全 55 件のコメント

[–]MistakeNotDotDotDot 44ポイント45ポイント  (6子コメント)

I wouldn't be surprised if anti-patriarchy happens at near the same rate as rape.

Gee, I don't understand why people don't subscribe to this lovely ideology.

[–]SPONSORED_SHILL 30ポイント31ポイント  (4子コメント)

"I wouldn't be surprised if anti-patriarchy happens at near the same rate as rape. By the way, why aren't there many women females who subscribe to Anarcho-Capitalism?"

[–]tlacomixleI've studied history on and off since I was 8[S] 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

"It's probably just too rational for women females."

[–]jebuswashere 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

There was a thread on there about a year ago wherein they discussed various strategies to trick women into subscribing to their ideology. It went pretty much exactly how you'd expect.

[–]shannondoahAmartya Sen got Nobel because of his Hindu vilification fetish. 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

trick women into subscribing to their ideology

BITCHES.LOOOOOVE.MEEEEEE.

[–]EvanHarper 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

With a beard like that who needs ideological trickery?

[–]turtleeatingaldermanAcademo-Fascist 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't be surprised it anti-homophobia occurs at a higher rate than treason.

[–]Kennen_Rudd 30ポイント31ポイント  (11子コメント)

"Suspicious references to Jews" is an interesting way of describing literal Nazis with '14 Words' as their flair talking about how the the Jews were the real villains of WWII.

[–]-who_is_john_galt- 30ポイント31ポイント  (0子コメント)

And that literal nazi is being upvoted. R/ancrap is totes not a haven for neo-nazis.

[–]tlacomixleI've studied history on and off since I was 8[S] 22ポイント23ポイント  (9子コメント)

Honestly, I only read the top couple, and still very terrible, sub-threads before posting this, so I didn't quite get to the all-out Naziness, just the part where the guy says "I'm not even sure if the guy is a Jew" while vaguely implying that Marxism is a Jewish racialist ideology.

But yeah, he's a literal Nazi who is actually upvoted by ancaps. I don't even know what to say to that. At least it helps to reduce the temptation to invest any effort in arguing with them.

[–]thisisnotanaccount9 21ポイント22ポイント  (6子コメント)

There's a some sort of connection between fascist neoreactionary trash and anarcho-capitalism and I'm not sure where it comes from. My super cynical interpretation is that both ideologies appeal to people who want super edgy political views but lack the necessary empathy for left-anarchism or communism.

[–]The_Old_Gentleman 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

The connection is like, really old. In the late 70's the big names behind the Mises-Institute based right-libertarian movement began pandering to weird far-right groups like neo-confederates, Christian reconstruction, monarchists and more recently climate change denialists. I mean, just look at the "Notable Scholars" of the main hub of AnCap thought, we have:

  • Thomas DiLorenzo and Tom Woods, two neo-confederates known for the awful travesty of history they have published to support their ideology.
  • Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a homophobic and racist dude with "aristocratic" and monarchist sympathies.
  • Robert Murphy, a creationist who believes satanists have infiltrated the American government and who tried to 'disprove' David Graeber despite not even having read his book.
  • Gary North, a Christian fundamentalist, holocaust denier, former Y2K fear-monger and all around horrible person who believes that people who commit Old Testament sins should be stoned to death
  • Walter Block, aka the dude who thinks right-libertarians 'favor liberty' because they have an eugenic superiority to other people
  • Ron fuckin' Paul

The average person who begins to get into Mises Institute AnCap stuff usually isn't aware of all the shit that is behind it. Normally they are young, relatively privileged but sort of sheltered people who read some of their articles on economics and think they made sense, before being slowly sucked in by the rest of the whole package and BAM - you get neoreactionaries.

[–]EvanHarper 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

It seems perfectly logical to me. They are united in abhorrence of the possibility that the democratic state might be mobilized against coercion and domination in private society, such as the family and workplace. Libertarians talk around this issue by unsustainably redefining coercion to mean something like "failing to act in accordance with libertarian's cooked version of Natural Law" and neoreactionaries don't. But it's a continuous spectrum of disagreement along one particular dimension. The dork-enlightenment types are at the extreme, but you try drawing the line between them, Hans-Herman Hoppe and the neo-Confederate scum, and mainstream libertarianism. It doesn't exist.

[–]amartz 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

Bingo. Both fascism and radical libertarianism protect those who have accumulated power against the masses. They rely on the tautology that the fortunate few deserve their power because the market/society has selected them.

