Tag: anklebiters

Why do you make me hit you?

A couple of observations. First, neither the woman nor the man knew how to box. Second, the woman was considerably tougher than I expected; she didn’t fold or go down after taking the first, second, or third shot. Third, this underlines what I’ve said about women being slow as molasses; not only can’t she touch an inexperienced guy, she can’t even block or evade his initial jabs! Fourth, people tend to forget that F=MA. Her punches don’t make contact because she is so slow, but even if they did, they wouldn’t do any damage.

Fifth and most importantly, notice the female mindset in action and how bizarre it looks from the male perspective. She knows nothing and learns nothing. She wildly overrates her own ability; an even moderately trained fighter would likely have knocked her out in the first exchange. She stubbornly continues after it is abundantly clear that she is in well over her head and the referee is manufacturing excuses for her to stop. Then, after being utterly humiliated, she doesn’t have the good grace to acknowledge the victor her superior.

This is exactly the mindset one sees from the Left in intellectual discourse here and elsewhere. They know nothing and learn nothing. They wildly overrate their own ability, don’t understand they are losing while in the very process of doing so, and then refuse to acknowledge they have been beaten despite thousands of people witnessing their defeat.

I have little doubt that tomorrow, the woman will be right back to bragging again about how she can beat any Marine on the base. That’s why you shouldn’t bother to reason with these people or attempt to convince them of anything. Just wait until the bell rings, then hit them in the face until you knock them out. Repeat as needed.

So let this be a warning to the usual suspects. No one has any interest in your performance art or whatever it is you think you are doing. If you are a troll or an anklebiter, any assertion you make will either be accompanied by your evidence supporting that assertion or it will be spammed. It doesn’t matter how many names you attempt to hide under, because if you do not present an actual argument in your comment every single time you attempt to criticize any post or anyone’s comment, your comments will end up in the spam filter.

No one has to agree with me. I welcome substantive criticism. I appreciate rational dissent. I enjoy genuine debate. Everyone is entirely free to have their own opinion, to express it, and to defend it. But there will be no more empty posturing, no more meaningless affectations of superiority, and no more insubstantial critiques that stand on nothing but hot air.

The constant ad hominem attempts to ritually cast me out are redundant. I am not part of your group, I never was, and I have nothing but pure contempt for your pathetic warrens. If you are working out the fear and rejection issues that stem from your shrunken amygdala, that’s understandable, but you’ll have to do it someplace else. This is not your in-group. You do not belong here, and you are not welcome here, because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you bring nothing of substance to the discourse.

This isn’t an echo chamber, but it also isn’t group therapy for leftists unsettled by reality.

Try to keep it together

I expect no few of you will be deeply grieved to discover that the inevitable finally occurred. After twice violating his 5-comment per post limit, then following that up by commenting no less than 15 times when his limit was down to three, Golf Pro is no longer permitted to comment here. His comments will be spammed on sight; if you respond to him, your comments will be deleted too. I will also be deleting comments from the inevitable new troll who will appearing soon.

And so we bid him farewell, as we have done before with Tad, and Hunter, and Beelzebub, and Bearded Spock, and other trolls of distant yore. Perhaps a psychiatrist here may want to consider launching an Anklebiters Anonymous service; some of these lunatics simply can’t seem to stay away.

Mailvox: econo-ignorati

I’m not sure which is more impressive, the ability of those who don’t wish to see the obvious to not see it, or the stubborn determination of the inept anklebiter to think that this time, for sure, he’s going to be able to prove me wrong.

Irish Farmer doesn’t appear to understand what is meant by either “wages” or “consumption”:

If women were consumers before they entered the workforce, then who’s money were they consuming with? Mens? Parents’? In that case, those wages were already practically depressed by the fact that men and/or parents were providing women with a sort of salary. 

