We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Government love

“Tinder Wants Money. We Want Love. The Solution: Socialize Dating Apps”, writes Nick French in Jacobin magazine.

16 comments to Government love

  • bobby b

    The author decries that, to use such an app, one must surrender personal information – delicate and deep information, really – to a private actor.

    And he then moves on to opining we should surrender that same information to government instead?

    I understand that Jacobin looks at “government” and sees “what we all do together”, but this still seems naive, even for those idiots.

    I can’t imagine that my sex life would be improved by bringing Nancy Pelosi’s leadership into the mix. I wouldn’t even want such people to know if I was gay or straight.

  • I wouldn’t even want such people to know if I was gay or straight. (bobby b, June 11, 2022 at 6:26 pm)

    It would hardly matter what you told them you were, bobby b. The latest woke thinking calls it a hate crime for heterosexual men or lesbian women to refuse sex to an M-to-F trans, and etc. I think we can safely assume the government’s app will end such bigoted limitations on possible partners as private apps may currently impose in their greedy profiteering capitalistic exploitation of their customers’ vile prejudices. And government broadening of your sexual experience may of course not stop there; sex is merely a social construct, after all.

  • William O. B'Livion

    Oh Oh Oh.

    Now can we call for the nationalization of web search tools? I mean THOSE we all use…

    No, as much as I detest Google, that was only a joke.

  • Snorri Godhi

    This is one of the reasons why i follow Steve Sailer.

    But far from the best reason.
    Far from the top 3 reasons.

  • bobby b

    Niall K: If I self-identify as a vile bigot – “I used to be a nice guy, but I’ve transitioned and am now a trans-jerk” – don’t they have to honor that choice and shield me from all harm and allow me to swipe as I choose? Don’t I deserve to be safe? Bigots are women . . . er, men . . . or something, too!

    Probably not, I guess. (Sigh.)

  • I absolutely loath Steve Sailer.

  • Fraser Orr

    MY thought on this article is that the problem with reductio ad absurdum is that some people think you are making a serious suggestion and want to implement it. We live in a world where it is hard to tell the difference between ironic sarcasm and earnest ideation.

  • Fraser Orr

    BTW, one other thought — his big complaint is that Tinder wants you money. This is, after all, the theme song of the socialist. What he omits to tell you is that his alternative purveyor of dating services (It is hard to even mention this without laughing derivsively) also wants you money, but is far more interested in controlling you and having power over you. Given the choice between giving up my money and giving up my freedom I don’t have much difficulty choosing.

    (If he thinks it is inappropriate to filter potential dating matches based on race is it also inappropriate to filter out based on body size, age, attractiveness, and gender? An I a fatphobic, agiest, transphobe because I, who prefers your classic blonde European female look, would dare to look for only such ladies? Needless to say, with respect to my previous comment, normal people would say “of course not”, the author would no doubt say “yes, bigot, you should be in jail.”) No doubt his government web site would ban photos just in case you evil bastards try to get a peek and allow that seething pot of evil prejudices and phobias to filter out people you find unattractive.

    God help us if I message “Julie” for a date only to find that she is a fat, ugly black man with a face tattoo, though admittedly wearing a very attractive pink dress and matching pumps.

    And of course “anti vaxers” and “climate deniers” would no doubt be banned, because people like that obviously don’t deserve love.

  • Snorri Godhi

    I absolutely loath Steve Sailer.

    What you should tell us is when was the last time you read his blog.

    His blog is where i first found out that the BLM riots led to a large increase in Black American deaths from murder and road accidents. Many Americans still don’t know that: it goes against the narrative. The information is useful to me only in making me sneer even more at the BLM charade; but who knows that some day i might get information more useful to me in a timely manner?

    I also found Sailer’s blog (or more precisely, his links) informative on trans-issues. But again, this was helpful only in making me confident in rejecting the narrative.

    More recently, perhaps the most interesting thing was a hypothesis of his:
    White “liberals” living in American cities want gun control because they are afraid of Black criminals. But they cannot say this, even to their closest friends, so they pretend that they are scared of White-nationalist hillbillies.

  • What you should tell us is when was the last time you read his blog.

    A couple years ago, not planning on changing that. I regarded his ideas about the natural role of woman laughable. He also strikes me as a jackass.

  • NickM

    I must agree with you. Steve Sailor certainly does, “Wank as high as any in Wome”.

    We have got to a deranged pass indeed in which it is even conceivable (yeah!) that dating should be controlled by the government. Wasn’t it Socrates who had an idea for a rigged mating “lottery” in his Glorious Republic?

    Anyway, everyone in a relationship has (it’s what we are) a story about how that came to pass. How we met etc.

    … ERNIE was the “Man from Del Monte” doesn’t cut it.

    Also… Tinder et. al. are something people choose to use… The government… rather less so 😉

    Snorri, your final paragraph about guns gives your game away. It is just changing the subject. Sailor might have a point there but is that relevant to the OP? At all?

  • Jim

    Surely the logical conclusion of this argument (the socialisation of dating) is that dating (and mating) should be controlled by the State? After all it is manifestly unfair that some people have lots of opportunities in the mating market and others have none. The State should step in to ensure equality of sexual gratification. After all the State taxes our work in order to give money to others who have none, so it should also enforce sexual favours from those who have an excess and transfer them to those who are lacking.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    Sailer does a good job of noticing stuff and puncturing holes in the official narrative. He also admits when he isn’t sure of the data, or when he can’t get definitive info out of the data he finds. He’s actually quite nice, though snarky when people don’t come to the same conclusions he does, often because they missed out key pieces of information.

    And here’s the thing – he tends to be correct. As a wrong-thinker, that’s simply unacceptable.

    As for his views on women… I don’t think he ever really stated his own views on what he thinks they should be doing. He certainly did notice and remind us that there was a period when women (US citizens) were a significant portion of the IT industry, only to be replaced by foreign talent in the 90s. I don’t remember if he thought it was good, bad, or otherwise.

    Reading his posts and much of the commentary is very educational. You may disagree with his conclusions.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Don’t know anything about Steve Sailer’s opinions about “the natural role of women”, but by a remarkable coincidence i am watching Viking Warrior Women on National Geographic. It is blatantly trans-phobic: how do they know that these Viking warriors identified as women??

    There is also a connection to gun control: given that men have on average almost twice the upper body strength of women, gun control would return women to relying on men for protection. Especially when the police is defunded.

  • Doug Jones

    If any government takes over dating it’ll probably be a lot like this:


  • Paul Marks


    It was Plato (writing under the name of Socrates – Socrates was dead and, therefore, could not object to any opinion that Plato presented as coming from “Socrates”), and it was about bringing up the children of the Guardians in common – as families are evil (or something).

    Bertrand Russell preferred Plato to Aristotle – as he held that Aristotle held reactionary opinions on women and so on.

    Up to the 1960s the practices of society, in relation to men and women and families, were broadly in line with Aristotle – now we have gone over to a more Plato style view. I suspect following Plato will not end well – but it is too soon to know for certain.

    But I do wish that socialists such as Bertrand Russell had not hijacked the words “liberal” and even “Whig” – after all those terms used to mean supporting private property (farms, factories and so on) and wanting roll back the state – and socialists have the opposite opinions.