Friday assorted links


#1 When the Chapo Trap House guys make fun of David Brooks and Megan McArdle does that give Tyler a sad?

It must, because David Brooks is the one who most acutely observed that we ruined American culture because the plebs like me can't deal with fancy sandwiches, and Tyler being the foody that he is, well, how could he not be sad?

are you saying that I'm an hallucination that Brooks' concocted as a shallow rhetorical device? That his sources of inspiration are so shallow that he literally couldn't think further than what he had for lunch 20 minutes ago? Shocked! I'm shocked and appalled that you would impugn my friend David's reputation thusly.

#1 Yes. They're all dirtbags.

Oh should watch this. Literal Nazis.

What a stupid pointless video. If I say in front of you "I like ice cream" and you agree and then I tell you Hitler once said it, are you now a "literal Nazi?" No, you are only still just an idiot.

The phrase "dirt-bag left" is redundant.

Haha! Take THAT liberals! Everyone on the left is a dirt bag amirite? Oh man, you really socked it to 'em there!

Not all, the dead ones come for instance. So, de mortuis nil nisi bonum.

If you want a reason to vote against a political party, talk to one of its members.

But Gladwell misses the point doesn't he? That black children preferred white dolls is the function of jealously. Jealousy is thought natural, "a desire to have what somebody else has," but it is envy "that is strange." Why were there only two colors available to choose from? Is he saying Donnie Darko's teacher was correct? The Thing to fear was the Thing that made them rich, not poor.

I still prefer the original definition of Dirtbagging

the activity of hiking and camping, especially in wilderness settings over lengthy periods, taking along a minimal amount of food and leaving at home clothing, tents, and camping equipment

Seeing as most thru hikers are liberal I don't think any of them will be taking the new insult negatively

#7: well, no. It's more chewing gum and twine ported by the Evil Stupid Party in order to repair the broken mess assembled by the Stupid Evil Party.

The worst political class in History inflicted this latest program of mass destruction: ACA, which simply is the government taking $1 trillion from 80% of Americans and giving it to others. .

Economic collapse has been unfolding for decades. In the early 1970s, 60% of Americans were found to be middle class. That proportion has fallen below 50%. Never before has the middle class been the minority and the middle class continues to decline.

Skyrocketing ACA deductibles, premiums and its $1 trillion increases in taxes are not helping.

You spelt "dirtbag" wrong.

At 67, the gun works just fine. The trigger finger still works very well, too. I shoot up the range weekly.

Well, why haven't you offered to stick it in one of my orifices?

You are a smart guy. You readily saw that I changed my moniker.

I'm grumpy, but it's not due to financial weakness. My wife thinks we have more money than God. Not quite, but close enough.

I simply abhor being told it's raining while some dirtbag left winger is pissing on my shoes.

Fair enough, I wouldn't like that either. Don't see how that gets us to "economic collapse has been unfolding for decades", because that's laughably false.

I assume up you advocate the cheap bullet-to-the-brain policy. You buy this policy when young and healthy and when you become either unhealthy or old, you are loaned gun with one bullet, on the condition you sign an organ donation card. Free market creative destruction.


My tendency is the opposite of suicidal.

No! I call dibs on the hard old man cock!

Art, I love you, man.

So does that mean I can blow you?

it's actually masturbation because all of the posts are me!

"ACA, which simply is the government taking $1 trillion from 80% of Americans and giving it to others."

I mean, first off, that's not accurate.

"On net, the ACA significantly increased average taxes on families in the top one percent of income, cut taxes on families in the bottom quintiles, and modestly increased taxes on the rest of families.[4]

Repealing the ACA taxes in 2025 would provide an average tax cut of $46,000 to families in the top one percent, increasing their after-tax incomes by more than 2 percent (table 2). In contrast, average taxes for families in the bottom and second quintiles would increase by $90 and $170, respectively, reducing their after-tax incomes by at least .4 percent (table 3). Families in the middle quintile would receive an average tax cut of $240, increasing their after-tax incomes by .3 percent."

The link has a lot of charts that break it down further for you.