No. Wages are not reduced by consumption. Wages are reduced by increased supply of labor or decreased demand for labor.  Because consumption tends to increase demand for labor, it tends to increase wages. He digs himself deeper by failing to understand that a consumer is a consumer regardless of whether the consumer is in the labor force or not:

I think it’s simplistic to say, “Women were still consumers.” I’ll admit I don’t have the answers to these questions, but they still come to mind: Isn’t it possible that women workers created new markets, created increase consumption in some way? Can you really just say, “It was the exact same level of consumption now as it was in the ’50s”?

It is not only not simplistic to point out that women were, and continued to be, consumers before, during, and after they entered the labor force, it is absolutely idiotic to attempt to claim otherwise. None of this is equivalent, in any way, to saying anything about “the exact same level of consumption as in the 1950s”.  In fact, a moment’s thought will make it apparent that an increased number of women entering the work force will tend to reduce consumption in the short term; perhaps the women here can help us out.  Do you do tend to do most of your shopping when you are at work or when you are not at work?

Moreover, the reduced number of children produced by working women has unquestionably meant less consumption and less demand for labor in the long term as well. The mitigating effect on the labor supply of fewer children will not suffice to counterbalance this, since children are consumers for 18+ years before they enter the labor force.

And Phony not only reveals that he doesn’t know anything about economics, but he’s a relative newbie here. He’s clearly unaware of the fact that I addressed his objection back in 2006 as well as again earlier this year.

You’re making the implicit assumption, Dipshit, that they don’t produce anything for the wages they get. If they *are* producing more value than they get paid for, as seems reasonable in a capitalist society, then the wages paid will go up but be spent purchasing even more goods.

By your “logic”, Dipshit, the best America could do would be to have one person working to produce goods for 300 million consumers – after all, if anyone else enters the workforce, it will lower wages…

You talk about the post-1950 rise in female employment. So tell us, Dipshit, how come real wages continued to rise (in line with productivity) between 1950 and 1975 or so?

First, I am quite obviously not making the implicit assumption that women don’t produce anything for the wages they receive.  Second, if we apply his own logic, then the fact that real wages have not gone up since 1973 forces us to conclude that women are not producing more value than they are paid for. Third, my logic doesn’t suggest anything of the sort.

And fourth, in answer to his question, I quote myself from seven years ago:

“In the perfect world of economic modeling, it would make no difference
if men or women were working. And in fact, the deleterious effects on
wages of women entering the work force was largely hidden until 1973,
when men finally stopped leaving the work force in numbers sufficient to
conceal what was happening. In fact, one could characterize the period
from 1950 to 1973 as women working so that men over 60 could play golf.
The BLS numbers make this clear.”

An astonishing coincidence

It’s still so easy. Golf Pro, aka Tad, mocks the idea that Minnesotans have anything to worry about from the Somali jihadists in Minnesota:

I’m positive that comparing Minneapolis to Kenya is a bad idea. They
aren’t really the same place, same culture, same institutions, same
history. Really, there is no similarity. The good folks in Minneapolis
have nothing to worry about.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reason, the Mall of America has jacked up its security measures. For, we can assume, no particular reason at all.

BLOOMINGTON, Minn.—The Mall of
America has stepped up security after the deadly attack by the Somali
militant group al-Shabab at a mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Officials at the Bloomington mall say some of the extra security
precautions will be noticeable and some won’t. Millions of people visit
the mall and its 500 stores each year. Mall of America says the safety
of its guests, tenants and employees is top priority. Minnesota is home to the largest Somali community in the United
States. At least 22 young men have traveled to Somalia since 2007 to
join al-Shabaab and the FBI says its investigation of the terror group’s
recruiting remains a priority.

A foretaste of Hell

Tom Simon draws attention to an important Dorothy Sayers quote:

If we refuse assent to reality: if we rebel against
the nature of things and choose to think that what we at the moment want
is the centre of the universe to which everything else ought to
accommodate itself, the first effect on us will be that the whole
universe will seem to be filled with an inexplicable hostility. We shall
begin to feel that everything has a down on us, and that, being so
badly treated, we have a just grievance against things in general. That
is the knowledge of good and evil and the fall into illusion. If we
cherish and fondle that grievance, and would rather wallow in it and
vent our irritation in spite and malice than humbly admit we are in the
wrong and try to amend our behaviour so as to get back to reality, that
is, while it lasts, the deliberate choice, and a foretaste of the
experience of Hell.

—Dorothy L. Sayers, Introductory Papers on Dante

I leave it to the reader to decide to what sort of all-too-familiar figure Sayers is describing here.

It’s just too easy

Golf Pro, aka Tad, mocks the idea that Minnesotans have anything to worry about from the Somali jihadists in Minnesota:

I’m positive that comparing Minneapolis to Kenya is a bad idea. They
aren’t really the same place, same culture, same institutions, same
history. Really, there is no similarity. The good folks in Minneapolis
have nothing to worry about.

It’s ‘kinda like the members at
Augusta National Golf Course worrying that they may have to play in the
same conditions as west Texas. Not the same place.

But carry that gun!

Meanwhile, the jihadist organization that has both claimed responsibility for the attack and been identified as the responsible party by the government of Kenya reports there are several “Minnesotans” among the jihadists who slaughtered more than 60 mallgoers in Kenya.

Al-Shabaab is claiming that there are American gunmen among those
still holed up in the Westgate mall in a standoff with Kenyan and
Israeli special forces. The Somali al-Qaeda affiliate tweeted a series of names on its latest
account before Twitter against suspended the group. Al-Shabaab has been
creating new accounts each time they get shut down but a movement of
pro-Kenyan tweeters has been tracking down the new accounts and
complaining to Twitter.

“We received permission to disclose the names of our mujahideen inside #Westgate,” their latest account tweeted.  They proceeded to tweet the names one by one, including Ahmed Mohamed
Isse, 22, “native” of St. Paul, Minn., Abdifatah Osman Keenadiid, 24,
of Minneapolis, and Gen Mustafe Noorudiin, 27, of Kansas City, Mo.


Al-Shabaab recently released a PR video targeted at Somali-Americans in Minnesota, trying to lure them to jihad as more than two dozen have already done so through the state’s “terror pipeline.” Three Americans — Abdisalan Hussein Ali, Farah Mohamed Beledi and Shirwa Ahmed — from Minnesota have been suicide bombers for Al-Shabaab in a series of attacks in Mogadishu over the past few years.

Notice that this sort of less-intelligent critic bases their arguments on absolutely nothing. Not on the observable facts, not on the easily confirmed reality, just snark and empty posturing.  Which, of course, is why it is so easy to expose them as inept and their positions as incorrect.

Beyond Beezle

We’ve seen some differently sane anklebiters with a reasonably broad IQ spectrum throughout the years. Hunt, Pawn Takes Queen, Modernguy, Bearded Spock, G. Tingey, Tad the Syphilis-Addled Homosexual, The Greatest Pensman in All Carantanilla, Phoenician, and now Poxy.  But I doubt anyone is ever going to be able to claim the lunatic crown of John Galt, who after posting his long series of boasts, curses, and nonsensical challenges here was discovered to have also produced this masterpiece on Facebook.

I have something I probably should tell everybody. Most of my friends from before I started school already know this and I’ve been putting off discussing it for a long time to see if I could be comfortable without it, so I haven’t really made a point of telling anyone. So…I’m supposed to be a girl and I’m probably going to start dressing like a girl and taking hormones at some point in the future. I was already planning on doing this when I was younger (I actually used to go to work dressed as a girl), but I needed to see if I could be comfortable as a guy. But going back to school and being around people again has made it abundantly clear that I am most certainly not comfortable trying to be a guy. So hopefully that explains my personality a little better.

Actually, it tends to explain a lot. I’m not sure why this blog tends to attract crazy, emotionally incontinent, left-wing trolls; my operating theory is that they are the only leftists without sufficient sense or self-awareness to realize that they don’t have much chance of walking out of here with any shreds of intellectual dignity to cloak their exposed arguments.

As for this Gallus, perhaps he’ll feel begin to feel more comfortable with himself after spending the next Day of Blood in auto-flagellation.

The left-wing internet checklist

Larry Correia wants to be sure none of our favorite anklebiters are missing any steps:

THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST

  1. Skim until Offended
  2. Disqualify that Opinion
  3. Attack, Attack, Attack
  4. Disregard Inconvenient facts
  5. Make Shit Up
  6. Resort to Moral Equivalency
  7. Concern Trolling
  8. When all else fails, Racism!

So let’s break this down so you know what to look for, and you can
have a good laugh as people who have zero substance, critical thinking
skills, or facts make fools of themselves!

DISQUALIFY THAT OPINION

This one is lots of fun. Liberals never want to argue ABOUT a topic.
They want to argue about why your opinion on that topic doesn’t count.
It doesn’t matter who or what you are, there is some reason that your
opinion doesn’t count, and it doesn’t have to make sense.

Say that you are a man who thinks abortion is murder, well your
opinion obviously doesn’t count because you’re a man! What if my wife
said that? Well, her opinion doesn’t count because she’s biased because
she has children. What if a childless woman said that? Well, her opinion
doesn’t count because she’s probably religious. What if she’s an
atheist libertarian who happens to believe that a fetus should be
considered a human being and thus receive the same rights and legal
protections as any other human being? Hurr… Derp… Don’t legislate my
vagina! War on women! Quick, switch to another item on the checklist!

There are several subcategories to this one, as it is the most common tactic on the checklist.

Race, sex, culture, economic status. Say you want to comment on any
social issue. Well your opinion doesn’t count because you’re not part of
that race or culture or economic group. Usually the liberal you are
arguing with isn’t part of that group either, but it doesn’t matter,
because white guilt liberals are automatically exempt, and their soft
racism allows them to feel good about themselves as they declare that
other groups are too stupid to survive without their benevolent
guidance.

How dare you say that gangster rap thug culture of single mothers on
welfare isn’t the way to go! Your opinion doesn’t count because you
didn’t grow up there. And if you did grow up there, well you’re not “authentic” or one of my personal favorites I’ve seen thrown around Twitter against black conservatives “house negro” which totally isn’t racist if it is said by a smug liberal.

The problem with that is that most poo flinging monkeys are white
suburbanites, and when they try to disqualify you, and you stop them and
say “but I’m not white” which is a problem for them. Obviously this is
going to happen more and more as race is an artificial construct that
really only matters so liberals can make you check a box on an EEOC form
so they can continue to foist social programs on us. Since the poo
flingers freak out when their opponent isn’t white, liberals invented
the ultimate disqualifier of “privilege”.

Privilege is amazing. It is the new race card, because pick any topic
and regardless of what it is or who you are, a liberal can say your
opinion doesn’t’ count because you have privilege. What does that
actually mean? Hell if I know. It is such a nebulous term that surely
everybody has some form. It means whatever the liberal wants it to mean.
It is the new Neo-Con.

So you are against some dipshit welfare program because you’ve seen
first-hand how that culture of government dependence destroys the human
spirit, well obviously you are privileged so your opinion doesn’t count.
So wait, even if I was born into a family with dark skin and super
crazy poor, and worked my way out of it rather than becoming a crack
whore, I’m now too privileged to have an opinion?

YES.  It doesn’t
matter if you were born in a 3rd world hell hole and were a
boat person refugee, if you disagree with liberal group think it can
only be because you have privilege.

In my experience, disqualification is the primary left-wing argumentative tactic; that’s why my Mensa qualifications drive the left so crazy.  It’s also why the mere fact of mentioning my racial heritage sends them into spirals of mindless denial. Without being able to disqualify me as stupid, white, or irrelevant, (they seldom even bother with this one anymore thanks to you all outnumbering most of their readerships), most of them quite literally have no recourse except to go immediately to accusing me of being crazy.

Or, as in the case of our new blog shadow, “delusional”.

