Where are the extinction-level meteors when you need them?
"No future triumph or metamorphosis can justify the pitiful blighting of a human being against his will." Peter Zapffe
Where are the extinction-level meteors when you need them?
So I got this incredibly, profoundly stupid comments a while ago. I spammed it immediately because it was ridiculously long. But it’s also very funny, so I thought I’d show you some quotes from this book-length MRA comment.
Here’s how the whole thing STARTS:
Ah, more misandric horseshit from Francois Tremblay, Mangina Extraordinaire. It is obvious that a woman came up with this list. At most either Francois was ghostwriting on her behalf by posting this, or she has been ghostwriting for him.
Did “Mark” at “firstname.lastname@example.org” (probably not his real email address) really expect me to publish this comment? Also, I am too stupid to come up with a simple bullet point entry, but apparently smart enough to write the usual entries I post (or is my whole blog ghostwritten by a woman?).
Well, I’d love to know who this woman is so I can learn exactly how the hell she came to hold exactly the same positions as me, because so far I haven’t met anyone else who does… except my wife. Oh, she must be the one writing this blog! Mystery solved???
Anyway, here are some more highlights:
Funny how your entire spiel is about how women are in no way obligated to pleasure men, but men are obligated to pleasure women. Misandry and hypocritical feminist double-standards at their finest! If men are not entitled to sexual pleasure from women, why are women entitled to sexual pleasure from men? It seems that you (and/or the woman who dictated/wrote that above list) is/are sexually uneducated. Whether or not men are obligated to give women anything at all is up for debate. All depends on what that something is, a reasonable precondition being that it is something real. Men are under no obligation to provide women with the impossible, no more obligated to give a woman an orgasm than they are to give her a pet unicorn. Note that “female orgasm” is an oxymoron. The orgasm is nothing more than an evolutionary byproduct of the (male) ejaculation in mammals and other terrestrial vertebrates. And the clitoris is a useless appendage!
AND THE CLITORIS IS A USELESS APPENDAGE!!!!
What do you propose we resort to if not porn? (I think it’s obvious that deep down you believe, like all the really hardcore feminists, that fundamentally ALL heterosexual intercourse is rape.) Would you prefer that men resort to REAL voyeurism, to spy on women in the toilet or changing room or other private areas? I presume not. So wouldn’t it be better if men resort to pornography. And furthermore, that does not even get into how one defines “pornography” to begin with! You say that men: “do not need pornography in order to masturbate any more than women do.” As stated above, women do not need to masturbate because women do not need to ejaculate. Men do.
And in my experience if women ever masturbate it’s out of morbid curiosity, so of course they don’t need pornography in order to masturbate! Of course, I realize that your opposition to pornography is on feminist grounds, namely that it “exploits women.” (Even amateur porn?) Okay, serious question: what are your thoughts on Hentai?
My thoughts on the matter, I am a strong proponent of the MGTOW ideology. I would not consider myself a masculinist, and, though I sympathize with the MRM, reject most of the manosphere seeing them for the thinly veiled FASCISTS that the lot of them are. And I absolutely loathe the PUA and Game community, despise them with a passion.
Feminism is determined to abolish the patriarchy (all well and good), but they want to replace an oppressive patriarchy with an oppressive matriarchy. I have no wish to replace one tyranny with another tyranny. No thank you!
It is obvious that the misandrist fake-anarchist mangina Francois Tremblay is a self-hating male. Might as well chop off his cock-and-balls, he doesn’t deserve them anyway!
This is some hilarious shit right there.
I also spared you a whole lengthy explanation of the alpha/beta/omega MRA conspiracy theory. Did he really think I have never heard of this bullshit? Oh boy.
I found out recently that many feminists are just starting into awaken from the sexual entitlement crap that men put out. I really hope everyone who reads my blog knows all this stuff, but just in case these things need to be said:
* Men don’t need to have sex. Anyone who says they do is trying to manipulate you.
* There is no such thing as “blue balls.” Anyone who tells you they are in pain because you won’t let them ejaculate inside you is trying to manipulate you.
* Erections are not painful. Anyone who says he’s in pain because of an erection you gave him is trying to manipulate you.
* Anyone who has sex with you without giving you at least one orgasm is either a lazy asshole or sexually uneducated. What the hell people, every heterosexual man should know how to give a woman an orgasm, this is basic stuff. Don’t treat it as if it’s normal, don’t ever stand for that shit.
* You do not have to have sex with a man because you made out with him. Anyone who says otherwise is a rapist.
* Men do not need pornography in order to masturbate any more than women do. Any man who tells you he needs his pornography is lying.
I don’t want to be condescending by pointing out this basic stuff out, but as an ally one of my roles is to speak loud and clear against this sort of male manipulation so I thought I should write this. Again, I really hope I’m not telling anyone anything new, but if I am, and you are in a relationship with someone who exhibits such behavior, consider it a big red flag.
I am really pissed off at Jezebel ever since they wrote a hack piece against bell hooks. What did they accuse her of? Of being too old.
What the fuck. I knew Jezebel was a liberal rag, but this is ridiculous.
You’ve got questions, I’ve got answers, part 3! Actually, it’s more like “the two same people as last time sent you a question again.” But hey, this is a small blog so…
But yea, if you have any questions, press the “Ask a question” button on the top left and I’ll do my best to answer.
Is there a connection between eugenics/transhumanism and anti-natalism?
