The middle class Zapatistas? Or Rojavans? Or Zomians?

Also rtd just wanted to remind the libs that CNN, unlike right wing media, fires people when they **** up.

Well, that's not true. Breitbart did fire Milo when he came out as pro-pedophilia. Got 2 be fair.

Also because he's insanely stupid, he forgot to realize that ~none of the right wingers who breathlessly reported on RobertLeeGate got a statement from ESPN. That was a Huffington Post reporter. Doing journalism. All of RTD's stories were too busy telling their audience of scared and confused grandpas about ESPN doing the dang political correctness!

I did answer this already. Assume the goal is to eliminate Nazi'ism (racial/nativist supremacy and ethnocide). The "team", which I believe was a term you first raised, is everybody who shares this goal.

First, without a closed-door session, this standard makes it impossible to air grievances at all.

Second, even in the open air: (a) if the grievance is faulty, its defeat should serve to preclude the Others (those not on the team), from being able to carry them forward to the unwashed, undecided masses; (b) if the grievance is not defeated, then (i) the Others would, at least theoretically, be able to arrive upon them independently of in-team complainant and (ii) an in-team raising of the grievance will at least prepare the team to meet the grievance potentially brought by the Other.

Their tactics were diametrically opposed. One lauded peaceful protest and integration. The other demanded violent opposition and insisted upon cultural insulation (accomplished through self-provision).

I think believing in the literalism of the fables is childish. I think abjectly discarding aged wisdom, crafted into stories and simple expressions for the sake generational transmission, is foolish.

I welcome any reading materials you or anyone may offer.

fyp

OK VG.

Your (so-far completely unsubstantiated) assertion is that "punch a nazi" is counterproductive to those who wish to eliminate racial/nativist supremacy and ethnocide. This implies some sort of metric of productivity P(x). The null option, do nothing at all, we can define as P(0)=0. So, for any P(x) to be counterproductive, P(x) < p(0), or in our example, P(N= punch a neo-fascist) < 0.

The metric that the Nazi puncher would have been using was something very much along these lines... P_a(N) = A-B. Where A is defined as # of peeps who were predisposed to actively organize with the neo-fascists, but who would change their minds... because, seeing the possibility of experiencing the pain y/o shame of being publicly *****-slapped, tends to dissuade them. And where B is defined as # of peeps who were predisposed not to actively organize with the neo-fascists, but who would change their minds... because, seeing a neo-fascist get publicly *****-slapped, changes their minds for some reason or another.

If I haven't got myself all confused (which is always a very real possibility), you are asserting P_a(N) <0, or alternately B > A. Is this correct ??

I'm not gonna belabor this because that's not the point I'm making. I think the ultimate misinterpretation here is due to the fact the internet is so full up with MRA/PUA/incel herp derp that the point gets lost and any discussion of it seems like it's coming from there. Simply put: sex partners aren't distributed evenly. I ain't gonna bury the thread in links but iill provide some. The core points.

- The total number of ~sexless people varies by culture but in the US and most of Europe, it IS evenly distributed among men and women, but once you factor in desire (e.g., there are more asexual women then men) you have more sexless frustrated men. See Kinsey Institute research, etc.
- more mothers than fathers in our collective genes
- genetic testing consistently discovers surprising amounts of unreported cuckoldry
- self-reported surveys (which are admittedly problematic) reveal males have more sexual partners than females

So I agree: women aren't consumable, partner switching is incredibly common. The point is basically, glibly that when we measure human sex pairings, it's not 1:1 where every sexually active woman is matched by every 1 sexually active male, or that every 1 sexual encounter between a woman and a man evenly distributes the sex evenly among all sexually active men. I think that's not controversial and basically intuitive.

I only really want to get the point that there are sexually frustrated men at the bottom of social hierarchies. Remember I was responding to the "but surely even white trash guys, nerds, the socially awkward must pair up with low status females eventually?" The answer from lots of disciplines: not quite.

None of this has anything to do with justifying misogyny, those MRA/PUA guys are creepy freaks, etc. Just to get across that the idea that the alpha/beta framing is garbagey but SOME of the underlying ideas (there are socially dominant men, that social dominance manifests as more sex for some men than others) has some empirical validity. That's where I stop. I think the typical PUA/incel *******s go from there to say that the feelings of inferiority that produces -- that women are to blame, that there's a bunch of unsavory characteristics about women that explain lack of sex for nerds and losers, etc. I don't justify any of that. Just that some underlying data supports the perception that status among men is more than just height or athletic skill or intelligence or wealth, and we can measure and notice differences in sexual prowess too, and low status men aren't ignorant to this. And then from there, that has political implications.

What actually happens is the low status members of both genders don't find each other attractive and beat off instead.

LOL no, not in our culture. It is true that low status Fs don't find low status Ms attractive, and generally will prefer to go it solo. For low status Ms, unattractiveness is not generally a deal-breaker at all.

You guys underestimate how many of these MRA neckbeards are middle-class or even upper-middle class.

Right, so why do you cloud it up with a bunch of handwringing about poonhounds who are using up all the available women?

