How long can a Libertarian utopia last?

If Colorado Springs is an indication of this, citizens get tired of it pretty damn fast.

A message for men.

Radical feminist essentialist discusses what it takes for men to regain their humanity.

Women don’t have to be interested in what you want, not in the slightest, they have much bigger problems than you do and deal with tons more on a daily basis, just implying they should care about you is incredibly selfish and ignorant, maybe sometimes think about just how many shit you’d have to deal with if you were born female.

Women, as any other human being, do not deserve to be hurt for any of what they do, weather it’s drinking or partying or the way they dress, if you saw them as human beings this would be clear to you without anyone having to point it out, human beings do not deserve to be hurt for anythng they do, except maybe hurting others.

Women do not owe anything to you, if anything you’ve always made their lives harder.

You do not have the authority to decide what another group of human beings, in this case women, should be talking about, thinking about, or what kind of things they fight for. You do not know what’s better for them, or what decisions they should make. You don’t even understand their situation. It’s crossing the line to even imply there’s stuff they should shut up about. It’s very clear that you hate the idea that they have any freedom. Think about that. You hate the idea of human beings having freedom. What does that make you?

Women don’t owe you their rights, their gratitude, their time or energy or attention. Women have given you life, they’ve been carrying people like you in their womb, sacrificed their bodies so you could exist, they made sure you made it past the drooling crying and diaper period alive, they’ve given you arms and legs and everything there is about you is only there because of women, you don’t feel like the gratitude owed is towards them? It’s thanks to women you’ve been able to eat and drink and live without getting severely sick every few days, it’s thanks to them you have the society and world you have today, women have done everything for this world, while you’ve been figuring out how to hurt them into giving you more, because you consider you still haven’t had enough, and you never plan to give anything back. Learn humility, learn the history of women, learn what they’ve been put thru, what they’ve been fighting for, learn that their experience of this planet is not just as deep but even more deep and menaingful than yours, accept that they will understand and do and struggle with things you can’t even comprehend.

And, even in the case where they haven’t done anything for you, they still don’t owe you a thing. Human beings are not to be at mercy of another group. Women don’t owe it to men to make everything okay for them. Men have made the world a living hell for women, and refuse to even acknowledge it.

Even if it’s not easy to do so, consider that this might be true. Start working towards seeing other human being as human beings, even when they’re female. Apply human rights in every situation. Don’t ever assume anyone likes getting hurt and violated. Don’t ever assume women deserve pain. Don’t ever assume they need to be shown her place. Our place is this planet, as is for all humans. There is no need for one group to dominate another. We could all live free.


The childfree are still seen as outrageous.

From Broadly.: Study Finds People Are Morally Outraged by Those Who Decide Not to Have Kids

Not only did participants perceive the voluntarily childfree male and female subjects to be “significantly less psychologically fulfilled than targets with two children,” Ashburn-Nardo notes, they also reported “significantly greater moral outrage” toward them. These findings offer evidence for the theory that parenthood is seen by some as a moral imperative: “In other words,” the study states, “not having children is seen not only as atypical but also as wrong.”

An interest in having children is “both a prescriptive and descriptive stereotype for men and women,” the researcher writes. “[W]hen people violate strongly held norms and expectations such as those regarding parenthood and interest in children … there are potentially serious consequences. … This backlash is justified in the minds of perceivers because the targets are thought to have brought it upon themselves by not fulfilling their expected roles.”

Ashburb-Nardo draws attention to the fact that both men and women were stigmatized for choosing not to have kids—despite the fact that the conversation around reproductive rights and a woman’s right to choose is so polarizing. “I was somewhat surprised by this too,” she tells Broadly, “but that was probably due to my own personal experiences as a woman. When I looked at the past literature, the few studies that included opportunities for participants to rate men without children yielded similar findings.”

The solution to corruption in Mexico? Kick all the politicians out.

From the LA Times: One Mexican town revolts against violence and corruption. Six years in, its experiment is working

The town of 20,000 sits in the northwest corner of Michoacan, a state where authorities say at least 599 people were killed between January and May, an increase of almost 40% compared with the same period last year. Cheran hasn’t had a slaying or other serious crime since early 2011.

That was the year that residents, most of them indigenous and poor, waged an insurrection and declared self-rule in hopes of ridding themselves of the ills that plague so much of Mexico: raging violence, corrupt politicians, a toothless justice system and gangs that have expanded from drug smuggling to extortion, kidnapping and illegal logging.

Six years in, against all odds, Cheran’s experiment appears to be working.

“We couldn’t trust the authorities or police any more,” said Josefina Estrada, a petite grandmother who is among the women who spearheaded the revolt. “We didn’t feel that they protected us or helped us. We saw them as accomplices with the criminals.”

Response to Jordan Peterson on Antinatalism

How many straight people does it take to have a queer party?

Purple Sage ponders a quandary: what the hell does “queer” mean any more, and how does one hold a queer party?

Anyway, here is the first modern meaning of “queer” demonstrated in this article: “a self-applied term of empowerment.” Yes, “queer” is a label that people apply to themselves to gain something—usually cool points that can be cashed in among liberal friends. Sometimes calling yourself “queer” can even get you material benefits, like giving you an edge when running for a political position or career position in a liberal establishment.

“Empowerment” is a term that comes from the media-led third wave “feminist” backlash against actual feminism. Empowerment™ is a feel-good lifestyle product you can buy from the companies that market it. The thing itself could be anything that capitalism sells—makeup, clothing, plastic surgeries, sexy photos, etc, but the advertising campaign surrounding the thing gives it an aura of Empowerment™. (This consumer product should not be confused with actual power, which is something one cannot earn by purchasing products.) Calling yourself “queer,” in liberal circles, can get you the same vaguely defined Empowerment™ feeling.

“Queerness derives its radical power from its inclusivity.” This is a word salad. Power is the ability to exercise control or influence. You don’t get power from “inclusivity.” I’m not sure what “radical power” would even mean. This is one of those phrases that people just write because the words look pretty when sitting next to each other like that. It doesn’t actually mean anything.

Amit Varma introducing antinatalism on The Hindu Business Line.

Amit Varma writes about antinatalism on a mainstream Indian site. It’s not a great article, but public discussions of antinatalism are pretty rare, so this is a good find.

Let me start by stating three principles that I think you would agree with. One: We should not cause suffering to others. Two: We should not kill anyone. Three: Consent is all-important, and we should do nothing to others without their consent.

Do you agree with those three principles? Well, then, consider that when you have a child, you are basically bringing a person into this world without their consent, where they are guaranteed to a) suffer, and b) die. You are breaching all three of those principles. How can this possibly be ethical?

As my friend, the writer and podcaster Naren Shenoy once said, “If you really love your children, you won’t have them.”