I was thinking of starting a quick discussion about libertarianism and feminism and how the two go together, because well it could be rather entertaining.
Disclaimer: I am white, male, Romanian, and an engineer, with a huge penis. I mean massive. You should see this thing. So I maybe do not have the full nuances of Americanese society or the blessing of an education in intersectionality at a social sciences college. Which I think is a good thing, as I talk general principle not the particularities of this or that society. Onwards, then.
Also disclaimer: while I use terms like men and women in the article, it goes without saying I do so for the sake of brevity, do add how many ever other identifications in there.
So let’s get ready to rumble. In the blue corner we have a lot of libertarians who are against the concept of feminism, for a wide variety of reasons (from philosophy to actual misogyny). In the red (well pinko mostly) corner, feminists like good ol’ Lizzie NB from you know which site, who says feminism is part of libertarianism, I think. She has that whole feminist for liberty thing going.
Personal view: I am not a feminist. I do support full liberty and rights for women. I do not believe men/women are superior/inferior in any way, though I believe there are some biological differences. Those differences are irrelevant from a philosophical point of view. Beyond the State and the Law, the main concerns of libertarianism, I think people should respect each other and treat each other as equals.
So what is my disagreement with feminism? And to be clear, I do not qualify this by stating third wave/radical/intersectional/postmodern/critical theory/whatever feminism. Feminism period. Well, it is the same with my disagreement with any form of identity politics. Any form of group politics, group rights. The way I see it, it is quite inherent in identity politics to devolve into tribalism and collectivism. It is just human nature. In the end, these movements will fill with self-interested people who profit from them and with people with various ideological ideas beyond the scope of the movement. These people will be interested in grievance mongering, keeping conflicts, and hijacking the movements for other reasons. Inevitably, the demand for positive rights or privileges appears.
Women were not equal to men throughout history. The fact that I believe feminism is not a solution does not mean I discount the problem. Saying communism was a disaster for Russia is not saying Tsarist Russia was just great. I think actually advocating liberty for all is the solution, without going down the path of identity politics. I am sympathetic to arguments that liberty for all is fine, but a certain group’s liberty is more restricted/infringed than other groups, and it should be highlighted, but, in the long term, doing this via identity politics can be counterproductive. You can highlight it strongly without different terms for this. The liberty movement has a long history of supporting equal rights, and can attack a particular injustice without attaching it to identity terminology.
Also, it goes without saying that most of these movements – sex, sexual orientation, race – will be inevitably taken over by ideological leftist – which is the standard left MO – and high jacked for entirely different purposes. The reaction of the left-wing press to organizations like Pink Pistols is quite relevant. Or the environmental movement dominated by watermelons (you know, green on the outside, red on the inside). In the end capitalism is the true problem, because of course. It always is.
Now Lizzie, or people like Christina Hoff Sommers, may say at this point that there is plenty she disagrees with from left feminists and they claim they want a different type of feminism, which is in fact about equal rights and liberty. But that, to me, is like saying oh we don’t want the current big bureaucratic state, we want a competent efficient big bureaucracy. Not gonna happen, as the problems are inherent in bureaucracy and will inevitably reach this point. The same goes for feminism. What the world needs is not more labels and groups and tribalism.
I do not want to suggest that people who identify as libertarian feminists are not real libertarians or something like that. Just that the second label is unneeded and can be quite counterproductive.
About sexism, it is quite important to define it because “anything some feminist does not like is sexism” is bullshit. To give an example, I have heard many a feminist call sexism that a man tells another man a joke that a woman overhears and finds offensive, even if not directed at that woman. Well, tough shit. I my-very-self sometimes like to tell improper jokes, transgressive, or jokes which are offensive just for the sake of being offensive. Jimmy Carr built a very lucrative career on this. If you are bothered, that is your problem and none of mine. I will have to go with the thicker skin thing here. I mean honestly, the world is a nasty place, and it ain’t gonna change soon. So I think a thicker skin is universally useful advice.
That is offensive to women, is an oft heard claim. Which women? Are all women offended by the same thing? Who made someone official spokespersons for all women (good gig if you can get it)? Another thing is men will not behave towards women exactly like they behave towards other men and the same goes for women. This is not sexism, it is just nature. It is, as they say, OK.
Is there sexism in the libertarian movement? Well yes, like everywhere. Except the US Democratic party, where there are zero sexists. Furthermore libertarianism attracts a lot of… let’s say non mainstream people, due to not wanting laws against non-violent behavior, irrespective of how in poor taste that behavior may be. Can libertarian men change towards being less sexist / offensive to some women? Sure, probably some of them could.
But here is the problem: I hear many claim casual sexism is what turns women from libertarianism. I am sorry, but this is nonsense. If casual sexism puts you off your principles, your principles were not strong in the first place, and inevitably you would repent and write for Salon about being an ex-libertarian. A community is nice and all, but principles should somewhat transcend that.
Now, of course, ideas reaching people is important. If someone is exposed to libertarian ideas they may become interested in researching further and thinking about it, and in the end developing the principles, so it is important not to turn people off directly. This can use some work for libertarians, including better outreach towards womenfolk. Also, it should be a basic goal in life not to be a complete asshole, sexism or otherwise.
Sadly, the notion that libertarianism is not popular mostly because of marketing issues rings hollow to me. Most people, men and women, do not really have strong principles, do not really research and think about why they believe what they believe. They are just not interested in what libertarians are selling. The movement is small and even doubling the numbers will keep it small. And better marketing will sadly not change much. Looking at the major challenges of spreading libertarianism, casual sexism is not one. Which is sad because it would probably be easier to fix. Of course, that does not change the premise of trying not to be offensive for no apparent reason. This is basic politeness.
Anyway. Thoughts? Do share…
Aw, nuts.
Rupert Murdoch is closing ‘punky libertarian’ website Heat Street after little more than a year
http://www.businessinsider.com/dow-jones-heat-street-is-closing-2017-6
Heat Street was supposed to be “punky libertarian”? If it were, it might have been more successful. Yokel Buzzfeed had no place in a world that already has Breitbart, Twitchy, WND, and Hot Air.
It’s closing because Mensch is locked up in a psychiatric ward, as she should be.
‘Punk’ has become more and more tame/lame as the years go on. Get ready for The Ramones onesies for babies.
Beat the Brat?
These euphemisms.
I would have also accepted “Loudmouth” as appropriate.
Spiderman: Homecoming had Ramones in the end credits for no reason related to the movie about modern teenagers.
Than again, that and Ace of Spades in a retarded Kia commercial beforehand are encouraging signs that GenX is now getting to enforce their taste on unwilling public instead of Boomers. It’s happening!
So instead of the Beatles and masturbatory fantasies about the hippie movement and civil rights, we get the Ramones and…whining about Reagan/Thatcher? Great.
Still an improvement! See below for the list of 80s stuff, and I forgot, comics! Judge Dredd is an 80s product. Too bad Karl Urban movie didn’t do so well – he was a great Dredd. Supposedly there’s a Dredd TV show in the works and producers want him for the role.
Oh yes, I can’t wait for the Gen X equivalent of the Emoji movie, that’s going to be great.
The horror to come.
You have discovered our secret – Adam Sandler is the shadow gestalt of GenX, eternal and unstoppable. Powered by our darkest fears and basest appetites, he comes out to haunt us with our failures. Yet we are helpless, for he is us and we can do nothing.
He is our Woodstock and our Vietnam, Pennywise the Clown hiding in the sewers of our collective unconscious.
Behold, our sins brought before us and displayed for all to see:
Budget
$88,000,000 (estimated)
Gross
$78,747,585 (USA) (8 November 2015)
$244,866,996 (worldwide)
You mock, but just you wait. Think of all the garbage that has been made to cater to the Boomers. That is your destiny.
I don’t mock, Adam Sandler’s continued profitability baffles me, and his success cannot be blamed on Boomers, or Millenials or any other generation! He’s 100% on us.
But, I don’t expect our shit will get the same reverential treatment as Boomer shit. Look at Transformers – that’s a GenX icon, and Bay went and fucked with it to appeal to general audience without regard for what the core fans wanted. I mean, it worked, Transformers were retarded shit in the first place, and those make fuckton of money too, but still.
Or Ghostbusters – how did that work for us? It didn’t, it got Millenialed to fuck and back!
A-Team? Grim reimagining for general audiences.
Does Ghost in the Shell count? That was remade by a fanboy, and was unexpectedly good. All I ask is that the hypothetical Robotech movie have the same treatment.
GitS was worth a shit? Maybe I’ll check it out after all.
ScarJo turned me off the project. Not that I wanted an “authentic” Kusanagi, but one who wasn’t the sole focus of the film. I loved the first SAC (the major arc, anyway) because of the whole political intrigue/government corruption angle. It transcended but didn’t eclipse Kusanagi’s existential wonderment, and gave the series more heft and staying power. So when I heard ScarJo announced, I thought Oh, well, they’re just making another shlock action movie with a money printer name attached.
I prefer GITS: SAC myself – but the new movie did have some excellent moments – taking the puppetmaster approach, I believe the plotline and “villain” was actually fleshed out my more fully than in the first anime movie. Good on the whole – I’ll be picking it up – but some characters like Kitano’s version of Aramaki – were disappointing.
“much more fully” – dammit.
It wasn’t good. But it was GitS, and that’s all I could reasonably ask for. There are scenes and shots that are straight from the first GitS movie, but there’s new stuff that does fit into the overall theme. Also what I think were couple references to Mamoru Oshii’s other works.
Scarlet was…adequate-ish? Major is not an emotional character, and this is set early in her career, her being shelled is a very recent event. Could have used a better actress, but she didn’t detract from the movie.
My major complaint with ScarJo, besides being a budget sump, is Lucy.
Oh, and reason I brought it up in GenX discussion is that the movie is heavily influenced by the 1995 GitS movie by Oshii. It has less philosophy and more explanation of politicking (inter- and intra-governmental) that forms the background of the plot. I don’t remember SAC well so not sure how much you’ll like it if it’s your preferred version.
