Kevin Logan vs. Logic

December 31st, 2015 § 0 comments § permalink

First of all, why would Buchanan’s party have so little support if we live in the patriarchal, male dominated torture chamber and hell hole feminists pretend we live in? Shouldn’t a rioting mob of rapejocks and dudebros have ushered him into victory? To hear you guys tell it, Buchanan should be king of the new British Empire by now and legalizing rape and domestic violence, so what gives?

Second, AVFM isn’t “hateful and extreme,” you dipshit. Did you ever even bother to read it? You haven’t. Not even once. Instead you’re relying on quotes taken from satire, and out of context no less, some garbage you read on Futrelle’s blog or twitter. It’s so pathetic and predictable at this point that virtually all of your critics could even tell you which quotes you’ve based this argument on without even having to ask. They can rebut your arguments without you even having to give them.

It’s amazing how long it’s taking you to catch on to what many have already recognized. Casual observers of the gender wars on youtube and on various blogs can claim ignorance as members of the peanut gallery.  It’s understandable that they might not necessarily understand the debate, so they have an excuse.  But what’s your excuse?

Read this.

For people – even feminists – who actually bother to look at what the MRM has been arguing for a long time now, it’s not so easy to simply paint them as big, bad scurry boogeymen, trolls, and cranks. Even other feminists recognize the problem with the biased and disingenuous coverage AFVM and others have gotten, coverage that has been based more on bigotry and scaremongering than it has any actual critical engagement.

And that’s all you’ve managed so far in your shabby little youtube career. You never even make actual arguments. How could you when you don’t even bother to read or think critically about what feminism’s critics are arguing? And you don’t, that much is obvious to anyone. Did you think it wasn’t?

Every single “argument” you’ve made amounts to saying “you’re a hate group.” That’s it. And that’s ironic, since I’m pretty sure most actual hate groups demonize and dehumanize those they hate.

Is that not what you’re doing? If not, then what are you doing?

That was literally all you’ve ever said. “You’re evil.” You’re arguing with imaginary cartoon characters which exist nowhere but in Dave Futrelle’s and your imagination. Is there ever a point when this dawns on you?

Look, Mr. Logan, I want to be able to refute your arguments, but you actually have to make a fucking argument for once in order for me to have anything to refute.

It’s just embarrassing at this point. Watching your videos is like watching a mentally handicapped person drool on himself. And get a rycote for your mic if you’re going to record stuff outside.

Clickbait

December 31st, 2015 § 0 comments § permalink

More unimaginative clickbait from Salon. Isn’t it fascinating how  left wing pretentiousness and disdain for the white lower working class assures that Trump can dominate any media cycle? They can’t help themselves, so quick are they to bust out the hipster snark and faux-outrage while gorging themselves on all the virtue signaling they can stomach.

All Trump has to do is be what the media wants and expects him to be and he’ll drown every other candidate out. As for his base, they’ll see the predictable smug left wing condescension, take it personally, and double down on their support. Everybody gets the narrative they want. My hunch is that Trump will not only win the nomination, but also the general election.  And he’ll do it, not in spite of the useful idiots at Raw Story, Salon, and Huffpost, but because of them. They’re some of the biggest guns in Trump’s arsenal.

Give me a fucking break, like she didn’t understand what she was doing when she wore that necklace. Have you ever seen such crude, artless, and obvious trolling?  And still they felt compelled to churn out the boring and unimaginative condescension in article after article.  Indignant lefties all appeared on cue to retweet and share while turning up their noses at the rednecks, yokels, and knuckle-draggers of the right. You’d almost think you were browsing People Of Walmart or maybe watching an audience jeering and mocking poor white people on Jerry Springer.

If I’m right about the essential nature of his popular appeal, there was never a more fertile soil for it to grow than the contemporary social media landscape of memes and outrage clickbait, especially with an ascendant and lunatic identity politics left throwing a perpetual tantrum about nothing and driving a battered white working class into the arms of reactionaries. Between the SJWs, an increasingly aggrieved and politicized white working class, and the ongoing failure of American economic system, Trump can’t lose. He’ll ride the wave of white working class resentment into the White House just as surely as Reagan did before him.

We’re coming out of a long period of prosperity and political stability in which, for at least a generation, the culture-war divide largely pitted a proletarian right wing against a bourgeois left. As the baby boomers shuffle off into their graves and as the millennials head into middle-age, we can expect the divide to increasingly become one that pits a proletarian left against a bourgeois right. Unfortunately the left is stilled saddled with this 20th century identity politics boutique activist college kid bullshit. We can’t ditch it soon enough.

Ancaps Again

December 28th, 2015 § 1 comment § permalink

Stefan Moyneux is a fraud.  How exactly does the “non aggression principle” work?  If you point out that abolition of the state would merely create a space (and the incentive) for private power to recreate a state that would serve its own interest at everyone else’s expense (y’know, an oligarchy or dictatorship), somebody like Molyneux will then counter with the “non aggression principle,” as if people in a competitive economic system who are losing the competition and who are facing financial ruin and the loss of their livelihood will accept all this out of concern for some dopey abstract principle that somebody like Molyneux or Murray Rothbard conjured out of thin air.

“Yes, little Timmy, I know you’re hungry but daddy wasn’t a good enough capitalist.  We’ll have to starve now because Stefan Molyneux said I have to abide by the non aggression principle.  Sorry!”

Wasn’t Molyneux’s whole argument against socialism, Marxism, the state, etc. that accepting the efficacy of markets constitutes a form of realism about political economy?  We’re supposed to abolish the state and the let the magical market sort it out precisely because to do anything else would be to subordinate our system, not to the “natural” market, but to ideology, like any garden variety nefarious totalitarian communist boogeyman.

If we’re subordinating our system (and reality) to abstract principles, then why would we choose the non aggression principle and not another?  Why not just grab one out of Mao’s little red book or Das Kapital, what’s the fucking difference?

Durr, what if the other guy doesn’t abide by the non aggression principle?

And when did capitalists ever abide by this principle?  Because there is no example of real world existing capitalism where cheap raw materials, labor, and other capital goods weren’t accumulated through proxy dictatorship, settler colonialism, and all the rest of it.  So if it never existed, why should anyone believe it ever could exist?  And why wouldn’t claiming that it could be just as utopian as the notion of a classless society?  I’m just going to stop here.

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for December, 2015 at dividedline.org.