.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @syonredux, @Randal, @reiner Tor, @guest, @guest
Eventually sci-fi will realize it wants regular people to read their books again. If not for the profits, because the sexual predators shall desire more attractive people to show up at their conventions.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/beautiful-absolutely-beautiful.html
Asimov never won the Hugo twice in a row, but now a black lady has.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @syonredux, @Randal, @reiner Tor, @guest, @guest
Question: will they make it three straight next year, or is that too ridiculous even for them?
Hmmmm, they are retro-casting or whatever, because the Alt-Right was not really a thing when NK Jemison gave that speech, I believe.
In any event, I tried reading some of Jemison’s excreta, but it was too painful so I gave up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies
Only the unicorns & dragons fantasy fiction crowd pays any attention to the Hugos these days.
I thought Wilkinson was quitting punditry (or at least shifting to part-time work) in order to become a novelist? Whatever happened with that?
#firstworldproblems
Culture heavily mediates behavioral manifestation of natural attributes. And we’re still deep in legacy of pervasive patriarchal culture.
Patriarchy is misunderstood. It is NOT tyranny of the male. It is about the power of a certain kind of male arrangement.
Patriarchy is less about power of men over women than about power of older men over younger men. It is also about restraining the drive of alpha males by social norms that lend some weight to beta-males.
In the animal world, males do rule, but it’s not patriarchal. It’s thugarchal. It’s alpha-male-archal.
Strongest male, usually young, dominate. Young and Strong. Such is the way of black hoods. Young and Strong rule. Patriarchy was created to ensure elder control over younger males.
Also, since alpha males wanna hump all the ho’s, patriarchy restrains them. Patriarchy stresses importance of husbandhood and fatherhood. So, the ideal is you find a nice girl, have a family, and be responsible. Patriarchy favors one woman for each man. So, even beta-males get something out of it.
So, patriarchy is about a structure to restrain raw alpha male drive.
In black communities, the raw alpha male drives is mostly sexual, thuggish, criminal, and etc. It’s about ‘me and my ho’s’.
But patriarchy has broken down among white males too. Among whites, it’s less about thuggery than about star power. Boomer generation destroyed patriarchy. The Greatest Generation was the last to hold to it: a sense that those with more yrs and experience are deserving of respect.
Bill Clinton was all about male power, but he was no patriarch. Had he been such, he would have been mindful of being a good hubby and father.And his election against Bush, WWII vet, wouldn’t have been so nasty. Instead, he was all about using his power and status to hump ho’s and live a perpetual 60s rock star life.
Patriarchy is now difficult because the economy of power in the modern world. When technology and social values changed slowly if at all in the past, the older folks had more expertise and knowledge due to experience. Indeed, experience was expertise in a static world.
But in the our world, technology changes so fast, and young ones have an advantage as they take to new stuff faster. So, they shoot high real fast and gain most power. Also, social values change real fast. Look how fast homomania became a thing. US said no to ‘gays in military’ but it shot past ‘gay marriage’ and now it’s Gay Rites in churches. In such a world, patriarchy is impossible since nothing is stable. Older folks have no prestige since their values are ‘outdated’. The only values that matter are what happens to be in fashion. And fashion is about celebrity, star power, glitz. In the past, young ones like Lena Dunham would have dressed nicely and respected older woman like Hillary. Today, people like Hillary are expected to pander to the young, to the Lenas and Smiley Circus’s of the world. Since Hillary’s boomer generation staked all their worth on shi**ing on the older generation, they must now pander to the new young. (Of course, young people’s minds are molded by media controlled by older folks, but old folks of today tend to be trashy and stuck in 60s mindset.)
Silicon Valley is not about patriarchy. Sure, males dominate, but it’s dorkarchy or geekarchy. Totally different from patriarchy where age and experience matter. What matters in Silly Valley is cutting edge knowledge. It favors cleverness, brilliance, and ingenuity to experience or anything else. It favors Amadeus over Salieri and the Prince. Sheer brilliance is prized above all else. It’s a mental battlefield where young baboons with more energized neurons beat the other baboons.
