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”.
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
A recurring theme of these articles is that people accuse you of advocating on behalf of incels despite the fact that you technically never did. Having literally written the book on signalling, you should be far less surprised by this than you're acting (or perhaps the surprise is merely an act as you try to maintain the plausible deniability of your signal).
Your original article was clearly inspired by recent events putting incels in the news. You deliberately blurred the line between sex inequality concerns generally and the concerns of incels in particular by commenting that the article on incels seemed unconcerned with sex inequality. It is hardly surprising that when your original article spent half its paragraphs quoting an article on incels, people accused you of talking about incels: literally or not, you were doing it just as plainly as the "women are people" feminist is talking about something more than whether women are human beings.
You made a post about how income redistribution should be equivalent to sex redistribution. People know you lean libertarian and aren't especially fond of either of those policies, so of course they perceived it as an attack on income redistribution (which they like) by comparing it to sex redistribution (which they don't). Of course they attacked you for proposing sympathy to concerns mainly expressed by an extremely unpopular group. You literally wrote the book on signalling, you should not be surprised by this. One might uncharitably speculate that you aren't surprised, and all this is just your attempt to preserve the plausible deniability of your original signal.
"as most seem content to claim that self-labeled “incels” advocating for sex redistribution are deeply icky people, and especially that they are women-hating."
Despite Hanson's mocking tone, those claims are true.
"Even if that were true"
So Hanson denies that it's true. This puts the lie to his ridiculous claims that he doesn't "value signal", and that he's just an academic who is neutrally and dispassionately exploring the issue of "redistribution of sex" independently of the political context that led to his tone deaf dive into this muck.
"the tiny “incel community."
Tiny but murderous. And aside from that community and Hanson, "sex inequality" is not something that anyone sees as a problem ... certainly not one to be solved by Hanson's sort of economic mumbo jumbo completely detached from the realities of human culture.
"I’m interested in general sex inequality, but not in the legitimacy or personal problems of the tiny “incel community.”"
As if this interest arose in a vacuum. Everyone sees Hanson's blather about "sex inequality" as tied to incel, and rightly so.
"Whether or not women hold a right to refuse"
Whether or not, eh. And Hanson's whole response to Ley is a passel of non sequiturs and strawmen ... Hanson doesn't seem to understand a word that Ley wrote.
"Regardless of whether the ordinary sex-poor blame themselves or others for their status, the rest of us might care enough about them to see if we can help."
Regardless of whether Hanson cares, he's completely lacking in the human qualities, and understanding of human qualities, that would be required to achieve this.
"The phrase “flippantly dehumanizing thought experiment” isn’t justified"
Certainly it is.
"it seems this author just enjoyed making a dig at me"
Hanson is incapable of assuming good faith from his critics.
"He calls me hypocritical for comparing both kinds of redistribution"
No, he didn't ... this misrepresentation is typical of Hanson's own bad faith.
"He makes many accusations without much support, and which he knows I’ve denied."
People deny truths about them all the time; that's no reason not to continue to call them out.
" jobs generate most income, and are also two-person agreements"
They aren't, but the disanalogy between income (which is not the same as either wages or wealth) and sex goes way beyond this. In his previous article, Hanson bizarrely refers to sex as a "product" -- even though it cannot be stored or transferred -- and then based on this absurd supposed commonality goes on to act surprised at differences between income (but not wealth?) redistribution and "sex redistribution". Can he say "fungibility"?
"I’m skeptical that society can convince people not to see sex as a sign of status, or to not feel bad when they don’t get as much as others."
Why should "society" try to "convince" people of that? And Hanson completely fails to understand the issue, in regard to both incels and generally, by characterizing it (in his previous article) in terms of "individual counts of simple sex acts". This is not what people care about -- they care about being able to have sex when they want it and -- especially for women -- not having it when they don't. And while many men consider number of partners to be a sign of status, for women it is largely the opposite. Despite the name of Hanson's blog, he is quite blind to his biases and never even attempts to explore or unearth them.
"She attributes words in quote marks to me that I didn’t say"
No, she doesn't. "He means '...'" is an interpretation, not an attribution.
"and deny"
Of course you do, but it's nonetheless entailed by what you do say.
"I did not specify men or women; I was talking about both groups."
Whoosh! Apparently "no one’s talking about the “redistribution of sex” from men to women who can’t find sexual partners" is beyond Hanson's ability to comprehend. It doesn't mean that *he* isn't talking about it, it means that women are not asking for this (while incel males are demanding that women be forced to be their partners). "I was talking about both groups" is the sort of nonsensical pretense of lack of bias that Anatole France alluded to with "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread".
Hanson keeps talking about being an academic, but this blog is not part of an academic institution and does not follow academic codes of behavior or academic standards of intellectual honesty. This article will do nothing to improve Hanson's critics' views of him ... which I for one think is a good thing.
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.