It has some OK visuals, but Johansson is pretty bad at that whole “acting” thing, the villain is boring as hell and could be lifted directly from Captain Planet (see also, Robocop remake), Takeshi is just meh…
I rewatched it again after the bluray came out and it did not improve on a second viewing.
There’s a commercial playing that’s basically a long riff on Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and everytime I see it I wonder how many people know what it’s even referencing at this point. As a GenXer myself, I feel like my generation really overestimates the appeal of things we liked back then.
Sheetz?
Hmmm, 80s synth and…the movies?
That’s about it. Your fashion was a visual abortion, but you get graded on a curve because of the 70s.
No! There’s more, uh,.. *kicks pebbles and slinks away*
TV shows too. Come on, Magnum PI, A-Team, Dynasty, Yes, Minister, Family Ties, The Simpsons, The Young Ones… it may not always have been good, but they had style and a voice.
Can we also argue Heavy Metal? Although some bands started in late 70s, 80s is when metal hit big?
Oh, and cyberpunk – that shit was so 80s it hurts.
And video games took off in the 80s – Civ, Pirates!, Zelda, Mario, FF, Ultimas 1-6, Wing Commander.
Yes but half of those shows have not aged well in the post-Babylon 5 extended seasonal/series plot world we inhabit today. Yes, Minister still succeeds because of its timeless ideas and The Simpsons is more a 90s kids thing that anything else, but you’ll get a lot of eyerolls from non-GenXers over Magnum PI or the A-Team.
Heavy Metal, sorta, but really the fact that people like Alice Cooper were performing in 1968 makes it questionable as a ‘generational’ thing. Cyberpunk hasn’t aged well either, mostly because so much of it existed at a time just before computers became a commonplace thing. Video games, sure, but Japan gets more credit for that than anything else.
post-Babylon 5 extended seasonal/series plot world we inhabit today.
Is this true? I don’t watch a lot of TV and yes, GoT and Walking Dead are popular. But my impression was that big shows are CSI/NCIS spinoffs, sitcoms and such, which might have a season arc that pops a few episodes at best, but are still designed to be self-contained.
It would be interesting to try rebooting one of the 80s show like Magnum, don’t try to update beyond style and see what happens. I guess McGuyver reboot didn’t do well, but then again, I think it tried updating the formula to be more modern and relevant…
The Young Ones has aged perfectly because college students stay stupid no matter when the period. There are a couple Thatcher-specific jokes, but 95% of the humor is so absurdist it doesn’t matter. And the music performances are great – included because it gave them a bigger budget as a “variety” show than as a sitcom ;p
Highly recommend the British R2 dvd set (both seasons for 9 pounds….) – whycome no blu-ray???
I am basing this off of Millennial tastes, and yeah, this problem starts to emerge when you expose them to ’80s cool’ like Magnum. If they grew up with something they’re obviously more responsive to it, but in some cases its like trying to get them to watch Taxi or the Andy Griffith Show. It’s just too out of their cultural zeitgeist, writing has changed, structure has changed, the tropes are too familiar now, etc.
But remember, a percentage of this generation apparently unironically likes Girls, so you can take solace in that.
Yup. Deadpool used it as a joke at least.
But that reminds me, there’s a scene in Spiderman:Homecoming that’s a recreation of a scene in FBDO. They at least provide visual reference two seconds later, as he runs past a TV screen showing that very scene. I still missed it, so no way target audience knew it.
Here’s the deal: the reason we were named Gen X in the first place is because there are so few of us, sandwiched between the Boomers and the Millennials. There are simply not enough of us to define the common gestalt compared to the huge cohorts before and behind us. We will never control popular culture the way our parents did. Do you know how sick I am off listening to music created about the same time I was?
But the Boomers rock isn’t being replaced by Gen X’s, it’s being replaced by the music of the Millennials.
Fuck that clickbait shithole. A place where I wouldn’t read articles even if I was really interested in the content, because the editorial slant was so bad.
Dammit, I noticed there had been a dearth of new articles recently but I didn’t make the connection that that could mean trouble.
Am I the only one who liked that site? Maybe I’m less bothered by click bait… I thought their stuff was funny.
i didn’t mind it.
I just want to thank you, Pie, for another excellent article. I really appreciate that you spend the time and put in the effort to give us your perspective.
So I did my very best to channel Robbie and leave myself plenty of outs lest I be accused of wrong-think, although how successful I was is hard to tell.
Your opening gambit failed due to lack of dick pics.
You can’t handle the truth
You call yours “the Truth”? Mine was named “Charlie Brown”, there’s an interesting story behind that.
Its calls the English teacher “Daddy-O”?
*It calls*
Lucy pulls out just as you’re about to climax?
Please don’t encourage him.
I thought I was encouraging women to pull out from HM.
You mean the ones without restraining orders out on him?
Well, how else are you going to see the money shot?
Correct answer is “Cameras of today don’t have enough megapixels.”
I love it when you contribute articles to the site. Thank you!
Agreed. This is a very good post.
Yes, good article. Thanks.
surprise, surprise, surprise
Humans have altered tropical forests for 45,000 years
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/08/04/Humans-have-altered-tropical-forests-for-45000-years/9821501853811/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=5
***
Researchers concluded that the perception of an untouched tropical forest ecosystem does not exist.
***
Oh, the perception exists, all right.
No. Shit.
The feminists I have spoken with and listened to take the wage gap as an article of faith. This is the belief which energizes them, so I think that is the reason they maintain it in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Here’s a fun thing to do: ask a feminist what rights men have that women don’t have. You will get a blank stare followed by a what-about-ism.
The idea that women in countries like the US are suffering under unbearable sexism is ridiculous. Last time I checked:
-men die 7 yrs sooner than women on average
-80% of suicides are men
-90% of work place deaths are men
-80% of homeless people are men
-90% of prisoners are men
-75% of murder victims are men
But oh no! A woman walked through NYC and strange men said things like “hello” and “you look nice today”. The horror!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A
There are too few female CEOs and politicians, but the number of female plumbers and auto mechanics is just fine.
Feminism isn’t about equality. It’s about dominance.
Or too few male nurses or babysitters or receptionists. Or HR whatevers.
I was going to say something similar to this. The whole women are held down by the patriarchy thing is utter bullshit in most areas of work. In the blue collar world that I have lived my whole life in, a young man goes to work on a framing crew, where a comparable starting position would be low level office work that go to the young ladies. A woman has a far better chance of getting an easy job. I have known one female carpenter in my life (she was a tough lady). Not because women can’t do the work, rather, why the hell would they want to? It is hard work. Why do that when they can sit in an office?
So Why Do some men Prefer to work outside?
I know I could never sit in an office all day, forever. FUCK THAT SHIT
To be fair, ENB and CHS which I have mentioned do not support the wage gap thing. Hoff Sommers is quite reasonable in other things as well. I am not sure why exactly they still identify as feminists though
ENB is reasonable *cough* on many things. But her reaction to a dumb joke was just despicable.
It was that plus the 3 days of digging even more.
“Feminism isn’t about equality. It’s about dominance.”
Women control the pussy. They already have all of the power.
Comments like this is why we don’t have more women commenters
Could be. It is a true statement none the less.
“Comments like this is why we don’t have more women commenters”
I don’t know why fully admitting that I am but their humble servant would be an issue for them.
I have one or two male “feminist” friends who are pretty outspoken about their belief that females are superior to males in every way.
I think your explanation is probably that which they’re not telling me.
except height, strengths and dick size, although in their case that may not be true
their belief that females are superior to males in every way.
I take it they’re hundred pound pajama boys? Because if it’s a comparison between…that and females they’re not wrong.
I suppose they’re not considering physical aspects as “important”.
So they’re idiots?
No, just submissive kinksters.
I have one or two male “feminist” friends who are pretty outspoken about their belief that females are superior to males in every way.
I take it they’re speaking from personal experience. Sorry, I don’t see the point in reorganizing society around their personal inadequacies.
Amen, Bill. I consider the men who go out of their way to proclaim that they’re feminists to be suffering from something parallel to the oikophobia that makes them diss America because they feel guilty about living better than most of the rest of the world.
A good test of whether you are talking to a feminist or a female supremacist is to ask them whether women are worse than men in any way.
“A woman walked through NYC and strange men said things like “hello” and “you look nice today”.”
If it was a man she was attracted to, he could say anything he wanted to her and it would have made her day that he noticed her.
Yup. Just like the SNL sketch starring Tom Brady in which he gives advice on how to avoid accusations of sexual harassment at work. Brady and Armisen say the same things to female coworkers, but Armisen IS committing harassment, while Brady is not. The three simple tips they gave were:
Be handsome.
Be attractive.
Don’t be unattractive.
Here’s the clip
Which unintentionally points out the absurdity of sexual harassment. It’s subjective. If the person likes it, than anything up putting your dick in them is acceptable, if they don’t like it then any advance is harassment. How could having jaws based off the whims of someone’s internal emotion go wrong?
Despite your unintentionally hilarious fat-finger typos, I mostly agree. But there is some real sexual harassment, like when someone in power over an employee implies or demands favors for career advancement, or when someone corners another employee and is disgustingly sexual (not “sexist” and not just complimentary or flirty) and even touches the other employee (yes, this happened to me, and yes, I damn well reported it).
The problem is when people want to equate “He said I was pretty!” “He opened the door for me!” with sexual harassment. That is just stupid, and very similar to saying “Man, I wish I hadn’t drunkenly slept with that guy”=RAPE.
Crying wolf does nothing but further hurt real victims.
well said.
Yeah, how hard is it to not be a douche bag. If a female co-worker gets her hair done. I might comment that her hair looks nice but that’s as complimentary as I get. Just be professional.
The rubric here is that SJW should decide what people make
and governments should then enforce it;
reasonable people will decide, not markets and not owners.
I invite such thinkers to do this:
* start your own company
* pay the women twice what such professions normally make
* pay the men half what such professions normally make
* live happily ever after….good luck with that….I for one don’t care.
