As I promised yesterday, here are specific responses to the nine mass media articles that mentioned my sex redistribution post in the eight most popular media outlets, as measured by SemRush “organic traffic”. (For example, the note (21M) means 21 million in monthly traffic.) Quotes are indented; my responses are not.
I support the government leaving me alone, and NOT instituting policies that encourage sexual inequality, such as handouts to poor single mothers but not married ones. Most of the discussion in this thread is authoritarian fantasy.
There's nothing remotely honest about that non sequitur strawman. Again: "a propensity to assume bad faith" -- you could claim that you have no such propensity ... at least that would be relevant to what I wrote. As would be a response to my point about viewing money and vaginas differently. But no, that's not what I get from you. Your response is all too familiar and what I expect from you ... you're an intellectually corrupt person.
As jobs make most income, income redistribution must and does influence who takes which job matchings. As the amount of sex any one person has depends on many particular sex pairings, sex redistribution must and does influence who has sex with who. In both cases one can still allow individual vetos over particular matches.
Try handing out "It's okay to be white" flyers at the Progressive Student club at Oberlin College and see if they are perceived as innocuous. Of course they won't be.
As far as my membership in the Alt Right goes, the idea of having a movement which is conservative populist and nationalist is pretty appealing. However in practice the alt right is a huge magnet for actual Nazi types. Not just people who believe in HBD but people who want to slaughter blacks and Jews.
Again, "most income is generated by jobs" misses the mark. Those who advocate for income redistribution usually argue either for job-independent redistribution (eg UBI, welfare) or for changing how particular types of jobs are paid. This may overlap with advocating for job creation, but it is clearly not the same thing and suggests different policies. Advocating income redistribution but not sex redistribution (which is more similar to job creation in this analogy) thus is a consistent position rather than a hypocritical one as you claim, even if one accepts your other premises.
The ad hominem dismissals of criticism are rife here. Meanwhile, my point-by-point critique of the response was first marked as spam, then held, and now deleted.
The fact that most of those who endorse sex redistribution only endorse the policy of simple income redistribution toward the income poor suggests that they mainly like it as an excuse for general income redistribution.
I support income distribution, gov-purchased birth control, regulated prostitution with vouchers for the disabled, gym vouchers, nutritional austerity, immigration policy that favors ladies for other reasons, walkable cities, free university study in hi employment disciplines, homebuilding deregulation, shortening of IP mandates for movies and TV, light touch regulation of small biz like bars and restaurants
I support the government leaving me alone, and NOT instituting policies that encourage sexual inequality, such as handouts to poor single mothers but not married ones. Most of the discussion in this thread is authoritarian fantasy.
There's nothing remotely honest about that non sequitur strawman. Again: "a propensity to assume bad faith" -- you could claim that you have no such propensity ... at least that would be relevant to what I wrote. As would be a response to my point about viewing money and vaginas differently. But no, that's not what I get from you. Your response is all too familiar and what I expect from you ... you're an intellectually corrupt person.
Bro, I've come across you on other blogs. Your only problem with the alt-right is that they don't like Jews and you happen to be a Jew.
Being honest means considering both possibilities, sincerity and insincerity.
As jobs make most income, income redistribution must and does influence who takes which job matchings. As the amount of sex any one person has depends on many particular sex pairings, sex redistribution must and does influence who has sex with who. In both cases one can still allow individual vetos over particular matches.
Try handing out "It's okay to be white" flyers at the Progressive Student club at Oberlin College and see if they are perceived as innocuous. Of course they won't be.
As far as my membership in the Alt Right goes, the idea of having a movement which is conservative populist and nationalist is pretty appealing. However in practice the alt right is a huge magnet for actual Nazi types. Not just people who believe in HBD but people who want to slaughter blacks and Jews.
"Challenged on it"? What's wrong with courting controversy?
(Not that I'm convinced he was.)
Again, "most income is generated by jobs" misses the mark. Those who advocate for income redistribution usually argue either for job-independent redistribution (eg UBI, welfare) or for changing how particular types of jobs are paid. This may overlap with advocating for job creation, but it is clearly not the same thing and suggests different policies. Advocating income redistribution but not sex redistribution (which is more similar to job creation in this analogy) thus is a consistent position rather than a hypocritical one as you claim, even if one accepts your other premises.
I went ahead and turned this into a policy proposalhttp://theanti-puritan.blog...
Read it as "Which makes the latter ..."
Of course, it's possible that, rather than being insincere, people view money and vaginas differently.
I have trouble squaring the title of this blog with a propensity to assume bad faith.
I missed it because the table of contents entry starts with "Herodotus", but the page title and URL don't. Thanks.
The ad hominem dismissals of criticism are rife here. Meanwhile, my point-by-point critique of the response was first marked as spam, then held, and now deleted.
The third link has his table of contents.
The fact that most of those who endorse sex redistribution only endorse the policy of simple income redistribution toward the income poor suggests that they mainly like it as an excuse for general income redistribution.
I support income distribution, gov-purchased birth control, regulated prostitution with vouchers for the disabled, gym vouchers, nutritional austerity, immigration policy that favors ladies for other reasons, walkable cities, free university study in hi employment disciplines, homebuilding deregulation, shortening of IP mandates for movies and TV, light touch regulation of small biz like bars and restaurants
Which makes that later groups seem insincere, as if they just like sex inequality concerns as an excuse for general income redistribution.
I can't parse this sentence. The introductory clause is incoherent (should makes be means?) But I can't even guess what "later groups" refers to.