So, why the latest brouhaha. Even though geeks and dorks — or gorks — are like brianiac baboons (jungle warfare of wits where the smartest win out regardless of morality), they lack star power. This is why Steve Jobs got so far. He was smart but not that smart. Gorks who worked for him were smarter. But being gorks, they had zero personality, and they needed a cult leader type like Jobs who could guide them.
Because gorks have no personality, they rely on those that do. And homos got personality, which is why homos are held in such esteem among the gorks with flair or personality. And so do bitches. Now, there are gorkettes, and they are not bitches. Gorkettes are like the aspergy girl in REAL SCIENCE.
Bitches are different. They don’t have the brilliance of dorkettes and rely more on power politics. And they are more political than intellectual animals. They strive for bitcharchy and try to be queen of the hive. The woman who forced the Person of Dot’s hand in firing Damore is a classic bitcharch.
Indeed. Mainly Assembly of God types right? They’ve always been overrepresented in media and political groups. Why, just imagine if some other group was so wildly overrepresented in our nations power centers.
Patriarchy is misunderstood. It is NOT tyranny of the male. It is about the power of a certain kind of male arrangement.
Patriarchy is less about power of men over women than about power of older men over younger men. It is also about restraining the drive of alpha males by social norms that lend some weight to beta-males.
In the animal world, males do rule, but it's not patriarchal. It's thugarchal. It's alpha-male-archal.
Strongest male, usually young, dominate. Young and Strong. Such is the way of black hoods. Young and Strong rule. Patriarchy was created to ensure elder control over younger males.
Also, since alpha males wanna hump all the ho's, patriarchy restrains them. Patriarchy stresses importance of husbandhood and fatherhood. So, the ideal is you find a nice girl, have a family, and be responsible. Patriarchy favors one woman for each man. So, even beta-males get something out of it.
So, patriarchy is about a structure to restrain raw alpha male drive.
In black communities, the raw alpha male drives is mostly sexual, thuggish, criminal, and etc. It's about 'me and my ho's'.
But patriarchy has broken down among white males too. Among whites, it's less about thuggery than about star power. Boomer generation destroyed patriarchy. The Greatest Generation was the last to hold to it: a sense that those with more yrs and experience are deserving of respect.
Bill Clinton was all about male power, but he was no patriarch. Had he been such, he would have been mindful of being a good hubby and father.And his election against Bush, WWII vet, wouldn't have been so nasty. Instead, he was all about using his power and status to hump ho's and live a perpetual 60s rock star life.
Patriarchy is now difficult because the economy of power in the modern world. When technology and social values changed slowly if at all in the past, the older folks had more expertise and knowledge due to experience. Indeed, experience was expertise in a static world.
But in the our world, technology changes so fast, and young ones have an advantage as they take to new stuff faster. So, they shoot high real fast and gain most power. Also, social values change real fast. Look how fast homomania became a thing. US said no to 'gays in military' but it shot past 'gay marriage' and now it's Gay Rites in churches. In such a world, patriarchy is impossible since nothing is stable. Older folks have no prestige since their values are 'outdated'. The only values that matter are what happens to be in fashion. And fashion is about celebrity, star power, glitz. In the past, young ones like Lena Dunham would have dressed nicely and respected older woman like Hillary. Today, people like Hillary are expected to pander to the young, to the Lenas and Smiley Circus's of the world. Since Hillary's boomer generation staked all their worth on shi**ing on the older generation, they must now pander to the new young. (Of course, young people's minds are molded by media controlled by older folks, but old folks of today tend to be trashy and stuck in 60s mindset.)
Silicon Valley is not about patriarchy. Sure, males dominate, but it's dorkarchy or geekarchy. Totally different from patriarchy where age and experience matter. What matters in Silly Valley is cutting edge knowledge. It favors cleverness, brilliance, and ingenuity to experience or anything else. It favors Amadeus over Salieri and the Prince. Sheer brilliance is prized above all else. It's a mental battlefield where young baboons with more energized neurons beat the other baboons.
So, why the latest brouhaha. Even though geeks and dorks --- or gorks --- are like brianiac baboons (jungle warfare of wits where the smartest win out regardless of morality), they lack star power. This is why Steve Jobs got so far. He was smart but not that smart. Gorks who worked for him were smarter. But being gorks, they had zero personality, and they needed a cult leader type like Jobs who could guide them.
