Politics Discussion Thread December 2012

OrphanWilde

I skipped October and November owing to election season, but opening back up:

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

I skipped October and November owing to election season, but opening back up:

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

I mean, anyone who's read him has no doubt that he would treat actually physically unattractive women as... subhuman

I read him and I strongly disagree with this statement. You confuse his online style of writing for the actual man. He does not advocate treating fat ugly women badly, he merely advocates not giving them the illusion that they are just as desirable on the sexual marketplace as other women, thus robbing them of the incentive to improve and the ideologies such delusions empower.

Hmmm, I'm sure I've seen Roissy arguing that unattractive women often can't do much to improve their appearance - that makeup etc is pointless, and that women without (for example) ideal bone stucture are unattractive (see the dating market value test). There is therefore not much room for improvement for many women. Athol Kay, in contrast, seems to think that many currently unattractive women can improve.

4NancyLebovitz13y

It seems to me that there are a lot of people telling fat women that they're worthless in the sexual marketplace, and rather few saying anything else. I know a moderate number of fat women who apparently have happy marriages and (from what they tell me) active sex lives. Possibly of interest: Fat Sex-- fat women discuss their sex lives, which cover the region of possibility pretty well, including lots of men are attracted, true love, relationships are difficult, and nobody's interested. The only way I can see that those women are different from thin women is that I don't think thin women ever attract men who don't want to be seen with them in public-- and not all fat women run into that particular problem, just some of them. Roissy just doesn't seem to be living in the same universe I do.

8

Politics Discussion Thread December 2012

8

8

8

Politics Discussion Thread December 2012

8

8