G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Recent Comments
- thrasymachus33308 on Direct combat isn’t as much to blame for suicide as previously thought
- Inane Rambler on Blowing it out of proportion
- Jack Hanson on Direct combat isn’t as much to blame for suicide as previously thought
- K(yle) on Race and Jury in Zimmerman
- ATC on Dad story at GMP
- ATC on Dad story at GMP
GLP Approved
- Captain Capitalism
- Dalrock
- Dennis Mangan
- Econ Log
- Elusive Wapiti
- Foseti
- Hawaiian Libertarian
- HBD Bibliography
- Heartiste
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Forney
- Randall Parker
- Razib Khan
- Reihan Salam
- Roosh V
- Simon Grey
- SOBL
- Steve Sailer
- The Last Psychiatrist
- The Spearhead
- Thrasymachus
- Ulysses
- Vox Day
Tweet Tweet
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Progressively, pwned == got away with lying. She pwned him. Yes. She lied and he didn’t call her out on it. She won. He’s a establishment gop clown.
They never get called out. But their lies are so layered that you would practically have to give the amurkanz and education before you could debunk this one thing. It needs a whole new context.
I like the faux outrage and double take she does when Alex brings context to her numbers.
I think this post brings up an important point. Now, I don’t understand all the statistics or even know many facts when a lot of topics are raised. Most people probably don’t. They hear these things like women make $0.77 per men’s $1.00 or that according to Cosma Shalizi “G is a Statistical Myth”. Things that may or may not be true (not true in the money case), but things that confirm their a priori biases and make “good” talking points.
Many people don’t really understand these factoids, maybe they don’t care enough to understand them, but they use them in debates because it affirms their worldview. Those factoids can be used to bludgeon their opponents and appear to be more valid evidence than arguing from anecdotes and experience. It takes time to debunk these factoids and, more likely than not, the people deploying them don’t care enough to see the truth. They’re not interested in the truth, but rather a way to overcome their political enemies. I have met some exceptions, however.
I get tired of hearing this liberal non-sense. Women engineers are paid approx 1.40 for every 1.00 males are paid. They have a lot more overall offers, and the part you won’t hear talked about, use sick-leave and otherwise take off 250% more then their male counter-parts. So whenever someone starts spouting this .77 non-sense you can write them off as an uninformed idiot – or having an agenda, and there is no need to waste your time trying to argue with an idiot.
Since I run my own company, I know what women are offered compared to men straight out of college with corresponding equal (or a bit less) qualifications. The fact that you don’t see it talked about, means that someone is selling something. In this case it’s the liberals and feminists selling their non-sense…
Of course in general older males make more because they push more and produce more, as well as take greater risks. In my career I have been broke more times than I was as a grad-student, but I always have several irons in the fire so when several crash and burn, one or two come through in the end and make it worthwhile. Women tend to want it handed to them and take no risks – THAT is the difference… Men work for everything they have, women want it given to them. You won’t hear that talked about either…
I don’t understand why women allow maddow to speak on behalf of women. Unfortunately she has the biggest pair of balls in that room.
I don’t have a problem with women being protected when asking about male wages, as long as men are as well.
In the tech industries, as well as a lot of other areas that are male dominated, in order to get females in and look like they are not discriminating, they pay women more than they pay men. It is a simple supply and demand situation. That should be exposed.
give me two minutes on one of these shows with these lying cunts and you will see ownage the likes of which “”"progressives”"” can hardly fathom.
Chuck, calling out feminists is your forte. On race/national question sort of stuff, I see you as someone who doesn’t want to confront the difficult questions. And you shouldn’t have to. It’s your prerogative to write about what you want to write about. Just understand that when you wake sleeping dogs, they will awaken.
The weekend’s threads were really a clash between race-realists who wanted to tackle difficult first-cause questions vs. race-realists who did not want to open the floodgates of difficult answers.
You feel comfortable exposing certain race-specific pathologies: serious one like BBB, trivial ones like racial mentality on display on idiots’ Facebook pages, and institutional ones like Eracing the News. All those, however, beg a “therefore, what?…” You need not take on the job of answering this. You’re doing good work already and someone else can take up that task.