Because gorks have no personality, they rely on those that do. And homos got personality, which is why homos are held in such esteem among the gorks with flair or personality. And so do bitches. Now, there are gorkettes, and they are not bitches. Gorkettes are like the aspergy girl in REAL SCIENCE.
https://youtu.be/E0aNsWbWr1s?t=1m2s
Bitches are different. They don't have the brilliance of dorkettes and rely more on power politics. And they are more political than intellectual animals. They strive for bitcharchy and try to be queen of the hive. The woman who forced the Person of Dot's hand in firing Damore is a classic bitcharch.Replies: @Bill, @Emblematic
tl;dr: Patriarchy means rule by fathers, not rule by men.
Steve Sailer deserves a lot of credit for having called the end of rapid improvement in athletics, and the widening of the gap between the sexes, as they were happening.
Unless something else intervenes, it will be very interesting to compare times set at the 2028 LA Olympics with those of 1984 and 1932. At present, all indications are that improvement in the previous 44 years, in track, field or swimming, will have been completely negligible compared with improvement in the 52 before that. Never before, incidentally, will three Olympics in the same city have been separated by similar lengths of time.
Patriarchy is misunderstood. It is NOT tyranny of the male. It is about the power of a certain kind of male arrangement.
Patriarchy is less about power of men over women than about power of older men over younger men. It is also about restraining the drive of alpha males by social norms that lend some weight to beta-males.
In the animal world, males do rule, but it's not patriarchal. It's thugarchal. It's alpha-male-archal.
Strongest male, usually young, dominate. Young and Strong. Such is the way of black hoods. Young and Strong rule. Patriarchy was created to ensure elder control over younger males.
Also, since alpha males wanna hump all the ho's, patriarchy restrains them. Patriarchy stresses importance of husbandhood and fatherhood. So, the ideal is you find a nice girl, have a family, and be responsible. Patriarchy favors one woman for each man. So, even beta-males get something out of it.
So, patriarchy is about a structure to restrain raw alpha male drive.
In black communities, the raw alpha male drives is mostly sexual, thuggish, criminal, and etc. It's about 'me and my ho's'.
But patriarchy has broken down among white males too. Among whites, it's less about thuggery than about star power. Boomer generation destroyed patriarchy. The Greatest Generation was the last to hold to it: a sense that those with more yrs and experience are deserving of respect.
Bill Clinton was all about male power, but he was no patriarch. Had he been such, he would have been mindful of being a good hubby and father.And his election against Bush, WWII vet, wouldn't have been so nasty. Instead, he was all about using his power and status to hump ho's and live a perpetual 60s rock star life.
Patriarchy is now difficult because the economy of power in the modern world. When technology and social values changed slowly if at all in the past, the older folks had more expertise and knowledge due to experience. Indeed, experience was expertise in a static world.
But in the our world, technology changes so fast, and young ones have an advantage as they take to new stuff faster. So, they shoot high real fast and gain most power. Also, social values change real fast. Look how fast homomania became a thing. US said no to 'gays in military' but it shot past 'gay marriage' and now it's Gay Rites in churches. In such a world, patriarchy is impossible since nothing is stable. Older folks have no prestige since their values are 'outdated'. The only values that matter are what happens to be in fashion. And fashion is about celebrity, star power, glitz. In the past, young ones like Lena Dunham would have dressed nicely and respected older woman like Hillary. Today, people like Hillary are expected to pander to the young, to the Lenas and Smiley Circus's of the world. Since Hillary's boomer generation staked all their worth on shi**ing on the older generation, they must now pander to the new young. (Of course, young people's minds are molded by media controlled by older folks, but old folks of today tend to be trashy and stuck in 60s mindset.)
Silicon Valley is not about patriarchy. Sure, males dominate, but it's dorkarchy or geekarchy. Totally different from patriarchy where age and experience matter. What matters in Silly Valley is cutting edge knowledge. It favors cleverness, brilliance, and ingenuity to experience or anything else. It favors Amadeus over Salieri and the Prince. Sheer brilliance is prized above all else. It's a mental battlefield where young baboons with more energized neurons beat the other baboons.
