Sunday, August 23, 2009

We Still Need a House Troll

here's a good candidate.
A libertarian, misogynistic anime fan on livejournal, because it's 2003 and he's a tween girl*, who uses his clearly deep knowledge of economics to wonder about newly unemployed middle class folk taking unemployment benefits:

Andrew Sullivan has posted a bunch of reader emails lately debating the ethics of the middle-class unemployed collecting unemployment benefits as (possibly) opposed to finding work which is "beneath them", or being in a hurry to find a new job in general. I'm not going to link all of the posts here.
To an economist, though, this debate is somewhat baffling. See, in the old days, people engaged in this practice known as "saving money" in case a rainy day arose. Even if you're not old school like that, there's still an alternative practice known as "taking out loans" of various sorts to cover your expenses during a period of reduced income.
So let's concede that you shouldn't feel compelled to start flipping burgers within a week of getting laid off. Fine. Look at your financial situation, and determine for yourself whether it's worth it to cut into your savings or take on debt to cover your break. If it isn't, why should the taxpayer be covering you?
Now, there are considerations that might add an extra layer onto this argument... what if there's some kind of liquidity constraint that prevents you from acquiring money? What if the specifics of your situation are so catastrophic that you couldn't possibly cover your expenses? These things are worth discussing, but they can be relegated aside for the moment because as far as I can tell these aren't the situations under discussion. What seems to be under debate is whether an unemployed middle-class individual is ethically entitled to enjoy taxpayer largesse to his or her own satisfaction. But this question should be resolved by asking another: If taking a break is such a great idea, why the hell can't you pay for it yourself? Why shouldn't you? I can make an awesome argument for how it would be a great investment of taxpayer funds to buy me a Kindle DX, but there's reasonable skepticism over whether this is true that can only be resolved by my just buying the damn thing myself. That's the economic argument for personal responsibility - it cuts down on bullshit dramatically. Put your money where your mouth is.
awesome stuff.
Found via a singular "came from" result on statcounter. Hopefully the LJ owner, heehee, will come by, I asked him to. If he can find time away from the LJ communities he's watching (aesthetic_lolis, daily_lolita, egl_comm_sales, getoffegl, lolita_wank, lolitafucksmkii, vocaloid), that is.

You thought I was kidding about the misogyny?

*- no offense to the handful of our readers who (still) use LJ, probably because of their membership in communities which still make active use of it.

Update:

As you can see in comments, I was mistaken in my assumption that this fan of lolitas is a guy. My bad. As I said in comments, I made the assumption based on my experience of women having better taste in pornography, oops. Instead it seems she's into looking like easily dominated little school girls who still have humongous breasts. My instinct is to make a misogynistic joke here, but the problem is I go for adult women, so the idea doesn't really do anything to arouse the lizard brain from which such thoughts flow.

15 comments:

Sniper said...

The only misogyny I see here is the kneejerk assumption that I'm a guy, presumably because I'm smart enough to be a libertarian. In any case, this blog is as of yet too small time to merit my regular presence. I'm flattered by the invitation, but you haven't earned it yet. Good luck!

Anonymous said...

@Sniper - coming from someone who has no comments on any but one of her recent posts, you should be honored someone took the time to notice your half-assed "economics."

Hope you get the chance to put those Glibertarian principles into practice sometime soon. See you at the McD's. And yeah, I'll have fries with that.

brad said...

Hey, we've cracked the high double digits in page views more than twice, so there. Also, we're probably a little bigger than you think, despite our own best efforts. Megan does a lot of inadvertent promotion for us.
I assumed you're a guy because the women I know or have known who are enjoy porn tend to choose much higher quality stuff than you seem to tend to. Tentacle rape is not hot. Not that anime=tentacle rape, but that lolita with bigger boobs than Dolly Parton image isn't exactly a loving tribute to femininity.
Besides, who said being a woman means you can't be a misogynist?

clever pseudonym said...

Sniper,
As a woman with an androgynous screen name who is often presumed to be male, I can assure you that misogyny has nothing to do with it. Whenever I point out the mistake, it is almost always followed by apologies, as it once was here. I don't know why men do this, and I'm honestly not interested enough to explore the topic in depth. Boys will be boys, etc.

True misogyny would have been assuming you were female because your writing is terrible, incoherent, and your arguments never delve any deeper than a piss-infested public park wading pool. I thought you were a male as well, but that was really more the LJ fire-of-my-loins communities and the arrogance of describing yourself as "smart" while believing other websites care enough to "merit your regular presence." That, and it's usually men who get into measuring each others dicks over something as stupid and unimportant as blog traffic. Actually, more so than just being a guy, I pretty much believed you to be a parody.

Brad, et. al., if you need any tissues to help with the weeping sobs from having not earned the readership of a Randian pervert who writes like shit on LJ, let me know. I always keep some handy.

Susan of Texas said...

Libertarianism is the perfect philosophy for the eternal teenager.

FGFM said...

We could lend you one of ours, but they tend to be neocons.

Mr. Wonderful said...

Sniper is a Megan wannabee and hopes to be called up to the The Show should MM occasionally find herself on the disabled list.

How do we know? Oh, pls. The breezy I-took-Econ lingo, the disingenuous tone, the Wendy-talking-to-the- Lost-Boys pedantry, and the complete absence of any salient real-world details--such as the fact that the middle class unemployeds she so blithely lectures have spent their earning years paying INTO Federal funds from which they are now entirely morally able to benefit.

Welcome, rookie libertarian. "First you have to work on your cliches."

Susan of Texas said...

And yet there she is, languishing away in LJ, insteading of being paid to write because she's so much smarter than everyone else. I thought libertarians believed in a meritocracy.

Sniper said...

Brad -

Had you chosen to actually click on any of those community links, you would have noticed that they're dedicated to the discussion of lolita fashion, not tentacle porn. Your assumptions here were... interesting, to say the least.

brad said...

My assumption that it doesn't necessarily equal tentacle rape, you mean?
Lolita fashion means adult women dressing up like school girls, afaik. While there's a time and place for everything, including catholic school girl unis, I stand by the idea that the style and tone of the genre you're aping are not exactly pro-woman.

Andrew said...

Is there any particular reason we have to have a resident troll on this island of relative sanity? If I wanted to read on a regular basis about the Magic of Exploitation I would buy a newspaper.

M. Bouffant said...

If I wanted to read on a regular basis about the Magic of Exploitation I would buy a newspaper.

I like.

Look at Sniper's blogs. She's a feminist Lolita. Give her a break.

clever pseudonym said...

Maybe the reason why Brad didn't bother to click the links is because most adults with healthy sexual appetites instantly translate groups with names like "lolita_wank" and "lolitafuck" to mean "pre-teen porn." I don't think it's unreasonable to make the assumption, unless you're too ignorant to know what "Lolita" means to people with at least a high school education. I don't want to speak for Brad, but I'll take the wild guess in the hopes it won't offend him.

Susan of Texas said...

Snyper's decided that growing up means serving a man, so she won't grow up, she'll just be a Princess instead.

Lolita was a sexually experienced 12 year old who both sexually explited and was exploited by her stepfather. The book might or might not be brilliant, but it wasn't a freaking guidebook.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://seoservicemarket.com]seo service[/url]