tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post1287691672805798524..comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Hostility in the manosphereUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9535030876413449362013-05-24T00:41:43.707+10:002013-05-24T00:41:43.707+10:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtSOb_ee2a8
I HOPE...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtSOb_ee2a8<br /><br />I HOPE YOU LIKE IT REDONKULAS.COMTERRENCE POPPhttp://www.redonkulas.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63953082011406120872013-05-07T02:22:26.152+10:002013-05-07T02:22:26.152+10:00I can't see how traditionalism can be a collec...<i>I can't see how traditionalism can be a collectivist ideology.</i><br /><br />Well, I wouldn't say that we had a "collectivist ideology". However, we do support collectives, such as families, churches, local communities, local businesses, schools, community organisations and, at a higher level, ethnies and nations.<br /><br />Such collectives are important for the individual. Specifically they are what provide the individual with a social function, giving the individual a more important role in society.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13469475760481951592013-05-06T16:44:53.363+10:002013-05-06T16:44:53.363+10:00"If you can. Imagine an ideology that isn'...<em>"If you can. Imagine an ideology that isn't hostile to the family."</em><br /><br />There are certainly no major political parties in the western world today that aren't effectively anti-family. It's got to the stage where government childcare can be sold to the voters as a family-friendly measure when in fact it's one of the most destructive anti-family measures imaginable. dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22762536097178675062013-05-06T14:44:00.962+10:002013-05-06T14:44:00.962+10:00I can't see how traditionalism can be a collec...<i>I can't see how traditionalism can be a collectivist ideology. Collectivist ideologies want to replace the family with the state. They are always hostile to the family. Traditionalists want to strengthen the family at the expense of the state. That's surely the opposite of collectivism?</i><br />If you can. Imagine an ideology that isn't hostile to the family.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-91592662065579377852013-05-06T13:18:29.955+10:002013-05-06T13:18:29.955+10:00I can't see how traditionalism can be a collec...I can't see how traditionalism can be a collectivist ideology. Collectivist ideologies want to replace the family with the state. They are always hostile to the family. Traditionalists want to strengthen the family at the expense of the state. That's surely the opposite of collectivism?dfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-77011604150858275722013-05-06T10:17:19.718+10:002013-05-06T10:17:19.718+10:00Ray Manta already covered what would have been my ...<i>Ray Manta already covered what would have been my response to this comment.</i><br /><br />It's funny how after bloviating about the uselessness of men in the modern world, he hobbled away like someone drop-kicked him in the balls after you said that the same is true for women. How dare you commit sacrilege against his goddesses! Everybody should know that women are the center of the universe!<br /><br /><i>You opened the door to talking about technological change, but you are afraid of going through that door. I am not.</i><br /><br />My impression is that tradcons have little or no understanding of how technology impacts social change. Women currently "rule the roost" (and tradcons are correspondingly obsessed with them) mostly due to a confluence of technological and social factors. There's no reason to believe that will continue in the future. Vast improvements in automation, entertainment technologies, and bioengineering in the 21st century virtually guarantee this. Anybody who disbelieves this will have to explain why even primitive online porn is causing so much controversy.Ray Mantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78452594981095056912013-05-06T08:42:52.782+10:002013-05-06T08:42:52.782+10:00That's how I feel with your comment.
Ray Mant...<i>That's how I feel with your comment.</i><br /><br />Ray Manta already covered what would have been my response to this comment. You opened the door to talking about technological change, but you are afraid of going through that door. I am not. You think technological development will reach some steady state before it starts affecting biology. I know you're wrong.<br /><br />Your feelings will not change the reality of this situation. Accusing me of "death worship", whatever that is, will not change the reality of this situation.Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Techhttp://www.antifeministtech.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51320476584627711502013-05-05T12:31:32.895+10:002013-05-05T12:31:32.895+10:00Thursday said...
But it is there nonetheless.
I&#...Thursday said...<br /><i>But it is there nonetheless.</i><br /><br />I'm sure it must seem that way, especially if you repeat it to yourself over and over enough times. Ray Mantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-40840121607719997862013-05-05T10:58:00.199+10:002013-05-05T10:58:00.199+10:00he never specifically said that.