So, why the latest brouhaha. Even though geeks and dorks --- or gorks --- are like brianiac baboons (jungle warfare of wits where the smartest win out regardless of morality), they lack star power. This is why Steve Jobs got so far. He was smart but not that smart. Gorks who worked for him were smarter. But being gorks, they had zero personality, and they needed a cult leader type like Jobs who could guide them.
Because gorks have no personality, they rely on those that do. And homos got personality, which is why homos are held in such esteem among the gorks with flair or personality. And so do bitches. Now, there are gorkettes, and they are not bitches. Gorkettes are like the aspergy girl in REAL SCIENCE.
https://youtu.be/E0aNsWbWr1s?t=1m2s
Bitches are different. They don't have the brilliance of dorkettes and rely more on power politics. And they are more political than intellectual animals. They strive for bitcharchy and try to be queen of the hive. The woman who forced the Person of Dot's hand in firing Damore is a classic bitcharch.Replies: @Bill, @Emblematic
I want to buy your book.
umm she was an atheist.
It’s really a stealth globalist /left wing movement. 99% of the time they support ‘libertarian’ ideas like open borders, gay marriage, and other ‘freedom’ but, strangely, never ending affirmative action (or just lip service) or lunch counter laws. So if you’re only ‘liberating’ the left’s concerns you’re actually making the right weaker. the same way ethnic groups push identity weakening policies on whites, but ask for ethnic solidarity among their in-group.
They also support globalist wars of choice.
The alt-right owes a debt of gratitude to Will Wilkinson. Singlehandedly, he’s probably done more to discredit and drive people away from libertarianism than anyone else living. He’s probably recruited more people to the alt-right than Richard Spencer. Pity he hasn’t been punched in the face as often.
Sean Davis (of The Federalist) ripped the shit out of pedo face sperg lolbertarian Alex Nowratesh pretty good on some of the points made here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/896194306289086464
I am curious about this “Patriarchy” thing. Does it have any quantifiable characteristics, so we can measure it or observe it? Or is it a spiritual presence, like a demonic presence, that the faithful see and feel operating in this world? By firing Damore, have we truly exorcised this demon or will it come back and demand more propitiating sacrifices?
McArdle tries to walk Will off the cliff with,
But he doubles down with
Who knows what he PERSONALLY REMEMBERS, but I think he came across some article in which doctors were referring to risk factors for vaginal and uterine prolapse. Pelvic support disorders are very common conditions, and about 1 in 9 American women will get some kind of surgical procedure to address prolapse sometime in their life, although there are ethnic disparities and black women are less likely to experience the problem. From The Cleveland Clinic
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also says, “Intense physical activity.” Oh and here’s another article on point from Runner’s World
Sounds like he has Prescod-Weinstein fever.
1. Persons as stupid as Wilkinson should be shamed into remaining silent.
2. Many Chinese women suffered prolapse of the uterus during the Cultural Revolution, the result of being forced to do hard labor. Wilkinson of course knows nothing of history and is unaware of this.
3. Wilkinson is a dangerous ignoramus who should not be permitted to call himself a “liberaltarian,” which means “left-libertarian,” which means “doesn’t understand Libertarianism.” A better name for his school of thought would be something like “idiot.”
Even our kats be Kangzs and sheeit.
Agreed. It fires my Retard Detector right away. I know a woman in her 50s who uses the world gnarly regularly. She is very sweet otherwise.
http://www.willwilkinson.net/about/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizsla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizsla#Temperament
Sounds like Wilkinson should read or listen to Jordan Peterson including his recent interview with Damore.
. As I understand it, libertarianism is totally pro capitalists exploiting workers. That's why they favor open borders and as The Economist calls it, free movement of labor. The more workers there are, the lower are wages and less security and worse working conditions. That's why libertarians favor open, uncontrolled, never ending immigration.Replies: @kirk, @Pal, @RobRich
you do not understand libertarianism in the least. learn about a subject before you comment.
I wonder if anyone is going to ask him whether he knows what the incidence of pelvic prolapse (uterus “falling out”) is for high intensity female athletes? He doesn’t know and probably doesn’t care to know – as long as it hasn’t happened to every female marathon runner it is a non issue.
