I saw from my E-mail that someone asked the question "Why is there no outcry
over this 'Ministry of Truth'?".

I followed the link over to Quora, and saw that it was President Joseph
Robinette Biden who was blamed for setting such a thing up in the
United States... but there was no further identifying information as to
what this doubleplusungood thing was.

However, Google did allow me to determine that its official name was the
"Disinformation Governance Board". It was set up by the Department of
Homeland Security; its first concern was to keep track of false information
being given to people who might think of migrating to the United States
illegally, but they would also keep track of Russian disinformation efforts
in general.

Note, also, that the First Amendment has not been repealed, nor has
the Supreme Court been replaced by Democratic Party sycophants.

Hence, the rhetoric aimed at it was overblown - but that still resulted
in the DHS abandoning the effort after only three weeks.

Incidentally, "Three Weeks" was the title of a novel, controversial on
grounds of being salacious, that was referenced in a Charlie Chaplin
silent film.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 10:53:16 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> Incidentally, "Three Weeks" was the title of a novel, controversial on
> grounds of being salacious, that was referenced in a Charlie Chaplin
> silent film.

Further information may be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Weeks_(book)

John Savard

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 21:53:13 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:

> However, Google did allow me to determine that its official name was the
> "Disinformation Governance Board". It was set up by the Department of
> Homeland Security; its first concern was to keep track of false
> information being given to people who might think of migrating to the
> United States illegally, but they would also keep track of Russian
> disinformation efforts in general.
>

Given a high prior probability that we're in a time of phony
apocalypse, something like this just updates to a posterior
probability even higher. Therefore it's a yawn.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 21:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>I saw from my E-mail that someone asked the question "Why is there no outcry
>over this 'Ministry of Truth'?".
>
>I followed the link over to Quora, and saw that it was President Joseph
>Robinette Biden who was blamed for setting such a thing up in the
>United States... but there was no further identifying information as to
>what this doubleplusungood thing was.
>
>However, Google did allow me to determine that its official name was the
>"Disinformation Governance Board". It was set up by the Department of
>Homeland Security; its first concern was to keep track of false information
>being given to people who might think of migrating to the United States
>illegally, but they would also keep track of Russian disinformation efforts
>in general.
>
>Note, also, that the First Amendment has not been repealed, nor has
>the Supreme Court been replaced by Democratic Party sycophants.
>
>Hence, the rhetoric aimed at it was overblown - but that still resulted
>in the DHS abandoning the effort after only three weeks.

By "overblown" you mean, of course, projected by Republicans onto the
current administration because they plan to do the same ... only more
so ... if they ever have the opportunity to do so.

I would also refer you to "death panels", a similar bit of Republican
projection which they finally realized (on a local scale in a few
areas) during the pandemic by implementing Italian Triage.

Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion
on the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests
that their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.

The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
social media as arbiters of public speech. Journalists are doing
this in a two-step process. First, they repeatedly refer to the
social media as the "town square" which improperly conflates
these businesses with the Enlightenment concept of the public
sphere. Then they go on to criticize the social media for not
regulating "dangerous" content and "hate speech." But in a truly
free-speech society there is of course no such thing as
"dangerous" speech.

On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
>> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
>> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
>
> The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
> speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
> our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
> social media as arbiters of public speech.

Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?

Journalists are doing
> this in a two-step process. First, they repeatedly refer to the
> social media as the "town square"

Journalists do no such thing. They just quote people using that
description as part of their argument that the owners of social media
applications should not be allowed to ban people.

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
> >
> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?

Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.

Rather reminds me of the time I found one of Father Coughlin's "books" in the bargain bin at Barnes&Noble. Now, B&N didn't stock this title, some believer cast it into the BB, with a hand scrawled price of about a buck, in hopes of making a convert.

In the dark days before the Internet, German-Canadian holocaust denier Ernst Zundel published his own propaganda. And made serious amounts of money at it. In those days you had to pay to have your prejudices reinforced. No hopping over to nazisrus.com.

William Hyde

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
>> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
>> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
>> >
>> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
>> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
>> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
>> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
>> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
>> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
>> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?
>
>Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.

Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
ago.

