It must have been nice for Kim Kardashian to finally be the smart one in the room.
Although I expect she must have been a bit disappointed when, after talking to President McCheese about prison reform, he said "you know, you're right. I should pardon Dinesh D'Souza!"
At this point, my advice to anyone who is in jail and wants to get out, just tweet a picture of yourself in a MAGA hat to Il Douche. Maybe with a racist caption. Say you've been set up by the "deep state."
Random thought #2:
Do you think service dogs just think most people are dicks? Like wherever they go, they see other dogs getting petted and having their ears scratched by strangers, but those same people walk up to the service dogs, stop short and then just walk on by. The dog doesn't know what's written on his vest. So he has no way of knowing why people are petting all the other digs but not him. Does he think maybe he's not a good boy? Because really, he's the best boy. I really worry about their self-esteem.
Oh - and by the way, Google Images, this \/
. . . is NOT a service dog. This is a dog that is "into leather."
Random thought #3:
I bet there's good money in writing songs for children that are a little educational. It's probably a crowded marketplace, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
Ready? One Two Three Four. . .
What do you get when it's time for a bath
And you jump in the tub and you make a big splash?
Water on the floor 'cuz the tub was too full
That's Archimedes' Principle!
Remember, kids:
If you want to calculate bouyancy,
In your glass of milk
Or in the Caspian Sea,
There's a simple way that you might intuit.
You just need the weight of the displaced fluid!
The bouyant force on a submerged body
Either in the sink, the tub or the potty,
Is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced,
If it's water or juice or tomato paste.
It's a work in progress.
Here's another one I just thought of. It's about where babies come from.
And a one and a two and a... .
Oh, kittens and puppies
And fuzzy little ducklings.
All kinds of babies
Are made by
Anyway, you get the idea.
And yes, this is the sort of thing I think about while I'm at work.
You know, not every idea can be a gem. Even the best and brightest among us comes up with a clunker now and then. Prince wrote "Manic Monday." Steven Bochco did "Cop Rock." Michael Jordan tried to play baseball for a living. So it shouldn't be too surprising that even our generation's Edison, Elon Musk, came up with this brilliant idea:
Going to create a site where the public can rate the core truth of any article & track the credibility score over time of each journalist, editor & publication. Thinking of calling it Pravda …
Oh, the public! Oh yes, let's have the public "rate the core truth" of what they read in the news media. What a great idea! Let's have the people who scream "FAKE NEWS!" every time they don't like something be the judges of the "core truth" of what professional journalists write. I mean, it's not like there was a publication like, say, the Columbia Journalism Review, or organizations like F.A.I.R. that have actual knowledgeable informed individuals analyzing news coverage. No, this sort of thing is best left to the people that forwarded you that e-mail about Obama being a gay Muslim fascist..
Create a media credibility rating site (that also flags propaganda botnets)
Now I don't know what Elon Musk's politics are. And I certainly don't care enough to find out, but this bullshit. . . This is the kind of bullshit false choice that the right always tries to force people into. Like "Are you in favor of invading and occupying Iraq or do you think that Sadam Hussein is so great and you wish you could marry him?" or "Do you want everyone to be able to walk into WalMart with a machine gun whenever they want or do you want to throw the Constitution douwn the toilet?" I would have thought that a wealthy, successful man like Musk would be above this sort of crap, but I would have thought incorrectly. I would have at least thought there should be an option for "the mainstream media is in pretty bad shape at the moment and the proliferation of falsehoods purporting to be "news" on social media is making things considerably worse, but this is still a really dumb idea.
Problem is journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired. Tricky situation, as Tesla doesn’t advertise, but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world’s biggest advertisers.
Ooooh. I get it. You aren't interested in uncovering the truth, or determining which sources or trustworthy. You're just upset that Tesla got some negative press. And you want to be able to discredit any reporters who don't give you the fawning coverage you're used to. Okay, now it all makes sense!
Then it starts to get a little silly.
Even if some of the public doesn’t care about the credibility score, the journalists, editors & publications will. It is how they define themselves.
But you just said that all they care about is how many clicks and how much money they can pull in. Now you say that what they really care about is their credibility? And they define themselves by some credibility score that as yet does not exist and when it does exist will be decided upon by the same people who click on those "One Weird Trick" ads?
Thought you’d say that. Anytime anyone criticizes the media, the media shrieks “You’re just like Trump!” Why do you think he got elected in the first place? Because no ones believes you any more. You lost your credibility a long time ago.
