Please get that SJW nonsense out of my face. I would feel compelled to punch who ever is putting that in my face, so they might understand in real world terms why that pacification SJW propaganda is entirely detached from any sense of reality. That is complete nonsense. Put the women in charge and watch your society crumble to dust you closet-feminist fool.
I see your ideology as a weapon and even though it is passive aggressive, it is a real war and that is why you are receiving my angry replies. You had better understand that you are creating a war and you will be attacked back (not just by me, but by JAD's angry white man militias and dictator Trump and its offshoots ... this is the price you pay for lying to yourself). You won't be able to hide behind the lie of your propaganda forever. The civil war payback is coming soon.
Quote from: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7348#comment-1804502
Quote from: Eric S Raymond
Im rather looking forward to the screams of anguish on the day the Left realizes that this will be turned against them
I was reminded of your point in a past blog to the effect of noting how the instigators and/or the apathetic are somehow surprised when power structures are built which are later used to do the opposite of what the power structure was created to accomplish. I commented recently not on A&D that JADs desire for a Trump dictatorship could be turned against his desired politics when the Left takes control of that power structure in a future election cycle.
It is that the blogger you have brought into this discussion Mr. Donaldson who wishes to impose his philosophy on me and mine via violence supporting the use of force to reverse woman's suffrage among other things.
...To your credit you have stated on multiple occasions you oppose such coercive strategies. You have argued against them so vociferously that it, apparently, got you banned from Mr. Donaldson's blog...
...I absolutely respect the rights of others, but others must extend that same courtesy to me. My culture and society has chosen to emancipate it's women. This means my daughters at age 18 are adults with complete freedom under law to own property, vote, and make independent decisions. I will certainly fight for them to keep these rights if other seek to steal them via violence.
If Mr. Donaldson wishes to live in a society where women have not been emancipated he needs to try and change society without coercion. In the US this means getting men and women to support repealing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via a new constitutional amendment. I fully support his right to try and do this but I doubt his prospects for success.
Alternatively he (and others that share his views) can move to a society where women have not been emancipated. There are not a lot of options here as most societies have emancipated their women.
...To your credit you have stated on multiple occasions you oppose such coercive strategies. You have argued against them so vociferously that it, apparently, got you banned from Mr. Donaldson's blog...
...I absolutely respect the rights of others, but others must extend that same courtesy to me. My culture and society has chosen to emancipate it's women. This means my daughters at age 18 are adults with complete freedom under law to own property, vote, and make independent decisions. I will certainly fight for them to keep these rights if other seek to steal them via violence.
If Mr. Donaldson wishes to live in a society where women have not been emancipated he needs to try and change society without coercion. In the US this means getting men and women to support repealing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via a new constitutional amendment. I fully support his right to try and do this but I doubt his prospects for success.
Alternatively he (and others that share his views) can move to a society where women have not been emancipated. There are not a lot of options here as most societies have emancipated their women.
But both you and JAD appear to both advocate the coercion of the State that has a monopoly on violence. You obscure your evil behind your passive aggressive implicit claim of a more virtuous and egalitarian society.
You implicitly demand that my female children not be denied exposure to certain "rights" else I am not allowed to live in "your" society. What happened to my society and my choice? In other words, you demand I invest for at least 18 years in my children and have all the repercussions+liability for how my children behave and perform, but you don't give me the control to decide what I think it best for my children. This is why fathers are defecting and allowing the State to raise their children, even if they are still around by implicitly allowing their kids to attend State (and even SJWs infected private) schools.
If you haven't noticed, the SJWs are starting to rail against the God religion, and your freedom to send your daughters to a religious oriented school of your choice is going to be lost in the societal organization and governance paradigm you advocate.
Hey what if I don't want your SJW female offspring voting on what is proper for my female offspring?
What I am driving at here is that your so called universal "rights" are actually allowing the camel's nose under opening in the bottom of the tent to enable the total annihilation of my culture and infect+overwhelm it with the culture of the State and SJWs. This is the insideous Marxist demoralization strategy. This is a slippery slope which slides all the way to the Frankenstein outcomes such as where both men and women defect from the optimum life strategies and society collapses.