The problem is that this has nothing to do with autonomy or freedom;
it has everything to do with you telling you what to do with your enterprise and your property,
to which the proper reply remains “fuck off, slaver”
Feminism and the left appeal to largely to emotional reasoning (which is more common on average in females than males) and exploit feelings of powerlessness to prop up their nefarious beliefs. Don’t see how it’s more complicated than that.
That’s sexist
relevant:
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/893059904474411008
“DURR HURR NEUROLOGY DOESN’T EXIST.” Jesus Christ, exactly the crap I’m talking about. “My feelings matter more than the evidence.”
Of course, ENB achieving the slightest amount of power through social capital and then using it in the most petty and vindictive way possible is not reflective in any way of her feelings of powerlessness.
There are plenty of men who act the same way. Twitter is full of them. The thing is, they don’t call themselves libertarians.
I’m not saying feelings of powerlessness is solely an attribute of women, more just that her behaviour supports my point. As does going “yeah, those years of peer reviewed neurological studies that show a clear indication between sex and gray/white matter structure in the human brain, including differences in white matter structure itself? Doesn’t exist because science hurts my feelings.”
That difference exists only because women are socialized differently. If parents didn’t have unconscious bias against women women would be like men. Just not assholes. Men are naturally assholes. Women would be just like men but better. Just socialize em properly is all
Ah ha, but the feminists have given us the rope to hang them with. Specifically, neurological studies and autopsies have been done on late-term abortions and miscarriages where complex brain matter has already developed. And those patterns are present even before they left the womb. I wonder how you socialize someone before they even exist.
But did the pregnant woman know the sex of the fetus? Because if she did …
I wonder how you socialize someone before they even exist.
Such is the insidious power of The Patriarchy. It’s as evil and ever-present as the midichlorians.
Yes, Trump was formed by The Patriarchy itself, not by his father’s seed!
See, I’m hoping they go with a new Lysenkoism where evolution itself is a manifestation of The Patriarchy. How dare the most adaptive survive! That assumes adaptive privilege!
Well any good gender studies professor will tell you neurologist don’;t know what they are talking about because they did not study gender studies
Unless the subject turns to homosexuality and then all of a sudden neurological structure is evidence of innate homosexuality.
What I find more offensive is that it is just assumed that anyone that makes a slightly sexist stupid joke, “make me a sandwich” is therefore a sexist pig. WTF happened to some things just being a joke? People who play the outrage card at pure silliness have zero credibility imho. I think most people outside of the professional pontificator class are not outraged as easy as said professional pontificators. Most people have to deal with actual important things in their lives.
In Trump’s America…
Twitter Guy: Great job painting libertarians with a broad brush.
ENB: No I didn’t.
TG: You just tweeted it.
END: I don’t really believe that.
Jesus Christ.
For someone who threw a temper tantrum over someone else’s open and vague joke that she saw as ‘offensive’ she seems to be perfectly willing to spew open and vague statements that can be seen as ‘offensive’.
Need MOAR backdoors. FYTW.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/07/28/governments-are-not-in-control/
I keep saying that “security” is an illusion, passwords are a joke, etc. There really is no way forward other than assuming that everything about you is open to the world and behaving accordingly.
Meh, I don’t care if everyone sees my dick pics. But I’m still not posting them deliberately.
Fuck the “Load more” links. Can’t just put the whole damn thing on one page without it?
I know right
I used to screenscrape and make my own RSS feeds to get around this idiocy, but RSS itself has been on a totally ridiculous decline because of the return of 90s portalization, and now it’s just too much.
Disclaimer: I am white, male, Romanian, and an engineer, with a huge penis. I mean massive. You should see this thing.
9″ may be big; your 9cm isn’t.
9″ is the circumference
Your wiener is globular?
Oblate spheroid.
That’s no moon!
Hey Ted – I was going through old VHS tapes and found copies of The Blue Angles and Touch of Evil. If you’d like them, I’ll send them to you for postage.
Also: anyone else.
I don’t think my VCR works. (And auto-complete doesn’t have VCR in the dictionary.) Thanks for the offer, however.
Posted in other thread
Go to first link in this link, search for Elizabeth Carlisle (think this was Loretta lynch grandma and her doj alias)
Note time stamp of these emails
https://aclj.org/government-corruption/doj-document-dump-to-aclj-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-comey-fbi-lied-media-collusion-spin-and-illegality
It’s critical to coordinate security details when you want to discuss grandchildren…
That was really good, Pie.
the article or the penis joke?
You were joking? I won’t be in my bunk.
His penis is the joke.
The article.
I have a big dick too.
No, wait…I AM a big dick.
I get those confused.
Vaguely related.
Whole thread is a goldmine.
So, a SugarFree Thicc Thursday fanfic? Sounds just like what we need to keep the Certified Family Friendly badge strong!
That was a great find! thanks
Oh, is this the context?
Husband’s tribute to his ‘curvy’ wife sparks backlash
Yep.
Woooo….just had a belgian chocolate quad for lunch….10%+
Ok, my new youtube channel is really getting my creative juices flowing. I’m having a lot of fun with this honestly. Decided to make a “response” video to Diversity and Comics – a bit more of an indie bent based on some titles that came out this week.
I do have another DVD review up at the channel from earlier this week – Congolese noir/neo-noir “Viva Riva”. Next week we go for a Serbian vintage!
Not sure if I’ll have a capsule review of French flicks this next week – mainly because I haven’t seen either of the titles for this week previously.
Damn, that Hillbilly comic sounds and looks amazing. All the stuff you show looks cool (Galaktikon made me go “Judge Dredd!” when you flipped the page, and it sounds like it has a similar sensibility when it comes to satire), but Hillbilly is head-and-shoulders above others.
Anything Eric Powell does is amazing. (his OCs and solo projects – gorgeous art and writing). He’s also done a couple 100% 1st Amendment books – “Satan’s Sodomy Baby” #1 and #2. I could easily do a longer video just talking about him since I’ve got every Goon book and nearly all the merch since his first mini-series in ’99 – some good interview stuff and a few sketches and prints, etc. I may not agree with him on all his political opinions, etc – but he’s a great guy (big roller derby fan too).
Remember when Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was a thing?
So….Serbian vintage up next? Any hints? I’ve not seen any movie made past…95 I think, so my idea of vintage may be different, and not sure how much any of the classics would translate…
Magical realism/fantasy – post-WW1 (2008 release date). Gorgeous film, limited options for a decent A/V presentation right now. Review will be up on Thursday again.
(assumes this means “had sex with 4 Afro-Belgian transvestites”)
Hmmm, maybe next time. This time something a little simpler – 11% actually.
WooHoo, Heady stuff, I stop at 8 ABV for safety, any higher and I fall down
Welp, it’s noon. The day’s not going to drink itself away. I woke up with the worst case of no-hangover I’ve had in months, and I’m not making the same mistake tomorrow.
It was noon a long time ago.
I think you highlight the problem with all of your “isms”. That is that they all carry with them a ton of baggage. Once you associate yourself with any of them people assume they know everything about you there is to know. Certainly the identity politics in college campuses, most of social media, as well as the retarded harpies in the media give Feminism a bad name but there are certainly a few people who call themselves feminist who are not just parrots and who are not caught up in that bullshit. It’s just a label. I don’t really take issue with it.
I don’t want any more economists, sages, or oracles bombinating over our cables. I want a reporter. Somebody who doesn’t know the difference between an ism and a kangaroo.
Speaking of women Venezuela’s AG has been fired. Like Maduro said would happen.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKBN1AL0BG
So you opposition guys you do realize that Maduro will likely make good on his threats to dissolve the assembly and arrest them?
Also the constitutional assembly will sit up to two years so elections might be further delayed.
Could you imagine if Trump tried to dissolve Congress?
Or Obama or Hillary?
Scary thing quite a few people on both sides think America is broken so it needs a strongman to get things done.
Why should he bother at this point. They seem pretty impotent as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_parliamentary_election,_2014
Fun facts: North Korea is officially ruled by a multiparty coalition. Which got 100% of the vote last election with 99.97% turnout.
Communist pageantry of this sort never ceases to amuse me–literally rivers of blood are eagerly spilled in order to give the illusion of legitimacy. See also, forced fake confessions…
Also Cuba has “nonpartisan” elections which are “nonpartisan” in the way Detroit, Chicago and LA are.
I find it funny that anti-war libertarians complain about the US overthrowing “democratically elected” regimes when they don’t like the democratically elected US government and rejoiced at the fall of Eastern bloc regimes which had elections that showed almost unanimous support.
Really? I don’t ever remember saying that and I’d absolutely call myself an antiwar libertarian.
I’ve certainly complained about military intervention that is not actual national defense.
I speak of mainly the Rothbard/Rockwell/Raimondo/Richman school who do use that phrase a lot. A lot of it is whataboutevery and some of it because of all allying with or desiring to appeal to the antiwar left.
This desire to ally with/appeal to the antiwar left can be clearly seen when someone speaks of “installing” the Shah of Iran on 1953 when he was actually installed in 1941 with the help of Stalin. Convenient that.
Or describing Mossadegh as “democratically elected” but ignoring this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_parliamentary_dissolution_referendum,_1953
Rothbard once said that the Eastern bloc “chose” to be Red which is bullshit. The only place that remotely chose to be Commie was Czechoslovakia where they didn’t even get 40% of the vote and formed a coalition government before staging a coup.
Don’t have time to read the article at the moment, but my first thought is, from my libertarian pov i don’t care if a person is a man, woman, black, white, short, tall, religious, athiest, or refuses to conform to gender-binaries or whatever the fuck. they are all the same under the law and they are all individuals who deserve liberty.
which makes the whole idea of ‘[insert collectivist label]-libertarians‘ sort of counter productive. If you’re asserting some facet of your identity as equally important and requiring special respect aside from your mere personhood… then it seems you’ve missed the point.
thats all.
BUT NO IRISH! (shakes fist)
“from my libertarian pov i don’t care if a person is a man, woman, black, white, short, tall, religious, athiest, or refuses to conform to gender-binaries or whatever the fuck. they are all the same under the law and they are all individuals who deserve liberty.”