Second, whatever happened to being your brother's keeper? To helping out your fellow American?

Fuck the poor, amirite? Fuck them in their dirty hovels.

A & B getting together to take away from money from C and give it to D isn't charity.

apologies for the self reply, but bear in mind that the lowest quintiles (including the second) lack the financial flexibility of upper quintiles.

Bazaar. Why did that post there?

Who said anything about charity?

Apparently Nick is under the misapprehension that the Bible was referring to Big Brother.

Yeah I mean you're obviously wrong. The TPC is only about taxes. So the obvious incentive is to game the system (Obamacare) so that costs are shifted to lower income men. It won't be taxes !! Yay!! It'll be off the books in premium increases. Which, fine, whatever. Real men will have high paying jobs with good health plans. Right? The only people that suffer are healthy males marginally attached to the labor force.

The disabled have Medicaid. The poor have Medicaid. The question is : do we want to transfer wealth to the poor via insurance premium differential. I personally think that's the stupidest way, because I'm not an idiot. Ymmv, since you are.

If you want to give them money you can, we have the interwebs. The argument for the welfare state dies once liberals can directly give money without leaving their home.

"The argument for the welfare state dies once liberals can directly give money without leaving their home."

If voluntary giving alone solved the problem, there wouldn't be a problem to solve. Ipso facto, it must not be sufficient to deal with the problem if the problem exists.

Aka you're full of shit.

You need to investigate the meaning of "quintile," Nick.

Quintile - Noun. Any of five equal groups into which a population can be divided according to the distribution of values of a particular variable.

As in, "The bottom 2 quintiles (or 40% of the population) see tax decreases, the next 2 quintiles see modest increases, and most of the tax burden falls on the top quintile, specifically the top 1%."


No, you can't watch me fuck Tyler. Stop asking!

Art Deco, is that what Jean Harlow told you say?

I get so angry because I've been trying for years to whore myself out to Rupert Merdoc but these clowns get podcasts!

Anti-centrists, anti-pragmatists, make me sad. First they came from the right, then from the left.

Meh. Those guys are wrong about almost everything -- all the callowness you would expect from arrogant youth -- but they can be pretty funny.

Convinced Bernie woulda won too. And pulling $800K a year off of Patreon.

I don't see them amounting to much of a problem for the USA, but quite possibly for the Democratic Party.

In my lifetime, there have been 13 Presidential elections. The Democrats have won 5 times. One was Jimmy Carter in the wake of Watergate. The rest:

2 by Bill Clinton
2 by Barack Obama

Dirtbags repudiate these guys. Today, Bill Clinton is basically anathema in the Democratic Party. Dirtbags are charting a new course, based on the new, untried but hopeful message of "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

Good luck!

As an independent I would be happy with anyone fairly sane, fairly educated, and fairly honorable, from either party.

Throwback to what that looks like:

Place your bets on which party can manage it in 2020!

jinmy carter and even bill Clinton were both a long long time ago the times are very different now. The Democratic Party as it stands now as created by the Clinton types is universally reviled now and a complete failure at every political level. The cannot do worse the establishment of the party has been thoroughly discredit by events dear boy.

It is kind of hard for me, independent that I am, to believe the Clintons have done worse to the Democrats than the Trumps have to Republicans.

Not least because the Democrats are positioned for a do-over, maybe even a candidate who says a few unkind things about Hillary, for positioning.

And the Republicans what, Trump again? They don't look as ready to be post-Trump as the Democrats are to be post-Clinton.

I agree that the Democratic Party has plenty of problems.

I'm just saying that America will not elect a lefty. It won't happen. That's a prediction.

In the meantime, giving The Democratic Party Establishment a bloody nose can be cathartic and fun.

"The Democratic Party as it stands now as created by the Clinton types is universally reviled now and a complete failure at every political level."

Yep, too right wing free lunch. Eclipsed only by the even more right wing free lunch Republicans.

