In debate, I find the best tactic is always to ask questions.  The reason is remarkably simple.

Suppose Tim and I are having a debate.  Tim already strongly dislikes me for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that in his mind he has categorized me as an evil conservative who stands in the way of his grand vision of society with my backwards, brainwashed ideas dicated to me by that religion that I don’t actually have.

It’s easy for that dislike to spill over into abject distrust.  When I speak truth to him, he hears lies.

But the nice thing about the truth is that it’s true.  I find that it’s very easy to distrust someone who you don’t respect and assume they’re lying.  I find that it’s easier to hear a lie than to tell one.

That’s why the best remedy for a pigheaded progressive liberal idiot-type is to ask them questions which they can’t slither out of with party line lies they would rotely recite to escape giving an honest, well-thought answer.  You see, if you ask a question that the recipient has heard before, they’ll just parrot how they’ve heard others like them answer.  If you ask a liberal about abortion, for example, you’ll get the liberal talking points.  They’re just repeating what others say about it.  You haven’t engaged their anti-lie mechanism because they aren’t telling their own lies, they’re just telling someone else’s.  The goal is to elicit the emotional response associated with telling a lie.  Since most people who would even be interested in this type of conversation don’t want to be liars – particularly to themselves – if you make them feel their lies, they might be more receptive to altering their worldview, which is of course our end-goal.

I’ve broken it down into convenient categories on all of the major liberal talking points.  Try them on your liberal friends!

Abortion

In response to “an embryo isn’t a life”, counter by asking them: “Would you eat a human embryo?”

In response to “it’s my body, it’s my choice”, counter with: “Did you become impregnated without the assistance of human sperm?”  Follow up with, “Then isn’t the baby only half yours?  You do believe in democracy, right?”

In response to “the mother can’t afford to take care of ..” or any quality-of-life-for-mother-or-infant line of argument, ask: “So, in your world view, if a person can’t be fed, they should be actively killed to eliminate the risk of death by starvation?”

In response to “what about rape” question, ask: “Is your father a rapist?”  (the answer will be no).  Follow up with: “if he were, would I be allowed to shoot you dead right here, right now?”

Vegetarianism:

For health-excuse vegetarians, ask some of these:

“Did you know that A. Afaraensis, H. Habilis, H.Erectus and most likely even archaic H. Sapiens’ diets subsisted very largely on bone marrow, scavenged from the remains of predator kills?”  (lots of evidence in the fossil record of bones smashed with human tools).  If questioned about the relevance, answer: “Well, I’m just sayin’, if our ancestors hadn’t eaten meat, our brains would not have evolved to the point where we could even have this conversation.  I feel sorry for your children.”

Speaking of children, a fun one is: “Are you aware that it is illegal in most states to raise a child under the age of 3 as a vegan, even if you include breast milk?  Could you explain that law to me?”

For the moral vegetarians, ask some of these:

“Why is animal life more valuable than plant life?” (the answer will involve some kind of bullshit about brains and feelings).  Follow up with: “If I anesthesized a cow, or killed it in a way in which it did not suffer, wouldn’t it be equivalent to harvesting a blade of wheat?”

“Were you a cow in your last life?”  (no or maybe).  “Then how do you know that they suffer on factory farms?”  (they look sad) – “Can you send me a copy of the research you read that proves the animals we eat make facial expressions and the meaning of each?” (or a restatement of what happens on factory farms, stuff they got from a PETA video) “Would you say that you’re just projecting on the animals?  Like, because you wouldn’t want to live as livestock on a factory farm, you’re assuming they don’t either?”

There’s the age-old, “If you were stranded on a raft at sea and all you had to eat was Spam, would you die of starvation?”  (the answer is of course no, with a “but that’s different”).  Follow with, “So your morals fade away when you face death.  Isn’t eating a way to prevent death?  Isn’t the only variable here how impending death is and how available vegetables are?  In other words, would you say that your morals are only possible because of modern luxuries?”  Follow with, “Since we only started farming about 8,000 years ago and humans have been around a lot longer than that, would it be fair to say that your moral luxury is possible only because we ate meat, not in spite of it?”

For environmental nonsense:

Use this after you’ve closed the “feelings” door: “Doesn’t farming in general wreak collateral damage?  Sure, a lot of amazon rainforest is being chopped down for cow pastures, but how many trees have been chopped down to clear fields?  How many field mice have been caught in combines?”

Global Warming

“What do plants breathe?”  (if they’re not retarded, CO2).  “Wouldn’t an increase in CO2 cause more plant growth, thereby creating a greener earth?”  (Only until it burns up from the greenhouse effect).  “How hot would it have to get for rainforests to die?” (no answer).  “Wouldn’t we see a rapid evolution of heat tolerant plant growth, when all the other plants die out?”  (no).  “Why not?” (because evolution takes a long time).  “Can I borrow your crystal ball?  I want to buy stocks.”

“If the earth increases by an average temperature of 5 degrees, wouldn’t that make more of the earth habitable because Canada and Siberia wouldn’t be so cold?”  (no, because the oceans would rise).  “How much would the oceans have to rise to make us lose enough continental space to account for the combination of Siberia and Canada?”  (No answer, because they don’t know.  Your goal here is just to point out how little they know about their eco religion).

This is my favorite.  “What percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere is currently carbon dioxide?”  (even smart people who detect your trap will guess something like 5%.  The real answer is 0.0383%, also known as less than 1 tenth of 1 percent). 

“How much does the atomsphere weigh?”  (the answer is 5 quadrillion tons, aka 5,000,000,000,000,000 – that’s 15 zeroes). 

“If the humans pump 1 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, how many years will it take to increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.038% to 0.04%?  (The answer is 25,000).

“Could you rank the following sources of greenhouse gas by order of most to least: oceans, forests, decomposing plants, all human activity combined?  Could you assign a weight to each?”  (they won’t be able to, but it might inspire them to learn about the carbon cycle.)

“Have you seen the inconvenient truth graph about temperature and CO2 charts?”  (yes).  “Did you know that the earth’s oceans are accountable for the vast majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide?”  (they’ll say yes, but are lying).  “Did you know that as the globe temperature increases, the ocean’s temperatures increase?”  (yes, duh).  “Did you know that as the ocean gets warmer, it loses its ability to store CO2 in solution, so it gets released into the atmosphere?”  (yes, again lying).  “Did you know that it takes almost 1,000 years for global temperatures to be reflected in the oceans, because the oceans are such a gigantic heat sink?”   “Did you know that Al Gore’s graph is on such a large scale that it doesn’t really show the fact that the CO2 levels rise about 1,000 years after the earth warms?”  “What do you suppose the cause-effect relatonship would be, given all those facts?”

I’m wearing myself out.  Stay tuned for part 2.

Despite the fact that I am a serial monogamist – or was (I’m married now) – I read PUA blogs.  Not so much because I care about ways to “open sets” at bars and clubs or learn how to seduce women, but because the voices of the PUA’s are the voices of men who represent a pro-male counterculture that shits all over feminist theory without sounding like whining bitches.  These guys are all the proof you need that feminism is bullshit.

I never really thought about it much when I was younger – when things like seducing as many girls as possible was important to me – but after studying the academics of the alpha male, I’ve come to realize that virtually all of the responses to female behavior that the PUA community would call “alpha” are responses that have always come naturally to me.

Today I’d like to comment on a recent reader submission to my favorite PUA author, Roissy, about marriage, “the ultimate shit test.”  In synopsis, the reader caved in to matriarchy and got pressured into the type of marriage depicted on Married with Children.

As a natural alpha who is recently married, I’d like to describe my experience with marital bliss.

First and foremost, as the reader notes, one of the biggest mistakes he made was letting his wife demand marriage and acquiescing.  I liken this kind of scenario to driving a nail and landing a bad swing.  The nail is crooked.  Anyone who has driven a lot of nails can tell you that driving a nail in that’s bent or crooked is possible, but extremely difficult – much better to yank it out, toss it aside, and start with a fresh nail.

I would never have married my wife on any terms other than my own.  From a legal perspective, the wife has all the cards.  Marriage is an incredible risk for a man, and in many ways a great sacrifice; any woman who would suggest otherwise is oblivious to or actively denies male nature, or somehow has it in their mind that their husband is different.  He isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong.  I did get married because I wanted to get married, and any sacrifice I made was only in exchange for the other, less glamorous but ultimately more fulfilling things in life.  But I wasn’t about to get strong-armed into something I didn’t want by external pressures.  This is hard for a lot of men because a lot of men are followers.