>Rather reminds me of the time I found one of Father Coughlin's "books" in the bargain bin at Barnes&Noble. Now, B&N didn't stock this title, some believer cast it into the BB, with a hand scrawled price of about a buck, in hopes of making a convert.
>
>In the dark days before the Internet, German-Canadian holocaust denier Ernst Zundel published his own propaganda. And made serious amounts of money at it. In those days you had to pay to have your prejudices reinforced. No hopping over to nazisrus.com.

That is what it is to live in a free society: nutters have free
speech.

It's when they engage in criminal activity that they may find that
their freedom has been curtailed. After trial and conviction, of
course.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> No hopping over to nazisrus.com.

What, couldn't Toys 'r' Us sue the bejabbers off them?

Of course you just made the name up as an example...
the quasi-Nazis on the web tend not to admit what they
are.

John Savard

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly
> >nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about
> >American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the
> >cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia
> >that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.

> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
> ago.

If it was a 100-year-old book, but not "nicely printed", it could even be a facsimile
copy of a 100-year-old book, sourced from the Internet Archive or Google Books.

Since the Internet Archive takes user submissions, it has a lot more extremist
material...

John Savard

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 2:02:52 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > No hopping over to nazisrus.com.
> What, couldn't Toys 'r' Us sue the bejabbers off them?
>
> Of course you just made the name up as an example...
> the quasi-Nazis on the web tend not to admit what they
> are.

Recalling from the 70's, the 'R Us' tag was used by a number of firms.

A surviving example: https://www.facebook.com/drugsruspharmacy/

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:335e0b58-99f8-4f04-b88a-c4937b9ced36n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 2:02:52 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde
>> wrote:
>> > No hopping over to nazisrus.com.
>> What, couldn't Toys 'r' Us sue the bejabbers off them?
>>
>> Of course you just made the name up as an example...
>> the quasi-Nazis on the web tend not to admit what they
>> are.
>
> Recalling from the 70's, the 'R Us' tag was used by a number of
> firms.
>
> A surviving example: https://www.facebook.com/drugsruspharmacy/
>
They are trying to own the use of the letter "r" in the middle of a
company name.

https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/dncases/toysrus.ht
m https://tinyurl.com/2apmc5na

They have had some success (in Canada).

https://harrisbricken.com/cannalawblog/toys-r-us-succeeds-in-
trademark-lawsuit-for-depreciation-of-goodwill-against-canadian-
dispensary-herbs-r-us/

https://tinyurl.com/57ckcp5c

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 19:02:52 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > No hopping over to nazisrus.com.
> What, couldn't Toys 'r' Us sue the bejabbers off them?
>
> Of course you just made the name up as an example...
> the quasi-Nazis on the web tend not to admit what they
> are.

Maybe it's Nazis Rus. This is a complicated world.

> On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 2:02:52 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>>> No hopping over to nazisrus.com.
>> What, couldn't Toys 'r' Us sue the bejabbers off them?
>>
>> Of course you just made the name up as an example...
>> the quasi-Nazis on the web tend not to admit what they
>> are.

No. That is why the recent photo in the New York Times of the Ukranian
tennis player who won some US tournament was one where his left arm was
covered; so that his Nazi tattoo would be hidden.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 6:48:15 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:

> No. That is why the recent photo in the New York Times of the Ukranian
> tennis player who won some US tournament was one where his left arm was
> covered; so that his Nazi tattoo would be hidden.

How _dare_ you accuse the New York Times of bias!

In any event, just as some Cubans, some Chileans, and some Guatemalans,
because they experienced brutal right-wing dictatorships, may be forgiven for
making the mistake of thinking that Communism was not so bad... so may
some Ukrainians be forgiven for being confused about Nazism, since they
lived under Stalin, who was responsible for artificially creating a massive famine
in Ukraine that killed about four million Ukrainians.

Thus, for the New York Times to make an effort to avoid confusing Americans on
the war with Russia is as understandable as efforts they made to be responsible
in their reporting during World War II.

Given the fact of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, and the urgent need for
solid unity among the free nations of the world in standing up against it, I have
absolutely no shame in saying that this is how you are supposed to think about
this; it seems an entirely reasonable and sensible request, under the circumstances.

John Savard

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 8:50:08 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 6:48:15 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>
> > No. That is why the recent photo in the New York Times of the Ukranian
> > tennis player who won some US tournament was one where his left arm was
> > covered; so that his Nazi tattoo would be hidden.
> How _dare_ you accuse the New York Times of bias!
>
> In any event, just as some Cubans, some Chileans, and some Guatemalans,
> because they experienced brutal right-wing dictatorships, may be forgiven for
> making the mistake of thinking that Communism was not so bad... so may
> some Ukrainians be forgiven for being confused about Nazism, since they
> lived under Stalin, who was responsible for artificially creating a massive famine
> in Ukraine that killed about four million Ukrainians.