It's ironic that the party of "government is not the solution, it's the problem" is now the party which every business counts on to make more profitable by
1. Cutting their taxes so much they get tax refunds when losing money and tax refunds when making money
2. The ever greater power to not pay workers for the work they do
3. Government putting money in the pocket of their customers so businesses do not suffer from not paying workers
4. Government paying them to build things businesses need without taxing or charging them to use what they need

The most attractive thing about Trump is he got rich from government wealth redistribution from workers to his pocket.
Legalizing gambling
Government property gifted to him

Before Reagan, Republicans were tax and spend, Democrats were spend and tax. Ie, Republicans led with the taxes in response to needs, and hiked taxes when the need was dire, then authorized the spending from the revenue. Democrats authorized the spending in response to need, then hiked taxes to pay for the spending.

In business terms, before Reagan, a Republican business figures out the price to be paid for a product, and once it has buyers, it spends the money trying to make it. A Democrat business spends money making a product, then figures out the price to sell what is produced.

"jinmy carter and even bill Clinton were both a long long time ago the times are very different now. The Democratic Party as it stands now as created by the Clinton types is universally reviled now and a complete failure at every political level. The cannot do worse the establishment of the party has been thoroughly discredit by events dear boy."
We hear this since the times of Carter and Bill Clinton and way before (the "good Democrats" back then wad Al Smith. Who forgot Reagan in 1964 saying the Democratic Party was the party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin?

Me too. Alas they are with us, seemingly in greater numbers.

I just finished #3. I thought it was very good, and led to an unexpected place.

Did any other patient cooperators get through that text?

The dirtbag left memes are okay sometimes. But they're actually difficult to distinguish from alt-right memes, since both tribes make fun of the alt-right for basically the same reasons. It's common for the alt-right to portray themselves as overly obsessed with internet culture, awkward around women, obese and unhygienic, etc.

For example, this anti-ancap meme was posted on by the dbag left but in actual fact most of the ancapball memes are posted by ancaps or ancap sympathizers

The dirtbag left tries to make fun of themselves, but never does so in a way that implies low status. A lot of it has the same texture as classical political cartoons meant to caricature extreme levels of greed in privileged classes.

They try to do a lot of "leftsplaining" with their memes while the alt-right just makes holocaust jokes because they can.

"The dirtbag left tries to make fun of themselves, but never does so in a way that implies low status. A lot of it has the same texture as classical political cartoons meant to caricature extreme levels of greed in privileged classes."

+1000 this. The left is absolutely positively OBSESSED with status, from the DNC hierarchy, the media, on down to their foot soldiers.. When you hold up a mirror to yourself and you can't stand what you see (making fun of themselves) or you can't even see yourself at all. THIS IS WHAT LOSING STATUS LOOKS LIKE....and it is ugly.

Wait a second, I thought the whole Trump thing was about the deplorables getting tired of losing status, being looked down on by the coastal elites. Status obsession is not a left/right thing, more a human (heck even primate) thing.

No argument, but note the word "obsessed"

We are all sinners. The dirtbag left revels in it.

Irrelevant, but the "deplorables" aren't really part of the alt-right meme culture.

However, yes, the alt-right is upset when coastal elites call them out for being low status. But this is because the coastal elites assume that everyone has a brain virus that makes them hate gays and black people. The self-caricature of foul bachelor frog takes into account the common humanity of the choices made by low status males that lead them to continue to be low status. Cus who wants to do their laundry? So turn your underwear inside out and it's clean again! Oops that's super gross. But everyone would rather play videogames than do laundry.

@msgkings the alt right being referred to are the 4chan basement dwellers and the creators of the offensive memes