This is a good point. I gotta figure a whole lot of these fools rage & hate stems from the fact that they aren't low-status when it comes to $$$$, but they are low-status when it comes to getting their dicks wet.

That wasn't what I said, though, and it wasn't hand wringing -- I'm not distressed, part of my argument is that this just a normative function of human social hierarchies and that the sexless men are lashing out at the wrong targets and really have no basis for lashing out.

So it's not: poonhounds use up all the available women

It's:

Sex not evenly distributed and so some men don't get any or much --> manifests as reactionary political emotions

In other words, UC-Santa Barbara guy.

Exactly. What makes them low status is that they tend to be really creepy, but they assume it is all a question of physical attractiveness and money. They'd probably do fine if they found a woman impressed enough with their looks and money to put up with their obnoxious personality, but part of that obnoxious personality is that they view women who do not live up to their unrealistic physical standards as less than human. Pretty much all of the women they find acceptable can do better than a creepy guy with a misogynist streak who views women as a masturbatory aid.

So, they get none.

wait for it......

The discussion of sex as though its purpose is fundamentally reproductive is a right-wing rhetorical framework inherited from PUA ****boys that frankly disgusts me. When was the last time you had sex thinking "hell yeah, let's make a baby"? In other words, men viewing sex (with women) as a resource to be allocated in a game is inherently misogynist and rape-y.

Im not racist. Lets talk about Martin Luther ****....ffs.

Speaking of heritage not hate, how did The Heritage Foundation get its name?

New Quinnipiac poll: 3 in 10 Republicans think counter-protesters are more to blame for Charlottesville violence (only 38% blamed the Nazis)

(bonus: nearly half of Republicans think Trump won the popular vote)

The only conceivable reason that he would say that is because it's how he refers to MLK in every other instance in his life.

Since I initiated it: obviously you're correct.

The fact remains that some men have more sex than other men.

That men not getting sex notice this, think of sex as another prism with which to determine their social worth, and feel inferior due to lack of sex and lash out -- that's just an observation. Not an apology.

It's not any different from watching Fox News's Jesse Water segue from declaring himself racially egalitarian before wondering aloud if Susan Rice and Loretta Lynch are traitorous North Korea sympathizers and showing clips of black guys waving guns around and wondering aloud if they plan to get violent over welfare. Then a bunch of us notice that white racial anxiety is fueling tons of anger about the welfare state, that's what Fox News is playing off of. And then you show up and declare how disgusting it is that black people aren't being offered basic human dignity.

You're right, but who are you talking to? The literal very first thing I said was, hey guise, just an FYI, this isn't a PUA missive, but this is the framework they view the world and how it informs their reactionary politics. I think it's important to spell out EXACTLY what's happening because 'embraces PUA herp derp jargon' is the symptom in the same way "has strong emotional reactions to the welfare state" is a symptom, and the underlying causes of the anxiety are these sorts of frameworks (e.g., viewing sex as a resource to count, racial tribalism).

I can only note that the internet must be so chalk full o this MRA/PUA/incel nonsense that literally any exposure to observations about it have people assuming all observations are apologies for the mentality. I think these guys are just ****ing clowns like racists but sometimes it's helpful to take a deeper observation into what is motivating them. I *think* what maybe also produces this reaction is the banal observation that some guys get laid alot and others don't, like even noticing that is genuflecting to the PUAers? That seems a stretch, that's like those dudes who are like "oh you noticed blacks are disproportionately recipients of welfare, and you want to INCREASE welfare?! You're the real racist for keeping blacks on the plantation." blah blah meow chow.

And aren't the rest of us justified in making a value judgment about that framework? It may be true that that is the prism through which these young men view the world, but isn't feeling entitled to other people's physical affection one of the hallmarks of a fundamentally ****ty human being? Isn't it possible that the lack of sex isn't a reflection of their societal worth, but that the entitlement that they feel in fact cheapens their worth?

Kind of related, but people are talking about taking down a statue in Chicago dedicated to Mussolini. It has an interesting history.

The organizers outsmarted the police when Italian Americans and African Americans sought to protest against Italy's invasion of Ethiopia.

http://chicagoreporter.com/behind-fa...al-resistance/

Obviously. Please do make the value judgment about that framework. Just don't confuse the observation ("these guys are sexless") for an endorsement of redress ("women OWE these men a hug!"). I think the lack of sex / entitlement debate is probably answered that it's a recursive feedback loop ala white flight communities crumbling in the American hinterlands. That is, racial anxiety leads to white flight to less competitive economic communities which deepens economic anxiety which produces feelings of revenge, paranoia, more anxiety. So it goes with repulsive idiots not having any social appeal: I have no interest really in determining does their naturally ****ty nature make them unlovable versus their sort of ****ty nature as a starting position led them to social isolation and deepened their repulsiveness. Chicken/egg imo. I'm defensive of the notion that phenomenon is happening. I'm confident it is.

ISIS is similarly recuiting from a bunch of rejects who like the idea of buying and selling women.