But even if he knew that incidence rate to the third decimal place it wouldn't matter. He will just retcon his PERSONAL MEMORY to be consistent with the idea that, back then in the horribly sexist era, all those idiot, Patriarchy-marinated, male Doctors were exaggerating the issue by at least a standard deviation or two because that's just how sexist American medicine was back then.
Which was when exactly? Wilkinson was born in 1973, so these PERSONAL MEMORIES were from what, the late 80's? Talk about having no concept of even modern history; Sailer is dead on with that one. As if it were just yesterday that the franchise was extended to women.
To add to this sentiment, Reason magazine too seems to veered of course; particularly since Trump.
. As I understand it, libertarianism is totally pro capitalists exploiting workers. That's why they favor open borders and as The Economist calls it, free movement of labor. The more workers there are, the lower are wages and less security and worse working conditions. That's why libertarians favor open, uncontrolled, never ending immigration.Replies: @kirk, @Pal, @RobRich
“As I understand it, libertarianism is totally pro capitalists exploiting workers.”
You misunderstand it.
“‘Modern day “libertarians” often come off as nothing but Cultural Marxists.
It’s really a stealth globalist /left wing movement. 99% of the time they support ‘libertarian’ ideas like open borders, gay marriage, and other ‘freedom’ but, strangely, never ending affirmative action (or just lip service) or lunch counter laws. ..”
Wrong.
These are not traditionally far-left concerns but always (somewhat mischaracterized )Libertarian ones because they protect the process and right to choose. The far-Left has begun giving them lip service, but notice the difference: the Libertarians say you have the option, the far-Left wants to impose its new cause on everyone while not getting real results.
The Libertarians bring unity, the far-eft/-right only division.
If "gay" "marriage" means "the right to choose," then you will defend me in demanding that bakers also make a Hakenkreuz cake, right?
Your logic is excellent.
You have only one fallacy.
You assume that liberals are susceptible to logical arguments. They are not. There are a few quasi-liberals such as Damore, who maintain that they share the premise of leftists, but are not real leftists, since they are actually persuaded by evidence and reason. Sooner or later, they are cast out and exposed for what they truly are: empiricists.
But, back to the fallacy, except for the quasi-liberals, no leftist is going to be persuaded by your arguments (or any arguments that do not accept their preformed notions). Therefore, those who already accept your logic will appreciate it, and the targeted leftist will simply dismiss it offhand.
I know your reply already. You will say that of course you don’t expect leftists to accept your logical argument.
My ex-wife was a competitive runner (and marathoner) in college (and after) in the ’80s and knew about amenorrhea–though not by name, i.e. cessation of menstrual periods. She thought it probably not a good idea, i.e. unhealthful, to train to the level that her periods disappeared. To the best of my knowledge, she only conceived by IVF. Amenorrhea is not a recent discovery.
. As I understand it, libertarianism is totally pro capitalists exploiting workers. That's why they favor open borders and as The Economist calls it, free movement of labor. The more workers there are, the lower are wages and less security and worse working conditions. That's why libertarians favor open, uncontrolled, never ending immigration.Replies: @kirk, @Pal, @RobRich
“As I understand it, libertarianism is totally pro capitalists exploiting workers. That’s why they favor open borders and as The Economist calls it, free movement of labor. The more workers there are, the lower are wages and less security and worse working conditions. That’s why libertarians favor open, uncontrolled, never ending immigration.”
Where did you get this nonsense? GOOGLE Libertarian International.
The libertarians are for voluntary economies, which may include voluntary capitalism, voluntary socialism, co-0perativism, etc. In the US they’re the ONLY party standing for unrestricted right to unionize. As for immigration, they want to see a world like the internal USA as a minimum of free borders, trade, and democracy.
Have you ever taken an economics course? Even Marxists aren’t this silly. If more labor lowered wages here, it would raise them elsewhere given less labor so in time it would balance out. In fact, more labor means a wage rise for all in a tolerably free economy.
For whom?
"In fact, more labor means a wage rise for all in a tolerably free economy."
Just because you say "in fact" doesn't make something a fact.
"Have you ever taken an economics course?"