And this is what makes you a shit-lord.
Richman and Long have a sad.
modifying words usually takes away from the second word.
I never liked how in the wake of the overthrow of Gaddafi libertarians started complaining about destablization after they spent the entire Cold War complaining about how awful it was to support an authoritarian regime due to the supposed stability it provided and ridiculing the Domino theory.
Do you have an actual example? I dont recall any widespread moaning about ‘destabilization’.
I think most people objected to the libya intervention whether or not it was ‘successful’ and had created stability or whether it ended as it did – an idiotic shitshow which resulted in years of continued violence and empowered exactly the sort of marginal religious fanatics we were ostensibly trying to fight elsewhere.
http://www.google.ca/amp/reason.com/archives/2015/10/22/us-squad-goals-chaos-in-the-middle-east/amp
Sheldon Richman lol
Is he not a libertarian? And he wrote this for reason, not some blog.
http://www.google.ca/amp/reason.com/blog/2016/09/27/clinton-bemoans-those-who-try-to-destabi/amp
http://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/09/30/opinions/hypocrisy-about-gary-johnson-welch/index.html
http://www.google.ca/amp/reason.com/blog/2016/04/11/obama-admits-haphazard-us-intervention-i/amp
If your goal is to whine about Ed and Sheldon, why not voice your dissatisfaction over where they write?
His audience is here, sadly. No one called him a cunt yet.
AlmightyJB down below?
what the fuck are you on about? which libertarians? and how is that inconsistent? If you are against intervention, then supporting regime and supporting regime change are the same fuckin thing intervention.
If you are against intervention then complaining about regime change being destabilizing implies that you are opposed only to regime change that is destabilizing as opposed to intervention itself?
The destabilization mattered because there was no reason to oust Gaddafi in the first place. The same argument applied to the destabilization of Iraq and environs following the similarly pointless ouster of Saddam Hussein, and kind-of applies to Syria except that Bashar al-Assad is still alive. Unless we are undertaking a policy of ousting violent dictators as a matter of course, in which case we need to develop a bit more intellectual rigor to the theory than this, we should not be causing problems in parts of the world that aren’t causing problems for us.
Note that I did not mention Afghanistan among these cases. The Taliban government funded, sheltered, and trained terrorists to attack us. As of the time of their deaths/our seeking an end to their regimes, none of Hussein, Gaddafi, or al-Assad were working against us.
As of the time of writing, WInston had not yet posted any links in this thread. I make no claim to support anybody else’s positions, only my own.
Not only that but we listed him at he agreed to give up on a nuclear program. So we threaten him, he complies, we intervene. Great message. Gaddafi had not been a threat to us since Regan bombed them and killed his son. We had no reason to take him out regardless of the inevitable destabilization.
We ousted him after he agreed. I hate autocorrect.
The problem with the “he agreed” conclusion is that every time an inspection team went somewhere, they delayed while boxes were moved out the back door.
Now, they may have been doing this simply to give the impression to Iran that they really did have a super-secret weapons program, but it also made “compliance” seem iffy. (or maybe they had other secrets that they didn’t want to share, unrelated to anything covered by the sanctions, it still made them look noncompliant)
All they had to do was roll over and completely – even obsequiously comply with the terms of the cease fire. Within 6 months or a year they would have had a good case for the end of the occupation of southern Iraq and an end of sanctions. But it would have made the strongman look weak, so he couldn’t take that path.
By the time Bush II rolled around, the Iraq situation had become untenable. At that point the pressure was building to just walk away and end the sanctions. So either that was going to happen, or Hussein was going to be overthrown. The status quo wasn’t an option for much longer.
And walking away wasn’t very attractive for the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Emirates, Israel…. not to mention the US and Britain.
So the disaster that is Iraq was almost inevitable in 2000, given the identities of the players involved and the previous events that led to that moment.
“By the time Bush II rolled around, the Iraq situation had become untenable. At that point the pressure was building to just walk away …”
I don’t understand. Why untenable? Who was pushing us out? Saddam was contained. Iran was out. No one
*shrug*
His actions in 2003 do not give him free hand in 2011. All he had to do was be less of a cunt when threatened. Neither Euros nor Obama were that difficult to bribe and cajole. Maybe also not threaten Europe with “blackening of the continent if they don’t pay him $8 billion (at then exchange rate) a year.
Very relevant and topical right now. Rolls eyes. How about that Berlin Wall coming down huh.
?
So is Libya and Middle East regime change no longer a big deal?
But you didn’t come here to discuss the middle east. You came here to troll. Libertarians are a bunch of hypocrates because blah blah blag and your example is an intervention from 6 years ago compared to the Cold War of 30 years ago. Not only that, you had no point. Libertarians wanted to overthrow Pinochet?
bunch of hypocrates
John lives in our hearts!
I’m not mocking, I genuinely find John-os awesome examples of the beauty of English language.
Yeah, my android does what it wants and I’m to lazy to check it
I don’t think there’s necessarily contradiction. If you believe that the U.S. should mind its own business and deal with other countries as sovereign states fit to manage their own affairs, then intervening to achieve a false stability or to undermine stability in the name of popular mass movements are both fools’ errands.
Exactly. Non-intervention is libertarians default foreign policy. Not that difficult to understand.
All I want is a declaration of war. That puts the power back to people. maybe not right away, but they’ll face an election soon.
That ship has sailed (no pun intended) in 18th century. Complete with Congressional Authorization with no declaration!
I agree but certain libertarians do love to act as if it is one or the other depending on what fits.
See Rothbard saying that the Falkland is proof that the US is on the wrong side as if that is his problem with foreign interventionism!
Oddly enough Rothbard, Raimondo and Rockwell are a lot more tolerable when they aren’the hysterically denouncing the neocons or the American Empire.
See here:
http://mises.org/blog/rothbard-where-left-goes-wrong-foreign-policy
He said The US is always on the wrong side…
I love Patrice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jZQZ1GY7Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSGwx2SPku8
I hadn’t heard of him. Very funny. I guess that was a cut from this show. His opening in it is very funny.
Cop completely overreacts
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/05/california-officer-points-gun-for-nine-minutes-at-man.angelo-david-gonzales-viralhog-com
Man, I get that having a guy point a gun at you is stressful, but is that really the time to start yelling at him?
I guess this is one of them cross-culture conflicts I still fall pray to, but my every instinct is when a dude points gun at me, I shut the fuck up!
Nah, I’d be sure to let the cop know what a craven spineless coward he’s being.
The last encounter I had with police I was as polite as humanly possible and the gang member with a badge still stole my $80 Leatherman and a spare mag and ammo. “Oh, it’s not on the property listing because I left it in your car door.” Nope.
The hatred of ‘pajama boys’ on this site makes me laugh, since I could easily be labeled one, and yinz all would hate me.
Fourteen weeks of basic will cure any pajama boy. Or kill them.
squat more
I’ll do my best, but I’m a vegetarian. Nothing really amasses!
<Here ya go.
Nah, we’d hate you ’cause you’re a yinzer.
(not sure how OT it is)
My music feed gives me stuff like this:
Machine Girl – WLFGRL
I think its because i like the half of Clipping that ISNT ‘noise-hop’. I mean i don’t dislike it but i don’t really sit around listening to static and bleeps and bloops unless it also has a banging beat and some raps.
I also like Eprom, but again its like ‘half of it’.
Sounds like Planet Mu artists
Weird….this is the only Machine Girl I know. And I think they’re referencing it? There’s some interesting experimental soundtracks in Electric Dragon 80,000V as well (DVD included an OST CD – but really not my style).
If you’re an individualist (and I think most libertarians are), I don’t really see how you can be a feminist. I’ll take the feminists at their most innocuous explanation of their ideology: feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal. But, from an individualist perspective, that’s utter nonsense. There isn’t universal men and universal women. There are individual men and individual women. To try to evaluate the relative status of two collectives is an exercise in futility and pointlessness. You can claim that an individualist has an obligation to believe that a woman shouldn’t be judged by the fact that she’s a woman, by some collectivist analysis of her worth, and I’d probably agree with you. But, that’s fundamentally different from believing that the collectives deserve some equal apportionment of status.
if they really think it’s about being equal they wouldn’t use the word feminism. they’d have made up something that actually makes sense to that end, like equalism or something.
Equalists?
hah. forgot about that.
I just want to say “I’m a manist.”
“oh that sounds like you want men to be above women.”
“no, no. it means equality, that’s all.”
“Meninist” I believe is the term, which I love, cause not only does it fuck with feminism, it references Leninism as well!
if they really think it’s about being equal they wouldn’t use the word feminism.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing. I’m simply saying, being as generous as possible, it really doesn’t matter. Feminism is fundamentally incompatible with individualism.
I tried to download a couple of images from my camera onto my laptop (running elementary linux) a while ago, so I could do something resembling actual productive work. No dice. Now I’m pissed.
Probably some sort of driver bullshit, but I’m just not in the mood to fuck with it.
I’ve been unable to get pictures of my Motorola phone. Folder doesn’t show up. Can get downloads but not pictures I’ve taken with my camera.
Before reading all the comments, let me just dash off a couple of things.
From time to time, feminists tackle actual abuses, or evil adversaries.
The problem is that no matter how much good feminists do, they have always been a bit crazy. Even back in the Good Old Days of the suffrage movement, Lucy Stone rewrote the Bible and Susan B. Anthony was outraged at black men getting ahead of white women in the suffrage parade – “Think of Patrick and Sambo and Hans and Yung Tung who do not know the difference between a monarchy and a republic, who never read the Declaration of Independence, or Webster’s spelling book, making laws for Lydia Marie Child, Lucretia Mott or Fanny Kemble.”
If modern feminists attacked sharia (rather than using it as a metaphor for Republicans), they would be doing some good work despite their craziness.
In politics it’s not about if your allies are pure but whether they’re your allies and won’t shit the bed too badly.
So the problem with feminism isn’t that it suddenly became crazy, but that it’s no longer directing its craziness at good causes (suffrage, domestic abuse) but at bad ones (baby-killing, intersectional BS).