Well. . . I mean. He's got a point. when you tweet things like:
The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth, but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie, is why the public no longer respects them https://t.co/Ay2DwCOMkr
One of the best shows I ever attended was a twin-bill at Bottom Of The Hill in San Francisco in the mid-Nineties.It was the Billy Nayer Show and the Legendary Stardust Cowboy. I didn't know a lot about "the Ledge" before that show. I'd heard Paralyzed on the radio, but that was about it. After that show, I was a fan for life.
Imagine, if you will, that you have a dog. You love this dog. But he's become rabid. And your family is in danger. Imagine saying "one of us has to keep an eye om the doggy door at all times and warn us if he tries to get in." And imagine saying "kids, when you come home from school, go straight to your rooms and lock the doors. Don't come out until you have your attack-dog-training suit on."
And imagine someone saying to you "maybe you should just get rid of the dog." And imagine replying "Hey, dogs are gonna bite. That's not the issue. The dog is not the problem. We just need to mitigate the damage the dog does when he attacks. Maybe get another, bigger dog to fight him."
That's pretty much the logic on display with the NRA's achool shield program.
Here's their lying lie of a mission statement:
We Have A Singular Mission: To Protect Our Children
School security is a complex issue with no simple, single solution.
Okay, I suppose that's true. Although, you know where it is less complex? England. And France. And Germany. And every other civilized nation on Earth that doesn't let kids get their hands on weapoms of death.
The National School Shield® program is committed to
addressing the many facets of school security, including best practices
in security infrastructure, technology, personnel, training, and policy.
Through this multidimensional effort, National School Shield® seeks to engage communities and empower leaders to help make our schools more secure.
You know. . . just when I thought these guys couldn't get any more disgusting.
First they make money by flooding the country with guns. Then when those guns inevitably kill a bunch of innocent kids, they step in to market "solutions." They're profiting off of murder coming and going.
There's an informative video on the site, but I can't get it to play, which is probably best for my fragile sanity anyway, but here are a few highlights from the text portion of the site:
Does the NRA support armed school personnel to protect students? The NRA believes every option should be considered when it
comes to protecting our children. When a threat occurs, a quick and
timely response by law enforcement professionals is what everyone hopes
for. However, in these situations - when time is clearly of the essence –
we strongly believe that trained school personnel can also serve a
vital role. As the first to face the threat, they can lead and implement
protocols designed to save lives.
Yeah. . . except. . . Santa Fe High had two armed law enforcement officers on campus, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas had at least one. None of them were particularly effective in preventing these killings. But I'm sure if you train the gym teacher thoroughly enough, he'll turn into John McLane and save the day.
Also. When you say "every option should be considered?" You know we know you're full of shit, right? Because you've been pretty adamant about not ever considering the most obvious option.
Oh, and here's a valuable service they provide:
The National School Shield’s Security Assessor Training seeks to
facilitate a partnership between schools and local stakeholders in a
shared commitment to more secure schools. At the conclusion of our
training, participants will be adequately primed to conduct standardized
school vulnerability assessments and assist schools in recognizing
strengths as well as potential vulnerabilities
Oh great! The NR fucking A is going to train completely unqualified randos to be "threat assessors." So get ready to see guys like this touring your kids' school!
And, not at all surprisingly:
Donate to National School Shield
Support the ongoing development and deployment of comprehensive tools
and resources designed to enhance the capacity of our nation’s schools
in identifying and managing security risks. Donate Now
Because if you've spent the last half hour reading about how every school is constantly under threat every minute of every day and no child is ever safe, you're probably going to be willing to fork over a few bucks to the ghouls who help to keep it that way - I mean, the competent professionals who can keep your child safe!
Actually, I really do wish I could get the video to play, but since I can't, I Googled the School Shiled program and found these interesting tidbits:
(via Mother Jones) The
report identifies perimeter fencing, made with material that “clearly
demonstrates territorial ownership,” as the “first physical and
psychological barrier that a violent individual must overcome.”
According to the report, the fences should not send a psychological
message that the school is vulnerable, like this (ordinary school)
fence: Instead, the fence should look more like this prison yard-style fence:
Holy God! This is the future these sick fucks envision. They want schools to look like prisons. They want kids going to school in America to feel like kids in the occupied territories or something, only feeling safe behind prison-like walls.