But it is there ...<i>he never specifically said that.</i><br /><br />But it is there nonetheless.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-74566736036696711672013-05-05T10:56:37.235+10:002013-05-05T10:56:37.235+10:00that is exactly what is known today as conservatis...<i>that is exactly what is known today as conservatism or traditionalism.</i><br /><br />No, we are not classical liberals.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63906142799186706152013-05-05T00:47:42.966+10:002013-05-05T00:47:42.966+10:00No, unfortunately not. We sometimes forget how far...<i>No, unfortunately not. We sometimes forget how far back liberalism goes. For instance, there was a major, radical wave of feminism that took place between about 1860 and 1940. Remember too that the 1800s were the heyday of classical liberalism, until it was challenged in the late 1800s by the newer social liberalism.<br /><br />In Australia at this time you had protectionist Deakinite liberals up against the the free trade liberals - with the Labor Party about to burst onto the scene. Those were the three main political currents within society. They were joined soon after by the communists. There was no organised traditionalist movement to stand against any of this. </i><br /><br />The presence of a few liberals in the institutions before the 1960s does NOT mean the institutions were liberal. In fact they were overwhelmingly conservative in outlook. Obviously the liberals didn't suddenly take control overnight; there was a period of transition between conservative control and liberal control.<br /><br />Your comment here is akin to the liberals who attempt to deny liberal control of academia by pointing to one professor, somewhere, who is supposedly conservative, while ignoring the other 99% of the faculty who are liberal. In other words, you can point to some liberals in the pre-1960s era but the institutions were overwhelmingly run by conservatives.<br /><br />As for the "classical liberalism" of the 1800s... <i>that is exactly what is known today as conservatism or traditionalism</i>. Is this really what you oppose? If you are against "1800s liberalism", exactly what are you in favor of? What kind of "traditionalism" are you talking about if you exclude everything that happened in the English-speaking world in the 1800s?Nahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-76901364849905621682013-05-04T15:48:31.868+10:002013-05-04T15:48:31.868+10:00alternatives to left-liberalism
I mean.<i>alternatives to left-liberalism </i><br />I mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72583562415619387312013-05-04T15:46:59.120+10:002013-05-04T15:46:59.120+10:00See, this is the thing. There are so many types of...<i>See, this is the thing. There are so many types of political understanding floating around right now that end logically in passive defeat.</i><br />I'm of a fairly suspicious mind when looking at alternative left-liberal movements.<br />A lot of the MRA sphere is starting to sound like left-liberal propaganda.<br />It is completely defeatist and has the slight feel of reveling in the demise of the west that is too similar to leftists to ignore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81160323427984137062013-05-04T08:19:04.481+10:002013-05-04T08:19:04.481+10:00Everyone should have a hobby, I guess.
See, this ...<i>Everyone should have a hobby, I guess.</i><br /><br />See, this is the thing. There are so many types of political understanding floating around right now that end logically in passive defeat.<br /><br />The thing about traditionalism is that it is an active, spirited kind of movement. The logic of a traditionalist politics is to build and grow.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29022808873712658682013-05-04T08:14:40.630+10:002013-05-04T08:14:40.630+10:00ALL the institutions were non-liberal at the begin...<i>ALL the institutions were non-liberal at the beginning of the 20th century.</i><br /><br />No, unfortunately not. We sometimes forget how far back liberalism goes. For instance, there was a major, radical wave of feminism that took place between about 1860 and 1940. Remember too that the 1800s were the heyday of classical liberalism, until it was challenged in the late 1800s by the newer social liberalism.<br /><br />In Australia at this time you had protectionist Deakinite liberals up against the the free trade liberals - with the Labor Party about to burst onto the scene. Those were the three main political currents within society. They were joined soon after by the communists. There was no organised traditionalist movement to stand against any of this. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32932080357866528122013-05-04T00:42:18.153+10:002013-05-04T00:42:18.153+10:00The process in the twentieth century was that the ...<i>The process in the twentieth century was that the liberal political class gradually discarded the non-liberal principles in society to rule ever more exclusively on liberal principles alone.<br /><br />There were no significant non-liberal institutions to oppose this (with the partial exception of the Catholic Church in the mid twentieth century).