You refuse to acknowledge that JAD is correct where he wrote:
And in particular, I want CoinCube to read this one:
http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-reason-that-women-need-to-be-subordinated-for-successful-reproduction/
http://blog.jim.com/science/falling-testosterone/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-reason-that-women-need-to-be-subordinated-for-successful-reproduction/
http://blog.jim.com/science/falling-testosterone/
Here I will quote it for you:
Quote from: http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-reason-that-women-need-to-be-subordinated-for-successful-reproduction/
Societies with emancipated women do not reproduce very successfully.
Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.
Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.
A prisoners dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.
If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children dont get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.
Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed. One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage. But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage. Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.
To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.
Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a womans fertile years.
A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head. If men and women equal, requires separation. If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.
So, patriarchy. If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children. The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.
It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate. They will not support or protect women on current terms.
Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.
Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.
A prisoners dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.
If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children dont get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.
Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed. One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage. But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage. Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.
To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.
Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a womans fertile years.
A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head. If men and women equal, requires separation. If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.
So, patriarchy. If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children. The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.
It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate. They will not support or protect women on current terms.
When you use the God religion to attempt to repress your women and mind control them into not defecting from the optimum life strategy, that is not conceptually different from an enslavement perspective than any other cultural strategy that accomplishes the same goal.
The pot calling the kettle black. Hypocrite.
At the generative essence for society, if we don't have a diversity of cultural strategies amongst strong men, we have a power vacuum of self-destruction. That is the bottom line.
Your mistake is presuming the State has any role whatsoever because you fear interleaved (not mass) failure. But integrated failure is the way nature anneals gradually towards optimum fitness (I am very surprised you don't accept this given you have cited evolutionary biology). The man is the one who invests in his children and thus the only one who should decide. The female also invests, but realize that she depends on the man and she knows this unless she has the State fucking up nature and creating Frankenstein divergence into scorched earth mass failure.
Edit: until they are adult (an age which varies by individual child), the child is the property of the father and mother (and possibly the communal tribe which has invested in raising the child), which means effectively the property of the father. The State should have no role whatsoever. To achieve sufficient diversity for resiliency and antifragility, we must have those who are closest to the action in control. That is the fundamental reason you are my enemy.
I advocate a magnificent world of abundant diversity; whereas, you implicitly support a monolithic mayonnaise that smothers everything and turns us all into xerox copy, Facebook, McFat, SJWs lies regurgitating mind controlled zombies. I don't want to live in your dying top-down driven enslavement high economies-of-scale, corporate-fascist, power vacuum, industrial age strip mall hell heaven.
You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.
I will be the first to admit I needed a week or two to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint:
The Rise of Knowledge
I wish there was a solution but there isn't.
The solution is for people and humanity to gradually learn from our mistakes ultimately improving our behavior.
Competition of diverse strategies, because a monolithic top-down experiment is flirting with an extinction or megadeath event. Diversified failure is better than monolithic failure. This is Taleb's anti-fragility.
The best educator is consequence and the inevitable suffering it brings.
Precisely. Diverse competitions.
The role of the state is not to protect us from our bad choices.
Yet it does. Which incentivizes monolithic behavior.
The role of the state is to protect the innocent from the bad choices of others.
This only works well in very limited and clear cut cases.
In most situations, this turns into Frankenstein monolithic outcomes that kill the natural competition that is necessary for people to learn through the free market of diversified failure.
As a minanarchist, I support clear cut cases. For example, criminality as enumerated in prior post. I also mentioned today that I would support requiring all immigrants with a positive TB test to have undergone a certified DOT (doctor observed treatment meaning the doctor administers the drugs every week) for 6 - 9 months before they are allowed to immigrate to the USA. So we are stop importing multi-drug resistant strains. TB used to be nearly non-existent in the USA. Now it is coming back and with strains that can't be treated. This is fatal.
The state is failure personified.
Disagree. It is destruction of diversified failure and lumping it into monolithic failure. Not anti-fragile.
Taleb is much smarter than you or I. Maybe you should ask his opinion? I emailed him once and he replied.
At its best it is a bumbling and inefficient helper.
At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.
At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.
The worst is the end game inertia. Without exception. This is the lesson of Babylon.
The best the state can ever do is to contain and limit fallout to the individual alone.
Most of the time it accomplishes far less.
Most of the time it accomplishes far less.
It accomplishes far worse always if given enough time to foment.