It’s such a blatant shameless resource grab.
Compare this to the fact that men on average fucking *die* half a decade earlier than women. If feminist analysis was in any way applied even-handledly as a tool to understand the world, the default explanation and solution should be legislation and subsidies helping men to even that large disparity.
People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren’t entitled to their own set of facts. Maddow doesn’t understand that. Or more likely she does understand (she’s not stupid, after all), but she doesn’t care as long she’s pushing her agenda.
I was bothered by the host’s statement at the end where he said Obama’s opponents are “turning the clock back on some settled issues.” Well, if a lot of reasonably intelligent and well-informed people are still arguing about them, then clearly they’re not settled issues. The left wants to just declare victory and go home, and they’re upset that the conservativess won’t just shut up about it.
PA, I still stand by everything I wrote in those posts over the weekend. You have to remember how it got started. I wrote a post about Alex Linder – and if you haven’t read his stuff you should go check out his Aryan Alternative – and called him and his ilk – the guys who are virulent WN, white supremacist, and anti-semitic, the whole gamut – “stupid”. And I called him this for several reasons but mainly because he would rather let people think that he did something he didn’t do than be seen as cavorting with the “enemy”. I point this out and now all of a sudden I’m being a big meanie to WN’s. That doesn’t make sense to me.
All Castellanos had to do to win the argument was ask Rachel “why do you hate men?”.
@Heartiste
“give me two minutes on one of these shows with these lying cunts and you will see ownage the likes of which “””progressives””” can hardly fathom.”
I would love to see that. Can you get on this soft-ball player’s show easily?
I tried to watch the clip, but Rachel Maddow’s face and the fucking bullshit perspective being spouted by that dude at the beginning repulsed me too much. The last thing we need to be doing is asking women, “What do you want,” that type of sycophantic attitude has led to a whole bunch of shit already as women scream for “MOAR.”
I read that this interview was from the 70s. His reply begins at 1:30
who shouts the loudest, gets to make truths.
That clip demonstrates the utter futility of rational debate. This issue were settled, in terms of the data and which side is correct, as long back as at least the seventies.
Doesn’t matter one bit. Being correct is worth almost nothing compared to being able to cobble together political alliances and create a catchy narrative.
Which sort of suggests that the alt right should focus less on being correct, and more on constructing useful narratives.
I was bothered by the host’s statement at the end where he said Obama’s opponents are “turning the clock back on some settled issues.” Well, if a lot of reasonably intelligent and well-informed people are still arguing about them, then clearly they’re not settled issues.
That’s not the only reason to be bothered by the statement. The other problem is the whole “turning the clock back” notion in the first place.
It’s hard to overstate just how important the linear notion of “progress” is to, well, progressives. It’s their essential way of viewing history and reality; it’s so embedded, so taken for granted, they’re hardly even aware of it.
Thus to the progressive, the present > past (and future > present) by definition. That’s why it’s often difficult to have argument with them about principles. It’s why “dead white guys” is presumed to be an automatic refutation of Constitutional intent. Etc.
I know Jonah Goldberg probably isn’t the most beloved figure around here, but he’s got some good passages on this point (about progressive conceptions of history) in the introduction of his new book:
The Whiggish assumption in contemporary politics that today must
be better than yesterday, this year more advanced than last year, this
century wiser than the one that preceded it is held most dogmatically by
so-called progressives. For them history is a vehicle with no reverse gear,
and the engine that powers it is nothing more or less than the State. This
is the hardened, metaphysical, dogmatic cliché that makes it possible for
journalists to glibly describe any expansion of the government into our
lives as a “step forward” or an “advancement” and any retrenchment of
government as a step “backward.”
http://global.nationalreview.com/goldberg/tyranny_intro.pdf
Pingback: Mind the Gap « Gucci Little Piggy
Totally agree, ThomasD. I just didn’t have time to leave that long a comment.