SirJamesIII

Envy and jealousy turned into anger and violence. Mental health issues are obviously part of it, but often people say that to insulate themselves from the notion that these things can be caused by some sort of cultural blowback (think Waco). It's not as if his complaints about women are unfounded and also isn't necessarily the case that his misogynistic attitudes prevented him from acquiring a mate (at least until he went completely off the deep end and got into some hardcore men's rights stuff on the internet). At a young age men who are underdeveloped (short, looked pretty young for 22), have mental health issues and divorced parents are unfairly treated by their peers. As much as I like to say the parents are entirely to blame, you still have to understand that schools nowadays provide places for kids to grow without parental supervision. I think we still live in a time where even good parents can have trouble maintaining open communication with their children, especially when your kid is socially successful, you may not have a great incentive coach your kid on things that may pertain to things like being polite and respectful. So long as your kid is happy, who cares how your kid treats other kids. Your kid may be big dick and you don't even know about it. Here we have a kid who's sense of entitlement got warped into a sense of justice. To Elliot, he should've gotten that first slice of birthday cake because it was his birthday. Ultimately he liked to play the victim while neglecting his own path to self-realization. Narcissism is just a side-effect to compensate for this. However, it appears in his manifesto that he openly talks about his insecurity. It doesn't appear like he's pretending to be all great when he really isn't. He just thinks he's never done anything wrong to hurt anyone, so why does he feel so shitty and alone? He compares himself to the men who do have sex and then he uses that to bootstrap himself to narcissism. And its not like the kid is wrong, he's just going postal over dumb teenage girls. It's just petty to me. Women became so idealized to him that he became fixated on just one small part of human relationships and became overwhelmed that our sexually repressed and backwards culture didn't satisfy him. If only he knew how much he wasn't missing. The kid was surrounded by perfect hollywood types in his family. He probably thought he was going to snag a blonde babe by birthright. He even mentions how much he empathized with the character Prince Zuko from Avatar. He felt that he was a Prince who had everything taken from him and he needed to restore himself to the status he deserved. He was a child of divorce, so I can see the connection. From a guy who's been a sorority girl boy toy before, yeah girls pretty much select guys based on how many likes their photos get on instagram and facebook when posing with their bfs. I have a lot of disrespect for young women. But how can he still be upset at not receiving attention women he doesn't respect? That's the great mystery to young misogynists to me. Probably projecting the hate he had for his step mom onto all women.

These are nice. You can sleep on your side with the wax ones. +Melatonin

Wasn't it David Ricardo's theory anyway? Ultimately Marx's knowledge was limited to what was available to him at the time and this was before the marginal revolution in economics when subjective value became a thing. He was stuck criticizing the classical economists, who's theories aren't correct either.

Have you guys heard about this incident with this Nash Grier kid? It's pretty much what I was talking about in action. However, it isn't about men not having their preferences acknowledged, but that they shouldn't be allowed to have any all together. http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/nash-grier-vine-youtube-sexist-video-backlash/ There are some mirrors of the original video. Admittedly, the kid is a bit immature and his expectations probably aren't going to guide him in the right direction. But that's shit culture's fault.

Well I'd like to see solid evidence of Stef making that criticism before you put the words in his mouth. So far you've resorted to mental gymnastics to try and say that what Stef said implied all these things. Libertarian socialists have false moral beliefs? Didn't I just point to examples showing why the initiation force is not a requisite for such societies? Although having false moral beliefs sure made it a lot easier for these societies to accomplish their ends, but it wasn't intrinsic to their system IMO. In an Ancap world I'd bet there'd be a bunch of commie cranks dying to homestead some newly state forfeited land and it can all be done peacefully.

Stef criticized Chomsky for being an opponent of peaceful parenting? Peaceful parenting and libertarian socialism are incompatible? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Exactly why we don't take kindly to name calling. FreeEach wasn't being very philosophical despite the walls of irrelevant text criticizing libertarian socialism. Anyway, a "libertarian socialist" society can exist without the initiation of force. 18th century communist utopias in America are examples. These societies didn't have the greatest living conditions and they often employed extreme rules of exclusivity through religion and other unsavory social norms to compensate for an extremely homogenized lifestyle (eugenics was quite popular in these communities). Ultimately Mises' calculation problem holds these societies back. These societies had to maintain free-trade in order manage costs efficiently (much like the Soviet Union needed to stay connected to external markets). So they ultimately still depended on markets. The Shaker's, for example, made furniture.

