Pat always nails it down with about a dozen nine inch nails.
Pat always nails it down with about a dozen nine inch nails.
h/t AC, he’s right, it is white genocide as a weapon, but rape has always been a genocidal weapon. That’s why it was punished with murder and sometimes killers were not. Creating a life without permission is far worse for society than taking one.
A woman doesn’t fear murder as much as rape.
They know this, so when I say this type of person should be shot, I’m being the moderate one. This is not even a laughing matter, unlike you’re laughing in shock and appalment.
p.s. yet another man pretends to know evobio and deliberately implies something about female lubrication that any woman could correct him on, if he listened. He just admitted to being bad in bed. No, a biker with tattoos, or whatever your idea of ‘rough’ is not going to get every woman in the vicinity wet, that’s ridiculous. That’s like arguing any girl in a dress can pass the boner test, whatever her looks, weight, height, the ugliness of dress…..
Sounds like something I could have written. Pretty damn good.
The fake collective halo effect on the left has been compared to The Cheerleader Effect elsewhere.
There is an Enjoy the Decline flavour, semi-upbeat.
And it brings you down where realistic, appropriate and very K.
Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation. In his editorial (link is external) in the December 2009 issue of Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals and other intelligent people may be “clever sillies,” who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning to social and interpersonal domains….
It’s nice to see his work mentioned mainstream.
I keep thinking he’s one of ours as if he isn’t known.
Social metaphor: Liberals see everything NOT/Them, logically (¬liberal) as a nail and their solution is the hammer. Hammer for more public money, for more tax, for banning things and bleeding hearts. It’s like they’re all tuned into the same radio. It’s a form of maladaptive problem solving pertaining to confirmation bias and circular reasoning.
I happen to know sampling bias and self-report bias are also HUGE issues on these matters (the N of self-identifying liberals far exceeds conservatives), rarely corrected for because they need that sweet p-value.
I am sorry to say I have encountered this woman and her opinions before. They are not uncommon among academics.
They are focusing on the wrong section in commentary, the 90% dead. Those 90% would be the ones without value. For clues as to why offing the 90% seems like a good idea to her, think of her as a serial killer.
The question moves from Why kill them? to Why not kill them? and the 9:1 ratio is a good enough basis for the serial assertion.
Why spare 10% (suspiciously round number alert) of men at all? What do these men provide?
The most suitable men would simply be those who are fit in both body and mind. This is also related to genetic modification.
Society already uses eugenics with medicine, but okay…
Which is more important to her, in this utopia? (Nothing about goodness btw)
Healthy and fit men will always be ideal, but not “brutes”, which has more to do with mental attributes than physical. Anyone can lift weights.
Physically attractive, with no effort, with the docility of low testosterone.
Suddenly the suspiciously round number makes sense when you realize she is subconsciously quoting the 10-scale.
translation: The top 10% of hot men are allowed to live.
Women keeping physically attractive men as pets… or sex slaves.
It’s a new model of Communism where women are magically exempt. Nothing about ugly women, or women working or pulling our weight as a sex. What about old men who outlived their use?
Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.
What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy and violence. It needs to be abolished.
There is too much wrong there to bother, I’m sorry.
If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations [
Hitler Youth] in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.
I mean –
Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics – with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?
I’m not sure, you think it’s genetic?
Perhaps it’s partially genetic, but it’s also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn’t what a “man” is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.
She is jealous of lesbians.
Heartiste is correct, the low fertility of these nutjobs is a feature, not a bug.
There is a hidden aspect of this arrangement. These Communes require enforced lesbianism, women cannot be allowed to rely on men, even for sex. She hints the hold-outs, demanding to keep their heterosexuality (!!!) are the damaged, degenerate ones.
When playing a dice game that could earn them €6 ($8), subjects originally from the East, which was for four decades under socialist rule, were more likely than their market economy counterparts in West to lie about how they fared. The Economist explains the task:
The game was simple enough. Each participant was asked to throw a die 40 times and record each roll on a piece of paper. A higher overall tally earned a bigger payoff. Before each roll, players had to commit themselves to write down the number that was on either the top or the bottom side of the die. However, they did not have to tell anyone which side they had chosen, which made it easy to cheat by rolling the die first and then pretending that they had selected the side with the highest number. If they picked the top and then rolled a two, for example, they would have an incentive to claim—falsely—that they had chosen the bottom, which would be a five.
