There's some evidence that this is exactly what popular attitudes declaring something "gay" actually is - equalizing men with women.
And thus you can accuse both misogynists and homophobes of also being misandrists, since they clearly despise men enough to deprive them of choice as well.
He was a loud defender of Scott during the recent NYT thing. I don't know how close he is with the rationalists, but he strikes me as squarely in the NRx wheelhouse.
It’s contextual, I’m sure I’ve removed Nick Land stuff a few times for being low-effort or off-topic, but you’re right in that there’s plenty of relevant Nick Land stuff to go around
My edited reaction was after looking at his timeline. I'm not going to go back over it for examples, but he had a lot of specifically rationalist discussion on it. I could be wrong but my impression after that cursory look was a SlateStar-Moldbug guy rather than, say, a Moldbug guy who occasionally mentions SSC.
I know what “The Gig Economy” is as a general concept (one would hope that that would be true of somebody who stakes part of his minor reputation on economics commentary), but I have no idea what you’re referring to here
It's a [techno-lovecraftian horror short story](https://zerohplovecraft.wordpress.com/2018/05/11/the-gig-economy-2/). I thought it was okay, but I read it before I realized the author was a creepy NRx dork, so I assume there's a bunch of stuff in there that reads pretty creepy with context.
Thanks for the rec
I may check it out anyway since I’m not averse to reading shit with creepy NRx or similarly unpleasant motives/undertones
For fuck’s sake I’ve been re-reading Khomeini’s poetry for fun, so
the first half is pretty good, the story sort of flounders after that
every word you read from the guy after that will disappoint you
the genre is neoreactionary self-blackpilling as aesthetic, what Nick Land does pretty much (except 0HP is more coherent, but that's a pretty low bar)
>For fuck’s sake I’ve been re-reading Khomeini’s poetry for fun, so
Try the OG [Abu Nuwas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nuwas) for some medieval Islamic-Bacchic poetry
Here they talk about rationalists, and how they used to be one. Given the negative views they seem to hold of rationalists and the disagreements they have with them I'd personally say this doesn't fit here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1276138147521400833
edit: I read some more and no longer agree with my own comment
ur-OP in comments: “It’s idiotic to pretend that any time a man
doesn’t want to work around women, it’s because he is carrying some deep
psychic wound.” Am I an idiot for thinking that being willing to spend
up to 20% of your salary (up to 50%, according to some polled)
to avoid working with or around women constitutes a psychic wound in
itself?
How is spending half your wealth on avoiding half the people on earth
for half of your waking life not a disorder?
Weird how they blame women for that *when it didn't happen*.
Double the workforce doesn't mean half the value of labor, because the new workers spend their new money too and increase demand in turn.
the decrease in wages due to the increase in labor force participation is a pretty well documented empirical issue though. Elizabeth Warren even wrote a book about it called The Two Income Trap.
The wage decline has more to do with the shift from an economy centered on manufacturing to service due to off-shoring and automation. The old manufacturing unions got busted, and the service unions were much weaker (and there were/are fewer of them). That these things happened as women began to really enter the workforce is a coincidence, but makes for a convenient excuse if you have an ideological interest in not implicating the tenets of neoliberal capitalism
Working in a company with women is not the issue. Working in close
proximity to them when you’re trying to focus = huge issue.
I’m curious what this “huge issue” is. My coworkers who are women are
great, I feel lucky to have them as coworkers. I’ve never had women
coworkers cause problems in terms of focus at work
I'm going to assume the issue is sexual attraction. Which makes this another case where people forget bisexual and gay people exist.
E: so many of those other comments are so bad.
But their high T levels makes that impossible, it is a biological necessity (iirc Epstein said something like this) for them to have an orgasm when a woman comes nearby. [Here is the science about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4)
Honestly I and many others have sometimes been cagey about sexuality in the workplace for that very reason
You either end up with great friends because who love the novelty of *queer* dirty jokes or that guy who always looks at you funny as you walk by, and you don’t want that guy to be your supervisor
Should we just let these MGTOWs gtow? If people want to be excluded
from civil society so bad that they’re willing to pay the price, is
there a way we can take their money and send them off to an island or
something? Is it ethical (desirable? practical?) to segregate
segregationists?
They're no more genuine segregationists than the racial segregationists were. Their fantasies are to stride among women but be unopposed, as the glowing god-kings they delude themselves to be between crying sessions in the basement.
Good take. I think one could argue that segregationists believe such because they feel safe in the assumption that they're certain to benefit disproportionately from the inevitable failure of the separation to be truly "separate but equal."
The evidence is clear - segregation is is *per se* discrimination. But even if you were some kind of "gender realist" who truly believed that men and women in the same workplace is a fraught, toxic hellscape -- and even if you (god help me) found a way to inventing the first segregated system with total parity -- you'd ultimately just be carrying water for those for whom segregation is a means to an openly diabolical end.
I know it's not logical to reject an argument just because everyone else making your argument is a regressive cryptofascist chud, but it
sure is efficient, and practical besides.
“Hey fellas, is it gay to work with women?”
Is this a rationalist or what am I looking at here?
EDIT: oh god this guy is so horrible
ur-OP in comments: “It’s idiotic to pretend that any time a man doesn’t want to work around women, it’s because he is carrying some deep psychic wound.” Am I an idiot for thinking that being willing to spend up to 20% of your salary (up to 50%, according to some polled) to avoid working with or around women constitutes a psychic wound in itself?
How is spending half your wealth on avoiding half the people on earth for half of your waking life not a disorder?
So no option for men who actually prefer to work at a company with at least 1 woman, huh? Very unbiased and objective poll, that.
Has anyone been able to make sense of this exchange: > Bill Walker: You left out how much to work somewhere with more women.
There is … an automatic paycut for working with women? I honestly have no idea what ZPHL is getting at here.
I actually really enjoyed Stefan Molyneux’s response to this
I’m curious what this “huge issue” is. My coworkers who are women are great, I feel lucky to have them as coworkers. I’ve never had women coworkers cause problems in terms of focus at work
Should we just let these MGTOWs gtow? If people want to be excluded from civil society so bad that they’re willing to pay the price, is there a way we can take their money and send them off to an island or something? Is it ethical (desirable? practical?) to segregate segregationists?