Ok let me try to understand your position. Stef said: And in podcast #87 he critiques Chomsky. If Stef accused Chomsky of advocating the initiation of force in his critique , then Stef is contradicting himself. So did he? Does "crazy lefty"= advocate of force? Whenever Stef criticizes someone, must it always be on the grounds of NAP violation? I think that is a stretch, but I haven't heard the rest of the podcast. So far I still find the premise of the thread to be off base, but at least freemankind made an attempt. OP was just name calling.

So basically OP is saying that if someone with an alternative viewpoint isn't debated against on the show, then Stef doesn't have integrity even if they talk about the things they do agree on. Although I guess I didn't care much for the reference to the Spanish anarcho-statists

They're a good example of an artist who can survive without mainstream airplay and pop media attention. They have no trouble selling out Madison Square Garden. Flight 666 is a great film if you want to see how well they run their tours. Their frontman flies the tour plane, which they custom retrofitted to hold all of their crew and equipment.

As an "artist" (I'm a musician), I often feel very ashamed when I see people who use art as a means of persuasion. It really only takes one to write about vague moral platitudes in song/poem form in order for one to be able to influence people into becoming political about things that they hardly know the facts about. Exactly how educational was this video? Not really. This particular poem also appeals to insecurity. It puts the viewer in a position where they are made to feel guilty of unconsciously doing things that hurt others. Also, it is accusatory as well as politically incorrect IMO. It is essentially saying that by virtue of my gender, I am guilty of oppression. The guy also appeals to the silent bystander argument, but twists it into saying that men who are silent bystanders to rape jokes are guilty of vicariously causing rape. This of course implies that since he himself is not silent, as demonstrated by his poem, that he is righteous and is helping prevent gender violence. I can say with a relatively high degree of confidence that this video has prevented exactly zero rapes. So this video is incredibly disingenuous because of the opportunity cost of fixing a problem by focusing on things that have relatively no impact on the grander scheme of things. Trying to stop gender oppression by making viral spoken word videos is a waste of time.

From what I've learned reading feminist literature in college, there wasn't even a consensus among feminists in the 70s on whether patriarchy actually existed. Gayle Rubin, for instance, explained that patriarchy couldn't possibly be an explanation for all the hegemonic forces reigning over kinship relations. It was simply too narrow of a view. Rubin uses the term "sex/gender system" instead of patriarchy and that is what I use as well. Rubin even went out of her way to justify forms of pedophilia. This was definitely way before rape culture became all the rage. Feminists are far from what they used to be. I'm curious on why you think sex-positive feminists have caused more insecurity among women. I'd think that to be the case of anti-porn feminists. Sex-positive feminists seem more focused on taking away definitions of female sexuality as opposed to imposing them. But I may just be referring to academic sex-positive feminists. From what little knowledge I have, sex-positive feminist bloggers focus more on how "patriarchy" controls female sexuality even when some earlier sex-positive feminists deny patriarchy outright.

What is especially sad is that while we lament the condition of men in the post-feminist era, this does not bode well for women either. I think the state of black women currently is an omen for the future of all women to come. I think the MRM should focus more on how feminism hurts women.

I'm not describing a world all women want. I certainly hope that the majority of women don't want a world like that. I'm just saying there is a particular group of women (and some men) who are trying to create a world where there is no penalty for women who indulge in the heartless objectification of men. Personally I've only been objectified on rare occasions and it's not really an issue. I think sexual objectification gets blown up a bit. What has been more damaging to me personally, is the solipsistic attitudes women have about male sexuality. Women will prefer to stay blissfully ignorant, than to find out what men actually like.

Of course. Key word is product. In an ideal feminist (although not actually feminist) world, women can shop for men like they shop for clothing. Apps like Lulu are proof of this sentiment.