Research shows that students learn better and are less stressed when they can see some greenery
outside the classroom window. But according to the task force, trees
and bushes on school grounds should instead be viewed as major security
threats. They supposedly provide too many opportunities for a shooter to
stash weapons and hide from surveillance cameras. Shrubbery, according
to the report, is particularly bad if positioned next to the
aforementioned fence, lest all that foliage provide cover to someone
cutting through the fence or climbing over it.
This is not a forward operating base in Fallujah. This is school!
If a school insists on landscaping, the NRA recommends very kid-friendly “thorn-bearing and sharp-leaved plant species to create natural physical barriers to deter aggressors.”
What????
I get planting cacti or Mother in Law's Tongue by your windows at home to prevent burglaries, but school shooters just come in the front door, don't they? They aren't sneaking in like cat burglars, are they? This isn't going to make it harder for the shooters. All this would do is make it more difficult for kids to escape out the windows during a shooting.
The report does urge school leaders to keep in mind that such prickly
barriers might also prevent people from escaping a mad shooter.
According to the task force report, schools should be designed with an
eye toward 1970s-era post-riots urban architecture. Windows, if allowed
at all, should be designed solely with surveillance in mind. They should
be only large enough to peep out of to assess ongoing threats. “Design
windows, framing, and anchoring systems to minimize the effects of
explosive blasts, gunfire, and forced entry,” the report urges.
Sooooo. . . now it's a firetrap. Great going. Not only are these kids sitting perpetually frightened in a hot stuffy windowless room, now they have little chance of escaping safely from a fire. Or a shooter, for that matter.
The authors do acknowledge that this advice may conflict with the
school’s need to provide people fleeing a shooter with a secondary
escape route, noting that many people survived the Virginia Tech
shooting by climbing out windows.
So they know this. And they're recommending it anyway. Because they will do ANYTHING other than address the issue. THE DOG IS SICK! It's not going to get better. And you need to worry more about protecting your kids than about how much you love Fido.
So President Personality Disorder was giving a speech trying to whip up support for Republican candidates in the midterm, and this came out of his mouth hole:
"But if Democrats gain power, they will try to reverse these
incredible gains. These are historic gains. They will try and reverse
many of them. So your vote in 2018 is every bit as important as your
vote in 2016 -- although I'm not sure I really believe that, but you
know. (Laughter.) I don't know who the hell wrote that line. I'm not
sure. (Laughter and applause.) But it's still important."
He just can't help himself.
He just can't bring himself to just read the words on the screen without ad-libbing if those written words don't sufficiently puff up his own fragile ego.
He can't say that the 2018 election is just as important as 2016 because he's not running in 2018 so how could it possibly be as important if it doesn't involve him?
This is something beyond narcissism.
They're going to have to invent a new term for this kind of pathology.
Years from now, psychology students will be learning about "Il Douche Syndrome" or whatever they're going to call it and they'll raise their hands and ask the professor "was this based on a real person?" And the professor will say "God, I hope not!"
Televangelist Jim Bakker calls his Missouri cabins the safest spot for the Apocalypse
How?
How could they possibly be. . .? You know what, let's see.
Televangelist Jim Bakker suggests that if you want to survive the end of
days, the best thing you could do is buy one of his cabins in
Missouri's Ozark Mountains. And while you're at it, be sure to pick up
six 28-ounce "Extreme Survival Warfare" water bottles for $150.
Okay, but. . .I mean. . .it's the end of the world. Fire and brimstone. Stars falling from the heavens, seas turning to blood, complete destruction. How would you surv -- actually, why would you want to survive? Wouldn't you want to go to Heaven? God is destroying the Earth, killing everyone in sight, the righteous are going to eternal Paradise and you think you're gonna want to wait things out in Missouri? See how things play out? I mean, sure, Heaven sounds boring. ( h/t )Sitting around playing harps all day. Every day. Day after day. But it's got to be better than riding out the APOCALYPSE in some dumb cabin in the Ozarks watching the world burn and everyone die. Right?
Now, surrounded by buckets of food and "warfare" water bottles in the Ozarks, Bakker is in front of the cameras once again, preparing his viewers for the Apocalypse. "Where are you going to go when
the world's on fire? Where are you going to go? This place is for God's
people. ... We need some farmers to move here," Bakker said on Tuesday's
show.