You see, one of the traits that I have always had that is at odds with most of my male peers is a natural aversion to joining anything.  I’m the last person in the world who would join a fraternity.  I don’t want to be part of a group.  I want to be in charge of it.  A corrolary of this attitude is that when someone tells me what I should do, I ignore them.  The only people whose advice I take seriously on important life decisions are other people like me – namely, demonstrable, proven alphas.  I have never taken advice from someone who is not significantly older than I am.  To be fair, I also take my mother’s advice.  She’s my mother, after all.  Some things can’t be changed, nor should be.

If my future wife had ever pressured me, I would have dumped her.  Now, since I didn’t want to find myself in that position, I made sure to tell her a story about the girl I dated before her, who was trying to get me to go to some stupid party for one of her fat ugly friends in DC.  I had no desire to mingle with a bunch of troglodytes so I was putting up a tactful resistance, namely, “hell no.”  This girl who I had been seeing a few times a week for about four months actually thought that a good leverage tool would be to ask me if I ever saw the two of us getting married – presumably in the hopes that I would say yes which could open up an entire line of argument like, “well if we get married we will need to see each others’ friends…” and pressure me with the husband-duty angle, long before we had ever even brooched the subject of marriage.  I looked her straight in the face and said, “No.”

Since not only did I crush her dreams, in one fel swoop I had shut the door on the one avenue she had of convincing me to go to this stupid party, she went home crying and told her friend that she was sick and couldn’t make it to the party.  I waited for her to call me.

In her case, it was as it should have been because she had started the post-marriage weight gain slide from solid 7 to warpig despite the fact that we were not married.  In the course of a few months she gained about 25 pounds and it got to the point where I could not be seen in public with her.

But I digress.  I told my future wife this story relatively early in our relationship for a couple of reasons.  First, I wanted to ensure that a repeat of this event wouldn’t happen.  I wanted her to understand how I would respond to this kind of scenario.  And I wanted to make it clear that if I ever thought that marriage would be in our horizon I would tell her.  On the flip side, I indicated that I thought dating the same girl for an extended period of time when I had no intentions of marrying her was not something I was interested in doing, and it’s true.  If I weren’t looking for a future bride, I would have fucked a different girl every month like any other alpha PUA would do.

The poor sap who found himself in a disasterous marriage until he started acting like an alpha male toward his wife happens to a great number of men in the past two generations because my parents, the boomers, let feminism happen, and that is telling of their attitudes in general.  I strongly believe the divorce rates in our parents’ generation are a direct result of men sacrificing their balls on the altar of openness and understanding and essentially allowing their girls to dictate to them how they think they want to be treated, thereby sculpting an entire society of men afraid to act like men.  We, the children, have pretty shitty role models.  A lot of divorced men tell their sons not to get married.

Marriage is not a hard trick to pull off as long as wife is a woman and husband is a man.  While I have only been a legally married for a couple of months now, she and I have more or less lived like a married couple for more close to two years, and my experience is nothing like the T.A., the author of the submission.  My wife does cook for me.  My wife wants sex more often than I do.  My wife does not act like a cold heartless bitch.  There are two reasons for this: first, I knew what to look for in a woman who was wife material.  For every sweet, sexy, feminine girl like my wife in the 20-30 age range, there are 5 cold, career-driven psuedo-man unmarriagable bitches out there.  Some of the PUA blogs talk about how to tackle these women but most of them just lament about how much American women suck and flee to 3rd world countries where the culture hasn’t been corrupted by the plague of feminism (except in bars with cover charges, apparently).

In my experience, my natural alpha persona causes girls like this to reflexively throw shit tests at me.  The PUA blogs gave me a word for this: shit testing.  Anyway, if I wanted to be a student of “game” I would focus on how to respond to these shit tests and get past the bitch barrier and into the panties.  It might be fun to sport bang one of these girls whose cores I loathe just so I could roll off them and then start talking Republican politics at them and ask if they’ve ever watched an abortion on an ultrasound machine.  But I was never really interested in that because it got boring by the time I was 20, mostly because it was just too easy.  By the time I was 23, the minute I got shit tested by a woman I just issued a stock look of repulsion – one of my key talents, so I’m told – and walked away.

Pressure to marriage is dubbed by the reader as the ultimate shit test that you must pass.

I would give a different piece of advice: don’t date women who shit test you.

I’m serious.  Obviously there isn’t a woman alive who doesn’t shit test every man she’s with to some degree, but like all things, a shit test is a matter of severity, a truth which can’t be denied in the presence of a so-called queen of shit tests.  But I can’t remember a time when I had to consciously game my wife to slither out of some bullshit emotional trap she laid for me or fast talk my way past an officer of the court.  If a woman shit tests you at introduction or on date one, she’s going to shit test you for your entire life.  In even a small moment of weakness she’ll pounce.

The issue is that women who are prone to this kind of behavior have some bizarre notion that a relationship involves a power struggle.  This is a common theme in Roissy’s writings because most Western women have been innundated their entire lives with talk about “women’s rights” and “equality” as if gender relations can and must necessarily be reduced to stoichiometry, and they extend this perverted thinking to a microcosmic scale of their relationships with their husbands.  A man must prove his worth to his wife constantly; if he fails to do so, then somehow, by default, the woman gains some kind of upperhand in her mind, which leads to the kind of experience the reader had: infrequent, obligatory sex when she wants it only exacerbated by an increase, rather than an equilibrium-preserving decrease of demands on him under the guilt-ridden guise of husbandly obligations.  Only fools let their wives get away with this.

But then again, only fools marry women for which any of the above is true.  I’d be lying if I said there isn’t a certain level of expectation that she and I have for how we treat each other, but we don’t barter the machinations of life like who takes the trash out or how much money we bring home from our jobs against affections or sex because our relationship is not a market economy.

The reason it isn’t is because we let our natural, human autopilot guide our behaviors through nothing other than swimming with the currents of our gender mechanics instead of against them.  I act like a man and she acts like a woman, and we don’t question what that entails.  Nothing is more disasterous than a relationship between two people who think androgyny in both directions will lead to happiness.  If the woman is trying to be more like a man and the man is trying to be more like a woman, you get two interchangeable parts that aren’t balanced by natural forces and instead all kinds of artificial inventions – like the imaginary power balance imposed by bitchy wives with husbands who won’t stand up for themselves – are created to fill the void.

So the reader seems to indicate that he was able to turn his life and his marriage around merely by employing “game” on his own wife.  It isn’t about game, because presumably he isn’t smooth talking his way down her pants (or is he?).  It’s about using the teachings of how to pick up women to instead simply act more like a man instead of a beta chump who let his wife drag him by the balls toward a gender centerline that Sex and the City tells her she should also sit on to find True Happiness.  Acting like a man and “game” are coincidentally exactly the same thing.  I am not tall.  I have been about 20 pounds above the median my entire life.  I do have particularly masculine facial features which helps but I am not dashingly attractive.  But I have never had a problem attracting women significantly more attractive than myself and it’s for no other reason than the fact that I am a natural alpha and I exude testosterone through my pores.  Even girls who, on an intellectual level disagree with every single thing I have said about the world on this blog, have begged me to bone them.  Before my current wife, my previous two girlfriends were flaming, flaming liberals.  One of them was in the Peace Corps, for Christ’s sake.

Had my wife not detected the hint that I was giving her when I told her the story of marriage-discussions-past, my response to her would have been different: “When we are ready to have that discussion I’ll bring it up.”  As it turns out, when we were ready to have that discussion I brought it up, in the form of a marriage proposal.  Keep the ball in your court.

In that vein, I would recommend this: don’t let your future wife shit test you.  If anyone is going to be doing the shit testing, it is going to be you.  You’re the man; you’re in the driver’s seat.  The minute that fails to be true, your relationship – whether it’s dating or marriage – is over.  You won’t be happy and neither will she.

When we exchanged vows, I vowed to “love, honor, and protect” my wife.  She vowed to “love, honor, and obey” me.  This was her idea, not mine.

You want to talk about shit tests?  That’s the shit test you put on her plate.  My advice: if you even suspect that your girl would not make those vows at your behest, don’t marry her.  If, on the other hand, she volunteers, you’ll be happy for the rest of your life.