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
Bold. Bespoke. Based.
A recurring theme of these articles is that people accuse you of advocating on behalf of incels despite the fact that you technically never did. Having literally written the book on signalling, you should be far less surprised by this than you're acting (or perhaps the surprise is merely an act as you try to maintain the plausible deniability of your signal).
Your original article was clearly inspired by recent events putting incels in the news. You deliberately blurred the line between sex inequality concerns generally and the concerns of incels in particular by commenting that the article on incels seemed unconcerned with sex inequality. It is hardly surprising that when your original article spent half its paragraphs quoting an article on incels, people accused you of talking about incels: literally or not, you were doing it just as plainly as the "women are people" feminist is talking about something more than whether women are human beings.
You made a post about how income redistribution should be equivalent to sex redistribution. People know you lean libertarian and aren't especially fond of either of those policies, so of course they perceived it as an attack on income redistribution (which they like) by comparing it to sex redistribution (which they don't). Of course they attacked you for proposing sympathy to concerns mainly expressed by an extremely unpopular group. You literally wrote the book on signalling, you should not be surprised by this. One might uncharitably speculate that you aren't surprised, and all this is just your attempt to preserve the plausible deniability of your original signal.
"as most seem content to claim that self-labeled “incels” advocating for sex redistribution are deeply icky people, and especially that they are women-hating."
Despite Hanson's mocking tone, those claims are true.
"Even if that were true"
So Hanson denies that it's true. This puts the lie to his ridiculous claims that he doesn't "value signal", and that he's just an academic who is neutrally and dispassionately exploring the issue of "redistribution of sex" independently of the political context that led to his tone deaf dive into this muck.
"the tiny “incel community."
Tiny but murderous. And aside from that community and Hanson, "sex inequality" is not something that anyone sees as a problem ... certainly not one to be solved by Hanson's sort of economic mumbo jumbo completely detached from the realities of human culture.
"I’m interested in general sex inequality, but not in the legitimacy or personal problems of the tiny “incel community.”"
As if this interest arose in a vacuum. Everyone sees Hanson's blather about "sex inequality" as tied to incel, and rightly so.
"Whether or not women hold a right to refuse"
Whether or not, eh. And Hanson's whole response to Ley is a passel of non sequiturs and strawmen ... Hanson doesn't seem to understand a word that Ley wrote.
"Regardless of whether the ordinary sex-poor blame themselves or others for their status, the rest of us might care enough about them to see if we can help."
Regardless of whether Hanson cares, he's completely lacking in the human qualities, and understanding of human qualities, that would be required to achieve this.
"The phrase “flippantly dehumanizing thought experiment” isn’t justified"
Certainly it is.
"it seems this author just enjoyed making a dig at me"
Hanson is incapable of assuming good faith from his critics.
"He calls me hypocritical for comparing both kinds of redistribution"
No, he didn't ... this misrepresentation is typical of Hanson's own bad faith.
"He makes many accusations without much support, and which he knows I’ve denied."
People deny truths about them all the time; that's no reason not to continue to call them out.
" jobs generate most income, and are also two-person agreements"
They aren't, but the disanalogy between income (which is not the same as either wages or wealth) and sex goes way beyond this. In his previous article, Hanson bizarrely refers to sex as a "product" -- even though it cannot be stored or transferred -- and then based on this absurd supposed commonality goes on to act surprised at differences between income (but not wealth?) redistribution and "sex redistribution". Can he say "fungibility"?
"I’m skeptical that society can convince people not to see sex as a sign of status, or to not feel bad when they don’t get as much as others."
Why should "society" try to "convince" people of that? And Hanson completely fails to understand the issue, in regard to both incels and generally, by characterizing it (in his previous article) in terms of "individual counts of simple sex acts". This is not what people care about -- they care about being able to have sex when they want it and -- especially for women -- not having it when they don't. And while many men consider number of partners to be a sign of status, for women it is largely the opposite. Despite the name of Hanson's blog, he is quite blind to his biases and never even attempts to explore or unearth them.
"She attributes words in quote marks to me that I didn’t say"
No, she doesn't. "He means '...'" is an interpretation, not an attribution.
"and deny"
Of course you do, but it's nonetheless entailed by what you do say.
"I did not specify men or women; I was talking about both groups."
Whoosh! Apparently "no one’s talking about the “redistribution of sex” from men to women who can’t find sexual partners" is beyond Hanson's ability to comprehend. It doesn't mean that *he* isn't talking about it, it means that women are not asking for this (while incel males are demanding that women be forced to be their partners). "I was talking about both groups" is the sort of nonsensical pretense of lack of bias that Anatole France alluded to with "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread".
Hanson keeps talking about being an academic, but this blog is not part of an academic institution and does not follow academic codes of behavior or academic standards of intellectual honesty. This article will do nothing to improve Hanson's critics' views of him ... which I for one think is a good thing.
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.