Economist Robin Hanson Discusses Sexual Marxism

[Afro_Vacancy]

Excerpt from original post, written as a response to the Toronto shooting:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html
One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Excerpt from follow-up interview:
https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html
Jordan Weissmann: What exactly did you mean by the phrase “redistribute sex”?

Robin Hanson: I had in mind the general concept of changing the distribution of sex. The concern is about inequality and sex. And that’s represented in the distribution of sex. And I had in mind policies that might influence that distribution. And since sex is a very complicated thing, it’s influenced by a great many elements of our lives; that means there’s potentially a great many policy levers. Many people who thought of me as an advocate thought it was appropriate to demand that I give specific proposals. What was I proposing? And I said, well, I’m not trying to give specific proposals. I’m trying to talk about the general idea of doing something in this space.

I listed a number of concrete examples. But I didn’t think of those as obviously the best, just the things that we know about, or come to my mind. There was legalizing prostitution. There is giving people money who have less sex, so they could use it for various things. There is perhaps some training they could undergo. There is promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity, because those apparently seem to have influenced the distribution of sex. And I gave the example of promoting monogamy to show that societies have had policies in this space for a long time that have been effective. So it’s not like it’s impossible to have any policies here, or that nobody’s interested.

 

[Cue Bald]

well i can easily get sex with less attractive women (fatties), despite being a NW4. so basically being bald is the male equivalent of a women being a fattie.

all of these incels are a bit pathetic imo. they b**ch and complain about "Stacys" being shallow and materialistic, yet incels only lust after these Stacy model type girls (skinny, blonde bimbos) and won't go after a women who matches their looks (or even 7/10 women).
if they were female they'd be the 300lbs girl complaining "why doesn't the jock captain of the football team want to date me, all men are scum, jocks should be forced to have sex with all women" - and when told that a bald man is interested in them, they are disgusted by it

but if they did give out money as benefits to people without sex, i'd be a millionaire

 

[blackg]

You cannot socialize sex or sexual attraction for that matter.

Also, I don't know what kind of "training" any of these incel men could undergo. That was an odd suggestion.

 

[Patrick_Bateman]

well i can easily get sex with less attractive women (fatties), despite being a NW4. so basically being bald is the male equivalent of a women being a fattie.

all of these incels are a bit pathetic imo. they b**ch and complain about "Stacys" being shallow and materialistic, yet incels only lust after these Stacy model type girls (skinny, blonde bimbos) and won't go after a women who matches their looks (or even 7/10 women).
if they were female they'd be the 300lbs girl complaining "why doesn't the jock captain of the football team want to date me, all men are scum, jocks should be forced to have sex with all women" - and when told that a bald man is interested in them, they are disgusted by it

but if they did give out money as benefits to people without sex, i'd be a millionaire

Sick generalisations, retard.

It’s unbelivable that you actually think this, and even worse that you think your opinion is valid and worth sharing.

The issue isn’t incels only wanting Stacies, the issue is that 80% of men are regarded as below average in looks by women. The issue is that a lot of young men have zero sexual market value, whereas their looksmatch has a ton. The issue is that being sl*ts/hypergamy/polyamory, hedonism/degenerate behaviour and birth control/abortions are being heavily promoted, whereas the traditional monogamy relationships and values are being labeled as out of date, which results in an unfair distribution of sex and relationships where it’s only for the genetical elite men and women, and the average Joe is stuck with his hand. The issue is that cucks accept washed up roasties once they finally give them attention when they need a beta buxx husband, and therefore are not being held responsible for their actions in their prime. The issue is that cucks like you label everyone who stands up against this type of behaviour are being labeled as angry incels expecting too much.

 

[JeanLucBB]

View attachment 87602

Excerpt from original post, written as a response to the Toronto shooting:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html
One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Excerpt from follow-up interview:
https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html
Jordan Weissmann: What exactly did you mean by the phrase “redistribute sex”?

Robin Hanson: I had in mind the general concept of changing the distribution of sex. The concern is about inequality and sex. And that’s represented in the distribution of sex. And I had in mind policies that might influence that distribution. And since sex is a very complicated thing, it’s influenced by a great many elements of our lives; that means there’s potentially a great many policy levers. Many people who thought of me as an advocate thought it was appropriate to demand that I give specific proposals. What was I proposing? And I said, well, I’m not trying to give specific proposals. I’m trying to talk about the general idea of doing something in this space.

I listed a number of concrete examples. But I didn’t think of those as obviously the best, just the things that we know about, or come to my mind. There was legalizing prostitution. There is giving people money who have less sex, so they could use it for various things. There is perhaps some training they could undergo. There is promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity, because those apparently seem to have influenced the distribution of sex. And I gave the example of promoting monogamy to show that societies have had policies in this space for a long time that have been effective. So it’s not like it’s impossible to have any policies here, or that nobody’s interested.