Oops, it was Anthonh’s ally Elizabeth Cady Stanton who gave the non-intersectional quote above
(the one time intersectionality might have been useful)
“Think of Patrick and Sambo and Hans and Yung Tung who do not know the difference between a monarchy and a republic, who never read the Declaration of Independence, or Webster’s spelling book, making laws for Lydia Marie Child, Lucretia Mott or Fanny Kemble.”
Holy shit, that’s straight out of modern alt-right rhetoric!
At the time, Anthony and Stanton had gained the support of a nutty racist millionaire named George Francis Train. They were more interested in the millionaire part, while others were more focused on the nutty racist part.
There was also the shift from the first-wave seeking de jure equality to second-wave seeking de facto equality.
I still need to be persuaded about the existence of distinct “waves.” My own hypothesis is that the different “waves” were responding to different problems, or alleged problems.
When women as a class were disenfranchised and husbands could blow their wives’ money at the track or the tavern, there was a denial of de jure equality, and that’s what feminists focused on, that didn’t stop them from holding debates (from different viewpoints) on free love and so on.
Biased or gross bosses, combined with the opportunity provided by the regulatory state, paved the way for a movement against sex discrimination – which predictably turned into a government social-engineering crusade, indeed was always meant as such. But while still dealing with the sexist and gross bosses, these long-term trends may have been harder to discern.
Then there were conflicts among different groups of women which feminists took into the political arena in the name of fighting patriarchy, with the constant irritant of fellow-women being on the patriarchal side.
“Our group of women is progressive and champions justice – those other women are hoodwinked by the patriarchs, the poor dears.”
Did you say Ana Kasparian?
(nb – some feminists find this attitude so grating that they are beginning to do studies of women in non-feminist movements, in the name of affirming women’s agency – but time will tell whether they can overcome their unsisterly contempt for wrongthinking women.)
in the name of affirming women’s agency – but time will tell whether they can overcome their unsisterly contempt for wrongthinking women.
Don’t think they’ll have much success on that. If you can’t accept the notion that women are responsible for their own actions, it’s a bit of a stretch to assume they’ll accept the notion that women in the out group have agency.
They were responding to different problems. And less severe problems as past problems were solved. However, there was also a corresponding and significant shift in ideology. And of course there was overlap, as there has always been disagreement among feminists, individual feminists changed their opinion or focus on various issues as time passed and things changed, etc. So the different waves were distinguishable, but not discrete or separate movements.
Speaking of the unbearable burden of feminism…
(Warning: Any response other than “no problem” to inevitable wedding-day fiascos and breaches of etiquette will get you labeled with one of two B-words — and probably both.)
Many women are over it, and rightly so. Brittany Rathge, who planned a 250-person wedding for November 2016, spent months stressing over bridesmaids dresses that were arriving too late before bucking up and getting confrontational, embodying the stereotype she had been so worried she’d become and leading her to the realization that “maybe a woman being called a ‘bridezilla’ is just a woman who is trying her best to get stuff done.”
Nothing says “empowered” like pissing away tens of thousands of dollars on a nuptial extravaganza.
maybe a woman being called a ‘bridezilla’ is just a woman who is trying her best to get stuff done.
*hard eye roll*
No, a bridezilla is an emotional child in a grown woman’s body. There’s a massive difference between being insistent and being an absolute fucking terror.
I’m willing to cut the women a little slack. A woman putting on a wedding is juggling a whole bunch of different, and often competing, agendas (hers, her family’s, his family’s) that she often has little or no control over. And usually trying to do it on some kind of a budget. And the groom usually has the good fortune of blissfully unaware and blissfully indifferent of the the whole production other than knowing where and when to show up. And if there’s one industry where I can truly say the behavior is scummy, it’s the wedding industry. It’s entire structure is leveraged toward bad behavior on the part of vendors (highly emotional purchase with a big budget, dramatic information asymmetries and few expected repeat customers). And they do leverage that – headgames on the dresses, bait and switch on services, playing “mommy/daddy” with the groom, etc.). Yeah, I can see where that would make an otherwise reasonable and sensible young person go off the deep end.
The whole movement has been bullshit from the beginning of time. Even the horrendous days of the 40’s and 50’s is wrapped around the ridiculous complaint that women didn’t work as much as if sitting on your ass and collecting your husband’s check was a burden instead of a privilege. Whatever horrible things you can find were almost equally worse for men as men have throughout history been forced into wars and blown or chopped to pieces in droves. Life sucked for everyone historically, and sucks a little less today.
It appears obvious to me that men care about women, and not about men except as competition for women. There’s evolutionary reason for doing so.
I find the entire feminists movement childish, jumping from one non-existent problem to another.
Regarding your disclaimer my wife says she’ll need pics to be the judge of that massiveness. And believe me she will know.
Julie’s going hard in the paint.
there was another on FB that jokingly said “we need more men in this movement” because she really just wants MORE people.
Good grief, that chick isnt old enough to know anything worth talking about. She is old enough to make a sammich but thats about it.
oh, she’s mocking them.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me like she’s arguing the opposite of ENB. I respect that.
I don’t mind being equal with women or blacks or even Canadians. But no way in hell am I going to recognize the rights of “people” who put pineapple on their pizza.
your preferred engine type is practically extinct.
Depends on what you’re using the engine for. Running around town doing errands? I’ll take a gas, piston engine. Race car? Rotary, baby. Pulling race car and trailer to the track? Turbo diesel.
That’s fair. I just wanted to poke fun.
The rotary is amazing in a bunch of ways.
Have you seen the new cummins 2.8R?
Just looked it up. Seems like a nice little unit.
If they can really make them fit any trans, it might make a good replacement when my 2F dies.
only downside I see is the oil pan is not steel. they make one for it, but its extra. in most cases it’d probably be fine.
Any trans seems like a tall order. You’d need a constellation of adapter plates and input shaft adapters.
Yeah, that’s the tricky part. I guess I could swap the trans for a more common one, then adapt back to toyota transfer case.
What are you putting this in?
I would put it into my Toyota land cruiser. The transmission is an h42, which has the same bolt pattern and input as 3 others, going all the way into the early 90’s. Advanced Adapters makes a few for the pattern, and it’s easy(-ish) to get a v8 350 or a 6bt to mate up to it. 6bt’s make too much power to trust into them, and most people think the 4bt is also a little too strong, but it has been done.
Wow, it looks like the little r2.8 makes more power than the 4bt with only 3/4 the displacement. If it also weighs less and gets better fuel economy, that seems like the answer.
Depends on what I can find one for, 4bt’s end up above 4k for a decent quality one.
I’d love an old RX7. I never know what to look for though in them.
If you want an FB, the GSL-SE is the expensive version with the first generation fuel injection and the 13B engine. I prefer the GSL or the GS with the carbed 12A engine. Tuning that whacky carb is not for the timid, however.
Is anyone even making a production rotary these days? That was Mazda’s thing wasn’t it?
I think Mazda is trying to get one to pass EPA regs. MS probably knows more, especially in the racing area.
To my knowledge no one is making one anymore. I’ve heard there’s a company planning on making small single rotor engines for lawn equipment. Another making a bizarro one with a spinning housing and plugs on three faces to use as a generator. And there are always rumors that Mazda will bring it back, even if just as a supplemental power unit for a hybrid.
You are now my new favorite.
*sad walk*
Well, change your pineapplish ways, Doom, and you, too, could be invited to our place for dinner.
(PS – Boulder trip off since I now need to be someplace else for an opening of an exhibition for which I am curator. Damnit. I hate being professional.)
Aw, that’s too bad. next time!
I think the lack of female libertarians has something to do with getting past the very first obstacle in everyone’s move from wherever they are to libertarianism.
If all libertarians have one thing in common, it’s probably the realization that just because you see a problem, that doesn’t mean you want the government to fix it. Most of you know me well enough that if I started talking about the problem of marijuana getting into the hands of junior high kids, wildlife conservation, or how to solve problems associated with poverty, you’d know that just because I care about these things, that doesn’t mean I want the government involved.
On the flip side of that, we know that just because I’m making fun of the drug war, that doesn’t mean I want kids in junior high to get their hands on marijuana. Just because I ridicule the park service, the BLM, and the National Wildlife Service doesn’t mean I don’t care about wildlife conservation, and when I disparage Medicaid, food stamps, and public schools, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about the problems of the poor and their children.
However, the fact that I care about those things–even though I make fun of government “solutions”–isn’t obvious to non-libertarians.
When women who might someday become libertarians see us talk about issues that impact women that way–when we make fun of rape culture, socialist feminists, denigrate the police for always taking the woman’s side, etc.–I suspect it’s even more off-putting to the female mind than it is to men (who also have problems seeing past that stuff to what we’re really saying). No one here is pro-rape, pro-stupidity against women, or pro-wife beating, but that’s the way it can seem to people who don’t know us yet.
It’s just like people accusing me of being pro-terrorist because I’m anti-torture.
Nothing is true of all women and the way they think, but there are certain tendencies. I think they tend to agree with people they care about more so than men probably do; i.e., I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had women suggest that I should agree with her–in private–because she’s my girlfriend. Maybe it’s because they’re more family oriented a la maternal instinct. It may also be the same thing that makes them all have to go to the restroom at the same time; if one of them needs to go, the other should go, too–for reasons I don’t understand. Point being, they seem to be more responsive to the argument that they should support the people they care about, especially against those who would be abused, and that can make our whole demeanor a tough sell.
When we say that women should be free to make choices for themselves and if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it’s to protect their rights (to make choices for themselves), I think that sells really well. It’s when we talk about how individual women should be “free” to suffer the consequences of their own poor choices that I think we lose them.
“it is quite inherent in identity politics to devolve into tribalism and collectivism. It is just human nature. In the end, these movements will fill with self-interested people”
Yes. And invariably those people start clamoring for other people’s liberty to be curtailed. I am not a feminist either. I am for personal liberty for all. Not for some. All.