That’s an interesting question. I personally have not heard of any such connection, with one exception: on Youtube I know some people have put forward transhumanism as a “less extreme” alternative to antinatalism in terms of eradicating suffering. The theory is that one day technology might get to the point where we can create new human beings who cannot experience physical or mental suffering in any way, and that this would be an adequate solution.
The obvious antinatalist reply to such a position is that suffering gives human beings a reason to live and strive, and that without it there is no more point to human existence. Without the motivation to reduce other people’s suffering, there is no reason for humans to exist at all. Such an existence would be pleasant enough, but there’s no logical reason to choose it over antinatalism.
Name: Marco den Ouden
Comment: Some of the things on your blog interest me a great deal, others not so much. I am particularly interested in your political theories. I have thought about collecting some of your articles in a sequence and copying them into a pdf or epub document so I can read them at my leisure like a book – in an organized and sequential fashion. Would you be okay with this? Many of your articles contain links back to previous articles and involves some jumping around. Can you list ten or so links to articles that explain your philosophy in an ordered fashion so I have a good place to start and can then proceed article by article. Have you thought of collecting some of your writings into a book? Please do not include anything on feminism or anti-natalism. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter, but it is not what I am interested in reading right now. Just politics, specifically your brand of libertarian socialism.
That’s perfectly fine, I expect there are few (if any) people who are interested in every single topic I write about.
I see no problem with people collecting entries and putting them together, as long as it stays public domain. As for articles that explain my philosophy, I would recommend you look to my list of most important entries. These are the entries that I link to the most, usually because they explain some core principle about ethics or politics. There is some antinatalist stuff there, but not much.
I don’t really believe that any person who has thought about these issues can have a worldview that can be described as going from point A, to point B, to point C. Yes, there are basic principles that we base our thinking on, but often you find out about an idea, agree with it, but it takes you a while to understand how it fits in the bigger picture. The result of my thinking on that subject led me to renaming my blog, as I’ve discussed here.
Finally, I did want to point out, as I did to you by email, that it’s rather incongruous to agree with radical feminism but not with antinatalism, as both are fundamentally connected. I’ve pointed out before the connection between anti-feminism and natalism; now I would go farther and even say that we cannot have feminism without antinatalism, and we cannot have antinatalism without feminism. Those two strands of the human future are inextricably linked. The less we value procreation, the more we’ll value women, and the more we’ll value women, the less we’ll value procreation.
Just watched the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. Ken Ham’s main argument was that “observational science” proves Creationism right and “historical science” – i.e. anything that’s about “the past”- is automatically suspect. Bill Nye’s main argument was that the Creationist claims are extraordinary and require evidence, while our observations do tell us things which are contrary to the Bible. He also pointed out that billions of people are religious and yet disagree with Ken Ham’s cosmology.
In the Q&A, Bill Nye drove it home with his passion for science, while Ken Ham came limping to the barn with repeated assertions that the Bible has all the answers. I think Ken Ham was more focused and overall a better speaker, but Bill Nye was more on point with his replies, had the better arguments, and was more conscious of the message he was there to deliver.
From a technical standpoint, Ken Ham lost the debate by himself. His main argument is that “historical science” cannot be trusted because natural law changes. But another of his main arguments is that only God can explain the uniformity of nature, and therefore science. This is a major contradiction in his position, and destroys everything else he’s said.
In the end, I think both sides won the debate. Ken Ham won simply by having the debate actually happen, and he just slid through the actual debate without taking any risks. I would tend to agree that the debate itself was a bad idea, but Bill Nye hammered the points he was there to give and showed up Creationism’s flaws, so I think he also won.
tnt666 posted this comment on a recent entry, and I thought I should share it because it’s very good. Natalism, capitalism, patriarchy, are all connected.
Biologically, Homo sapiens has not evolved for monogamy and full time maternity. That some females mother, that’s biology, that ALL females pump out cheap labour peons through uterine slavery, that’s patriarchy. Homo sapiens are biologically ready for adult lifestyle after puberty, but we impose infancy now into the 30s… while we impose life into decades of cement hospice living. This insistence on longevity as a guarantor of quality of life is in fact a guarantor of pharmaceutical revenues, that’s patriarchy.
The nuclear-pa-ma-child-as-capitalist-peon, that’s patriarchy. To give offspring to be raised by industry, that’s patriarchy. To deny offspring lactation is patriarchy. A practice rendered popular by missionaries serving patriarchy/capital prohibiting lactation beyond a few months. Thereby creating statistically sickly children, with deficient immunity and psychotic lack of autonomy, that is patriarchy at its finest. The perfect capitalistic peon. A designer slave. Lo and behold an individual might think autonomously, and be autonomous from government aid for the mere act of living. No capitalism needs workers who are medical and emotional slaves, loved/raised by a monetary and pharmaceutical system.
To extirpate ourselves from patriarchy/religion/capital, we must start by extirpating ourselves from the production system, contractual-monogamy/monetary/uterine. To distance oneself from patriarchy/religion/capitalism, we must brush aside religious values and patriarchal culture and reunite with ourselves as biological evolved living beings, come back to the science of life, instead of the delusion of culture and civilisation.
Let us make less babies, but let’s give them the gift of autonomy, physical and mental autonomous health.
I also knew by puberty there was no way I was going to add yet another human to this planet. We are plentiful, no mammal is more numerous than we. Do not other life forms also have any claim to a decent existence?
Dixit my friend Aprelle, who writes at wildsting: “you know one thing I like about sex pozzies- they’ve eroticized sexism.”
Uh… sure, Aprelle.