Link post: 01/29/11
30 01 11 - 06:50
Stuff that's made me wish I read it earlier:- In Mala Fide: Linkage is Good For You: Classy Edition
- Amerika: Why Conservatism is Important, Moving Away From the Subsidy Model, Gender Roles: Adaptivity, Not Control
- The Local: Swedish feminists want stiffer penalties for men who buy sex
- TAMU: Religion, Self-Regulation, and Self-Control: Associations, Explanations, and Implications
- New Scientist: The brain cells of fish exposed to antidepressants were less active than normal cells
- CNN: American School Re-segregates, Liberals Freak Out
seventeen comments
"Fascists are losers"
"Lefitsts are socially superior"
Nice, now you can join your local leftist clique and bang a few chicks while drinking wine. TD - 31-01-’11 22:19
as indicated above, leftist cliques are way more likely let you in after you totally score points by making wonderfully enlightening posts on terrible fascist websites. fight the power! faggot - 01-02-’11 22:51
Fuckin' weird. mincedmeat - 04-02-’11 05:22
Right, partly because the site's agenda itself is constantly changing. It used to emphasize that it was both anti-liberal and anti-conservative, claiming that those were to aspects of the same flawed type of thinking. Now it seems to embrace conservatism, even of the neo-type to a large extent.
It used to emphasize collectivism and categorically reject individualism of any kind. It still mainly does, but it now claims half-alliance with groups like libertarians, who are as individualistic as you can get! Dave (Email ) - 04-02-’11 15:48
âWomen embraced feminism for the promise of empowerment, men embraced it for the promise of more sex.â
Well, first of all, men generally *didnât* embrace it. Second, feminism is not just about freedom to have sex, as Iâm sure you know. Third, to the extent that it does involve more sex, itâs only to the extent that women can have sex if they choose; if that means men get to have more sex too, then thereâs nothing wrong with that as long as itâs something women are choosing.
âThrough this example, we see how gender roles are not slavery, but a method of adapting to our environmentâ
Oh really. First of all, since when are those two things mutually exclusive? It could be both. After all, you could see normal slavery as an adaptation to oneâs environment too, such as the environment of having too much cotton to plant.
Second, whoâs adapting exactly? The women? Well, that adaptation obviously didnât work that well for them, at least not when there was no choice involved. And whatâs the environment? The situation such that men are unwilling to accept women into the workforce?
âOur conventional mythos that gender roles are a method of control makes little sense, since without them, we are better subjects for control by economic forces and government regulation.â
Non sequitur. Even if the last clause is true, it doesnât follow that gender roles are *not* a method of control.
âCould it be that our controllers found an easy way to lure us into something labeled âfreedomâ that was in fact a form of slavery?â
So Susan B. Anthony was one of âour controllersâ?
âHowever, it doubles the work force, thus halving what any one person can expect in actual value (purchasing power, regardless of dollar amounts).â
What?
ââ¦the proles just donât understand what the exceptional are thinkingâ¦â
If theyâre that exceptional, perhaps they can explain it better. Dave (Email ) - 14-02-’11 14:00
Uh, yeah, and what exactly is that supposed to show. The drugs were not designed for normally functioning fish. They were designed for pathological humans. It's effect on the former can't be instantly generalized to the latter. Dave (Email ) - 17-02-’11 15:38
gw2 gold gw2 gold (URL) - 23-01-’13 08:31