The attitudes of Russians toward the Jews didn't help much either. Did they patent the pogrom? I forget. Catherine the Great also told the Jews where they could and could not live.

On 7/09/22 14:50, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 6:48:15 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>
>> No. That is why the recent photo in the New York Times of the Ukranian
>> tennis player who won some US tournament was one where his left arm was
>> covered; so that his Nazi tattoo would be hidden.
>
> How _dare_ you accuse the New York Times of bias!
>
> In any event, just as some Cubans, some Chileans, and some Guatemalans,
> because they experienced brutal right-wing dictatorships, may be forgiven for
> making the mistake of thinking that Communism was not so bad... so may
> some Ukrainians be forgiven for being confused about Nazism, since they
> lived under Stalin, who was responsible for artificially creating a massive famine
> in Ukraine that killed about four million Ukrainians.

I shouldn't reply having been critical of others who discuss politics
with an impregnated by USA and Israeli propaganda bot such as
Fourbricks, but, SOMEONE, (a follower of D.A.F. de Sade's theory to
solve social disharmony but with the SF version of Vat girls), ON THE
INTERNET IS WRONG (again).

You should research the predominance of Jews in Stalin's upper hierarchy
and the NKVD(?). Before Nazi Germany invaded, privately owned militia
such as the Azov battalion slaughtered entire towns of Jews, men, women
and children in Eastern Ukraine in retaliation for that evil social
experiment of Stalin and company.
Following a $5 billion CIA interference to overthrow the pro-Russian
government, a civil war, Russian illegal seizure of Crimea and
involvement of Biden Crime Family representative, Hunter in the
Ukrainian natural gas industry, France and Germany mediated the Minsk
agreement which western Ukrainian militia and military violated.
After days of government shelling of eastern provinces, Russia invaded
under UN rules seeking to de-nazify and de-weaponise. An early target
was the Nazi insignia ridden Azov battalion and their headquarters
at/under the Azov steelworks.

There are always two sides to every story. I live happily in the
socialist state of New Zealand and find the extremes such as US
imperialist corrupt capitalism, Soviet Communism, Saudi Medieval
Monarchy, Apartheid Israel and (add favourite here, there are plenty of
options) frightening. I try to know both sides but avoid such
extremities as television.
Anyway, politics on groups with specific topics has always been
intercine so I shall try to restrain any urge to reply to replies.
More positively, I have Eversions by Alastair Reynolds to begin after
finishing Clea, the fourth of the Alexandrian Quartet by Lawrence
Durrell, a brilliant example applying modern day physics to sociology or
the concept of relativity to truth and fact.
This explains Fourbricks and Reality.
I believe that much of 1984 has not remained a work of fiction but I am
a little paranoid as well as anti-authoritarian. Winston's cat?

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:53:18 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:

> Following a $5 billion CIA interference to overthrow the pro-Russian
> government, a civil war, Russian illegal seizure of Crimea and
> involvement of Biden Crime Family representative, Hunter in the
> Ukrainian natural gas industry, France and Germany mediated the Minsk
> agreement which western Ukrainian militia and military violated.
> After days of government shelling of eastern provinces, Russia invaded
> under UN rules seeking to de-nazify and de-weaponise. An early target
> was the Nazi insignia ridden Azov battalion and their headquarters
> at/under the Azov steelworks.

I don't think this can be taken seriously.

> There are always two sides to every story.

Only up until the actual facts become known. The only time reality is
multiple-valued is when, due to being unobserved, it has the opportunity
to exist in a state other than an eigenstate of some common observable.

> I live happily in the
> socialist state of New Zealand and find the extremes such as US
> imperialist corrupt capitalism, Soviet Communism, Saudi Medieval
> Monarchy, Apartheid Israel and (add favourite here, there are plenty of
> options) frightening. I try to know both sides but avoid such
> extremities as television.

Given that living happily in Canada has spared me the jungles of Vietnam,
I won't quarrel with your choice of domicile.

John Savard

On 7/09/22 18:56, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:53:18 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>

>> There are always two sides to every story.
>
> Only up until the actual facts become known.

