Home / abject wankery / When you really think about it, going to bed hungry and going to bed horny are not that different at all, really

When you really think about it, going to bed hungry and going to bed horny are not that different at all, really

Comments
/
/
/
2470 Views
Robin Dale Hanson is an associate professor of economics at George Mason University and a research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University.

But wait! The 240+ character version is even worse. For one thing, it all begins with a painfully elaborate deckstacking session that features an ill-defined They who encourage poor people to want to be not poor, and incite the poor to commit acts of violence — or at least threaten violence — as a solution to poverty.

Next comes some excerpts from the Guardian’s article on the lonely private parts club band incel movement, which deserves its own post.

Prof. Hanson does not provide these snippets point out how horrible misogyny is. Neither does he suggest that women ought to rise up and give men the tumbrils-and-guillotines treatment. Instead he mugs the reader with an assertion wrapped in an appeal to emotion tucked inside a WTF are you even doing?

One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income,

The word plausibly does not belong in the galaxy as this argument. Although as an aside, a good way to get the lower classes to rise up and kick ass is to have some elitist boob solemnly inform them that their plight is the same as that of some violent hetero male jackasses who have chosen ‘I’ve decided that I’m unable to get the sex that I’ve decided the world owes me,’ as the reason they’re going to walk around with a massive, throbbing mad on and occasionally go on killing sprees.

Hanson also fails to define what “much less access to sex” means. That’s probably because there’s no definition that wouldn’t force him to admit he’s talking about access to other human beings. He seems desperate to avoid doing so, which rather than making the article more palatable and Serious, gives the entire thing a remarkably slimy feel. Like talking to someone and gradually realizing that when he says he want to hire a babysitter, he means he wants to have sex with a prostitute. And when he says he wants to buy a pram, he means have sex with a prostitute. And when he says he’d like to give blood, phoooar! he means have sex with a prostitute. This only gets worse as Hanson continues.

and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.

That’s a lot of words to say he approves of what incels and affiliated cruds are doing and thinks they should carry on.

As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Translated from Creepese that’s: Women, either for free or for compensation, will have sex with overtly violent misogynists. Or Else.

And if the women get pregnant they can just carry the pregnancy to term to avoid setting off another group of overtly violent misogynists!

He wraps up with what I assume is meant to be a jab at The Libs, but isn’t.

Strikingly, there seems to be little overlap between those who express concern about income and sex inequality. Among our cultural elites, the first concern is high status, and the later concern low status. For example, the article above seems not at all sympathetic to sex inequality concerns.

Strikingly, no one with two brain cells to rub together has determined that being poor and being mad because hot sluts you hate and never even speak to won’t sleep with you, are remotely similar. For example, an article about bunch of brutes who fantasize about raping and killing women isn’t at all sympathetic to their needs.

I assume the job offer from The Atlantic will arrive any day now.

Update: I started this last night and see that he has attempted to rebut the meanies of Twitter. He does a lot of Goldbergian spluttering and floundering that concludes with this:

Also, it should be obvious that “sex” here refers to a complex package that is desired, which in individual cases may or may not be satisfied by sexbots or prostitutes. But whatever it is that people want, we can and should ask how we might get more of it to them.

I want him to shut up. How can I get more of that?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text