Speaking of Lizzie, the more I think about her little stunt with regards to the sammich joker the more awful it looks. She really is a shit. No surprise, her being a feminist and all.
Not going back to link, but I was just reading a convoluted sob story about why it’s a tragedy that Meg Whitman didn’t get the Uber CEO job, because magic vagina.
Haha, try scrubbing that image out of your mind. Meg Whitman’s magic vagina! WHEEEEEE!
*guffaws*
No surprise, her being a feminist and all.
If by “feminist” you mean “humorless retard”
Sammy jokes are overdone. but so are most go-to jokes on any group. oh, another Irish drinking joke. We all know who can’t drive. Canadians say soory and eh a lot.
They can still be funny. no one needs to be lynched over a joke they didn’t even make up.
What do you mean by “lynched”, kemosabe?
“ike good ol’ Lizzie NB from you know which site, who says feminism is part of libertarianism”
Well, there are people who say feminism is part of Islam also. Some people are full of shit.
Did a quick search, and stumbled across this nice little summary of the history of Feminism from today, all the way back to the founding roots. I disagree with the fellow doing the video when, towards the end of the video, he says he would’ve supported universal suffrage had he been there at the time it was occurring, but other than that I think this is a very good summary about feminism. It was always radical, always leftist, and always wrong. It was never good, even in the original first wave “muh voting rights” portion.
I don’t see how the first wave could have been leftist.
Been reading reviews re: The Dark Tower. Concensus seems to be mediocre verging on bad. Which isn’t necessarily disappointing, when you keep your expectations as low as I do. Idris Elba seems like the highlight, which isn’t surprising.
I doubt that I’ll go see it. King had one good film, The Stand. After that, he started selling out to the left, who take his books and turn them into a leftist love fest. Under the Dome was horrifically awful, not even close to the book, just a bunch of leftist social justice BS. I’m not interested in watching anything else made from his writings.
Not even Stand By Me?
Ok, but that was even before The Stand, that’s a classic. So I forgot about that one. All of his recent stuff has been shit. I mean not his writing, the movies.
I don’t know why, but I have fond memories of Dreamcatcher.
The book, not the movie.
I can’t remember a damned thing about the book.
about the movie
fml
Dreamcatcher was decent. Obviously I was engaged in a little hyperbole there, it’s just that Under the Dome was so fucking bad that I couldn’t believe King would let his name be put on that trash. The book itself is pretty good.
Carrie? Misery? I vaguely remember both being good.
IT was a miniseries, but again, it freaked me out when I was a kid. Remake might be trash, but trailer was creepy as fuck because it invoked the old series.
How the fuck is The Mist ‘leftist social justice BS’?
The human villains represent alt-right, and the monsters are…er….anti-abortionists?
They got a funny way of being anti-abortion.
They force the black guy to give birth, and they are attempting to prevent access to pharmaceuticals (i.e. PlanB)!
Do I have to draw you a diagram?
The best part of The Mist was the end music.
Sorry, Maximum Overdrive is sheer stupid fun
and does Misery count? its a good movie.
Stuckmann seems pretty accurate. I haven’t read any of the books yet so I’d be interested in catching in the theater – except that I’m just too booked with Violet Crown “Summer in Paris” for the rest of the month….
I agree. I haven’t read any of the books and had no expectations. IMDB has it at 6.0/10, and I put it in that ballpark, too.
You know what’s really scary? ENB and Soave probably think of themselves as intellectual powerhouses and Deep Thinkers, and in comparison to the people in the social circles they inhabit, that’s probably true.
Being the most intelligent kid in special ed is nothing to be proud of.
(Unless you end up there because your teachers are stupid, which happens).
Isn’t the gifted and talented/magnet stuff really just the opposite end of the special ed spectrum? students, who due to their ability, are not served by the standard educational offering?
I follow ENB and Soave on Twitter, but also Charles Murray and Christopher Hitchens’ brother. Only Pete Hitchens acts as if he thinks of himself as a public intellectual. And that may just be English effeteness.
Yep. They’re basically your standard navel-gazing journalist hacks with a few pro-liberty opinions.
Maybe if being an intellectual powerhouse is nothing other than being able to include ‘to be sure, Trump is worse than Hitler’ in everything you write.
Meanwhile in Canada:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4763778/Disturbing-footage-Woman-hits-bites-dog-subway.html
That was unsettling. I don’t think it’s The Drugz, seems more like a breakdown of some sort. Poor pup, too 🙁
Also, I’ve found women to be generally unappreciative of our constitutional rights on a personal level. I know there’s a difference between wanting the government to respect our rights and individuals willingness to respect those rights, but still . . .
Live with a woman for a while . . . freedom of speech? Women laugh at freedom of speech. Say the wrong thing and you know what happens? You can get a cruel and unusual punishment.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is a joke to them, and so is the right to confront your accuser. Try to defend yourself, and you’re likely to get the silent treatment. The right to remain silent is a right of the defense–not the prosecution! The prosecution doesn’t have the right to remain silent and then judge you guilty by default no matter what you say!
Oh, and let’s not forget about double jeopardy. You know how many times I get tried, convicted, and punished for the same thing–something I did two years ago? How ever many times she wants, that’s how many.
Freedom of association? Hey, guess what? The guys are comin’ over to play poker on Friday night!
No they’re not. Not anymore. Those days are over. You don’t even ask anymore. There’s a chilling effect. With some of them, you’ll be lucky if she lets you watch a football game by yourself in peace–which is censorship.
I’m just sayin’.
But the prison sex is undeniably better.
I was trying to explain the etymology of the term “bitchin'” as in “bitchin’ camaro” or a “bitchin’ motorcycle” the other day.
I’ve heard her say it a few times as “bitchining”, as in a “bitching restaurant”, etc. She had the word all messed up–as if something is excellent because it bitches a lot. Because, you know, everybody loves a bitch on wheels?
NO!
That isn’t what the word means.
“Bitchin” means beautiful. It means something is so beautiful, people put up with it–even though it constantly bitches all the time.
“So you’re saying you only put up with me because I’m hot?”
“Oh no, I would never SAY that. I love you for your cooking”.
I don’t think she’s ever boiled a pot of water.
I don’t know if that’s I always end up with the difficult and crazy ones, but I’ve been with therapists who were into meditation, crystals and Enya music, too. Maybe I bring it out in them. Maybe they’re all just difficult and crazy.
I’m just sayin’.
All women are not like that all of the time. All of them are like that sometimes to varying degrees. You just have to find one who is at a tolerable level of that, if you want to live with them long term.
Yeah, that’s my problem. Just haven’t found the one mostly tolerant and tolerable woman. It’s like a smorgasbord on offer, otherwise.
Try one from another culture. American women, sure there’s plenty of good ones, but the feminist bullshit has ruined a lot of them. Feminine is wonderful, feminism, not so much.
To be fair, men can be a giant pain in the ass as well. I’m incapable of remembering that I’ve agreed to accompany wife to a party or a movie or whatever. And after I’m reminded about that I’m told it would be nice if scrubbed all that engine oil off my hands and changed into a pair of jeans that aren’t covered in grease.
Civilization is just the asses we pain together.
I dont think there are a lack of libertarian women, just a lack of women who call themselves libertarians.
Or maybe I should say a dearth of women willing to hang out with the likes of us.
I feel like I’ve been libertarian as long as I’ve had political thoughts in my brain, I just didn’t have a word to describe it. I dated a particular asshole for a few months in college and everyone kept asking me why I wanted to be around him, and I was like, “idk, he’s the only person I know who makes any sense politically.” (This was in 2008, so I was really drowning in an ocean of derp around all my other peers and having a sane political refuge was of greater importance than usual.) Turns out he was libertarian. Once I figured out what that was and found The Other Site, I discovered I didn’t have to spend time with an asshole to be around people who make sense politically.
(Well, maybe you guys are just as much assholes as he was. But I’m not dating you, so I don’t care.)
The Story of How to Get Libertarian Women to Gravitate to These Websites.
I believe that if anything, women will be treated better as compared to their male equivalents by libertarians. Contrary to popular belief, chivalry is not completely dead. I also believe that libertarian may sometimes/often be viewed as assholes by their obvious disdain for being politically correct and saying whatever they want to say, regardless if someone may be offended or not.
Keep in mind, I realize that you are not making that mistake, and the guy you are referring to is probably an ass, as you will find in any group of people, without even trying really hard.
But in general, I think libertarians get viewed as assholes because of their unapologetic tendency to say what they want. I get this at work all of the time. I sometimes say what I know my clients will not like, who are mostly leftists who like to refer to themselves as liberals. I typically get eye rolling and change of subject. I never bring up politics, but do no shy away from defending what I believe in.
No, this guy had a really destructive personality. He’d drink and then he’d lash out violently at people who would try to be nice to him. He even got kicked out of his frat because the other brothers were fed up with him embarrassing them in public with his outbursts. It’s too bad, because he was smart in a lot of ways. But like you said, there’s going to be people like that in every group. The plus side of it was that I found out what “libertarian” was, so I could be like byeeeee and track down my people.
Sounds like the drug is the problem. I’ve seen quite a few smart and nice people turn into assholes when they drink too much.
I believe that there are very few women who are libertarian every day at all times of the day. My wife has started to be libertarian a few days a week, maybe not for all day. If there’s one thing you can count on with women, they will change their mind, a lot.
The biggest stumbling block I personally see for potential libertarian women is the pro-life/pro-choice bullshit and how PP is the ONLY way to ensure people can still get abortions and prevent total domination of women by barbarian men (except Muslims apparently… I keed I keed). Shit is so ingrained in people’s heads one way or the other that when I raise the question “so if there should be NO restrictions on abortion, then what if she’s having contractions and then decides to abort it? Is that OK?” or “why is OK to abort the child a day before they get shat into the world but not a day after? In both cases, the baby is completely viable with medical care, right?” the answer is always “I don’t want to talk about it” which is essentially the fingers in the ears “LA LA LA LA LA” defense because thinking about that scenario is upsetting.