</i><br /><br />Are you kidding? ALL the institutions were non-liberal at the beginning of the 20th century. Over time the liberals infiltrated them, hollowed them out, and generally turned them into a mockery of their former selves. Conservatism (like the British Empire) went from penthouse to outhouse over the course of the century. You are deluded if you think you can get back into the penthouse when you couldn't even defend it back in the day you actually owned it.<br /><br /><i>In Australia it was particularly true that the orthodoxy in society was not only liberal, but it was left-liberal. If you were a uni educated, middle-class person in the 1970s and 1980s you were simply expected to be a left-liberal as part of your class identity.</i><br /><br />You are picking up the narrative in mid-story. Before the 1970s it was not normal or expected at all to be left-liberal.<br /><br />As for the 1990s onwards, forget it. The Left had won by that time.<br /><br /><i>I think it's possible that I was the only self-identifying traditionalist in Australia for a decade or more. Things gradually improved from about 2005, but we were still scattered individuals communicating through the internet.</i><br /><br />OK, but you are aware that the world existed before that time, right? And that the world was not created from the void at the moment of your birth? Because the fact is that in decades before your birth and political awareness, the majority of the people were not Leftists, and Leftists did not control the institutions. People back then were, in today's terms, hopelessly reactionary. Yet they were totally defeated.<br /><br /><i>It's only really been in the past year that we've reached numbers that the aim of getting together and forming associations has become a realistic one.<br /><br />The aim is to start forming local groups and then when adequate numbers exist to begin forming an institutional base (media and publishing, education, politics, the arts, foundations etc).</i><br /><br />Good luck with that. Everyone should have a hobby, I guess.Nahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72345031445624417312013-05-03T18:04:19.557+10:002013-05-03T18:04:19.557+10:00The Dark triad is a myth. It is circular logic.
Al...The Dark triad is a myth. It is circular logic.<br />Also the apparent disparaging of "nice" men and the literal autism of commentators.<br /><br />A good man is not a "nice" man. There are men that are orderly and civilized that put down "Dark triad" men.<br />These men are foundations of civilisation.<br /><br />The circular reasoning of people who throw all worth into "dark triad" men. Will then exclaim that good men that reproduce and beat the criminally inclined are "dark triad" themselves.<br /><br />Circular logic.<br /><br />This seems pretty prevalent in the MRA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50822162370262656352013-05-03T14:41:22.035+10:002013-05-03T14:41:22.035+10:00asdf wrote:
That's how I feel with your commen...asdf wrote:<br /><i>That's how I feel with your comment.<br /></i><br /><br />Kind of womanly of you, isn't it? No reasoned rebuttal, it's just wrong because it upsets your feeewings?<br /><br /><i>To pick it apart,</i><br /><br />Oh well, if you don't want to do it, I'll be happy to take up the slack. <br /><br />Here's a capsule summary along with my comments :<br /><br />(1) He believes useless jobs should be eliminated.<br /><br />Completely on board with him there.<br /><br />(2) Welfare should be eliminated.<br /><br />Yes, with qualifications. As more jobs are eliminated, I'd favor replacing it with a basic monthly income (Google Marshall Brain for more info) to any man or woman. It would be enough to survive on, but those who were ambitious would have the opportunity for entrepreneurial work or to compete for the remaining jobs available. <br /><br />(3) Men don't need women to survive.<br /><br />Simple statement of fact. Men do not need women to survive and never did, only to reproduce. <br /><br />(4) Washed up women are looking for a man to bail them out. <br /><br />Another statement of fact. We're going to see a lot more of this in the near future as more are unable to get a job to pay off their student loans and other debts. <br /><br />(5) Men will be unlikely to want to have anything to do with the same women who treated them like dirt in the past.<br /><br />I think with the spread of the MGTOW ethos this attitude will become much more widespread. F. Roger Devlin himself said that the best time for a man to marry a woman is before he understands too much about them. <br /><br />(6) Men will survive far better than women under hardship conditions. <br /><br />No argument there. Men are designed to interact with and master the real world, women are designed to attract men to get their resources and bear and raise children. <br /><br />(7) Your (asdf's) analysis falls apart because you aren't taking into account further technological advances.<br /><br />Emphatic agreement there. The 21st century is going to see tremendous advances in automation, bioengineering, and nanotech. It certainly isn't going to remain the way it is now. One thing it will do is make female sexuality an easily replaceable commodity. <br /><br />Now that I've summarized everything, where's the problem?Ray Mantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34843557896483982852013-05-03T13:49:50.370+10:002013-05-03T13:49:50.370+10:00Thursday wrote:
I've been reading Razib since...Thursday wrote:<br /><i><br />I've been reading Razib since forever and your interpretation of that article is typically idiotic.</i><br /><br />Hmm, I think the adjective 'idiotic' much better describes someone who touts the proliferation of a dysfunctional group like the Haredim as a positive development. <br /><br /><i>The gist of it is: either the current differential between current seculars and the religious is erased by the seculars becoming more religious in general, or else the differential stays the same. Either way: traditional religion wins.</i><br /><br />Read through the entire article (again) and he never specifically said that. All the differential in the world won't do anything if they have to pay to raise their kids but can't afford to. <br />He did seem to believe that a genetic propensity for religion would tend to increase in the modern world and I think he may be right. But it doesn't follow that the simple-minded conclusion "That the religious will inherit the earth" follows. It's pretty clear that he believes that ecological constraints and other factors will prevent this. <br /><br /><em>In any event, the Quiverfull or the Mormons are not dependent on being radically apart from mainstream society like the Amish. Eventually people will have to stop breeding, but that's aways off.</em><br /><br />The whole Mormon thing is exaggerated from what I've seen. They're hardly immune from the typical issues that plague fundamentalists, which include but aren't limited to proneness to defection. I'm less familiar with the Quiverfull movement but find it hard to believe they don't have similar issues.<br />It's that way with all fundamentalist groups, which is why they have such a strong tendency to isolate themselves from mainstream culture - it's pure poison to their way of life. But that's a double-edged sword that further serves to limit their population growth. <br /><br />http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2821221/posts<br /><br />The URL above puts the number of LDS church members nationwide at 3.2 million, a bit more than half of the official church stats of 5.9 million. It's attributed to the way the church counts its members - it considers all members on record, while the study quoted only counted those who actively identified as church members. <br /><br />So while a good case can be made that the Mormons will increase their numbers over the next 50-100 years, going to something like 40-50 million just isn't going to happen.Ray Mantanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35108721973305642742013-05-03T10:55:29.397+10:002013-05-03T10:55:29.397+10:00Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech,
I listened to a podc...Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech,<br /><br />I listened to a podcast awhile back on the Second Punic War. The author had been quoting from a famous Roman historian who was extremely detailed about the events of the war down to a very personal level. He also had no problem talking about terror and horrible events.<br /><br />After the Roman complete defeat at Cannae, when Hannibal's army was five days march away and the Roman people thought the city was going to fall, the normally verbose historian has only one line describing the mood, "any words that could describe the terror of the citizens would be a diminishment of the real thing."<br /><br />That's how I feel with your comment. To pick it apart, to try an digest the hate & death worship that fuels it would diminish the source. I ask only that people read your reply and decide who won the debate.asdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-20617602425755359902013-05-03T09:01:58.516+10:002013-05-03T09:01:58.516+10:00Do you really think there would be a massive chang...<i>Do you really think there would be a massive change in gender relations if we eliminated the welfare state?</i><br /><br />Not just what is traditionally called the "welfare state", but big government in general. It isn't just welfare that should be eliminated, but useless jobs in all levels of government, useless quasi-government jobs like those at universities, in education, & in healthcare, and useless government mandated private sector jobs (both directly and indirectly mandated such as HR drones).<br /><br /><i>In Japan companies discriminate pretty hard against female employees and that don't have a very strong welfare system. They still have the herbivore/low TFR issues.</i><br /><br />When the entire array of female welfare and government support goes away, I don't expect it to lead to more families and children. If nothing else, the large mass of men who have been spit upon aren't going to take back their female counterparts just because they're desperate.<br /><br /><i>Women don't need men to survive.</i><br /><br />Men don't need women to survive, either.<br /><br /><i>To be honest women make better cubicle drones in most offices.</i><br /><br />We don't need an army of cubicle drones now. We will need even less of that in the future. Most cubicle drones now could be replaced by a computer program now if there was a serious effort to produce an alternative.