Sixteen Volts

A better way to start Friday than posting stupid dog and cat pictures is to put out another batch of quotations from Tommi's old Usenet postings.

Drugs, homosexuality, graffiti etc. simply belong to the list of "good things worth supporting" for the enlightened leftists, because these things "challenge the linear thinking of the West". If you don't believe this, just read the free newspaper of Greens (I already forgot its name). It's just too bad that in its naive enthusiasm this eats the credibility of the main goal of Greens, which was supposed to be protecting the environment. For this reason, I don't really bother to vote for Greens any more.

And what right do the women have to complain about the male sex, or at least its older members? If you made bad mating choices, that's your fault and problem. First you ignore the warnings and pair up with bikers and dopeheads because "they are so cool" and then when what everybody knew will happen actually happens you start blaming the whole world or at least the other sex for being so evil and mean. Grow up, women.

If the sexual market is excluded or otherwise eliminated from social science models, the result is a very strange and distorted view of reality whose gaps can then only be filled with a nutjob ideology or several. In fact, I believe that the "antirealism" that is so very popular in social sciences these days is based on the very fragility of certain worldviews in which essential pieces have been left out for the sake of political correctness.

The majority of profeminist men simply want to show the females that they are better people than the evil patriarchal majority of men. And then there's the gay men, who for some reason feel like digging through the roots of their perversions and make a big issue out of it.

I wonder if anywhere else in the world men are less jealous and possessive than in Nordic countries? Probably not, it's just that in those other places women don't dare to act up since they know what will happen if they do.

It would be just as justified to persecute women who pair up with violent criminals than there is to persecute drunk drivers and pedophiles, or actually even more, since the net damages that the latter groups cause are orders of magnitude smaller due to their rarity and locality.

Yammering about the World War II is detrimental for general understanding about the conflicts in the modern world. Fifty years ago people lived in a low-technology world of mass employment where information moved slowly and the benefits of enslaving people were bigger than its costs. For this reason, there will never be a similar global war, since evil and greedy people can earn orders of magnitude more money with inside trading and technological research than by moving around an enormously expensive army of conscripts. To become war commanders these people would have to act against their own interests. Nutcases who can't understand this truth never mention it but talk about inessentials such as "Hitler's politics" and "nationalism" and try to convince us that an ideology such as fascism which was tossed to the garbage bin of history long time ago could still somehow make vast masses act stupid.

During a soap opera, another channel should play a porn movie to remind us what is men's real motivation of tolerating endless relationship problems.

The main benefit of urban lifestyle is the possibility of freely choosing your acquaintances. Without the chains of agrarian serfdom, few would bother to live in a rathole where the only company, in addition to the frozen forest and wolves in it, were fundies who speak in tongues and drunks who eventually burn down their whole house. Living in the countryside is brutal, although in the old times it was without doubt even more brutal.

And once again tons of taxpayer money was spent to settle a stupid fight between two small but loud nutjob minorities, the faggots and the fundies. We should do something or soon we'll be living like Americans in a tyranny of fanatical interest groups that whine about being oppressed. Every reasonable person should see that the solution is a night watchman state in which people can do anything they want provided that they don't bother their neighbours and they pay for their silly visions with their own money.

Scratch a woman who is an active supporter of Greens a little and you'll find belief in horoscopes, homeopathy, dialectical materialism etc. These are, of course, only my experiences, limited in scope but revealing a need for further study. Please point out for me even one meeting of Green women that has rejected alternative medicine as the massive waste of resources that it really is.

If a man had to bet whether he is able to find a female sex partner tonight, a small percentage of men would succeed, and a significant number of even the most attractive men would fail. Basically every non-obese non-deformed woman would succeed. Could this disparity indicate anything about supply and demand, which in turn would tell us something about how much men and women want sex? Probably not.

If rain forests are protected with the argument "some day we might discover a cure for cancer there", then also animal testing facilities should be protected with the same logic and even more strenuously.

The point of generalizing is to compress information with a risk of introducing slight inaccuracies, and without generalizations we would have never even got to the caveman level. All reasonable thought includes generalizations, and it's just holier-than-thou bullshitting to claim that some single individual exception somehow invalidates a useful generalization.

How many fields of life are there equally free and unhindered by laws than human relationships? (Compare: workplace, national economy, traffic...) Adult people can pretty much do anything and nobody comes to stop them. Occasionally one sees neurotics who cry "I am a ...-sexual / n-gamist and I am not understood and accepted, boo hoo". The most common reaction of other people when hearing this is not caring and perhaps a slight annoyance that somebody tries to spoil their leisure time by making a big fuss about their private preferences.

Traditionally it's been men who had to deal with reality, and reality does not obey stomping feet or batting your eyelashes, but respects only rational methods.

It is difficult for a woman to realize that she is trying to monopolize a man high above her level. First of all, men don't typically leave their women but simply minimize the effort they spend on the relationship and accept sexual and housekeeping services as long as they can, and second, it's easy to tell fairytales to women about what they want to hear about "inherent value as a human being" and "deep emotions" since women don't usually value hard facts very much in pretty much anything else either.

When a man satisfies his sexual needs with a less attractive concubine, he can better execute his strategy to reach a monogamous relationship with a more attractive potential spouse. Women dislike this, since it becomes more difficult for the more attractive woman to blackmail men with sex, and the less attractive woman is disappointed with her relationship desires over and over. A strict division of madonnas and whores would make things a lot clearer and lighten the worries of people who try to maintain their romantic illusions.

There is only one way to really prevent wars: raise the standard of living of the lower classes to the level that makes them not want to commit suicide to satisfy the rantings of some maniac. Blood tends to flow when people fight over a piece of bread, but not so much at the higher levels of the hierarchy of needs.

I find it strange that many people who worry about environment demand that instead of international corporations, all decisions in Africa were made by local people, even though this means supporting the population explosion.

The top people of all fields tend to be men, since there are always lots of men who will do anything and risk their lives to succeed, but only a small number of women are ready for the same. The sperm war is brutal, and its victims are a large number of men who fall to the bottom, which in our society means homeless alcoholics.

Look at pictures of young women in 80's, 70's and so on. The further back we go in history, the uglier and fatter greasehairs these ladies become. The oldest photos (including both porn and portraits) represent as beauties ugly birds that a modern fortysomething woman would beat in a beauty contest. And in the 19th century these women even had all their teeth and a cloud of flies didn't buzz around them.

The very fact that people evaluate each other according to how much they benefit from them, added to the fact that this evaluation is mutual, has made the modern world so confortable, safe and relaxed. Consider the alternatives and you understand why. Who really wants to suffer for someone else's benefit without compensation?

"Alternative thinkers" have a delightful strategy of supporting each other's attacks against "The System" unanimously, but when criticized, they quickly deny being a single united front ("There is not just a single monolithic feminism" etc.) I have to wonder if some animal species behave the same way, since this strategy seems so useful?

The different brands of feminism are really about a similar dual strategy as PLO:s "moderate wing" and every totalitarian movement. The moderates quietly accept the acts of the militants and do not act against them. When asked in public, the moderates condemn the worst excesses of militants, so that they get to use the old argument that not every member of movement X stands for the bad things and the whole movement can't be judged for that. Of course every "moderate" who does not oppose the "militants" is objectively supporting the latter group and hence should also be held responsible accordingly. But the modern policy of powerless against groups that use this dual strategy, since if forbids "generalizations" and hence prevents every useful heuristic for actually solving the problem.

All my friends who are in long-term relationships also have another thing in common: they all have steady jobs with a regular paycheck.

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 9:15 AM