Yes. Have you?
"Given less labor." Population stability is not a given except in your equation.
More sacrifices, i.e. the beatings will continue until morale improves…
Wilkenson really is an idiot.
During and after the Sochi Winter Olympics there were tons of stories about the prevalence of injuries among women snowboarders, including the usual gnashing of teeth and rendering of garments in the search for causes–as they couldn’t just blame men for the injuries.
Apparently it’s men’s fault that women are built slighter than men, making them fragile. Inequality–it’s so unfair!
the man writing the article is no libertarian. he may be a ‘lefty’, ‘fascist’, ‘commie’, or any other such moniker you wish to affix, but he is certainly NOT a libertarian.
libertarianism is a philosophy of life that employs the NAP (non -aggression principle) as its basic tenet. the NAP states: hurt no person, or their property. this recognizes the right to self defense, as well as private property rights.
if a proposed law, regulation, rule or expectation cannot fit into the ‘hurt no one, or their property’ ideation, it will not be supported by libertarians and libertarians would have no part in such things. in fact, true libertarians would actively be opposed to such violations of the NAP.
it is really that simple. all else is smoke/mirrors to prevent such a system of fairness and justice from replacing the current unfair and unjust system foisted on us by those who benefit from RULING, as opposed to GOVERNING, all.
2. Defend yourself.
3. Protect your property.
One of these does not belong.Replies: @kirk
libertarianism is a philosophy of life that employs the NAP (non -aggression principle) as its basic tenet. the NAP states: hurt no person, or their property. this recognizes the right to self defense, as well as private property rights.
if a proposed law, regulation, rule or expectation cannot fit into the 'hurt no one, or their property' ideation, it will not be supported by libertarians and libertarians would have no part in such things. in fact, true libertarians would actively be opposed to such violations of the NAP.
it is really that simple. all else is smoke/mirrors to prevent such a system of fairness and justice from replacing the current unfair and unjust system foisted on us by those who benefit from RULING, as opposed to GOVERNING, all.Replies: @The True and Original David
1. Hurt no person.
2. Defend yourself.
3. Protect your property.
One of these does not belong.
Where did you get this nonsense? GOOGLE Libertarian International.
The libertarians are for voluntary economies, which may include voluntary capitalism, voluntary socialism, co-0perativism, etc. In the US they're the ONLY party standing for unrestricted right to unionize. As for immigration, they want to see a world like the internal USA as a minimum of free borders, trade, and democracy.
Have you ever taken an economics course? Even Marxists aren't this silly. If more labor lowered wages here, it would raise them elsewhere given less labor so in time it would balance out. In fact, more labor means a wage rise for all in a tolerably free economy.Replies: @The True and Original David
“If more labor lowered wages here, it would raise them elsewhere given less labor so in time it would balance out.”
For whom?
“In fact, more labor means a wage rise for all in a tolerably free economy.”
Just because you say “in fact” doesn’t make something a fact.
“Have you ever taken an economics course?”
Yes. Have you?
“Given less labor.” Population stability is not a given except in your equation.
IIRC, Wilkinson and his common-law Kerry Howley had an association a dozen years ago with the Reason Foundation or some such. He was at one time a philosophy student (in graduate school, IIRC) and was associated with the University of Iowa (if I’m not mistaken). I think he eventually married Howley and they ended up in Tennessee when she landed work there and began building a career outside of opinion journalism. (I don’t recall just what it is she does); I think they have children as well, which is atypical among professional libertarians.
There is a Baskin & Robbins selection of flavors in the libertarian world. The only types which seem to have much salability to any electorate would be the sort of business Republicanism that Amory Houghton traded in (which does not incorporate much systematic thinking or argumentation) and the positive-law-oriented culturally conservative sort associated with Ted Cruz (a parody of which is seen in Ron Paul).
It's really a stealth globalist /left wing movement. 99% of the time they support 'libertarian' ideas like open borders, gay marriage, and other 'freedom' but, strangely, never ending affirmative action (or just lip service) or lunch counter laws. .."Wrong.These are not traditionally far-left concerns but always (somewhat mischaracterized )Libertarian ones because they protect the process and right to choose. The far-Left has begun giving them lip service, but notice the difference: the Libertarians say you have the option, the far-Left wants to impose its new cause on everyone while not getting real results. The Libertarians bring unity, the far-eft/-right only division.Replies: @The True and Original David
If open borders means “the right to choose,” then I am coming to Great Britain to turn your place into a squatter’s den. Your front door isn’t the same as a national border, you say? Have you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe?