<br /><br /><i>What you seem to be pushing hard is the idea that women will all of a sudden change their tune if they need men to survive/be comfortable. However, this isn't true anymore.</i><br /><br />I quite frequently meet upper middle class women in their late 20s and older who despite have "good" jobs, prove that isn't true. They're riddled with debt and desperately looking for a man to bail them out. Despite what Forney thinks, I have manipulated them into putting out without expending real resources on them. These chicks should be "independent", but they're really not.<br /><br />I have no clue if a mass of unemployed chicks will get together with a mass of similarly unemployed men. That's not the point, although, a man will have a much easier time scratching out an existence in such a situation.<br /><br />If you really want to talk about technical changes, then you can't stop half way like you are now. That's where your analysis falls apart.Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Techhttp://www.antifeministtech.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15302983120489009142013-05-03T07:56:21.675+10:002013-05-03T07:56:21.675+10:00Whether or not dark triad is good from an evolutio...Whether or not dark triad is good from an evolutionary perspective, I do agree that women aren't generally as attracted to men who come across as too safe and predictable. <br /><br />That's one thing that concerns me about the feminist rape and domestic violence campaigns. Conscientious young men tend to respond by wanting to reassure women that they are harmless.<br /><br />But they aren't doing themselves any favours by orienting themselves this way. Harmlessness is not the quality you want to convey.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-77159274541213212682013-05-02T23:05:19.988+10:002013-05-02T23:05:19.988+10:00Mark Richardson,
Dark Triad is "good" f...Mark Richardson,<br /><br />Dark Triad is "good" from am evolutionary perspective. Something like 0.5% of Asians are DIRECT descendants of Ghenghis Kahn, the most brutal man in history that probably killed 50 million people. Immorality, so long as one has the self control to apply it in instances where they won't get blowback, is evolutionarily favored.<br /><br />Over short periods of time, when a woman is DTF, its not surprising that men can fake dark triad/strength. Yes, if condoms didn't exist women might do a double take and inquire deeper, but they do exist so they don't.asdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36731040990135584592013-05-02T20:35:09.490+10:002013-05-02T20:35:09.490+10:00ASDF,
The way you describe alpha, beta and omega ...ASDF,<br /><br />The way you describe alpha, beta and omega might work to some degree, but it has its limitations.<br /><br />One of the things I noticed when I was at uni in the late 80s and early 90s is that the women weren't so much going for "good genes" in the sense of men who could physically dominate other men.<br /><br />I was surprised that they were going for men who simply played around with bad boy insignia. For instance, these men might wear motorbike gear, or affect a minor drug habit.<br /><br />But they were not strong men, either physically or otherwise.<br /><br />I think part of the explanation is that the idea of "sexual liberation" was at a peak at that time amongst young women. Sexual liberation meant having sex for the sake of sex rather than connecting it to marriage or to romantic love.<br /><br />If young women are selecting for sex alone, then they don't have to consider character or resources, they can go for "outer markers" of masculinity - and these can be quite shallow.<br /><br />It's a bit like a man who has decided he'll just pursue a one night stand. He no longer needs to consider whether a woman would be a good mother, or is nice, or has class or intelligence. <br /><br />He might look instead to outer markers of feminine attractiveness; it could be hair, fingernails, heels, legs or whatever. If he finds those things attractive, and he is only looking for a fling, then what does female character or compatibility count for?<br /><br />The thing is, I don't think it's easy to keep women sexually "liberated". For most women the desire for marriage kicks in and that means women then consider other factors. For example, assortative mating starts to matter, so that educated women might appreciate intelligence or educational attainments in men, or markers of social class and so on.<br /><br />There are still large numbers of women who don't want to do parenthood alone. So it still is important for men to put themselves in a position to marry by getting an education and a job.<br /><br />They key thing we have to overcome are the fatal delays that some women make in shifting to family mode - particularly uni educated women.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7209185216147484422013-05-02T17:35:22.163+10:002013-05-02T17:35:22.163+10:00ASDF:
Yes, blaming welfare and affirmative action...ASDF:<br /><br />Yes, blaming welfare and affirmative action etc. for the mess in the sexual market never made much sense. Yes, welfare is screws things up for the bottom 25%, but the real problem across society is women being able to support themselves and put off pregnancy. That would happen even in a more capitalist society.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.com