You know, I'm no fancy big city theologian, but I seem to recall a place that was supposed to be for "God's people," a place where God's people were supposed to go at the end of the world. A little place by the name of . . . HEAVEN! Why would the Jim Bakker audience want to avoid going to Heaven? Maybe because they would miss seeing Jim Bakker?
Also, why would you think that this would work? Why would someone who believes in the all-seeing all-knowing almighty God of the Bible think that they would be able to hide from Him? Like he's going around raining fire and brimstone on everybody and the angels are like "Hey, Lord, there's some cabins down there in those hills," and God is going to say "Ah, there's probably no one in there. This place is so remote, I can't imagine anyone actually living there," and then you'll be all "Jokes on you, God! We were here the whole time!"
How is any of this supposed to work?
Later in the show, Bakker says the Ozarks is "the safest place to live"
versus living in large cities elsewhere in the country, like Chicago and
New York, The Christian Post reported.
Okay. I could see that. Probably a lot less crime in the Ozarks.
A lot more bears, though.
And a lot more guys who think you have a real purty mouth.
But on balance, sure. It's probably safer to live in a cabin in the woods with no hospital nearby or any doctor. really. And no ambulance service. But you probably won't need any of those things, you'll be so robustly healthy on your steady diet of Jim Bakker's dehydrated potato glop and $150 warfare water!
"Do you know the people from the government, from NASA, the research
from so many of them, they have said in their research that the safest
place to live in troubled times is right here. That's why God brought us
here," Bakker said.
No.
No, that is NOT what NASA does. Not even CLOOOSE to what NASA does. I don't know what you're thinking of, but it is definitely not NASA.
Also, the research you mention. Not only was that not NASA, but it was not any government agency because you made it up and it never happened and you're lying.
How is there not some kind of law against this? This is nothing but a swindle. And it's one thing to grift in the name of the Lord, but once you invoke NASA in your bullshit sales pitch, couldn't they at least sue you? Or something? He's robbing people blind. And yes, they should know better. They should know that he's already done time for fraud, and even if they don't their bullshit detector should be blaring every time this little prick speaks, but I'm just tired of living in a society in which it's considered okay to fleece someone because they're stupid and gullible.
He looks like a typical alt-right douchebag and in most ways he is.
But there is one difference between Patrick Little and your average Pepe.
Patrick Little is running for the Senate. In California.
Is he going to win? No. BUT, he is currently in the lead for the Republican nomination!
How "alt-right" could he be and still be the front-runner for one of the two major political parties in California you ask? Well. . . this much:
Now I get that it's not exactly news that this country is lousy with neo-Nazis. And if you've ever lived in California, it comes as no surprise that California has its fair share of skinheads (I lived in Orange Count for a while. You'd see "death to race-mixers" decals on signposts fairly regularly.) And it's not surprising that in the era of Il Douche, more of these sick fucks are turning up to run for office. But how is it not major news that a god damn Nazi is leading in the polls in the most populous state in the Union?
According to "The Hill," the California Republican Party has issued a tepid condemnation of Little:
The California Republican Party has denounced a Republican Senate
candidate who has denied the Holocaust happened and called for a country
"free from Jews." “Mr. Little has never been an active member of our party. I do not know
Mr. Little and I am not familiar with his positions,” Matt Fleming,
communications director for the California Republican Party,
told Newsweek. “But in the strongest terms possible, we condemn
anti-Semitism and any other form of religious bigotry, just as we do
with racism, sexism or anything else that can be construed as a hateful
point of view.”
Yes, a desire to exterminate Jews could be "construed as a hateful point of view."
But I can't find any statement from the National party or any member of the GOP leadership, or anyone with any name recognition. Apparently the Mitch McConnels and Paul Ryans either can't be bothered, or are too aware of their need for the skinhead vote, or just have no problem at all with a god damn Nazi representing their party on the California ballot.
So there is one small silver lining here. I was disappointed that Kevin de Leon wasn't making much headway in his primary challenge against Diane Feinstein, but at least I will get to watch this anti-Semitic piece of shit get crushed by a Jewish woman.
In a sane world, no one would give a flyspeck what a professional moralistic scold like Ross Douche-Hat has to say on any subject. But this is not a sane world. In the lunatic reality we inhabit, Douche-Hat has his every flacid thought published in the New York Times - America's Paper of Record - as if they were pearls of wisdom from a sage elder with unique insight. Which means that we are forced to confront Ross's self-important edict on the subject of "incels" and redistribution of sex which I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY TO STOP WRITING ABOUT, DOUCHEY!