It’s then that I propose we revert back to Roman tradition with a twist: do not name children until they reach a certain age, and up until that age you can “abort” them at any time. Surprisingly that proposition has not found much traction among my female friends and family.
Hard to say it more perfectly than that.
Well, the thread is starting to break down, so I’d say it’s time for some metal.
That time of the day.
sorry.
Fuck, dude, it’s Saturday – I’m not casting shade.
Also, for those who missed it in morning links (it actually makes more sense here), MundaneMatt talks about ENB.
Why’d you link to music instead of MM talking about ENB? You need to quit smoking that when you link!
Crap. I had the previous link in queue. Here
Oh, and stop telling me what to do when I link, fascist.
If you’d link properly the first time, I wouldn’t tell you what to do!
Look, they force you to have an avatar here, or else. So you obviously like this fascism!
Did you see the Zardoz metal video I linked last night?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6dycCqqZS0
Zardoz meets 2001: A Space Odyssey meets Pulp Fiction–but mostly Zardoz.
I’m just sayin.
What’s that you say? You’d like a cover song?
I got your cover song here
Talkin’ ’bout my generation
Gosh, it’s like real cool to be a gangster
Yes it’s musical vandalism, but what vandals!
The Vandals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuiHI0-z3c
I know it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek but isn’t this the Vandals song for libertarians? 😉
Yes, I said cover song
Pie, first rate work. Thoughtful and very well expressed!
I haven’t read through all the comments so please forgive me if this is all redundant.
First, the term “feminism” has all the precision of mashed Jello. It does no good to have an opinion about something that the word denotes to you, but has a mishmash of interpreted meanings.
Second, libertarianism does not really deal with how one treats individuals on a social or economic basis. It only deals with how the government treats individuals. Now, I can argue that the most moral way to deal with your fellow humans is as individuals rather than members of (also ill-defined) groups. As I would and I do. But that’s a question about personal morality rather than government scope. Libertarianism as a philosophy regarding the interaction of individual and State only deals with the latter.
What do you mean you haven’t read the comments? We’re going to have to extract an orphan toll on you for not Glibertaring hard enough, and… oh shit, you’re the one with Catass powers, never mind…
“First, the term “feminism” has all the precision of mashed Jello.” needs more….
*all the precision, consistency and lack of good taste as mashed, sugar-free cherry jello
(meant as an invitation to those with more skill to do an even better job at embellishment)
In case you missed this cover when I linked it previously…everybody dance now
In case you missed this cover when I linked the first time (and subsequent times)…A Girl Like You
Tom Petty cover…in fairness, the original is a whole lot better, plus Tom Petty’s hair is longer.
Before you start hating on this Zeppelin cover, please note that the lead singer articulates her words more distinctly than in the original
Is that difficult? 🙂
There seems to be a bunch of bands similar to Zeperella: Lady Zep, Lez Zeppelin, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM2EzD2ZsmY
Elvis impersonator
Twisted Sister impersonators
This cover takes some of the bite out of the original
I’ve heard it suggested that men gravitate towards universal rules. Laws that can apply to everyone, because objective rules work in society. Women favor subjective rules because for managing a family subjectivity is necessary.
Don’t hit other people or their will be punishment only works with adults because two year olds have to be treated subjectively based on maturity and ability to understand.
That may be bullshit, I don’t know.
“There will be punishment”
It’s not bullshit. Throughout history, at least US history, it has been women who traditionally care for children while the man typically has been the protector and provider for the family. When I was a kid, there were not many women working. Most families had one person working, the man. The women took care of the home and the children, something that men are mostly very poor at because that’s never been their role. At least not in recent history, in this culture. If someone can find examples of some culture at some point in history where those roles are reversed or mixed up, fine. I’m not saying I’m 100% right.
I think because of these traditional roles, men and women see the world in completely different ways. The left have been hard at work for a century or more trying to destroy the traditional family and force women into the workplace. When there are a lot of single women, those women seem to still have the same idea that ‘someone’ should be taking care of them. NOT ALL WOMEN. OK? Most of them. So if not a man, then who? I mean, because men are bad, right?, the patriarchy and rape culture you know. So who will take care of them? Who else but all benevolent, caring, all powerful government. That’s why the left love feminism, because it ensures more support for an all powerful state that can take care of everyone’s needs. This is, in my opinion, the reason why libertarians are mostly men, because most men don’t see it as anyone else’s responsibility to take care of them.
YouTube is a bottomless well of talent…by which I mean, you think you’ve reached the bottom but you haven’t.
Sweet Home, Alabama
Reminds me of my Southern Rock/Blues band when I was 15. Ok, we were a little better than that, especially guitar wise. Then we found a guy who looked exactly like Ronnie Van Zant and sounded a lot like him. Our problem was always with drummers. None of them are normal people. There’s obviously something wrong with people who like to beat on stuff with sticks.
maybe not that they like the beating on stuff so much, but that certain mental configurations are better at keeping a beat.
Whatever you do, just don’t let the drummer sing.
Ok, I’m not going to post another Night Ranger video, I’m still sore from the hate of last time.
Who wants some Neil MacDonald?
Canada needs to come to terms with the migration crisis Trump is creating
So, it’s dreadful because….Canada will have to do the very thing you screech at US for not wanting to do any more? Or because Canada will end up doing the very thing US is doing now?
Oh that wicked Trump, making US and Canada live up to the Canadian image of them!
Also, did you know the racism is the true reason Cubans were given preferential treatment? It’s true – Cuba is literally the only 100% white country in the South and Central America!
Perhaps they’re worried that once they stop pleasuring themselves in the contemplation of their own righteousness, they’ll have to face up to the same tough policy choices the U. S. government faces.
tough policy choices the U. S. government faces.
“Ah yes, the racism of not wanting brown bodies around vs the racism of exploiting brown bodies!”
Neil Macdonald in the above article, basically.
What? Canada doesn’t want to take in all the people whom they insist that the US should take in? I can’t believe it.
Oh no no. No, we want to take them, really. It’s totally the right thing to do. We just also want US to stop sending them and take them, too, because it’s the right thing to do! We are just trying to help you be as good as we are, honest!
I believe that the Chinese can buy all the property they want to in the USA. Canada had better stop being such bigots or the international community is going to frown on them. And you know what that means. Ok, I don’t know what that means, but someone does, I’m sure.
Hey, all our Enlightened Mayor asks is that Rich Chinamen throw some extra cash into city government coffers when they buy all our real estate. Nothing racist about it! It’d also affect Rich Russian Oligarch, if only they heard of Vancouver…
Is Canadian land policy some kind of problem?
In Vancouver specifically, our skyrocketing real estate prices have been blamed on Rich Chinamen buying all the houses then leaving them empty. So, our Enlightened Mayor (basically PM Zoolander without good hair) decided that foreigners should pay extra tax on purchasing housing, and the government obliged. The results are shockingly, not positive.
Up next, he’s planning to find empty housing and slap extra charge on that.
Leaving the houses empty…for what purpose?
And now you start to get an idea of why B.C. is Canada’s 2nd worst province.
Oh, and why do they leave the houses empty? To money launder their ill-gotten Chinaman money! They buy the houses then reap the profits of increase real estate prices, mw-ha-ha!
“shockingly, not positive”
Look, no way are you going to convince me that government did something with less than positive results.
Look, no way are you going to convince me that government did something with less than positive results.
We need to government harder!
But let it never be said that experts are unreasonable!
See, one of the reasons why B.C. is the worst is that the Ontario Libs are stagnant and stupid, they’ll just copy idiocy from others. B.C.’s parties, however, are creatively stupid and manage to always come up with worse ideas.
Whine all you like, JT, the Green Energy Policy is 100% Ontario made. Our Greens are too busy killing hydro-electric projects!
“Aha, our stupids continue to out-stupid your stupids!”
“We want to export less energy” is less stupid than “Our electricity is too cheap – raise the prices by factor of five! ten! twenty!” as a policy.
As if B.C. Greens wouldn’t applaud both at the same time.
As if B.C. Greens wouldn’t applaud both at the same time.
No, but neither our Liberals nor NDP are going to do it. I’m expecting the NDP to vote “yes” on Site C despite their coalition partners being against, and enough Liberals will join to push it through (they only need 3 votes).
Thanks to the power of unions, our NDP is slightly less insane than Wynne Liberals, and no contest with BC Liberals. Clean your house, Ontario!
“Thanks to the power of unions.”
And thus the worstness continues.
“By law, they should be returned to the United States, given the rules of the Safe Third Country agreement. Accepting people claiming asylum from America is, on the face of it, ridiculous….
“”There has been radio silence from the Trudeau government so far on the Safe Third Country agreement,” says Desloges, even though the integrity of our entire system is threatened.”
Unlike the U. S. system of – what was that term? – *temporary* protected status. MacDonald isn’t worried about what will happen to the integrity of the U.S. system if, as he urges, the U.S. suddently re-interprets “temporary” to mean “permanent.”
No, only the Canadian immigration system has any integrity to protect, apparently.
He may not be up to Derpetologist’s standards, but Neil Macdonald is usually a solid read if you’re into derp.
But, just to vex me, for some reason, he also has a serious hate-on for rules on import tariffs which are generally beloved of the Canadian left (when they can bother to think of them).
Straight Outta Compton, Oklahoma:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRPWs4V97YI
Extra credit question: If black people help perform this song, is it cultural appropriation?
Let’s ask this guy
It’s only cultural appropriation if whitey does it. Duh! You ain’t woke!
Not if they’re Catholic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZaz7OqyTHQ
I think one reason for the dearth of libertarian women is the issue of “free shit”.
Human beings – of any sex, race, or religion – think about politics from the standpoint of how they will stand to gain if Candidate X wins. Racial minorities tend to vote Democrat because Democrats promise them free shit. Coal miners tend to vote Republican because Republicans promise to create more jobs for them. And women (usually) tend to vote for Democrats because Democrats promise them special privileges and also free shit.
It’s going to be hard to sell libertarianism to women because it’s going to entail taking away some special privileges that they have been given over the years. The law favors women over men in a myriad of ways; it won’t be easy to convince women that libertarianism has much to offer them (even if it does).