The results were that “East Germans cheated twice as much as West Germans overall,” leaving the researchers to conclude the “the political regime of socialism has a lasting impact on citizens’ basic morality.”
You can outlaw competition, but you can’t change human nature. Especially in a resource-scarce mindset.
The paper discusses some potentially related reasons for the outcome, such as the fact that
socialist systems have been characterized by extensive scarcity, which ultimately led to the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in East Germany. In many instances, socialism pressured or forced people to work around official laws. For instance, in East Germany stealing a load of building materials in order to trade it for a television set might have been the only way for a driver of gravel loads to connect to the outside world. Moreover, socialist systems have been characterized by a high degree of infiltration by the intelligence apparatus.
The Duke-Munich team positions their work against a 2013 study, “Of Morals, Markets and Mice,” which concluded “that market economies decay morals” but “compared decisions in bilateral and multilateral market settings to individual decisions rather than an alternative economic allocation mechanism.” The new research finds that “political and economic regimes such as socialism might have an even more detrimental effect on individuals’ behavior.”
In another aspect of the study, the researchers note that “we did not observe an overall difference between East and West Germans in pro-social behavior,” such as donating to hospitals, the capitalist-influenced demographic does, in fact, donate marginally more. [ explained by a true sense of community, instead of just speaking about one ]
Capitalism is the best we’ve got. Until something better comes along….
“As George Weigel notes in his recent National Affairs article entitled “Reality and Public Policy,” in 2007, Spain’s Zapatero government enacted legislation allowing men to change themselves into women and women into men by simply declaring one’s newly recognized sex, with or without surgical alterations. The new man or woman could then be issued new national identity card reflecting the gender of choice. Weigel concludes, “It is hard to imagine a more explicit expression of personal willfulness overpowering natural givenness.”
In other words, reality be damned. The purely good will and spirit within the individual is to prevail over common sense and human tradition since time immemorial. I may look like a woman and actually be a biological woman, but if I decide I’m a man, who are you to question my inner light? Who are you to resist my truth about myself? As millions of American children are taught every day, “You can be anything you choose to be.”
“As Weigel writes, “Reality may be, and often is, unpleasant. But policies rooted in a failure to grasp reality are dangerous, and too often deadly. […] A culture convinced that everything is malleable and that there are no givens in personal or public life is not a culture likely to sustain serious debates about serious public-policy options.“
Oh, how the 22nd century will mock us!
You couldn’t invent a better satire story. Apply it to other London Universities, we dare you.
“Leftists (or at least Trotskyists, communists and many “progressives”) know full well that such mass immigration will help them destabilize the “capitalist system” (as they call it). Through such destabilization, people will become “radicalized” (they predict) into adopting revolutionary socialism – as offered to them by, say, the SWP. In other words, the riots and communal conflict which have already occurred in the UK, and which will occur on a larger scale in the future, are but a means to bring about the revolution which these Leftists so desire. Or, as the phrase goes, for a Leftist (as well as for a Nazi): “The worse things are, the better they are.”
As usual, the left inaccurately predict human behaviour.
Let us say – there is more rioting. A lot more.
Let us say – there is another English Civil War.
Who will the military defend? Taxpayers or parasites? The rich or the layabouts?
And who will the hungry, rabid proles flock toward?
The Left by definition cannot provide for themselves, let alone others. The Socialists of the “Worker’s” Party rely on handouts from the productive, which would cease in the event of violent unrest. They’d be too busy looting and fending off immigrant thieves to recruit anyone, even if people were to listen, and the design of Parliament is such that it deliberately cannot be surrounded (riverside). This is why squatting laws were passed. Because in that situation, the only thing they could’ve clung to was their council housing.
They are rabbits who will be torn apart when the wolves come.
Yet they laugh at conservative preppers.