The Ten Levels of Libertarian Crazy

Pretty amusing, and all in good fun. I think I only land in two levels:

2. Students for Liberty Member/Donor/Supporter

The next level of libertarian crazy is people involved in organizations like SFL or Young Americans for Liberty. Big tent organizations that tend to be fond of looking fairly mainstream, wearing appropriate clothing to events, and talking about libertarian solutions to real problems rather than esoteric ones. These are go-getters, and the single best group for outreach to the Muggle world. They probably got into liberty because of Ron Paul, so be careful what you say about him – but they’re generally the friendliest, youngest and best-looking bunch of the crazy, so this is your best option in terms of dating pool.

5. Liberty Blogger or YouTuber

Numerous websites now host the words of libertarian bloggers (ahem). To top that off –  there are now also tons of channels with dynamic, generally young, liberty-minded individuals making videos on philosophy, practicality or hilarious stunts in the name of liberty. Some are really informative, some are really creepy, but production of easily sharable information is certainly beneficial to the movement. Avoid being a crazy fan when you meet them, but by all means, share their content and talk to them about it. There’s nothing like hearing “I loved that piece you wrote” from a stranger. Unless it’s followed by Creepertarian lip-licking. Avoid that. 

Ha, I’m 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8. I was just talking about Bitcoins with people at the last LP county committee meeting and everybody there had an opinion on the Atlas Shrugged movies.


“Perhaps if being single were an acceptable, even valued, lifestyle, partnerships might develop more out of choice and less out of necessity or a desperate grab for salvation.”

— Easton and Hardy (via cecropia)

I’ve been thinking about this lately and I think it’s shaped by how our tax structure works. Getting married brings with it some potentially huge tax advantages, and they are greatest if one partner works and one does not. The breadwinner/homemaker model is subsidized by the state, although not nearly to the extent that single motherhood is. Being a single childless person means you’re taxed to the fullest extent of the law and generally do not engage in several activities that are heavily subsidized. Education is the major one but home ownership is another. Social Security reinforces the breadwinner/homemaker model as well. And everything related to insurance and health care gives benefits to married couples not available to unmarried ones.

If we had a more rational system of divorce I think marriage would be something everybody did as soon as possible just for economic reasons, as they did a century ago. But now you’d better be damn sure you’re making the right choice if you’re going to marry anyone, because divorce is that likely and that costly. Waiting past your youngest and dumbest years is probably a good idea, and it’s rational for both partners to secure independent sources of income just in case the marriage fails, which means our total fertility has dropped below replacement. That’s not a possibility Social Security was ever designed to deal with, which is leading us into a demographic and fiscal apocalypse, but that’s another post.

My father and his father have seven marriages between them, so I’m thinking my odds of staying married to anyone are worse than most, but no one has very good odds. Fathering children out of wedlock is a bad idea for a number of reasons in our society. So the smart move right now appears to be remaining a single, childless adult. This actually suits me personally pretty well but it’s probably not a good thing if EVERYBODY does it. But I think being single is going to keep becoming more accepted and celebrated. Especially for women.

I think the state’s long-sought-after goal has finally been reached - individuals are becoming completely atomized, without any family or solid social grouping it doesn’t control. Our generation is almost totally dependent on Uncle Sam now. We need to come up with some kind of alternative arrangement that is still practical in this environment of terrible incentives, and I think some form of polyamory might be the way for at least some of us to maintain strong ties to one another. I’m still developing my thoughts on the specifics. Anyway, this post is long and rambling enough.

Oh my god, I bet this felt so good. Like a thousand orgasms of justice.
My parking structure at work has tighter spaces than those and lots of people don’t even try to not take up two spaces. They ticket our clients for parking for 61 minutes in the one hour parking but some douchebag with a Porsche roadster (easily able to fit into a single space) parks diagonally across two spots every day but apparently that’s fine.

Oh my god, I bet this felt so good. Like a thousand orgasms of justice.

My parking structure at work has tighter spaces than those and lots of people don’t even try to not take up two spaces. They ticket our clients for parking for 61 minutes in the one hour parking but some douchebag with a Porsche roadster (easily able to fit into a single space) parks diagonally across two spots every day but apparently that’s fine.

Reblogged from For animated GIFs

Anonymous said: You appear to be male, and you get messaged (i.e., not just replies to conversations you've initiated) on OKC. How does that work?


*scratches goatee* Yes, yes, it would indeed appear that I am male.

So. How does that work? Well, see, first a woman views my profile. Then she decides to message me. Then I post it online for the entire world to see. :P


But seriously, if you’re a guy (or, at least a straight guy), you’re not going to get very many profile views, and very few messages. This is true even for guys I know who I would consider both beautiful and eloquent. And, yet, I manage to hold onto the coveted red “replies very selectively” mark because I actually do get a lot of messages, though most of them are pretty lame and immediately get deleted.

So here’s my secret for how to drive more messages:

1) Get more profile views.I drive a lot of my visitors from being active.

a. I’m constantly online. Like, literally, 24/7. I have use an “auto-refresh” browser extension to keep me active on the site, so I will show up in each and every search someone runs of users who are currently online, no matter if I’m actually sitting at my computer or on my phone.

b. Of even greater importance is to take up as much real estate as possible on OkCupid users’ “Recent Activity” feed on their home page. What’s the easiest way to do that? Every time you answer a question (in the “Questions” section of your profile, obviously) you have the chance to show up in a lot of people’s activity feed. The key is to fill as much of that space as possible. For me, I continuously re-answer about 50 of the same questions for which I’ve written long (and occasionally controversial) explanations. So I’m constantly showing up on women’s activity feeds, and taking up a lot of space doing it. This, I think, is very key.