Honestly, the only chance we’ll have of getting our libertarian utopia will be after government collapses under its own weight and society is thrown into anarchy. Until then, nothing will be changed because for every stupid policy or program or “right” there is someone, somewhere benefiting from it and will vote for anyone that promises to keep it going, and against anyone that promises to remove/restrict/reform it.
That model will obviously collapse eventually, as has been proven over and over again. Venezuela being the latest example. When it does collapse, obviously the strongest best armed faction will gain control. And that’s the military. But even if that happens and the majority of the military decide they are willing to fire on their own family and friends, it would be a long tough fight against a well armed populace. A lot of people would die in a civil war in which there could be many different factions fighting for control. The fact that the left are willing to let this happen if they cannot win at the polls, should tell anyone what they need to know about the left. They are the same old left, they never change and they never go away, unfortunately. As long as people are swayed by envy, they will never go away.
Why do you think that people who own guns would be the ones to oppose military takeover en-masse? I bet that replacing Trump with Matis would get at least 70% of gun owners on side!
Yep. Majority of gun owners would probably back a military government if it was smart enough to stay out of their shit and oppress the right people. Which Mattis is smart enough to do.
I also find it extremely disingenuous to suggest that the military will just magically decide to fire ‘on their own family and friends’, because of course the military are a bunch of babykillers with no personal morality.
Who suggested that the military would fire on their own family?
My mistake, read it wrong.
Replacing Trump with anyone is trouble. I mean, ok if the guy did anything wrong, but staging a coup against a duly elected president is not going to fly. And that’s exactly what the left are trying to do.
/It’ll never happen circa 49 BC.
The beauty of the system is that a large number of people can’t tell if they’re net contributors or net beneficiaries. They pay high taxes, but they also get certain alleged benefits…if a freer system was implemented, would they gain or lose? If they don’t know for sure, why would they risk losing the benefits they’re receiving on the off chance of getting enough tax and regulatory relief to make up for it.
Then there’s “what is seen and what is not seen” – how do you even tell how much you’re losing in opportunity cost from various regulatory burdens?
Of the two major sexes (I can’t speak for the other 52 or whatever), one of these sexes has a higher proportion of people tolerant of risk. Results vary depending on the individual of course, so you have female sky-divers and male safety-seekers. But a political movement which tends to draw from the population tolerant of risk is probably going to get skewed in a male direction.
I believe that women have an inherent trait that makes them think someone should be taking care of them. Obviously because men are racist sexist Islamophobic rapey bigot monsters, it should be government taking care of them.
I think it’s learned. Learned helplessness, learned dependence.
The women in my family are all very independent and stand on our own two feet. (Even the sister I was about to libel by adding an exception for does so. As much as we don’t really agree on other stuff in our worldviews, she doesn’t rely on others to support her or take care of her.) None of us women – in at least the last four generations on either side of my family – has had the “take care of me” outlook. In fact, we all tend to want to help and support and take care of everyone else -including financially- sometimes to our detriment.
Whether we are married, single, otherwise relation-shipped, we pull our own weight, or more. I think, in fact, that’s something that has gotten us into problems in relationships.
Of course, OMWC is the perfect spouse. He loves being able to
take advantage ofleverage my fortune and my beneficent nature. (And he surpasses Pie in the, you know, equipment department.)somewhat related
In my experience, the people who push the hardest for new laws are exactly the sort of people who break any laws that inconvenience them without a second thought.
I’ve always wanted to tell these people “you break laws that inconvenience you- why do you expect other people to be different?”
The progs push so hard for more gun laws, but they’re perfectly fine without systematically ignoring immigration laws. Socons says they’re for states rights- except when it comes to legalizing marijuana.
It’s frustrating.
Alabama and other MJ prohibitionist states joined an amicus brief defending the right of other states to legalize marijuana without federal interference.
I presume you’d classify these as SoCon states?
I think it’s safe to say that a solid majority of socons support marijuana prohibition.
My point was that here are some SoCons who support MJ prohibition *and* federalism!
Which is a baffling position. You’re not really in favor of freedom if you say “here, we outlaw X, but other states should be able to legalize x.”
If you’re in favor of freedom, individual rights should be paramount.
It’s bourbon time.
Cheers!
Euro left turns on migrants! Oh wait, they don’t mind the ones who stay, just the ones who visit, empty their pockets and leave?
‘Tourists go home’: Leftists resist Spain’s influx
Absolute favorite: Sign that says “This isn’t tourism, it’s an invasion.” Maybe lend it to Generation Identity when the tourist season is done?
There really is not much we need to do to see the left’s eventual destruction. They’re managing that all by themselves.
pay no attention to the jihad behind the curtain
***
The Times Online reported the following as far back as April 2005: “Three-quarters of the Al-Qaeda members were from upper middle-class homes and many were married with children; 60% were college educated, often in Europe or the United States.”
There are innumerable examples of affluent Muslims becoming jihad terrorists. One was Maher “Mike” Hawash of Portland, Oregon, a well-regarded Intel executive who made $360,000 a year at the crest of a highly successful career. Around the year 2000, Hawash began to become more religious, growing his beard long, rejecting the nickname “Mike,” and attending the supremacist Islamic Center of Portland. Ultimately he served a seven-year prison term for conspiring to aid the Taliban.
***
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/08/un-study-finds-islamic-state-jihadis-lack-basic-understanding-of-islam
I think the whole “terrorism is because of poverty and lack of education” canard was just cooked up by lefties to provide more justification for their stupid policies.
I think it’s because they can’t conceive of the real reasons.
My two cents (without reading the discussion): I’m appreciative of what feminists in the past accomplished. All I know is that I was born in 1985, and have not experienced sexism, ever. No one ever told me I couldn’t do whatever the hell I wanted. I have not ever had trouble getting a job I wanted because of my sex. I have never experienced or even felt concern about any barriers to entry anywhere due to my sex. I have always been able to vote without anyone blinking an eye. I can wear whatever I want, I can say whatever I want, I can do whatever I want, and no one has ever told me that I shouldn’t because of my sex, or even really paid much attention to what I’m doing at all. The same thing goes for every other woman I’ve ever met, even the ones who bitch about the patriarchy. They’ve never been discriminated against. I’ve never been discriminated against. We’ve all encountered assholes—and we’ve also encountered bitches. That’s not discrimination, that’s individual people who are jerks.
I am aware of history and I know the fact that I can do what-the-flippity-flip-ever I feel like is because of women’s rights movements in past generations. But feminism is done now. Mission accomplished. It doesn’t need to still be a thing. The battle was won before I was born. I can gratefully acknowledge the fact that feminism, the women’s suffrage movement and other women’s rights movements are responsible for me being able to freely lead the lifestyle I choose without having to be a feminist myself. Modern women who continue the feminist movement as if mass sexism or discriminatory policies are still a thing are making trouble where there shouldn’t be any, and they’re making everything worse for everybody.
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS!!!! Brainwashing by the patriarchy!!!111
/feminist
Well, that’s why we Democrats have to take care of you, you’re too stupid to know you’re being oppressed.
I’d just reiterate that if they picked the right causes, and battled the right enemies, feminists would come off much better – as they did when they were fighting for the vote.
But the underlying ideology means there’s a tendency to go off in weird directions, from the “free love” branch of the feminist movement (Fanny Wright, Victoria Woodhull) back then to the weirdness today.
So what I’m saying is that with the right enemies they could still do some good work. I can imagine a feminist movement seeking to keep Sharia-fanciers out of the country. I presume that there are feminists treating battered women (actual battered women, not freaked out by dirty pictures or whatever). But keep an eye out, they might go off at any time in some really awful direction.
Feminism as an opposition to Sharia would be something I could get behind. Helping women in countries with oppressive cultures and governments as well, although I’m sure that’s very White Savior Complex of me.
I guess it depends on the form of “help.” We’ve seen “help” in the form of imposing-secular-democracy-by-force, which in the end seems to help neither giver nor recipient! (And what if the newly-liberated “democracy” votes for an undemocratic movement, to take a purely hypothetical example).
Yeah, definitely not in any government capacity. I was thinking more along the lines of giving moral support and/or voluntary cash donations to women in those areas who are working on their own equivalents of what past generations did here.
You’d fit right into our family with webdominatrix. May we adopt you?
Hi, Mom!
Um, you drink, right?
Wait. Where are you on the pineapple on “pizza” debate?
I do drink! But I don’t like pizza, with or without pineapple. I’ll see myself out.
Hi mom, can I be adopted also? I’m really quite adorable!
*standing ovation*
All I know is that I was born in 1985, and have not experienced sexism, ever.
Give us a chance!
The atheist community faced this same debate a couple of years back. They wanted to make atheist organizations more attractive to women. They have a lot of the same issues that libertarians have.
And into the teeth of this moment came the kind of feminism you are referring to. One of the more popular women in the movement decided to relate her version of a horror story that keeps women away from their events. …. some guy hit on her. He hung around after the event and talked to her, and then complemented her and asked her out. Worse, he followed her over to the elevators and then asked her if she wanted to join him upstairs. Very nicely and politely, but he asked. She declined and he went away without further ado.
She spoke about it as if she had narrowly averted an attempted rape. Feminists jumped to her side and took up her cause.
She had a point. Walking into a room where you are 5 or 10 to 1 men vs women, it is inevitable that there are going to be more unwanted advances than normal. It just follows from the math. But what they missed was the obvious insult implied in her vignette. She found him to be unattractive. That was his true transgression – if he had been hot, then it was all good.
So a huge fight ensued, with feminists calling anyone who questioned her story misogynists and rape apologists, and guys who felt empathy for the poor bastard who got publicly called out for being so unattractive that saying “hey, I find you attractive. Would you like to get coffee?” was tantamount to rape. And lots of things changed, but not for the better. The wacko version of the feminist movement got a little more power, and nerds who didn’t like what they were doing made nerds of themselves. Lines were drawn, relationships broken.
That is where this discussion can lead pretty quickly, because the squeakiest wheels tend to be the least reasonable.