On what basis?  Apparently on the basis of they can’t think of any other auto-disqualifying attributes. I’ve actually come to appreciate those who skip the preceding disqualification steps and go right to the crazy card. But they never stop to think why they are so desperate to disqualify their interlocutors or to consider what that desperation says about their ability to actual present their own arguments or criticize the arguments they oppose.

Welcoming a blog shadow

I thought we should all extend a friendly welcome to my latest dedicated critic. I certainly have no objections to his attempts to further refine my thinking. He has launched Pox Vopoli, a blog intended to, in his words, “be a place for people to air grievances however they’d like without fear of backlash from those who oppose Vox.”  It seems “many other bloggers choose not to talk about Vox by name so that he doesn’t get any extra exposure”, a strategy which appears to be failing rather spectacularly in light of the fact that my traffic has not only grown steadily over the years, but is actually increasing at a faster rate than before in this, the ninth year of the blog.

PV has gotten off to a bang-up start. Setting aside the usual rhetoric about hate this and homophobiss that, he gets a few things factually incorrect.  I don’t constantly mention my Mensa membership.  In fact, I no longer mention Mensa at all with regards to myself now that I don’t have a weekly column at WND where the reference was part of my bio. It is usually my critics, like PV, who bring it up. Why this might be, I leave to the reader to determine, but my working theory is that my Mensa status makes them feel insecure about their comparative lack of intelligence.

Which, of course, is silly. Statistically speaking, it should be my National Merit Finalist status that makes them feel insecure, since the cutoffs are somewhat loftier than the Mensa qualifications.

I also don’t claim to be an Alpha Male per se. While I may happen to be an alpha according to the binary hierarchy of Roissy, I actually claim to be a sigma according to the socio-sexual hierarchy.  I made that distinction precisely because I am not a conventional alpha except in the most basic sense.  The correct technical designation would be ALPHA:sigma; the idea that alphas are secure or in any way disinclined to beat their own chests is an indication that PV has little understanding of socio-sexual hierarchies.

But his biggest blunder is a surprisingly common one. It’s one that I’ve seen it more and more often of late, most recently in a series of comments by incompetent critics at Popehat. PV writes:

What’s he up to recently? Well, he’s got a post about why he thinks a
woman will be the new Chairman of the Fed. In this post he also says
“women are less likely to feel they should be held responsible for
anything they do, much less for anything that happens on their watch”.  Not only is this clearly sexist, which he admits openly to being, but
also wrong. There’s no evidence to support the statement at all.

PV forgets here that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is, as it happens, considerable evidence indicating that women are less likely to feel they should be held responsible for their actions than men. I simply didn’t happen to cite any of it. He is confusing the fact that I do not cite any evidence with the nonexistence of that evidence. However, it should be obvious that the existence or nonexistence of the relevant evidence is not contingent upon my citations.

I can very easily refute PV’s claim that I am wrong using his own metric. As it happens, his post contains no evidence to support his statement at all. Ergo, his claim that I am wrong must, by his own measure, be incorrect.  While one can certainly claim that an assertion remains unproven on the basis of a failure to present evidence in support of it, one cannot claim that the assertion is incorrect on the basis of that failure.  If I state that the Vikings lost on Sunday, but present no evidence to support my statement, such as a box score or a picture of the scoreboard, one cannot reasonably conclude that the Vikings must have won.

While I welcome this attempt to contemplate and criticize my blog posts, I have to say that the initial indications are not terribly promising. PV will have to considerably up his game if he is going to demonstrate that he is intellectually tall enough for the ride.

Phoenician != Scott Lynch

I exchanged email with Scott Lynch yesterday.  He assures me that while he does read this blog from time to time, he has never commented upon it, and that his general practice is to comment using his own name.  I’ve accepted his assertion, as it appears Phoenician simply picked up Mr. Lynch’s original theme and ran with it a little too enthusiastically in imitation of McRapey.

Mr. Lynch may be guilty of vampire larping, (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but apparently not harassment or serial anklebiting.  I have to confess, I am a little disappointed, as I was sort of hoping the explanation of the two “dipshitters” would be a little more exotic, but it looks more like we’re dealing with a blog-standard wannabe here.