(Remember, kids. they can't refute your argument if they're distracted by boobies!)
One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane.
Okay, sure. Sometimes the radicals and weirdos are Nazis, or Stalinists, or al Queda, or Scientologists, but sure. It never hurts to hear them out.
All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War. . .
Woah, woah, slow down there!You're going ALL THE WAY BACK to the Iraq War? We didn't all major in ancient history, you know!
(editor's note: Hmm, maybe little Douche-Hat was a little to young to be made an op-ed columnist. Maybe we should have gotten someone wirth a bit more perspective on things like Davis Broo - -oh, right. Never mind.)
All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the
crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made
more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than
as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.
Or, in simpler language, the hippy liberals have always been right but never been listened to. And the spewers of "establishment opinion" are never penalized for having been wrong. Every cheerleader for Bush's ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-advised, illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq is still being invited on the Sunday talk shows and the 24-hour news networks as if they have some rare and valuable acumen that simply must be shared with the general public while when's the last time you've seen Micheal Moore or Janeane Garofalo on Meet the Press?
For those more curious than martial, one
useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists
and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same
subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign
that there’s something interesting going on.
Which brings me to the sex robots.
Okay, now you've got my attention!
Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo.
Oh come on!
**Sigh** Fine. Let's talk about Hanson. I'm sure that will be just as interesting as "sex robots."
Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel”
— that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women
and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved,
Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just
distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for
some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous? This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly.
But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay
in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the
Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered
similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded
the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider
groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers
would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority
groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to
find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that
still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also
racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.
STOP IT! Stop trying to make it seem as if there is some basis for compelling any person to have sex with any other person. You're not gettin' any because you're overweight or you're a minority person trying to score with racists? I feel for you. That sucks. But you know what? It also sucks that I wasn't tall enough to play in the NBA. And it also sucks that I never had the manual dexterity to be a musician. Life is unfair. But no one is trying to suggest that the Warriors be forced to make room on their roster for me or that Bob Weir should be forced to jam with me. That's not how it works. Some unfairnesses can be fixed, others can't. And it is not a good idea to humor those who lash out with violence when they feel that life is too unfair.
Now can we PLEASE talk about sex robots?
. . . By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex
might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern
sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a
recurring pattern in liberal societies.
NO IT WOULDN'T!
Because sex is not a commodity. You can't just go down to the sex orchard and pic a bushel of sex and hand it out to the sex-deprived. Redistributing sex would require forcing women to have sex against their will or, at best, a massive prostitute-hiring WPA-type program that just seems really impractical.
First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual
revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace
the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in
new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and
frustration.
Oh, spot on, Douche-Hat! As everyone knows, prior to the sexual revolution, there was really no advantage to being beautiful or rich. Or socially adept. Everyone was just assigned a mate on their 21st birthday and whether you were handsome or ugly, homely or gorgeous, a witty raconteur or a retiring wallflower, everyone lived happily ever after and everyone had exactly the same amount if sex. Oh, why did those damn hippies have to ruin everything?
Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and
technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally
to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them
Right, and prior to this dismal modern era, men and women understood each other perfectly and always got along famously!
(I know you're maybe too young to remember the golden times of male-female harmony, may I suggest you Google "Lysistrata?")
When do we get to the sex robots?
In the case of sexual liberation and its
discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly
utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think
we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the
pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.
But
I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously
harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of
incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing.
The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and
regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind
NO!
No, no no! The "left's" zeal to legalize sex work is not aimed at appeasing potentially violent MRA's by helping to get them laid. The point of legalizing sex work is to make it less dangerous FOR THE SEX WORKER. Do you really not understand this? I don't know how to explain this, but not everything is about you. Not everything is done with an eye toward making pathetic men feel undeservedly better about themselves. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.
. . . the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots
will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point,
without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex,
right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right
exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed
laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.
No we won't. We "right-thinking" people will not come to that conclusion. Our position will be then what it is now. You have the right to have sex with anyone who is willing and is an adult. You have the right to watch virtual-reality porn or regular two-dimensional porn as long as everyone involved in making it did so voluntarily. And you absolutely have the right to spend your money on a sex robot.That's it. You don't have any claim on another person's body. And you never will. And by promoting the fiction that someday such a right will be recognized, you are only feeding in to the pathology of these "incels" increasing their belief that they are "owed" sex and making it more likely that they will act out in violent ways when this proves again to not be the case.
Stop it.
Stop humoring these people.
I know you don't actually believe in any right to sex. You believe that everyone should have to live their lives by the dogma of the Catholic Church. If it were up to you, there would be no sex outside of reproduction. You're only humoring these man-boys because your misogyny is outweighing your aversion to human sexuality. You need to stop. This won't end well.
I saw this on Twitter the other day attributed to a professor at George mason University:
One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income,
No, one mightn't.
Lack of access to sex is annoying. It's frustrating. It's discouraging. It really isn't comparable to worrying whether you will be able to make the rent. It isn't really akin to having to choose between food and medicine. Lack of sex will not result in homelessness or malnutrition. They aren't similar.
. . . and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity,
to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly
threaten violence if their demands are not met.
WHAT????
What the hell? Redistribution? And you're positing this as if it is part of a reasonable worldview? You can not be serious.
As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality
might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet
still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps
move others to support their policies.
What? Seriously? You think that violence "helps move others to support their policies?" You think that when some pissed-off virgin drives a van into a crowd trying to kill as many women as possible that normal people see this and think "gee, that vile little murderer makes a good point?" I mean, do you think that Tim McVeigh helped bring new recruits into the anti-government militia movement? You think a lot of people converted to Islam after 9/11? Acting out violently when things don't go your way is pretty much the worst way imaginable to get people to see things from your point of view. As it should be.
. . . the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies.
(Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in
compensation.)
Cash might be. . . um, that's called prostitution and I don't know how to break this to you, but that's already a thing.
You ever see these ladies?
That's what they're doing. They're getting cash redistributed to them in exchange for redistributing sex to some sad loser. It's a valuable public service and it goes on in every town in the world. This isn't an idea you invented.
Strikingly, there seems to be little overlap between those who express concern about income and sex inequality.
Wow, that is so odd! How can that be? How can people care about something that makes life extremely fraught for a lot of people and not care about something that is annoying and could be solved with a quick personality transplant, a call to an escort service, or a bottle of Jergen's and a box of Kleenex? It's mystifying!
Strikingly, there seems to be little overlap between those who express
concern about income and sex inequality. Among our cultural elites, the
first concern is high status, and the later concern low status. For
example, the article above seems not at all sympathetic to sex
inequality concerns.
Yeah! Imagine that! Because one concern can literally be life and death, the other is a bunch of whiny little man-boys who think that it's completely unfair that women would rather date attractive men. Or smart men. Or men with decent personalities. Or men who don't live in their moms' basements. Or men who don't have facial hair that belongs in Whoville.
Or even men who are not under the impression that a certain amount of hours put in as a "nice" guy entitles them to vagina access.
Okay, I seem to have gotten a bit off-track. Where was I going with this?
Oh, right.
I assume that Professor Robin Hanson probably doesn't really agree with the "incels" about sex re-distribution. Although, he is someone who looks like this:
so I could see where he might feel a certain kinship with them. But that's not the point.
The point is, we have to stop humoring these kind of people. We have to stop pretending that people like this might have some kind of point. We for some reason decided to humor the gun nuts post-Brady Bill, telling ourselves that maybe they had legitimate concerns and not to dismiss their feelings out of hand and now we have a bunch of Dale Gribbels strutting around Target stores with assault rifles and gun massacres are just a part of the fabric of everyday life in the good ol' USA.
We* decided to humor the Teabaggers. We decided to pretend that they were just concerned about government overreach and taxation rates, and sure they might be a bit misguided and misinformed and racist as hell, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to air their grievances in public. Now we have King Birther in the White House steadily dismantling every positive aspect of out Federal system.
This shit needs to stop. When you have maladjusted men who think that a reasonable response to being turned down for a date is to murder a bunch of women, the last thing we need is a tenured professor putting a pseudo-academic spin on their rage and trying to make it seem as if they might have some sort of point. Remember during the GW Bush administration, when everybody was worried that any word coming out of a Democrat's mouth was going to "embolden the enemy?" Robin Hanson is emboldening the enemy. And this shit needs to stop. Now.
*and by "we," I mean American society in general, not you and I, dear reader.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59896443/trump_and_kim_kardashian.1527698452.jpg)