The parking garage at my office is a one way garage.  Traffic flows clockwise.  Unless two hummers were involved, the lanes are wide enough to fit two cars going two ways, although only barely, and it depends on how the rows are parked.   The garage is mostly empty most of the time as the building is not 100% leased.  I estimate that a full circuit around one level of the garage would take about 20 seconds going at 15 miles per hour.

Upon reaching the bottom level, if you were to hang a left – e.g., go the wrong way – you would be in the lane of spots closest to the exit of the garage (and therefore the office building itself), thereby saving yourself an extra 10 yards of walking twice a day.  Despite its small size, and perhaps because of its low density, I would estimate that the majority of monthly passholders flagrantly ignore the one-way signs and drive counter clockwise.

Last week, a head-on collision occured around a corner.  Someone in a BMW was going the wrong way in the garage at an estimated 25 miles per hour, which doesn’t sound like a lot but in a small parking garage it’s break-neck.  The other car, an early 90’s Civic hatchback, was totalled.  Ambulances were called, but fortunately nobody was injured.

Guess which driver is entirely at fault in this equation?  Guess who got the ticket (and from what I understand, 4 points)?  Guess whose insurance is paying the entire cost and will likely involve a hefty premium hike?

I’ll give you a hint.  It wasn’t the guy who was obyeying the one-way traffic sign.

I’m telling you this story because I want to illustrate a point here.  Following the garage convention of clockwise – and keeping it one way, as the signs directed – reduce the chances of an accident like the one that occurred last week to almost zero.  Ignoring the signs increase the risk of an accident like this by several orders of magnitude.  The exchange is risking yourself and another driver just so you can get the parking spots closest to the doors without having to spend an extra 10 seconds or less on your ass in your car driving around the garage.

So why do people do it?  Why do they take the risk?  These are white collar college-educated professionals.  The majority of the cars in this garage are luxury cars of some kind.  One of the reserved spots (also very close to the door) is routinely occupied by an Aston Martin.  If any segment of society should be able to weigh risk vs. reward, it’s this one.  By the way, the Aston Martin owner is a big shot in a wealth management company on the third floor.  He also disobeys the one way signs.

They take the risk to spare their own selves a tiny fraction of their daily time.  Remember, these people are on their way into work.  If there’s ever a time to dawdle, you would think entering the office would be one o those times.  I’m slightly more sympathetic to people peeling out of the garage at high speed when it’s the end of the day.  But only slightly.

This is the kind of behavior that a lot of people might excuse on the grounds that the risks, even when going the wrong way, are statistically insignificant.  Others might consider this insignifcant.  Others might champion it as anti-establishment (and therefore, in their minds, a good thing).  Others might condemn it but fail to recognize it as pattern behavior.

But it is pattern behavior.  I’m going to ask yourself to imagine what other traits the kind of person who would risk an accident, which costs thousands of dollars, many, many hours, and possibly bodily harm to themselves and others just to save themselves fifteen seconds each day might have.  Is this person likely to arrive at a party early or late?  Is this person likely to eat the food at a potluck but not bring any himself?  Is this person likely to consider his own interests above everyone else’s – especially when everyone else is amalgamated into some kind of faceless mass named “society”?  The answers are probably all yes.

If only one or two people ignored the rules and did what they wanted, this wouldn’t be remotely interesting.  But the majority of people in this office building ignore the one-way signs.  Are they all assholes?  No.  A lot of the people with whom I am friendly at work are also guilty of this crime.  Is it easy to forgive them at a personal level?  I guess.  I’m certainly not going to cold shoulder them because they break the parking garage rules.

However, I will say this.  Even though this may seem trivial and inconsequential, I believe the fact that the majority of people will put everyone else’s safety in jeopardy for even minute rewards like a slightly shorter walk to their cars twice a day indicates to me that the majority of people, despite what they say, are patently self-interested.

Why, then, would I expect any kind of collectivism to be in my own interests?  Why, then, would I expect anyone else to look out for me, when they aren’t even willing to protect me from driving into them head-on by doing so little as driving an extra loop around a very small building?  People, in general, are not interested in other people’s safety or wellness.  They are interested in their own.  That is why I believe 100% of the people who are interested in socialized medicine have a self-interested motive in mind.  That is why I believe the very concept of socialized medicine is a disingenous fraud.  But it’s an ingenius one.

Nobody wants to admit that they are self-interested.  That reflex, by the way, is itself self-interested.  I’ll illustrate with a simple example:

Alice is self-interested.  Bob is self-interested.  Clyde tells Alice that he cares about her well-being.  Clyde tells Bob that he doesn’t give a shit whether Bob lives or dies.  Alice, who is self-interested, likes Clyde because Clyde is looking out for her, and that is good for her.  Bob, who is self-interested, dislikes Clyde.  Bob’s own well-being is the most important thing to him, so anyone who does not see it that way is not his friend.

If a person were truly magnanimous, he wouldn’t be affected at all by people who aren’t, because he wouldn’t care about himself, he would only care about other people.  If Evan is magnanimous and Tim is self-interested, Evan doesn’t hate Tim for being selfish because Evan cares more about Tim’s well-being than his own, so he agrees with Tim that Tim’s well-being is more important than Evan’s.

See how that works?

So, the most self-interested people are the most likely to claim that they are not self-interested because they want other people to like them, as a means to further their own self-interests.

Socialized medicine is a patent expression of self-interested greed.  “I want health care for everyone.”  Of course, because you’re magnanimous, right?  You want it for everyone because everyone includes you, but if you said “I want healthcare for me (but I don’t want to pay for it)”, you’d be chalked up as greedy.

One of the fun questions I like to poke at pro-socialized medicine people is to ask them if they would be in favor of paying taxes to fund socialized medicine that they themselves, nor anyone they ever personally met, would be a recipient of those services.

Everybody says “yes.”  Everybody is lying.

Yeah right.

I wonder if Gloria Steinem dies a little inside when she reads a fellow womyn young enough to be her daugher spout words like this:

I think [feminists] suffer from lack of knowledge and tunnel vision. How many of those self-important, so-called ‘feminists’ have been on the set when a celebrity shot a Playboy spread? There you go. What is feminist about discriminating a photo shoot just because it involves female (partial) nudity that happens to give men pleasure? Pathetic.

Playboy doesn’t happen to give men pleasure.  Playboy exists for no other reason than to give men pleasure (in exchange for money).  Of all things, ask what it is in and of itself.  What is its nature?  This tart is acting as if the photo shoot were arranged so a woman could express her “power” or “creativity” or “self”.  No, bitch.  The photo shoot was arranged so your naked body could give male readers boners.  That’s why the feminists hate porn in all its forms.  It is implicitly servile toward men.  I’m not going to make Gloria Steinem’s arguments for her; they’re out there for you to find if you care.  I don’t disagree with Gloria Steinem says about pornography on an intellectual level.  Most of what she says is true. 

The difference is merely that she views an industry in which women are exploited for female pleasure (porn) as a bad thing, whereas I view it as some small compensation for every man who has ever devoted his life to assisting a woman in raising a child.  The pleasure derived from pornography probably doesn’t hold a candle to the pleasure derived from motherhood.  Since nobody is truly both male and female, no one will ever know because a direct comparison from the point of view of a single individual is impossible.

Let’s move on.

There are several great reasons why female celebs line up to shoot Playboy: finally a woman gets paid more than a man for comparable work…

There is no comparable work.  Women won’t gamble pretty much everything they have just to catch a glimpse of the nude male form whereas men will.  There is a gigantic market of men willing to pay girls to strip.  The market of women willing to pay men to strip is diminutive by comparison.  Getting nude in front of the camera is one small step away from prostitution.  Female whores probably don’t get paid significantly more than male whores simply because of basic supply and demand dynamics but there are probably a thousand female whores for every male whore (children excluded).

…she gets to set the rules…

“No bush shots” is setting the rules, huh?  I’m glad she can derive such a power trip from such a petty indulgence.  I’m pretty sure the contractual agreement for the magazine to publish nude shots of her sets the rules, and that contractual agreement is negotiated in advance probably with lawyers present.  If Playboy didn’t like the rules, they wouldn’t pay her.

… as many key positions at Playboy are in fact held by women!