Hey idiot, the fact that the alt-right makes fun of itself better is not a badge of honor. The alt-right as consistuted on the internet is basically bunch of teenagers and college kids who in an earlier generation would have probably been goth kids or something. The whole 4Chan alt-right basically exists to be schocking, they are self-loathing nihilists who are not attempting to prove any particular point or really fight for any particular goal other than to piss of liberals so its not really a surprise that they make fun of themselves too. The thing is these are NOT two sides of the same coin as you would like to believe however they are probably both reactionto the same thing and that thing is the establishment left as has developed over the past decades. The joyless, insufferable puritinical SJWs who are only concerned with image and presentation that has come to dominate the "left" lead to the 4Chan alt-right reaction which was basically designed to piss those people off by being extreme but doesn't really have any real serious goals. In fact being too passionate about an issue amongst them will simply get you mocked.
The dirtbag left is ALSO a reaction to the same establishment left and rose to prominance during the campaign but especially after the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in the election - they are not a reaction or mirror of the alt-right, they have specific goals beyong internet memes and that is to destroy the establishment left. Enemy #1 for the dirt bag left is not the allt-right but instead in the establishment left and right with a particularly vicious hatred for the Hillary Clintonites. So of course they make fun of the alt-right but that is not their main focus.

The d-bag left just like memes, the same as everyone else in their age group. The only time I've ever seen the them take shots at the establishment is complaining about TERFS (trans-exclusionary reactionary feminists).

Holocaust jokes aren't about nihilism. They're about proving that you're not part of the pearl-clutcher tribe. This is a very important point to make in a world where breathing 9 times right and 1 time wrong makes you Hitler.

You're partially right about the second part but they are basically nihilistic with no broader political goals beyond pissing off mainstream liberals. The dirtbag left has nothing to do with memes as far as I have seen so I have no clue what you're talking about as far as that comment goes.

I think they really are about nihilism and pissing off as many people as they can, and if the Right ran the institutions of the West, they'd be trolling for the Leftist version of Trump. These people really are fucking dregs who have absolutely no stake in anything. Anyone who is familiar with the history of 4chan and of the internet generally going back to the Usenet days know the type of person. All they care about is building their anime collections, downloading jailbait and child porn off of the Darknet, running DDOS attacks on people they don't like, and trolling the shit out of anyone they can. Sure, there are hanger-ons who more resemble us "normies" and who enjoy the shit they are flinging at the pearl clutchers, but the people who spend their lives turning out the content are fucking scum.


The entire conservative base has no broad political goals. They favor 99.9% of the same policies as democrats. The bickering is ALL ABOUT social status and identity politics. That's why it's important to dethrone the self-appointed bishops.

WRT the left and making memes, that's what the link is about.

@ Anonymous

Yes. During the Bush years it was very common to mock the right-wing narratives. The 911 memes are pretty great.

Downloading CP is kind of just a joke. CP was only ever posted on 4chan to try and get the board in trouble and antagonize the mods.

Those people are more normal than you think. Even normies share videos of "Mr. Hands" and "blue waffle". I recommend against googling either of those.

Pretty good comment. Paraphrasing Walter Sobchak: "Say what you will about the tenets of Marxism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

The alt-right and dirt bag left are not really arch enemies - although they surely dislike and mock each other, as far as people on the right are concerned the dirt-bag left are far far more interested in tarring people like Megan McArdle and David Brooks then the Pepes on 4Chan.

The left and right fringe have always needed each other. They justify each other, and they have a broad range of common enemies, made up of almost everyone in-between.

It strikes me that the "dirtbag left" - if such a thing even exists - is sort of a bizarre attempt to cash n on the "success" of the alt-right, by imitating them.

Good luck with that.

As I explained above it is not that so what strikes you is your own idiocy.

Just because someone is a "loser" doesn't mean they can't have ideas. My experience there tells me that the average 4Channer means what he says, they want the world of Old Right conservatism back, in the same way that a lot of you do, but you twist yourself into a pretzel saying that it's about something else, "individualism" or "the free market" or whatever, because only the rubes come out and say it, you know? They are free from that status game, either because they are at the bottom or they simply don't care, at least in their anonymous identity. That's what the self-depreciating humor is about, signalling to one another than they don't care about being at the bottom of that status game.(I'm sure in the real world, most of them do care.)

SOme of us are actually into that "free market" "individualism" stuff, on it's own merits, and not because it's "right-wing" or "old", or "conservative". In many ways, we're more liberal than the liberals and progressives.
Libertarians, for example, generally think polygamy should be legal. The only "conservatives" who think that are Muslims and fundamentalist mormons. But hey, it's a big worlld, and we're pluralists. The alt-right is decidedly not.