If “gay” “marriage” means “the right to choose,” then you will defend me in demanding that bakers also make a Hakenkreuz cake, right?
Sorry, but I don’t listen to people who (still) use the word grok. It always brings to mind an image of a bearded, chubby grad student wearing Birkenstocks. One who thinks he knows more than you do.
Mr. Education Realist makes use of the term. I think he’s about 55 (pension in 4 years, boo yah!). (He brings to mind Hush Puppies, striped shirt, Dockers, necktie, receding hairline with what’s left kinky, untrimmed, and badly combed; mustache, wire-rimmed glasses, peevish bad temper).
I think we are all are just old. The young Internet writers of 15 years ago (Douthat, Larison, Dougherty, Weigel, Friedersdorf, Yglesias, Klein, to name several of various stripes) are not very young anymore. (Although Wilkinson is several years older than any of those I mentioned – I would have thought he was about the same age. Maybe the 1973 given by Wikipedia actually is incorrect?)
This thread: “True Libertarianism has never been tried!”
Damn, where have I heard this before?
Mr. Education Realist makes use of the term. I think he's about 55 (pension in 4 years, boo yah!). (He brings to mind Hush Puppies, striped shirt, Dockers, necktie, receding hairline with what's left kinky, untrimmed, and badly combed; mustache, wire-rimmed glasses, peevish bad temper).Replies: @Jack Hanson
One of the most pedantic and mendacious commenters around here with absolutely nothing of value to say (a crowded field here!) should not be ruminating on the physical appearance of anyone else.
About 36% of the working lawyers in this country are women. About 41% of the law degrees awarded since 1974 have been to women. About 40% of the disparity in the comparative number of practitioners is accounted for by a higher departure rate among women who enter the field.
The word mendacious does not mean what you think it means. No clue why I should not have a mental image of someone even were I actually pedantic or mendacious, nor why I’m taking advantage in telling you what it is and Buzz Mohawk somehow isn’t out of line.
No, he’s that old, as is Megan McArdle. His wife is a precise contemporary of those others. A number of them were amateur opinion-mongers college age. I’d have thought some of them might have gone into some other trade, but I think they all pretty much are professional opinion-mongers today. Larison studied for an academic career but he seems never to have landed even an adjunct position for whatever reason. (He and his wife have signed dissertations).
You might say he’s being hysterical, as it were.
But even if he knew that incidence rate to the third decimal place it wouldn’t matter. He will just retcon his PERSONAL MEMORY to be consistent with the idea that, back then in the horribly sexist era, all those idiot, Patriarchy-marinated, male Doctors were exaggerating the issue by at least a standard deviation or two because that’s just how sexist American medicine was back then.
Which was when exactly? Wilkinson was born in 1973, so these PERSONAL MEMORIES were from what, the late 80’s? Talk about having no concept of even modern history; Sailer is dead on with that one. As if it were just yesterday that the franchise was extended to women.
I probably should have said the young Internet writers of 10-12 years ago. 15 years ago would be too early for some (not all) of the ones I named. The very earliest bloggers were a decade or two older and usually had some prior experience as opinion journalists and sometimes even authors of published books.
2. Defend yourself.
3. Protect your property.
One of these does not belong.Replies: @kirk
i am sure you are referring to the ‘hurt no person’ aspect. this refers to the INITIATION of aggression. once aggression has been employed against an individual, the NAP has been violated by the aggressor. at this point, defending oneself or one’s property from the aggression of another does not violate the NAP.
Every act of violence is justified in the actor’s mind as self-defense. Who will adjudicate?
In any event, I tried reading some of Jemison's excreta, but it was too painful so I gave up.Replies: @Brutusale
The conflict in SF was raging before the Alt-Right was a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies
Only the unicorns & dragons fantasy fiction crowd pays any attention to the Hugos these days.