Many police offers in the Nazi ghettos were also Jews.

Krupa adds. “She brings in her creative ideas, gets involved in the photo selection and ends up with something she co-created through and through.

Isn’t it amazing how the kind of parlance that idiot liberals have woven into the vernacular can turn posing naked for the world to see into an art form?  Her creative ideas do what, exactly?  Make cock stiffer faster?  If she turns at a 30 degree angle her tits look better?  Please.  I highly doubt she was involved in the air brushing.  Playboy has removed entire anatomical components from Pamela Anderson before to sanitize the shot (apparently flappy labia minora is a turn off for Playboy readers).  They aren’t going to refrain from doing the same with this girl because she’s an assertive artiste.

Our society is used to judging content by its package and label. The word ‘Playboy’ alone doesn’t exactly give most women a warm, fuzzy feeling, yet many of the Playboy photos end up in the most praised photo and art magazines and in critically acclaimed photo exhibitions…

Passing a referendum on society is the perfect strawman.  The problem isn’t with her, the nude model.  It’s instead with society, which looks down upon nude models.  Rather than not be a nude model to avoid the negative connotations associated with being a nude model, it’s much easier to change the worldview of a billion other people.

In general, if someone resorts to passing judgment on “society” when attempting to excuse a behavior they feel is legitimate, chances are their actual arguments don’t hold a lot of water.  It’s easy to enumerate the social ills that result from an overexposure to the naked female form.  Take “ills” with a grain of salt.  We are entering a golden age of masculinism thanks to the abundance of pornography available to every man.  A girl’s primary bargaining tool is her body.  In a world where that body is a closely guarded secret and the likelihood is remote of a man even seeing much less touching a naked female outside of established social rules designed to serve a woman’s needs (e.g., marriage), a man would be willing to sacrifice a great deal of his freedom in exchange for that.  This is the basis of the virtue of chastity.

There are two extremes.  One is Middle Eastern cutlure in which men are so afraid of their own lust that they resort to covering women up with large amorphous ghost sheets in public so they are not sexually appealing and make it a crime punishable by death to be in the company of a man who is not her husband or a blood relative.  Another is a society in which women are so freely available that the very concept of a monogamous relationship would be foreign.  America is getting there.  But for Krupa, imagery of naked women is not ubiquitous enough.  Society must not demonize women for taking off their clothes on camera.  Soon it won’t be “on camera” but instead “in public.”  A woman just like Krupa will find a soapbox and talk about how being free to take her clothes off in public and let the whole world admire her body was “empowering” and a bold statement of confidence and style.

Krupa said. “As for movies, over the years violence has become more graphic and bodies more naked even in Academy Award winning films. The excuse that nudity and even full blown sex-scenes are ’artistically required’ is laughable, as that would imply that all movies from the old days (that didn’t contain love scenes) were less artistic. So it simply comes down to ‘sex sells.’ Same goes for fashion magazines. You see A-list celebs and models already going topless in European fashion mags like Vogue.

Hold up, lady.  There’s a big difference between a sex scene in a movie in which the story teller is attempting to share the fact that two characters are having sex with the audience and showing nudity exactly for nudity’s sake.  The purpose of a sex scene is to convey a plot element.  The purpse of posing in Playboy is to allow people to gaze at your naked body.  Most film sex scenes do not show any genitalia in an effort to keep a PG-13 or R rating.  TNA is not a requirement for this type of acting.

No argument that movies in which a popular actress bares part of her body generally have higher box office potential because they lure a certain element (e.g., men) to the theatres who don’t give a damn about the plot and are just waiting for the tit scene.  Krupa is criticizing this element indirectly as part of her two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.  “Movie actresses show their boobs on screen all the time so it’s fine if I do too.”  In contrast to all her previous line of argument, she’s connotating that “sex sells” is a bad thing in films, but uses sex in films as a justification for why sex for sex’s sake, like a men’s magazine, is perfectly acceptable.  It’s amazing how people can get away with arguments like this.  The vast majority of people who read what this woman says will not be able to deconstruct these wild flaws in her thinking.  That’s what this blog is for.

When an A-list celeb or model is going topless in a fashion magazine, it means their downward spiral has begun and they are desperate to keep the spotlight on themselves.  The first warning sign that a celebrity is about to fade into the woodwork is some kind of nude spread in a magazine.  These shoots are the death throes of the entertainment starlet.

Every country has its own culture and sensitivities. It is obvious the Europeans are less sensitive to nudity in the media but more sensitive to violence instead, and in America it appears to be the other way around,” she added.

Referendum on society #2.  This time she’s appealing to the time-honored tradition of everything on “the continent” automatically reigning culturally supreme over we Philistine colonists.

I’ve never heard of children being psychologically scarred by looking at a naked body, but we all know that watching violence has a desensitizing impact on children. Nudity is natural, after all.

Tell that to the juries of the world which routinely convict people (men) of exposing themselves to children and imposing custodial sentences thereto.  There’s a big, big difference between an asexual environment such as a nude beach and an explicitly sexual environment like a strip club.  We could argue back and forth about which bill Playboy magazine fits but I think we all know what the answer is despite what the cheerleaders might say.

Nudity is in fact not natural for human beings, despite what Ms. Krupa might like to believe.  Humans have a natural instict to cover their genitals.  While certainly indigenous tribes who live in very hot climates parade around mostly naked, there are no records of any human culture that did not wear some form of clothing.  A topless tribal lady in a grass skirt is only a few square inches of fabric shy of acceptable pageant wear in the United States.  If a bikini is clothing, so is a hula thong.

At last, the coup de grace:

But back to Miss Krupa’s sexy shoot, shot in London by famed photographer Rankin. It turns out that Hef didn’t initially like the modern, artistic style of the pics and wanted a re-shoot.

So much for art.  Hef wanted something sexy, not something you’d hang on the wall in the Met.  Hugh Hefner is a business man and sex sells.

I declined to shoot with anyone else. Sure, an experiment always comes with a risk for a magazine. That’s why I am so glad that in the end Hef had faith in my shoot and now seems to be all excited about it,” she added.

Translation: “I accepted less money.”

Evan Maxim #2: Good ideas don’t need to be defended.

Based on how much justification Ms. Krupa feels compelled to give for shooting for Playboy, I’d say it was probably a bad idea.  If an idea is a good one, it justifies itself.

Being from New Jersey originally a lot of my old friends are sports team orphans and naturally gravitate toward New York’s teat for all team loyalty nutriments.

Unfortunately the Yankees keep winning pennants.  This means that every time they’re in the series, all of these so-called closet baseball fans come out barking for the Yankees as if they give a shit.

They don’t.

Not only do these people not talk about a single baseball game prior to the series, they could’t name a single player on the Yankees roster.  I’m fairly certain that in addition to not watching or caring about baseball at any other period of the year, a lot of these people do not understand the rules of baseball.  One time while we were still in high school, a girl who I knew didn’t give a crap about sports, much less about baseball, came to school with a Yankees emblem painted on her cheek.  I asked her what RBI stood for and she didn’t know.  This same girl currently has “LETS GO YANKEES!!!111″ littering every electronic broadcast tool about herself she has available, such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.

What is it about the Yankees and the World Series that inspires people to pretend to give a crap?  Baseball as an industry relies entirely on this irrational hype.  People don’t go to baseball games to watch baseball, they do it to sit around in jerseys on uncomfortable benches with masses of annoying people who are all pretending to be more invested in a game they could not care less about than everyone else around them in a vain attempt to feel like authentic baseball fans, as if the stadium experience is diminished if you go there as exactly the kind of person I’m describing here.  The 8th circle of hell is reserved for disingenous baseball fans, or so we’d all have each other believe.

No, it’s about spending $8 for a crappy light beer and $12 for a hot dog and having pictures of yourself enjoying “America’s Past Time” on your Facebook wall.

But if you’re not attending any series games – which you aren’t – why must you insist on pretending that you have a team affiliation?  Philadelphia is geographically closer to where we grew up than New York.  Why are you rooting for New York?  Because they win games with their wallet and you too want to be a winner?  If by declaring your team loyalty in a public forum, you are somehow entitled to some small credit for their achievement?  Please.

My best friend from high school doesn’t give a crap about baseball and yet even she too has fallen victim to this go Yankees crap.