This "economist" sounds like a virgin himself.

"There is promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity, because those apparently seem to have influenced the distribution of sex. And I gave the example of promoting monogamy to show that societies have had policies in this space for a long time that have been effective."

Quotes like this are just absurd. What world is this man living in?

His Marxist obsession with re-balancing as a goal in every sense is incredibly juvenile, economic illiteracy also. It's not based on any economic theory, it's purely political and based on ethical presumptions, which places re-balancing existence to an average rather than maximising the quality of the overall system. That's Marxism in a nutshell though.

 

[CaptainForehead]

This "economist" sounds like a virgin himself.

"There is promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity, because those apparently seem to have influenced the distribution of sex. And I gave the example of promoting monogamy to show that societies have had policies in this space for a long time that have been effective."

Quotes like this are just absurd. What world is this man living in?

Really? You find it absurd that promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity influence the distribution of sex?

 

[JeanLucBB]

Really? You find it absurd that promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity influence the distribution of sex?

He's specifically talking about government influence on these issues, so very much so the idea that they will be able to influence distribution of sex through promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity is absolutely absurd. Even influential external conservative groups are unlikely to have a major effect on this, let alone the ham fisted stupidity of government. Only someone who hasn't looked at the data and has no common sense or understanding of human psychology would suggest otherwise.

The idea that we should promote monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity is also horribly unethical in itself, again an idiotic Marxist ideal that the only goal of a society is to send all individuals to an average based on an arbitrary assumption that this is beneficial. Overall human pleasure and flourishing, or a more consequential view means nothing to them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

"The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates (Table 4), indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior. To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant (Figure 2). Abortion rates were not correlated with abstinence education level (rho = −0.136, p = 0.415). A multivariate analysis of teen pregnancy and birth rates identified the level of abstinence education as a significant influence on teen pregnancy and birth rates across states (pregnancies F = 5.620, p = 0.002; births F = 11.814, p<0.001). The significant pregnancy effect was caused by significantly lower pregnancy rates in level 0 (no abstinence provision) states compared to level 3 (abstinence stressed) states (p = 0.036), and level 1 (abstinence covered) states compared to level 3 states (p = 0.005); the significant birth effect was caused by significantly lower teen birth rates in level 0 states compared to level 3 (p = 0.006) states, and significantly lower teen birth rates in level 1 states compared to level 3 states (p<0.001)."

Obviously economic factors at play here, but the initial suggestion is clearly an idiotic assumption by another fuckwit who thinks government is a magical wand waving institute of solving all our problems, various other studies and those more orientated to the psychological issues with this suggest the same. Not to mention that this is an anti-liberty, sex-shaming and unethical thing to strive for to begin with.

 

[Saurabhaj]

It is very easy to claim lack of sex as a problem and project "Redistribute Sex" as a step in right direction.

What about Love?

This guy will shut down while answering this.


For violence,Elliot Roger has mentioned his frustration when he saw a loving couple on a beach.
He also mentioned frustration when he saw one Indian guy in a car with a beautiful Blonde girl.

 

[blackg]

He's specifically talking about government influence on these issues, so very much so the idea that they will be able to influence distribution of sex through promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity is absolutely absurd. Even influential external conservative groups are unlikely to have a major effect on this, let alone the ham fisted stupidity of government. Only someone who hasn't looked at the data and has no common sense or understanding of human psychology would suggest otherwise.

The idea that we should promote monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity is also horribly unethical in itself, again an idiotic Marxist ideal that the only goal of a society is to send all individuals to an average based on an arbitrary assumption that this is beneficial. Overall human pleasure and flourishing, or a more consequential view means nothing to them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

"The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates (Table 4), indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior. To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant (Figure 2). Abortion rates were not correlated with abstinence education level (rho = −0.136, p = 0.415). A multivariate analysis of teen pregnancy and birth rates identified the level of abstinence education as a significant influence on teen pregnancy and birth rates across states (pregnancies F = 5.620, p = 0.002; births F = 11.814, p<0.001). The significant pregnancy effect was caused by significantly lower pregnancy rates in level 0 (no abstinence provision) states compared to level 3 (abstinence stressed) states (p = 0.036), and level 1 (abstinence covered) states compared to level 3 states (p = 0.005); the significant birth effect was caused by significantly lower teen birth rates in level 0 states compared to level 3 (p = 0.006) states, and significantly lower teen birth rates in level 1 states compared to level 3 states (p<0.001)."

Obviously economic factors at play here, but the initial suggestion is clearly an idiotic assumption by another fuckwit who thinks government is a magical wand waving institute of solving all our problems, various other studies and those more orientated to the psychological issues with this suggest the same. Not to mention that this is an anti-liberty, sex-shaming and unethical thing to strive for to begin with.