2) Have an actually interesting profileOnce someone has clicked onto your profile, you need to give them a reason to stay. I admit that my profile is long. Very long. Probably way too long. But I split it between serious analysis of social roles, politics, and certainly relationship theory (given that I’m, y’know, not interested in monogamy), and varying degrees of humor from lighthearted to biting sarcasm. There’s something that almost anyone can find interesting. I certainly can’t claim to be the master at profile-writing, but I think my personality shines through pretty well. 

3) Be physically attractive. Yeah. Women judge us guys on our appearances, too. I’m fortunate enough to say that I’m reasonably attractive, in decent shape, and distinctive-looking enough to catch people’s eyes as they scroll through profiles, so that helps. If that doesn’t work, have an interesting enough main profile photo that you’ll get clicked on.

So, that’s my recipe for being messaged. No great secrets. Just a few interesting things I’ve figured out about OkCupid’s system. No doubt it helps being in an enormous metropolitan area with thousands upon thousands of active users on any given day. I have no recent experience on any other dating sites so I can’t even begin to comment on how they work, nor can I say how it would work in different geographical or cultural areas beyond my weird little sliver of Southern California.

BTW, I put that John C. McGinley GIF in my post way too early. I had to stare at his mug for the entire time it took to write this message. That fucker is definitely going to haunt my dreams tonight.

You are 100% right in part 1b. Answering a ton of questions will spam you to the recent activity feed of every woman in a huge radius and that is very key if you want to actually receive first messages from women. The last time I went through my questions and reanswered a hundred of them I wound up getting no fewer than four new ladyfriends out of it, including one that I eventually moved in with. They all messaged me first.

After about three weeks my flood of hilarious/offensive answers (my personal favorite: “Q: Will whoever goes through your belongings after you die be shocked by what they find? A: Depends on if they try to figure out what my violet wand is by plugging it in or not”) washing over their homepages abated and I’ve rarely had first messages from women since. I’ve found, though, that I generally go out with higher quality people if I’m the one doing the messaging, so I actually do my best to avoid answering questions these days.

Reblogged from PSYCHOphancy


There are heteronormative ideas of monogamous and procreation-focused sexuality that poly and kink don’t fit.

I think there are even ways poly and kink can be actively used to subvert heteronormativity. Kink that plays with gender roles, perhaps. Or maybe poly relationships that emphasize personal autonomy replacing possessiveness.

But there are also ways in which poly and kink relationships can thoroughly embrace and assert heteronomative values.

For example: Dominant male, submissive female relationships that are premised on these gendered roles being a natural fit.

Or: “One Penis Policies” that, even while condoning same-gender relationships, also delegitimize them by framing them as less real and significant.

There are lots of ways male privilege and sexism can play out in kink and poly relationships, particularly when partners take on roles and arrangements without consciousness and critique.

Supporting poly and kink doesn’t mean supporting every instance of these relationships. Alternative sexualities and relationship styles can be problematic in the same ways as the mainstream.

And there are plenty of ways male privilege and sexism can play out in vanilla and monogamous relationships, which should also be engaged in consciously and examined critically.

Consider this: maybe it’d be more productive to treat people who are brave and freethinking enough to embrace being kinky or poly but who don’t fit your ideals otherwise with encouragement rather than criticism and scorn? Give them gold star stickers for trying. They’re significantly less ‘problematic’ than the average person if they’ve come that far.

What does ‘not supporting’ someone else’s relationship mean to you? What exactly do you think society should do to people with a One Penis Policy? Should kinksters who believe in gender essentialism (which, although I disagree with it, is honestly a pretty reasonable conclusion to jump to at first glance) be locked in the stocks or something?

Can you not be happy for people who have found love and fulfillment if their relationship style is too heteronormative? If that’s the case, then aren’t YOU kind of problematic? Isn’t being too critical and unsupporting of loving relationships between consenting adults what homophobes do? Try flipping your post to exchange ‘vanilla’ for ‘kinky,’ ‘mono’ for ‘poly,’ ‘sinful’ for ‘problematic,’ etc and see how you sound. Your whole post is about excluding and attacking people who think differently from you. Maybe the next time you feel the urge to criticize you should look in the mirror.

Reblogged from Poly Notes


AU where polyamory is 100% societally acceptable, so dystopian novels for teenage girls are forced to focus on something other than contrived love triangles.

Reblogged from Learning to be Poly
Reblogged from Oh, How Degrading...

Anonymous said: Are women as smart as men?





Odd question. Are short people as literate as tall people?

I know this was supposed to be rhetorical but height and intelligence are actually slightly positively correlated, so short people are probably a tad less literate than tall people on average. If only because people who suffered from serious childhood malnutrition or disease grow up to be both shorter and less intelligent than they otherwise would be.

There is a non-rhetorical answer to the original question, too, but it’s doubleplusunPC to point it out.

The question itself doesn’t really make sense though. Men and women dont have a collective mind which we can compare to one another. And the same thing can apply to invertegender’s question, which is why, im sure, they posted it that way in response.

True, but that’s exactly why it’s safe to assume they mean on average.

Reblogged from Untitled