Seriously people, STFU.  If you can’t tell me what the Yankees’ season record is, plus or minus even a liberally wide margin of 10%, without looking it up on the internet, you’re not a Yankees fan, so please do the internet a favor and shut the hell up.  I’m tired of blocking you from my live feed.

Also, screw baseball.  What a boring, stupid sport.  I’d rather watch cats eat their own shit than watch a baseball game.

So in World of Warcraft we have a guild bank.  It’s like the community chest.  It pays for things like repairing gear.  You can also withdraw supplies from it.

Obviously the bank does not fill itself.  People need to donate items to it.

Over the last 2 weeks, 100% of the donations to the guild bank came from a group of people who like to sit around and make cracks about Barack Obama.  Some of them have voted for him, but none of them are presently pro-Obama.

On the other hand, 100% of the people who withdrew from the guild bank have made pro-Obama statements or have criticized George W. Bush at some point during casual conversation.

The numbers of the two groups are about the same: 5 donated, 6 withdrew.

Life has a liberal bias indeed.

My new wife is currently undergoing the process of changing her name to mine as a result of our recent marriage.

Not surprisingly, I have been derided that I would be so bold as to ask my wife to change her name to mine.  “She sould keep it,” says she, “or you hyphenate it.”

My retort is simple and obvious.

“If she keeps her maiden name, or includes it as part of a hyphenated, unsustainable 18 letter monstrosity, then she’s simultaneously submitting to patriarchy because her name is her father’s name, not her mother’s.  And it’s even worse, because she’s acquiescing to her mother’s choice in a reproductive mate.  Her father is a nice guy, but suppose he wasn’t?  You don’t get to choose your father but you do get to choose your husband.  So, if a woman is proud of her choice in a husband and proud that she has a choice, the best way to express that is by taking her husband’s name and dropping her father’s.”

Most of the time, jaws drop.  And why?  Because the morons who parrot this anti-patriarchy crap have literally never considered this point of view.  It never even crossed their minds.

It’s not like I’m some kind of genius.  Any reasonably intelligent person could reach this conclusion if they bothered to think about it.  But a lot of people – and of course by people I mean women, since no man has yet gone down this road with me – concluded that taking their husband’s name was one step away from signing a petition to legalize honor killing – and promptly shut off their brains.

Now, again, if you’re thinking – and I assume you are or else you would have stopped reading this already – there are a few followups you might ask me about my response.

First, unsustainability – what does that mean?  Why is hyphenation unsustainable?  Simple really.  Hyphenated last names are something that up until the baby boomers would have been, and were, flatly rejected by husbands.  Sure, some of them got through.  But imagine what will happen when a feminist insists that her child’s last name be a hyphenated combination and raises her child (her daughter) to be a man hating bitch feminist who also strongly believes in hyphenation.  And she marries a pussy man who was also raised in a household where mommy wore the pants and he too has a hyphenated last name.  What, prey tell, will they do with theirs?  Jones-Green-Smith-Brown?  Next time it will be 8 names, by the way.  This hyphenation nonsense grows exponentially.  After ten generations, a hyphenated last name could include over one thousand discrete last names.

Try signing a receipt with one of those.

“But Evan!  The Spanish already do that!”  Yes they do, but Spanish last names are finite.  You can get away with it when there are only 10 last names in your entire language.  Obviously if a Garcia-Lopez marries a Lopez whose children marry Garcias you don’t have this problem.

The counter-idea that people come up with is the concept of both man and woman inventing a new last name that might be a shortened combination or something entirely new that both the man and the woman change their name to.  This is actually not a bad idea in theory, but it would only work in a diseased society like ours in which familial bonds mean shit.

The entire concept of a family name was invented so that kinship – blood relations – could be derived through nomenclature.  The modern west doesn’t have a strong need for that because most people who would even consider doing this don’t really care much about their parents, many of whom are probably divorced.  Since the families they get their names from are either broken or inconsequential because they hate them, it’s not a stretch to propose changing a name.  Since we have DNA tests and population sprawls, we don’t have to worry about accidentally reproducing with our blood relatives, another function that family names served.

On paper it sounds good and like it might work, but I would be willing to bet that if everybody who got married simply invented a new family name that may or may not be anything like either of the spouses’ names, the world would get very confusing in a hurry because it would rapidly become impossible to keep track of families.

Of course, the counter-patriarchy argument would go like this: the world already loses track of girls.  Once they take their husband’s name, they lose the name connection to their families and become part of his.  Guilty as charged.

But here’s what I describe as wrongthink.  If you can agree that it is impractical to hyphenate last names and that it’s a generally good idea to have some kind of lineage connection in family names, you’re left with only two choices: the woman takes the man’s name or the man takes the woman’s name.

Now, it is easy to understand why our tradition is that the woman takes the man’s.  Men generally owned the property and spent more time out of the house.  Feminists hate this legacy because it’s different today than it was then.  They cannot fathom that any woman who lived before women had the same rights or whatever that they do today could have ever possibly enjoyed their lives because feminists define their entire way of thinking based on some arbitrary concept of fairness they’ve invented for themselves which causes them to judge every aspect of every male-female relationship as being biased for or against women.  When women get the short end of the stick it’s tantamout to the holocaust but when men get the short end – even if it’s egregiously so – they are as silent as the grave.

In today’s world, when a wife takes her husband’s name she is appealing to tradition.  And to a feminist, that is simply not a good enough reason.

I have never read Gulliver’s Travels because I already understand the point I’m about to illustrate using it as an analogy, but if you don’t, read it. In Lilliput, a war has broken out between two nations based on how they serve their hard-boiled eggs: big end down, or small end down.

We could argue all day long about the merits of either, and in fact the Lilliputians do, often violently.  But in the end, as is the point of this story, the choice is completely arbitrary.

Now we can debate the merits in the marriage name, but I won’t bother because my arguments are not definitive nor globally applicable.  I married a woman who would immediately start looking around the house for my lost balls if I had even suggested that she do anything other than take my name because she relishes the biomechanics of the male-female relationship, not fights against them.  But there are women out there who don’t and while I don’t agree with them I at least acknowledge that their opinion on the subject - and I stress the word opinion – is as good as mine or my wife’s.

So coming to no real factual argument either way, were I to argue in favor of “patriarchal” naming, I would have tradition on my side.  In other words, look, whether it’s the woman’s name or the man’s name is somewhat irrelevant because we’re both equal parties coming into the relationship right?  So we just have to pick one.  She might as well take my name because that’s what our culture has always done and changing it for the sake of changing it will just confuse people and raise eyebrows.

The real wrongthing here is railing against tradition because it’s traditional.  A lot of the time, the tradition is as good of a reason as any other and in many cases there is a very good reason that we have collectively forgotten or only a few of us are clever enough to figure out.

I strongly suspect that people who bitch about “traditional values” and tradition in general were raised with parents who answered “why” with “because I said so.”  It’s easy to rebel against blindly accepting certain traditions without question when you have a lifetime backlog of unanswered questions.  “Because I said so” – particularly when a parent utters it - is a memory that warps in adulthood into an effigy of the irrationalism of the previous generation and by extension, all generations before it.  If a parent can’t or won’t explain to a child why something is done or should be done in a particular way, then the child assumes it’s because there is no good reason and therefore they are free to invent their own reasons.  Only very smart children take the initiative to find those answers and are successful.  The not-so-bright ones don’t bother or can’t, so they become anti-traditionalists.

Yes, I claim that people who flatly reject appeals to tradition are not-so-bright.  This has been my overwhelming experience.

Now, naturally, all young people have a certain amount of this built in.  Our culture, and therefore our species itself, can’t progress if nobody is willing to question how things were done.  But as young people become older people, enough time passes that they either see their own cultural experiments crumble in front of them (e.g., feminism, hippy-ism, communism) or they are given enough time to think about some of the cultural ideas they rejected in youth.  Many people who claim to reject their parents’ teachings wind up repeating their parents’ words to their own children verbatim and then realize only then that their parent were right all along.  Life experience has a funny way of vindicating those who had those experiences before.  I’ve always felt that it’s foolish to ignore people – especially people who have no good reason to lie to you – when they are trying to warn you about the dangers on the road ahead.  They’ve walked that road before.

But then again, I’m a conservative.

So many assholes utter phrases like the following:

 ”China is going to be the next superpower!  The US will be China’s bitch in 15 years, once they develop!”