Well said!! Such naive assumptions from this article.

 

[blackg]

Sick generalisations, retard.

This is definitely the pot calling the kettle a cuckold.

 

[Saurabhaj]

This guy should make theory on "Redistribute hairs".

 

[JeanLucBB]

This is definitely the pot calling the kettle a cuckold.

I have the most dislikes of anyone on the forum now. You jelly?

 

[blackg]

I have the most dislikes of anyone on the forum now. You jelly?

They’re are a badge of honour. How many do I have?

 

[JeanLucBB]

They’re are a badge of honour. How many do I have?

Not enough

 

[blackg]

Not enough

Lmfao!!!!!
That was one of your best ever. You won't top this

 

[Cue Bald]

This guy should make theory on "Redistribute hairs".

lol now that's a policy i would vote for. come on TRUMP. the richer are forced to pay more taxes (at least they were, before they were able to escape it with loopholes) to help the poor - so those people with more hair should be forced to give up a few hundred grafts to help out those less fortunate.

hair communism. for each according to his hairline, to each according to his norwood

 

[Exodus2011]

He's specifically talking about government influence on these issues, so very much so the idea that they will be able to influence distribution of sex through promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity is absolutely absurd. Even influential external conservative groups are unlikely to have a major effect on this, let alone the ham fisted stupidity of government. Only someone who hasn't looked at the data and has no common sense or understanding of human psychology would suggest otherwise.

The idea that we should promote monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity is also horribly unethical in itself, again an idiotic Marxist ideal that the only goal of a society is to send all individuals to an average based on an arbitrary assumption that this is beneficial. Overall human pleasure and flourishing, or a more consequential view means nothing to them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

"The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates (Table 4), indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior. To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant (Figure 2). Abortion rates were not correlated with abstinence education level (rho = −0.136, p = 0.415). A multivariate analysis of teen pregnancy and birth rates identified the level of abstinence education as a significant influence on teen pregnancy and birth rates across states (pregnancies F = 5.620, p = 0.002; births F = 11.814, p<0.001). The significant pregnancy effect was caused by significantly lower pregnancy rates in level 0 (no abstinence provision) states compared to level 3 (abstinence stressed) states (p = 0.036), and level 1 (abstinence covered) states compared to level 3 states (p = 0.005); the significant birth effect was caused by significantly lower teen birth rates in level 0 states compared to level 3 (p = 0.006) states, and significantly lower teen birth rates in level 1 states compared to level 3 states (p<0.001)."

Obviously economic factors at play here, but the initial suggestion is clearly an idiotic assumption by another fuckwit who thinks government is a magical wand waving institute of solving all our problems, various other studies and those more orientated to the psychological issues with this suggest the same. Not to mention that this is an anti-liberty, sex-shaming and unethical thing to strive for to begin with.

i hate marxist egalitarian dictatorship too, trust me, and what you pointed out is bad. but his legalize prostitution and counselling for incels @blackg are legit

btw blackg thats what hes referring to.

 

[blackg]

i hate marxist egalitarian dictatorship too, trust me, and what you pointed out is bad. but his legalize prostitution and counselling for incels @blackg are legit

btw blackg thats what hes referring to.

Okay thanks.

 

[doyle11]

Not enough

You can have these 2 for free

 

[meetjoeblack]

View attachment 87602

Excerpt from original post, written as a response to the Toronto shooting:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html
One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Excerpt from follow-up interview:
https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html
Jordan Weissmann: What exactly did you mean by the phrase “redistribute sex”?

Robin Hanson: I had in mind the general concept of changing the distribution of sex. The concern is about inequality and sex. And that’s represented in the distribution of sex. And I had in mind policies that might influence that distribution. And since sex is a very complicated thing, it’s influenced by a great many elements of our lives; that means there’s potentially a great many policy levers. Many people who thought of me as an advocate thought it was appropriate to demand that I give specific proposals. What was I proposing? And I said, well, I’m not trying to give specific proposals. I’m trying to talk about the general idea of doing something in this space.

I listed a number of concrete examples. But I didn’t think of those as obviously the best, just the things that we know about, or come to my mind. There was legalizing prostitution. There is giving people money who have less sex, so they could use it for various things. There is perhaps some training they could undergo. There is promotion of monogamy and discouragement of promiscuity, because those apparently seem to have influenced the distribution of sex. And I gave the example of promoting monogamy to show that societies have had policies in this space for a long time that have been effective. So it’s not like it’s impossible to have any policies here, or that nobody’s interested.

It's hilarious with the left. The push for free resources, single mother victimhood, green hair, obesity, and laws to protect their insanity. Gender is fluid. Sleep around till thirty when the eggs are gone bad. Then seek captain save a who're.