Help!

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:53:18 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
> (a follower of D.A.F. de Sade's theory to
> solve social disharmony but with the SF version of Vat girls),

I needed to Google to determine that the Marquis de Sade was
Damien Alphonse Francoise de Sade to his friends, and this wasn't
the online handle of some recent leader of the incel movement.

On the one hand, I think that George Gilder made some good points
in his books "Naked Nomads" and "Sexual Suicide".

On the other hand, I can't agree with his proposed solutions, or the
misogyny of the incel movement. Women are people with rights. So
of course they must be free to seek paid work, and in any field.

But there _is_ a problem if the equality of women, a good thing in
itself, leads to a large segment of the male population no longer meeting
the increased cost of starting a family.

Of course, plenty of other things, like the performance of the economy,
can contribute to that as well. Some people have tried to claim, back
in the 80s, that we're richer now than we were in the 60s, even if we
don't feel richer. But what _counts_ is whether males meet the threshold
to own a house and a car, to start a family. Past that threshold, contentment.
Below that threshold, discontent - with all sorts of potential unpleasant
consequences.

Fixing the economy is the obvious first thing to do.

But it is possible this isn't enough. If women are no longer as economically
dependent on men as they were in the 1960s, it _could_ be possible that to
increase the proportion of men happily in long-term relationships to the same
value as in the early 1960s, and thus restore social peace, would require the
achievement of a level of economic performance that simply *is not possible*.

*Then* what?

Well, some people have proposed the solution of getting rid of feminism,
categorizing it as a destructive ideology. If women happily went back to the
kitchen, our society would be content.

I reject this. Why don't they suggest solving our society's economic problems
by re-instating Negro slavery while they're at it? One does not solve social
problems on the backs of an oppressed minority. That's just wrong.

So, instead, trying to find a solution, because one is needed -

because if Western civilization collapses, if we're conquered by Russia or
China, women's rights will also go downhill...

I conclude that one alternative remains. Since *not all women* choose career
over family, all we need is to change the proportions of women to men, so
that the number of women wanting husbands equals the number of men wanting wives,
and then feminism and social stability can co-exist.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:08:28 AM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
> On 7/09/22 18:56, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:53:18 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:

> >> There are always two sides to every story.

> > Only up until the actual facts become known.

> Help!

Of course, though, "known" is a relative term... this is why free speech allows
people to claim, say, that the Earth is flat without going to jail. But it remains
true that, once the truth is known, the statements which contradict the truth
aren't a valid alternative view of the situation, they're just lies.

Objective reality is something that actually exists.

John Savard

On 07/09/2022 15:53, Titus G wrote:
[SNIP]
> There are always two sides to every story. I live happily in the
> socialist state of New Zealand and find the extremes such as US

Aaaannnd there goes what small shreds of credibility you may have been
clinging onto, EnnZed is not a socialist state, not even by the
shallowest reading of Marx and Engels &c.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On 7 Sep 2022 at 08:28:14 BST, ""Gary R. Schmidt"" <grschmidt@acm.org>
wrote:

> On 07/09/2022 15:53, Titus G wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> There are always two sides to every story. I live happily in the
>> socialist state of New Zealand and find the extremes such as US
>
> Aaaannnd there goes what small shreds of credibility you may have been
> clinging onto, EnnZed is not a socialist state, not even by the
> shallowest reading of Marx and Engels &c.
>

You know almost everything TG writes is using tongue in cheek phrasing,
right? Generally in a satirical take on how alt-right nutjobs would
phrase things.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
If you can't measure it, it's not science.