Mmhmm.  Most of these assholes don’t know any actual Chinese people.  They may know Chinese people who are ethnically Chinese, have Chinese parents, and maybe have even emigrated to the United States, but these people are a far cry from actual Chinese people who currently live in China and do not plan on leaving.  In otherwords, Chinese people.

If you spend 5 seconds thinking about it, even the most feeble minded among us could divine that perhaps the people who left China for the US did so for a reason.  The reason is usually because these people are smart, and having actually lived in China and actually know what it’s like, both culturally, economically, and politically, can appreciate the problems China has, and it has them in all three categories.  So these people leave China and come here – usually for better economic opportunities.

And ultimately, when people talk about “super-power” status, they typically mean economically, because everything follows from there.  The United States has a ridiculous edge on military technology over the rest of the world and it does because it has spent many trillions of dollars on research and development, much to the chagrin of whiney liberals everywhere.  If we didn’t have trillions of dollars to spend on research and development, we wouldn’t have spent trillions of dollars on research and development and we would not have the military might we have today.  Ipso facto, when we talk about the power balance in the world what we’re really talking about is money, because as is my mantra, money talks and bullshit walks.

People are simple creatures and they respond to stimuli.  They seek pleasure and avoid pain.  Money accomplishes both of those goals.  Since governments are staffed with people, it only makes sense to personify governments the same way.

Okay, tangent over.

I work with Chinese people in a professional business capacity.  In other words, I work with Chinese outsourcers directly.  90% of the e-mail I receive at work is correspondence with a foreign team of developers that I oversee as the project technical leadership.  I want to illustrate an aspect of Chinese culture that I have recently become acquainted with first-hand that will serve to prevent them from competing with American culture and therefore with America in any other capacity.

Recently, a young developer who I work with attempted to challenge me technically.  As you can probably imagine he was demonstrably wrong on every single point he tried to make from a technical perspective, and as you can also probably imagine, businesses cannot function unless the staff respects the authority hierarchy of the decision making process, namely, even if I’m wrong I am allowed to be wrong, because in our authority hierarchy, my boss holds me responsible for my work and their work, as his does his.  If I shoot myself in the foot by being an idiot, it’s my boss’s job to correct me.  But in the meantime, if he doesn’t support me and lets my junior walk all over me in public (i.e., in an e-mail chain privy to the entire team), then I can’t function as a technical authority.  Long story short, it’s a battle he could not possibly win.

So, he stepped on a giant land mine and was surprised when it blew up in his face.  Namely, he was publicly embarassed in front of all his peers.  Not only did I prove that he was wrong definitively, my boss got involved and called him out, again, publicly, to the tune of asking him how he could presume with a whopping two years of experience under his belt he could challenge the senior staff technically.

Nobody likes to be embarassed.  So he sent out an angry e-mail to his personnel manager (e.g., HR in China) declaring boldly that he quit.  We found this out, of course, because we have a spy on the States side who is also Chinese and speaks with the rest of the team from time to time in the native tongue and gets good gossip.

Two weeks later, he comes back with his tail between his legs, and acts as if nothing happened, pretending that he never declared that he quit and supposing that we would simply forgive him for going entirely incommunicado for two weeks while we’re busy facing a deadline.  My boss’s boss has already told HR over there to get rid of him.

Now, I’m not saying that an American would never have done that.  In fact I know people who have done things like that.  But there’s subtext to this story that my Chinese-American spy shared with us.  And that is this.

The kind of job my company offers to Chinese citizens is so desirable that in China they have declared workers in this industry to be “golden collar” – a step above white collar.  The guys on my team are not particularly attractive Chinese men.  Most of them are barely five and a half feet tall and are absolutely average.  But you should see the girls these guys score.  They are the hottest girls in Shanghai, which is the hottest city in China.  One of the more senior guys over there who’s actually a couple years older than I am recently married a solid 10.  I was impressed.

This guy who didn’t want to take my bullshit – a common attitude among young men in general – had to swallow his pride and make peace not because he wanted to score hot chicks, although I’m sure the thought crossed his mind; giving up a job that literally hundreds of people are lined up behind him trying to get is pretty damned stupid and unattractive.  He did it because quitting a golden collar job in China would shame his family.  I know what you’re thinking.  Intellectually you understand that and might even respect it a little bit.  But the idea of an American male submitting to another man for no other reason than because his family would make hiim feel bad about it when they found out is so emotionally repulsive to every successful man with testosterone in his veins that it would very rarely, if ever, actually happen.  If the American son gives up his job because, in his mind his bosses are all assholes, his family doesn’t shame him, they congratulate him for not putting up with bullshit and help him find a new job.

This is an example of the kind of cultural difference between the east and the west that will make it difficult for the east to compete with the west.  The cultural ideals over there favor holding people back and conforming while the cultural ideals over here favor independence and excellence.  In some respects the eastern cultural philosophy probably leads to more happiness overall since conformity is vastly easier to achieve than meteoric success, but as far as culture vs. culture goes, the culture that favors competition both within and without is going to be better at competing.

This stuff is so simple that even a child can understand it.  And this is why I am against socialism and “helping people.”  I prefer to live in a culture where we expect people to help themselves, because people are at their best when they are competing against the world and against each other.  Anything that motivates a person to work harder or better, with as few negative side effects as possible is a good thing.  We call this “healthy competition.”

Eventually, I see the world coalescing into a single dialectual culture, where it’s all mostly the same with slight variations - accents, if you will – kind of like Western Europe.  I think we’re at least a dozen generations away from that.  But as globalization increases and cultural exchange continues at the internet pace, we’ll see this effect occur faster and faster.  Humanity will pick the good traits from everywhere and drop the bad ones.  In that sense, while human biological evolution has probably reached its termination, human cultural evolution has just been rapidly accelerated.  And although it’s hard to observe at such a macro scale, we, as a species, are always trying to optimize our own culture by using what works and dropping what doesn’t.  As each new technological shift happens, new things start to work and new cultural patterns emerge.  We experiment.

So I say that China is at least a generation off because their traditional values will still hold them back.  This guy, if he does manage to stay employed with us, will always be in the back seat for as long as his career here lasts; if he didn’t have family pressures preventing him from taking a healthy risk and starting somewhere else with a clean slate, he might find himself in a position where he is the smartest one in the group and winds up a boss himself in a few months.  His potential is being stifled by his culture.  In time, this will change – these people that I work with are working for an American company with American values and some of them will rub off.  Their children will be raised more western than their parents.  This will continue.

But until it reaches critical mass, I think it will be hard for the Chinese, and therefore China, to truly compete until their culture catches up to the rules of the game.  In time, their communist government which exists only because of the cultural value of conformity will fail once it is no longer an acceptable reflection of their culture.  Watch for that.  A crack has already formed in the dam, but until it spills over, America is safe in its top position.

I’m just going to come out and say it.  The only reason people live in California is because it has beautiful weather.  That is what makes California what it is.  If you somehow airlifted California and dropped it on top of Saskatchewan, leaving everything else intact, people would flee the state en masse because it’s a crappy state to live in.

I have always been skeptical about people who move to a place because of its weather.  The reason is simple.

Suppose you’re an archaic homo sapiens, say, circa 900,000 years ago.  Your middle eastern stomping grounds are getting kind of crowded and you’re an ambitious young buck who wants to be the chief of your own tribe.  Why not?  The chief always gets the hottest tail.

East?  Nah.  Persian gulf.  West?  Nah.  Mediterranean Sea.  South?  Nah.  People live there.  North?  Sure!  That sounds good.

Except the farther north you go, the farther into Europe you go.  And guess what?  It’s freaking cold in Europe, and cave bears who literally stand 12 feet tall live in all of the caves.  If you’re a half-wit, you’re going to either freeze to death or get eaten by a cave bear.  It’s harder to live in cold places.  I argue that if the entire world had the climate of California, we would still be living in caves because there would never be any incentive to progress any further.  You aren’t going to freeze to death and there’s food growing on trees year-round because it’s sunny, warm, and 75 degrees for 350 out of 365 days per year.  Nothing inspires creativity and ingenuity like otherwise inevitable starvation and hypothermia.

You’ll note, mind you, that most of the people who start enormous businesses that everybody has boners for like fucking Google were started by people who emigrated to the state from somewhere else because they were sick of winter.

I’m not going to deliver a littany of all of California’s problems; you know what they are.  I will instead share with you a brief anecdote: my college buddy who hails from Capetown, South Africa moved out to California with a girl who grew up about 10 minutes from where I currently work on the east coast (although her family came from Boston).  They love the weather.  They live near fucking Google’s offices.  But she is now pregnant and they are seriously talking about moving back to the east coast.  Obviously, part of it is so that she can be close to her mother.  But the biggest part is the fact that they have no chance in hell of buying real estate in California.  Combined, they probably make about the same or slightly more than my wife and I do.  But we own a house and they own shit.  They complain about the taxes and they don’t want their children going to school with classes half full of illegals who don’t speak English.  She is a raging liberal, by the way, and they both voted for Obama.

Despite the reality of California, Time recently posted this bullshit.  To quote:

Its voters approved huge bonds for stem-cell research, high-speed rail and repairs to aging infrastructure while Washington was dragging its feet; its politicians adopted first-in-the-nation greenhouse-gas regulations, green building codes and efficiency standards for automobiles and appliances that have rearranged the national energy debate. Yes, it was also an early adopter of subprime mortgages — Countrywide, Golden West and IndyMac were all California-based — but life on the frontier has always been risky.

This paragraph is trying to make it sound like California is cutting-edge and that these supposed pros are actually a good thing.  Stem-cell research?  How is that good?  Greenhouse-gas regulations?  When your children are laughing at you for being so fucking retarded that you actually believed in global warming, remember that you read this blog and if only you had listened to me you wouldn’t have elected some assclown who raised your energy bills by 25% so you could pay for an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.

And of course, the coup de grace of this piece: yes, our companies fucked the entire nation with subprime mortgages, but “life on the frontier has always been risky.”

What the fuck.   What frontier?  The pacific ocean?  Give me a break.  So when California adopts bullshit expensive legislation that does nothing but bankrupt them they’re leading us with steady,  sage-like wisdom and carrying the torch for the nation’s progress, but when its companies play a huge part in throwing the entire world into a recession, we’re supposed to chalk it up to the romantic notion of the wild wild west?  You’ve got to be kididng me.

Normally I wouldn’t give a shit because blaming a U.S. state for problems caused by companies that are headquartered there is fucking stupid, but the author of this propoganda turd does so fully in trying to establish how great California is because fucking Google has its offices there and Steve Jobbs invented the iPhone in San Francisco.  It works both ways, jack ass.

The 1855 book The Land of Gold dismissed it as “lawless, penniless and powerless.”

The author of The Land of Gold – yes, we underline book titles – was a prophet.  See?  Some ideas stay relevant for a very long time and don’t require “progress” to correct.  Another example of this would be the United States Constitution.  Lawless?  If immigration is the standard, then check.  Penniless?  Who would deny that?  Powerless?  Debatable.  But money talks and bullshit walks, so no matter how sunny it is in the Sunshine State, if California’s coffers are empty and its checks bounce, then no one will care what “California” thinks.

TIME published a woe-is-California issue called “The Endangered Dream” in 1991 after the aerospace industry collapsed.

But of course.  TIME was wrong then, but now it’s right.

But even with 12% unemployment, California still has an enviably young and productive workforce.

It’s amazing what happens when millions of Latinos flee the stinking shit holes they were unlucky enough to find themselves born into and grab on to the sides of trucks heading north to wind up in a slightly less stinking shit hole where they can collect free services and become parents of American citizens and therefore virtuall undeportable simply by having unprotected sex.

There’s only so many lawns that need to be cut and so much trash that needs to be picked up.  That young productive workforce is unskilled labor that quite frankly we can do without.  The only reason California gets away with it is because these people are illegal and they get paid under the table.  If California’s young, productive workforce were legal and then tried to compete with China’s young, productive, and massively cheaper workforce on unskilled labor such as manufacturing, they’d get their asses kicked.

When it comes to energy, California is not just ahead of the game; it’s playing a different game. Its carbon emissions per capita are less than half the U.S. average. And from 2006 to ‘08, it attracted $3 of every $5 invested in U.S. clean tech — five times as much as the No. 2 state. It’s by far the national leader in green jobs, green patents, supply from renewables and savings from efficiency. It’s also leading the way toward electric cars, zero-emission homes, advanced biofuels and a smarter grid: its electric utilities plan to install smart meters in every California home.

Bwahahaha.  Total waste of time and money.  This just makes an already expensive place even more expensive.  And you wonder why California is bankrupt?  Not, of course, that there is a direct correlation between its budget woes and it’s green industry – I’m sure there isn’t – but this kind of senseless and stupid government regulation is merely a symptom of a deeper problem – a legislation prone to believe in stupid things and voters prone to elect stupid people who also believe in stupid things themselves.

This public-sector foresight has created alluring opportunities for the most tech-savvy private sector on earth. The venture capitalists behind the high-tech and biotech booms see clean tech as the next big score.

This is called milking a fad for all it’s worth.  Liberals hate the rich.  This is what the rich do.  They play on the public’s mass stupidity, make a fortune selling them stupid shit they don’t need, and then laugh all the way to the bank in their 16 cylinder 8mpg hogs with supermodels bobbing on their dicks.

But the state’s business culture fetishizes long-shot ventures and game-changing ideas. Failure is appreciated, not stigmatized, and an entrepreneur without a few busted start-ups on his résumé is almost suspect.

Where do I sign up?

I need to stop.  TIME magazine will probably sue me if I keep quoting their bullshit story about bullshit California.

Ugh.

This post should have been titled How to Date a Pussy.

It’s hard to find anything on the internet that makes me gag harder than blogs written by feminists.  2 girls 1 cup is appealing after reading this drivel.

Read it for yourself.  It’s full of lulz.  Here’s some of the quips that caught my attention:

…but my mother never taught me how to test a guy for closeted sexism or male supremacy.

Assuming you know who your father is, that’s because your mother is a married woman who convinced a man to sleep with her and rear you.  We men play by many feminist rules such as no-fault divorces, and as a result we are extremely cautious.  Knowing the consequences of marriage, a woman who even hints that she might be a feminist is a giant red flag.  It means, “I’m a feminist and I agree with feminist ideology such as total denial of gender differences, insufferable demand that men see things my way without ever returning the favor, and legal double standards re: division of property.  If I get bored of this marriage I’ll wage-slave you because I can’t make the same amount of money that you can, but I want the lifestyle you can provide and p.s., we’re equal.”

Here’s a tip, young lady: if you want a quality man that you will still find sexually attractive after you’ve run out of Jane Austen novels to critically discuss, get one who you think might beat you if you pissed him off enough.  Drop this feminism immediately or die alone with your cats.

in the UK where I’d guess that most of the sixth form (junior and senior year equivilants) would vote Labour, or Liberal Democrat. My history teacher has the “Encyclopedia of Feminism” on her desk, and the guys in my classes *MOSTLY* accept that most of the female population of the sixth form is (or is ALMOST) feminist…

Just one more example of where Britain is headed.  Britain will be a Sharia state by 2100.

I have found that men who are generally fair and honorable to be very open to thinking about and understanding things from a feminist point of view. They may not have thought about it much before meeting me, but once I pointed out some very unfair things in society’s treatment of women, they were quick to agree and to look for those things themselves, a lot of times offering valuable insight, or things I haven’t considered before.

You date men who listen to Coldplay, dabble in Buddhism, and wear scarves that match their outfits.  You cook vegetarian meals together and they prefer cats to dogs.  You probably cheat on them.  Am I right?

I think feminism is really, at the core, about freedom and fairness, and any man or woman who has that kind of moral tendency will be open to learning and growing.

Except when it comes to divison of property and reproductive rights, in which women typically get the house, the children and more than half of the money, and in which a pregnant woman is allowed to kill the baby without the man’s consent.

I am married to a pretty good guy, but since I’ve gotten more feminist, he’s been quick to find the “flaws” in all the feminist ideology. I know he’s a critical thinker and that’s part of it, but it’s frustrating that he can’t seem to step beyond his gender and reason on my terms.

They’ll be divorced in 5 years.  If she hasn’t screwed other men, she’ll start, unless by “finding flaws” the OP means “hits me across the face.”

But, I think that its easy to make some important observations based on his hobbies (is he associated with a fraternity – if so, what type is it? does he drink a lot? how does he act around other women? Does he let you speak? Does he respond positively to your opinions? Is he respectful of what you want to do (especially sexually)? I would drop some *hints* about your political leaning, about your interest in women’s rights – see how he responds. etc,etc,etc.

If you need to conduct an observational study of your boyfriend to know these things, you should break up immediately because you know nothing about each other and are wildly incompatible.   

Evan Maxim #1: If you’re a liberal, date a liberal.  If you’re a conservative, date a conservative.  If your fundamental worldviews are not compatible, you will never work.

Does he compliment your body more than your thoughts? What are his political leanings? What are the lyrics to his ten favorite songs (do they denigrate women)? What are his ten favorite books (hint: if it’s that sci-fi author with the rapist space captain protagonist, run away!)? What are his views on religion (interpret as you will)?

Divorced.  A man who compliments his wife’s thoughts more than her body will turn his marriage into a sexless one.  Women who claim that they don’t want to be complimented on their body are totally full of shit.  Don’t believe me?  Try this simple experiment.  Go one month in which you frequently tell your woman she’s hot.  Then go one month in which you never say a word about her appearance but tell your woman that she is a deep thinker with ground-breaking, world-changing ideas.  Tally up the number of times you have sex in each month vs. the number of times she cries each month.

Luckily, I do have some older or more mature male friends who are well educated and have been taught by their mothers and female friends about what it talkes to have real relationships with girls, and who will ALWAYS speak out against sexism.

Beta chumps.  They’ll be friends forever and never hump you because they don’t make you horny.  I bet at least one of them is gay.

Dating, for me, is kind of a minefield at the moment, but I think that has a fair amount to do with how uncomfortable I am with my body. (I know, I know, everyone should be able to love their body, and I’m getting there, I think.)

Your body doesn’t matter.  A man should love you only for your mind, right?  Wait, is this another fellow sister placing value on her physical appearance?  Shame on her.  Get your fingers ready girls, it’s time to give this poor uninformed psuedo-feminist such a pinch!

there is this 4 year dating isolation that makes you feel like you will never meet anyone who shares your views.

No man actually shares your views, he just pretends to so he can get your pants off and you believe him because you’re stupid.

Thankfully being younger many men in our generation are more open to feminism and equality. There is nothing wrong with being completely blunt about, like “feminism is something that is really important to me and I really believe in equality” and see how he responds.

If he walks away, marry him.  If he agrees with you, ask him for fashion advice and set him up with other boys.  Boys are often more open to feminism and equality because purporting otherwise will get them tarred and feathered by the indoctrinating witches staffing the schools.  Once these boys become men, find their balls, escape the domination of these zeitgesting crones, and discover that everything they were ever told about gender relations and female equality is a bold faced lie, they will no longer be open to feminism and equality.  When they watch how the girls in the clubs melt for alpha players and completely snub the losers who still think girls want weak feminist men, they’ll learn fast or die virgins. 

If tells inappropriate jokes, if he’s patronising, etc. I call him out on that.If he stops and maybe takes on board some of the things I say, then he’s welcome to stay, if he doesn’t then he’s not worth my time.

Witnesses to the birth of a cat lady, all of us.  This woman will hit 35 and her dying ova will finally convince her to drop this bullshit and settle for that guy who still lives in his mother’s basement because he’s the only one as desperate as she is.

I dated a guy for a few months who didn’t get my “feminist” thing. He was also from a South American country where the machismo culture is much more ingrained. So be it. The relationship didn’t work out, but there’s nothing wrong with tolerating someone whose views on the sexes don’t line up exactly with yours, as with any other issue. It doesn’t mean they’re a date rapist. You’ll also learn a lot about the “other side” and maybe pass along your own enlightened ideas.

He had a big cock and he made her horny.  They had a lot of sex.  He dumped her.

To my knowledge I am the only male feminist in my year in high school.

Hanging, drawing, quartering for this traitor.

Of course, you could just shout “I LOVE ABORTION” really loudly somewhere and see who comes to talk to you.

Every man who wants to fuck you bare and never call again, resting assured knowing that you’ll abort the result at Planned Parenthood without costing him a nickel.  He’ll even save on condom fees and probably give you herpes.

I can relate, I find myself wondering all the time – is my boyfriend sexist?

Are you attracted to him?  If so, the answer is yes.  If not, dump him and find a sexist.

As a man just let me say that there are many pro-feminist college age men (I am one of them). It’s my belief that relationships can most definitely work between feminists and men; however, it has been my anecdotal experience that feminists who have bad experiences with relationships tend to still subscribe to an older (and rather un-feminist) model of dating in which the woman waits for the man to make the first move, and here’s just a helpful hint, the guy’s who are going around hitting on girls like crazy probably aren’t the equality-friendly men that you’re looking for…

Translation: no matter what these so-called feminists say, as a beta pussy who tries to play the open-mindedness card to score with chicks, I find that girls don’t live up to the hype and still expect the man to pursue them like a raging beast on a hunt and they probably buzz their clits off while fantasizing about safe rape.  The guys who are going around hitting on girls like crazy aren’t the equality-friendly men you’re looking for but you bang them at parties anyway because they have the balls to chase you and that’s exactly what your inner woman desires.

And it’s an unfortunate truth that, all ideology aside, relatively few women in modern society (feminists included) seem to have truly embraced a modern model of dating.

To quote the great modern philosopher king Roissy, biomechanics is god.

I guess for me, it helps that I am incredibly picky when it comes to men. I won’t be even remotely attracted to someone who reeks of chauvinism, and if someone who I previously found attractive drops a sexist, racist or homophobic comment, they are automatically out.

In other words, you want to die alone.

…honestly, the only guys I know my own age who aren’t complete chauvinistic pigs are the gay ones.

QED.

But I did talk to him about my political views before we got together, and was pleased to find him as politically liberal and skeptical of bullshit as I was.

You can’t be skeptical of bullshit and remain a liberal or a feminist, two of the biggest bullshit ideologies on the market today.

Beware of chivalry. In my experience men who open doors and insist on paying for things and seem like “gentlemen” don’t want an equal – they want some kind of pet. The feminist men I know are the ones who want to go 50/50 on a meal out and expect the door-opening to work both ways (sorry).

What do women who demand alimony payments want, other than alimony payments?

Even though we didn’t always agree, and even though it took me FOREVER to explain to him that THE PATRIARCHY IS REAL AND IT’S ALL AROUND US, he was always trying. He really wanted to understand where I was coming from.

He really wanted you to shut your freaking mouth about it so you could blow him.  A man can only listen to a harpy whine about partiarchy for so long.  Does he cum on your face?

I have prided myself on being an independent girl with a number 1 no boyfriend rule because it just complicates my life and males just don’t respect my ideals

Is it worse to be dependent or lonely?

…and especially if you can have discussions with him about feminist issues before you start actually dating him, you’ll be at a real advantage. Must better than going on a date with a misogynist pig who treats you like some sort of “prize” and not realizing it beforehand.

Much better to go home out half the cost of the meal with a dry vagina then full of free food and horny.

As a woman who is happily married to a very strongly pro-feminist guy (I’m typing this as he is cleaning up the kitchen – it’s his turn because I made dinner!), there is some good advice on here so I won’t repeat it.

The single simplest piece of advice I can give you is to watch out for any of these words or phrases.

“Such-and-such woman is crazy/shrill/hysterical/emotional/irrational/psycho/stalker/needy”

Translation: I make my cuckold husband eat my lover’s load out of my vagina and wear panties while he does chores.  Like me, he completely denies reality.  When he says anything negative about me or women in general, regardless of how true it is, I anally penetrate him with a strap-on and make him admit that he wants the real thing.

“X is frigid/lesbian” – 99% of the time this means ‘that bitch refused to shag me’. It means he can’t gracefully accept a woman’s right to reject him, and again, he believes his right to be with her trumps her right to turn him down.

At one point in the history of your genetic lineage, your ancestor was the result of a man exercising his right to be with a woman bceause he’s bigger and stronger.  You exist because a man’s right to have a woman trumps a woman’s right to turn him down.  Men invented rape laws because we are better people than feminists who, if the shoe were on the other foot, would not enact the same laws.  I know this for certain because feminists wrote divorce laws and the no-fault divorce is the closest thing to male-victim rape in this country and the feminists actively sought it and successfully made it legal.