The world is going to go more "alt-right", get used to it.

That's what I've noticed. The alt right memes are just filled with self hate, gross offensiveness, and a kind of evil creativity. The leftist copies just aren't the same because they actually are trying to prove a point, so they lack the nihilistic grittiness. They just don't hit as hard.

To expand on this point, a shitty MS paint comic that mocks the alt right as neo fascists or whatever, is just political satire made in MS paint. An alt right cartoon of a green frog dressed in a Nazi uniform shoveling jews into a fire is material fit for MS paint lol. It's a topic that fits the format in other words.

1. I'm pleased that Cowen still has his sense of humor: he links to a website called "MacLeans", while the author of a recent book claiming Cowen (and James Buchanan et al.) are (or were in the case of the deceased) members of a cult intending to destroy democracy being none other than Nancy MacLean ( The article at Vox is highly critical of MaLean's book for those who assume that anything published at Vox is part of the Dirtbag Left. Whether there is such a cult, try reading this ( without making a connection with this ( The company you keep.

What is this "Vox" of which rayward and you comment?

It's spelt Cox

Pathetic. Replying to your own posts to give the impression anybody reads you...

The wise and adult sads come when someone does two things at once: judges the book by cover, and looks for public affirmation.

(To be honest if someone told me Vox was their first stop in the morning, that might imply a groupthink, but following Tyler's rare link, keeping a varied media diet, might not. The opposite in fact.)

This is good (Maclean) "She uses cloak-and-dagger language to suggest that she was only able to uncover the key files explaining what was going on because someone failed to lock “one crucial door” to a half-deserted building on George Mason University’s campus. (George Mason is the site of an unlisted and then-disorganized archive of Buchanan’s papers.) In language better suited to a Dan Brown novel than a serious nonfiction book, she describes Buchanan as an “evil genius,” and suggests he had a “diabolical” plan to permanently “shackle” democracy, so that the will of the majority would no longer influence government in core areas of the economy. "

G.M.U. also at one point had the largest collection of Nazi war propaganda art in the USA--coincidence? And it's based in Virginia. Two points make a line...

Or take Jane Meyers intifada against me. Another Naomi Klein, who at least brought up some valid points. But it is true, they aren't seeking to explain the "type of thinking" but rather report on the assumption that the thinking is conspiratorial.

"The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation."

Drastically, because it rhymes with catastrophe? Me, I'll stick to the strophe.

Social services are for the needy. I actually believe perverted social services hurt the needy. I believe there might be less needy if the social services were redistributed. Run better. More accountable.

Much less oversight? These qualifiers are killing me. Getting gaudy. If I believe in less oversight, than I believe in much less oversight. I believe in much less oversight of environmental regulation? I believe environmental regulation is arbitrary and if something is arbitrary it is of unspecified value.

Indeed - ah indeed, here's the kicker, so this better be good. Ah indeed, since I believe in what I'm doing, I'm so good at what I do, my ideas have political ramifications in the form of an inconsequential sobriquet. But yes, let's focus on the gossip on the Maureen Dowd formulated template so as the reader can be numbed with Wikipedia entries. and the once again, The Kochs have given millions of dollars to nonprofit groups that criticize environmental regulation and support lower taxes for industry.

Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

And define the original concepts through interviews:
An environmental lawyer who has clashed with the Mercatus Center called it “a means of laundering economic aims.” The lawyer explained the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.”

5. Yeah, but click on the link "while still relatively rare"

The classic quote is: the future is here, just not evenly distributed.

#2.2 "Was French Revolution land redistribution good for ag productivity"

Good link I'll be reading this in detail, but I think yes, but for reason probably not matching their hypothesis. French land, the aristocracy and nobility, and the system was so bad, complacent and stagnated that you pretty much could have had any type of revolution, even a U.S. "stop the snowball rolling downhill" version where elites maintain some of their status and things would have been universally better across the board.

Highly recommend this, Western Tradition Episode 39: Death of the Old Regime.

Btw, I can't remember their name but during pre-revolution France there was 1 family whose income amounted to 2% of state revenues...just for doing nothing. Like I said. Anything would have produced big gains. France just needed change period.

Mao didn't say that you cuck

#6 - NIMBYs, why we can't afford nice things like they have.

#5 EROEI, not monetary cost, is the correct metric to use in these comparisons.

#7 . The root cause of the problem is the whole idea that everyone must be forced into a "single risk pool".
That idea is basically a euphemism for forcing known low risk people to subsidize known high risk people. So, this idea is essentially advocating no escape for the young and healthy from being shackled into subsidizing the health care of the old and sick. And please don't reply with that "but that's how all insurance works!" crap. It doesn't. You don't have to pool known high risks with known low risks together. You pool like risks together. All the young healthy people have their relatively low risks pooled so they pay less, and the older sicker people have their known higher risks pooled, and pay more. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not the end of the world if high risk people pay higher insurance premiums. Everyone's like freaking out that people with chronic illnesses might actually have to pay extra for their health care. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Sure, if you're comfortable with the high-riskers dying on the streets.

Medical care can get very expensive very fast.

I'm comfortable with high risk people paying higher insurance premiums, as a percentage of their incomes, than 9% or whatever the ACA's limit is. And I think if someone's going to have to subsidize it, it should be a direct subsidy, not a sneaky one that effectively taxes low-risk people to pay for it.

Wait a minute, there is a subsidy? How did I not hear about this during the 24x7 coverage of the mandate?

Bonus question, is a crazy plan to prevent people from buying insurance "for six months" not about subsidies and transfers?

Oh yeah, that bit is retarded. Just don't cover pre-existing condition.s Problem solved.
it's amazing nobody ever thought of that before.

The problem is that "fairness" is deeply rooted in all social animals, and humans are no exception.

The great (normie) majority will not see a birth condition as the fault of the child, to be borne in adulthood as a pre-existing condition.

Or do you think someone with an iffy heart valve should pay more for insurance, because it's their fault, dammit.

"How did I not hear about this during the 24×7 coverage of the mandate?"

Because you aren't smart enough to realize that pre-existing conditions mandate, Minimum Essential Coverage Stanards, Community Rating, and Age Band Rating are all subsidies. Dumb is a pre-existing condition. Let's be real: you did know there were mandates, but you are willing to be dishonest to debate a point.

"Or do you think someone with an iffy heart valve should pay more for insurance, because it’s their fault, dammit."

No one chooses their birth, no one chooses their environment, and no one chooses their genes. If the argument is that government exists to ensure fairness prevails, you are indistinguishable from a communist.

How is having an iffy heart valve really all that different than having a learning disability? Should we mandate that people with learning disabilities get paid more so they won't have to deal with the unfairness?

All sorts of people are born with all sorts of attributes that make the cost of living for them higher or lower. Tough luck. And why is it the insurance industry's job to make life fair for people anyway? If you want to correct for the fact that some people are born with conditions that increase their cost of living, just give them money - don't force the insurance market to be some sort of life-fairness-adjustment-machine.

In which Thomas fails sarcasm.

Hazel, we do benefits for Downs Syndrome. Learning disability is a finer graduation, but the same basic logic.

Heck, what is the earned income tax credit, but a benefit for learning disability?

The EITC is an inticement to work you fourth-rate turd.

Well, this is how employer provided insurance works - all employees in the same pool.

Though we try to ease out those approaching 55, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, and employer provided insurance cause all sorts of perverse incentives. It's the reason consumers don't give a shit what anything costs and doctors don't have to tell them.

The only way the young and healthy escape the costs of the old and unhealthy is by curing the universal preX with a bullet-to-the-brain cure for every year you are a year older and more costly to insure.

Bullet to the brain while young means you are forever young.

Otherwise, the young and healthy will pay the price of being old and unhealthy. It is not a choice, without the bullet to the brain cure.

Yes, because it's physically impossible for older people to pay more. Unpossible!

The 55-65 age group has somewhat higher median income and vastly greater wealth than the 25-35 age group -- why on earth are we trying to force the poorer young people to subsidize the wealthier middle-aged people?

And a social conensus to fix that justifies tax funded-subsidies to high-risk groups, and low income groups and what-not.

There is of course a bit of that in current American law, but there is also a hell of a lot of contortion to produce cross subsidy through the back door. And that makes things not only more complicated, but more fragile and more likely to have unintended consequences.

Here's the real truth about me. I'm an authoritarian extremist, ultra-conservative Catholic revanchist, a Monarchist (or Papist really but a King is close enough, if he's a Catholic anyway), and most importantly of all I see my role as being some kind of intellectual font of wisdom and that it's very very important that people online listen to me and take me seriously.

That's what I think about myself and I have very little self-awareness about how it comes across to others. I don't understand that every time I make a vicious comment against homosexuality it is revealing of a deeply unresolved personal issue I have with my own sexuality. I don't understand that every time I advocate for torturing and imprisoning the downtrodden (poor, drug-using, non-white) it reveals that I am so insecure about my own self-worth and my own role in society that I need to see others suffering to feel good about myself.

It's tragic. I'm an old man now and it's too late for me and I'll go to my grave full of hatred and resentment.

Is this for real? It seems real. But does Art Deco have this kind of self awareness?

I've always found Art to be informative and argumentative in a good way. And I'm neither Catholic nor ultra-conservative.

The sock puppet who tries to mock him every day is the one with unresolved issues. "Cuck cuck cuck" is something any moron can post that ad infinitum. And Cuck-Meister does.

I have found Art's posts to be interesting and informative as well. He cites data in his posts and corrects others by citing references. It is more than can be said of many other commenters on this website. I think he is a welcome presence here.

If I wanted facts and figures I'd go to the library. As far as I am concerned the point of the internet is the yell obscentities at each other.

LOL that is a very good point. Art's an old fashioned guy I guess, trying to be constructive and all. This is the internet baby. Fling dat shit!

there's more than one of us, but I started it

Somebody wrote my name on his car once.

Shocker! Europeans are racist against blacks...

#4 - Fascinating. Had no idea. Definitely casts a new and interesting light on his oeuvre

Any political movement of more than about 10 people is going to have scumbags in it.

It's traditional to say "the scumbags are ever-present on the other side, but just a few rare oddballs on my side."

#6. Nobody seems to note that the NIMBYs are essentially advocating doing nothing and letting things continue on current trends, which does not even slow the rate of gentrification. I don't know on what basis they can claim to be defenders of the poor, because they're basically advocating letting rents increase faster.
Or I guess their argument is for rent controls and bans on evictions on top of building restrictions, which would basically turn SF into a walled city that nobody is allowed to move to. Just freeze everything in place - no new residents allowed. What are they going to do if poor people start subletting their apartments to the wealthy?

It is quite rational for me to oppose my neighbor selling out and building a small apartment complex with 10 units.

On the other hand, if the deal is structured as a WIN-WIN, my motivation would be different. An example of a WIN-WIN deal would give me property tax confessions, or give me a perpetual and transferable right to also build 10 units. Another way of making this more like

But the YIMBY gang has shown no evidence that they are looking for WIN-WIN deals.

That seems like crazy talk. There is no gang, and of course your neighbor's land use sets precedent for yours.

Well, you aren't exactly posing as a noble defender of poor people and opponent of gentrification here.
If you want to just be open about opposing development because it's not in your interests as a property owner, go for it. Once everyone acknowledges that they are self interested, deals become more possible. The problem is when one party insists that everyone else is a greedy bastard, but they are noble innocents who only want to help, while simultaneously refusing to even consider evidence that they aren't helping and declaring that all evidence to the contrary is just a big plot by the evil people to trick everyone into doing evil things.

"An example of a WIN-WIN deal would give me property tax confessions, or give me a perpetual and transferable right to also build 10 units"

If all stake holders agree, zoning can be changed from say NYC R1, single family, to R2, R3, ... R10 high rise multiunit housing.

Included stakeholders are those providing transportation and utility services to the area. Turning a square mile of R1 into R10 inside a surrounding R1 zone means several strips of the surrounding R1 property will likely be taken by eminent domain to build highways and transit and utility service corridors, plus impact the costs of public services. If the one square mile becomes gated and access to it is provided by boring tunnels to it at 80 feet below ground for all needs with no need for surface access, the environmental impact would be minimal to the single owner of the one square mile - the only practical way to run such a project would be common ownership, either one owner, or a collective, eg corporation or condo.

NIMBYs don't exactly advocate doing nothing, they just don't advocate doing anything in their particular neighborhoods. As the article notes, this can be extremely disruptive to the incumbents.
A great solution would be a reduction in my property taxes or something else, but honestly even that might not fix the problem. As the article notes, many homeowners are highly leveraged, and building a massive apartment next door will lower their property value. This essentially wipes out their entire life's savings and leaves them under-water.

Maybe the apartment building complex can also offer to pay off part of my mortgage, or the bank that's getting the financing deal also has to pay off part of the mortgage/accept cram-downs.

This is a fair point, a Coasian solution would simply pay off the NIMBYs, by approximately the amount of the loss in property value.

Buy all the properties at fair market value, or sell puts to all in exchange for proxy rights to vote on zoning, etc issues.

But given selling is a choice, the only way this can be done in a lifetime is by eminent domain.

Or buying as much property as you can and trash it to drive out the holdouts. Still, a 50 year old holdout who paid off his debts might still holdout for either a big payout, or worse, having no family, holds out to spite you.

Edith Macefield was elderly with no family and found moving to be too hard. When construction took place around her, a construction supervisor stopping in to ask her if she needed anything befriended her and in the end she willed him the property on her death. Two years later. If the property developer had gotten to know her and really understood what she wanted and needed. The developer was willing to pay a million not to be a real friend. Not to be a neighbor.

#1 - The Left can't meme, because their meme attempts are usually some form of a mini lecture, while alt-right memes are based upon a George Carlin sense of humor. Mini-lectures usually don't go viral, humor does.

I'm pretty sure the socks are alt-right given their cuckolding fetish.

Why do they pick on Art Deco? He's gotten under the skin of one of them. A fairly uncreative one, at that. Is it because Art is an older style of conservative?

We call those "older style" conservatives Cuckservatives nowadays.

older style like Pope Urban II old

Zhou Enlai said it. And I believe it was about the '68 French "revolution", incidentally another instance of the dirtbag left lettings utopianism set their agenda.

How dare you! The only thing we hated more than the bourgeois spectacle is the hallucinated hellscape the bourgeois dogs called "utopia".

What's wrong with it?

#1 Dirtbag Left sounds interesting, but

"subsidized education, healthcare, affordable housing, higher corporate tax rates, government oversight to prevent whole apartment blocks immolating, and ending bloody, colonial adventurism in the Middle East."

That's just not much of an agenda.

Sounds like its all just about memes to me.

Tyler links to a large battery story! He may be on a tech roll...

I knew I was getting old (I am only 34) when someone told me they liked to "Meme" and I 100% seriously thought they meant "Mime." I was like, is this catching on in today's kids?

I am still technically a Millennial but have never tweeted and I am really not too sure what instagram and snapchat are. When I read about the alt-right my first impression was, these kids need to get a real hobby.

A real hobby: pushing your toddler around in a baby carriage with beer in your water bottle (for me, not the baby). Speaking of which, I have got to take the baby out.


For some reason I don't think the main goal of the French Revolution was maximizing ag efficiency. There may have been some other motivations for not having the vast majority of ag land owned by the Catholic church and a tiny hereditary class of large landowners.

I know it's weird, but sometimes people do things motivatited by goals other than maximizing "efficiency".

1. Chapo Trap House is hilarious and at times uncomfortable. That's the point. They are challenging norms. Society is what Americans make it and currently it benefits the top 20%. What of the majority?

"You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited.”

Health, clean water, clean air, basic food, and shelter are intrinsic rights. The economics of externalities. How radical! Thomas Paine could not have said it better.

Comments for this post are closed