Moderates understand that there is plenty good about liberty without giving it free reign.

[–]friendly-dropbear 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What about left anarchism?

[–]DKLancer 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Left Anarchism is too busy arguing with itself over how to properly word its manifesto, or about whether they should even have a manifesto, or multiple manifestos, or perhaps they should adjourn for lunch

[–]friendly-dropbear 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So it's like Marxism only nobody is trying to order other people to go make them lunch while they plan the Revolution(tm).

[–]The_Old_Gentleman 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

At least it helps to reduce the temptation to invest any effort in arguing with them.

I used to argue with them a lot. It's a pointless waste of time, but it used to be sort-of-fun before the neoreactionary trend took over and made their sub hit absolute rock bottom. Now it's all just awful.

[–]MyShitsFuckedDown2 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup. It's actually tainted my view of reddit in general. I ended up unsubscribing because it's just too gross to watch anymore. That /u/lengthyounarther thread was actually the last straw for me and the neoreactionary stuff is just pathetic. (Though there is a certain morbid humor in AnCaps worrying about whether I'm Jewish or not)

Also, sorry for never responding to your PM. I've been overwhelmed with work and school. I'll get to it soon, I've just been burnt out for awhile.

[–]thatoneguy54 29ポイント30ポイント  (26子コメント)

I'm gonna pull choice quotes from this guy:

As a heterosexual, I'm sexually prejudiced.

The premise of the above is that patriarchy is natural; it's what both genders ultimately want. It's only a vocal minority that has a problem with it.

Most women want a dominant man; never let a feminist convince you otherwise or you'll end in a fate as psychologically deranged as them.

I'm anti-feminist precisely out of defense of women.

He's gotta be, what, 13, 14 tops?

Edit: Oh my god! Then this guy says,

now, let me direct you to some of my own drafted, unpublished work.

He uses himself as a source! His own unpublished, unfinished work as a source!

[–]reginhild 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh my. His unpublished work can't get more classic than this,

By studying the history of primitive man, when mankind was in a more natural stage of existence, we can learn some important, deep truths about ourselves

Also, he has Kaczynski covering "leftist psychology" and Tacitus covering "primitive society" in his reading list.

[–]commentsrus 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

FYI, many mative American tribes were matrilineal or matriarchal for thousands of years. If you're interested, I suggest you read some of Robert Briffault's work

now, let me direct you to some of my own drafted, unpublished work [on a completely different tribal society which somehow contradicts your evidence]

Top minds in this sub.

[–]pezz29 15ポイント16ポイント  (6子コメント)

That has nothing to do with ancap and makes us look like sexist bigots.

We wanna be sexist bigots, obviously, but please don't make it so apparent to the outside world, please.

[–]SnugglerificThe archaeology of ignorance 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think we need a thread just for that link in the OP. Goldberg claims finding any gender egalitarian society would falsify his hypothesis. According to the Leacock review linked in the Wikipedia article, he has to pull a sleight of hand where those societies can be ignored. TL;DR, those societies may exist but they don't count because they will inevitably be destroyed by patriarchal societies. Here is the passage:

Goldberg recognizes, however, that in societies like the Mbuti, role differentiation is minimal, perhaps the minimum allowable by biology he states. "The male advantage in biological aggression" is of little moment in such societies, he writes, because "status for the fittest is relatively unimportant when all must play the same economic role if the society is to survive" (p. 119). Since the emergence of Homo sapiens as a species took place under the same conditions, Goldberg's argument for adaptive differentiation is in trouble. However, his lack of any attention to historical or development problems (and ignorance, no doubt, of relevant anthropological materials), allows him to ignore the significance of the few peoples who maintained foraging-hunting lifeways into recent times. Their historical import to him is not the profound insight they afford into our human nature, but that they are doomed by their "inefficient" utilization of male aggression:

Where the Pygmy society minimizes the effect of the male advantage in biological aggression, the very nature of the modem, industrial society forces such a society to give aggression relatively free play ... Given the reality of an industrializing world, the lovely, gentle societies, such as that of the Pygmy, will not survive when challenged by societies whose methods of organization and whose methods of channeling aggression into efficient authority systems render them more efficient [p. 121; his italics].

Eleanor Leacock. Reviewed Work: The Inevitability of Patriarchy by Steven Goldberg. American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 363-365

http://www.jstor.org/stable/674209?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[–]SnapshillBot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - 1, Error

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)