In article <4ad5530c-1252-4217-ab4b-a6d1cb5baa7cn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:53:18 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>> (a follower of D.A.F. de Sade's theory to
>> solve social disharmony but with the SF version of Vat girls),
>
>I needed to Google to determine that the Marquis de Sade was
>Damien Alphonse Francoise de Sade to his friends, and this wasn't
>the online handle of some recent leader of the incel movement.
>
>On the one hand, I think that George Gilder made some good points
>in his books "Naked Nomads" and "Sexual Suicide".
>
>On the other hand, I can't agree with his proposed solutions, or the
>misogyny of the incel movement. Women are people with rights. So
>of course they must be free to seek paid work, and in any field.
>
>But there _is_ a problem if the equality of women, a good thing in
>itself, leads to a large segment of the male population no longer meeting
>the increased cost of starting a family.
>
>Of course, plenty of other things, like the performance of the economy,
>can contribute to that as well. Some people have tried to claim, back
>in the 80s, that we're richer now than we were in the 60s, even if we
>don't feel richer. But what _counts_ is whether males meet the threshold
>to own a house and a car, to start a family. Past that threshold, contentment.
>Below that threshold, discontent - with all sorts of potential unpleasant
>consequences.
>
>Fixing the economy is the obvious first thing to do.
>
>But it is possible this isn't enough. If women are no longer as economically
>dependent on men as they were in the 1960s, it _could_ be possible that to
>increase the proportion of men happily in long-term relationships to the same
>value as in the early 1960s, and thus restore social peace, would require the
>achievement of a level of economic performance that simply *is not possible*.
>
>*Then* what?
>
>Well, some people have proposed the solution of getting rid of feminism,
>categorizing it as a destructive ideology. If women happily went back to the
>kitchen, our society would be content.
>
>I reject this. Why don't they suggest solving our society's economic problems
>by re-instating Negro slavery while they're at it? One does not solve social
>problems on the backs of an oppressed minority. That's just wrong.
>
>So, instead, trying to find a solution, because one is needed -
>
>because if Western civilization collapses, if we're conquered by Russia or
>China, women's rights will also go downhill...
>
>I conclude that one alternative remains. Since *not all women* choose career
>over family, all we need is to change the proportions of women to men, so
>that the number of women wanting husbands equals the number of men
>wanting wives,
>and then feminism and social stability can co-exist.

(Hal Heydt)
Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
family, and two-income families will do quite well.

In article <rHuK0x.146I@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <4ad5530c-1252-4217-ab4b-a6d1cb5baa7cn@googlegroups.com>,
>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:53:18 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>>> (a follower of D.A.F. de Sade's theory to
>>> solve social disharmony but with the SF version of Vat girls),
>>
>>I needed to Google to determine that the Marquis de Sade was
>>Damien Alphonse Francoise de Sade to his friends, and this wasn't
>>the online handle of some recent leader of the incel movement.
>>
>>On the one hand, I think that George Gilder made some good points
>>in his books "Naked Nomads" and "Sexual Suicide".
>>
>>On the other hand, I can't agree with his proposed solutions, or the
>>misogyny of the incel movement. Women are people with rights. So
>>of course they must be free to seek paid work, and in any field.
>>
>>But there _is_ a problem if the equality of women, a good thing in
>>itself, leads to a large segment of the male population no
>longer meeting
>>the increased cost of starting a family.
>>
>>Of course, plenty of other things, like the performance of the economy,
>>can contribute to that as well. Some people have tried to claim, back
>>in the 80s, that we're richer now than we were in the 60s, even if we
>>don't feel richer. But what _counts_ is whether males meet the threshold
>>to own a house and a car, to start a family. Past that
>threshold, contentment.
>>Below that threshold, discontent - with all sorts of potential
>unpleasant
>>consequences.
>>
>>Fixing the economy is the obvious first thing to do.
>>
>>But it is possible this isn't enough. If women are no longer as
>economically
>>dependent on men as they were in the 1960s, it _could_ be
>possible that to
>>increase the proportion of men happily in long-term
>relationships to the same
>>value as in the early 1960s, and thus restore social peace,
>would require the
>>achievement of a level of economic performance that simply *is
>not possible*.
>>
>>*Then* what?
>>
>>Well, some people have proposed the solution of getting rid of feminism,
>>categorizing it as a destructive ideology. If women happily went
>back to the
>>kitchen, our society would be content.
>>
>>I reject this. Why don't they suggest solving our society's
>economic problems
>>by re-instating Negro slavery while they're at it? One does not
>solve social
>>problems on the backs of an oppressed minority. That's just wrong.
>>
>>So, instead, trying to find a solution, because one is needed -
>>
>>because if Western civilization collapses, if we're conquered by
>Russia or
>>China, women's rights will also go downhill...
>>
>>I conclude that one alternative remains. Since *not all women*
>choose career
>>over family, all we need is to change the proportions of women
>to men, so
>>that the number of women wanting husbands equals the number of men
>>wanting wives,
>>and then feminism and social stability can co-exist.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>family, and two-income families will do quite well.

I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll