What this blog is and is not about.

In my previous entry on sex-negativity, I banned Anonymouse from the blog for his behavior on the comments thread. Before I banned him for trolling (i.e. if you still do something after I tell you not to do it X number of times, you’re being a troll and wasting everyone’s time), Anonymouse was whining that I present no plan for action on this blog, and that all I do is pointless theorizing.

My response was that my objective on this blog is not to be an activist hub. For one thing, I’m not involved on any activist ground floor and no one knows or cares who I am, so it’s not like I could help direct any group. For another thing, I don’t know much of anything about organizing activist groups and could only give very general advice on this topic.

What exactly is the point of this blog? Keep in mind that this blog is now more than seven years old, so the way I approach it has changed. Originally, I was just using it to think aloud, basically. I was off Goosing the Antithesis, I was kindof done with atheist blogging, and I wanted to go in a political direction. Throughout this blog, I started in the libertarian right, then became a mutualist, then a libsoc. This blog archives my progressive leftism to the point where I am now.

Then I discovered antinatalism, then radical feminism, and now this blog is mostly about those two things. Now I have been learning and writing about it and it’s been a real blast.

Look, I know this blog has never made anyone happy. The voluntaryists have not been happy about my conversion to mutualism, the mutualists have not been happy about my conversion to socialism or my antinatalism, and many antinatalists have not been happy about radical feminism. The fact is, I am a person who is very open to being proven wrong and very open to change, and that means I leave people behind. So this blog has never gathered much steam.

The end point is that if you’re not happy about the stuff I write, simply don’t come here. The subtitle of this blog used to be “you probably shouldn’t be here,” and I meant it. I am not out to censor people but I can’t accommodate the unhappy former fans. There’s not much I can do about that.

What’s the plan of action? What’s the call to arms? How do we topple the State, stop procreation, smash the Patriarchy’s penis, install suicide clinics and abortion clinics on every street corner, and so on and so forth? I really don’t know. It’s not my pessimism but just my ignorance, I really don’t have the knowledge of how to bring those things about.

All I care about is understanding things to the best of my ability and try to get to the core truths of a situation. If I can do that, I’m successful. But I’m just one person who can’t change the world. I know I can’t change anyone’s mind. I know I have some writing abilities and that I can explain my reasoning. That’s it.

If you want to call me a loser for that, or say that I’m not doing the right thing, well, I’m sorry. I don’t accept that judgment. Go tell someone who actually can influence other people. I am not that person and I will never be that person. Pretty much all I can reasonably expect is to help a person here and there understand my side of the arguments better. That’s the furthest reach of my abilities. But what’s wrong with that?

5 thoughts on “What this blog is and is not about.

  1. Marco den Ouden March 2, 2014 at 13:29

    Francois, I don’t agree with much of your current thinking as I am a voluntaryist and libertarian. But your critiques are well-thought out and well-written and help me hone my own thoughts on issues, which are actually in a state of flux. I haven’t read enough of your blog yet to get a good overall sense of left-libertarianism which I am trying to understand. But I am reading it in snippets here and there and find it very interesting, even where I disagree. Keep up the good work.

    • Francois Tremblay March 2, 2014 at 16:10

      I’m glad to hear from you. Given all I’ve written against voluntaryism, I’d say you have much more fortitude than I would ever have. LOL

      You’re right that I haven’t really given a total view of my political position. Perhaps the closest I’ve done is on my About page.
      Tell me if this is not enough and I’ll try to explain it better.

  2. Miep March 2, 2014 at 13:37

    I think a lot of people use their blogs to chronicle their evolution of thought. Really no need to apologize for that.

    Radical feminism at its best poses no threat to anyone but the established order. The “all-men-are-inherently-evil” faction certainly has a right to their opinion, but it’s a defeatist position. We social constructionists are a more upbeat lot, and it is unfortunate when we are overshadowed by the perception that we are all that sort of gender essentialist.

    • Francois Tremblay March 2, 2014 at 16:11

      Honestly I think both sides have good arguments, but as a gender atheist I guess I’m on the “men-can-be-reformed” side by default. No one has shown me that social constructionism is invalid in this area.

      • qwertyuio March 3, 2014 at 05:44

        Cathy B. makes good points about that divide: “Males and females are humans. Males are born with anatomy that enables them to impregnate females. Females are born with anatomy that enables them to become pregnant. That’s human biology; humans are sexually dimorphic. This is how reproduction occurs. These statements have become controversial in post-modern times, but long after I am dead, my body will be identified as a female skeleton on the basis of my biology. My skeleton will probably also reveal that I’ve given birth.

        That one is born male does not make said human “evil” or “a rapist” or “bad,” anymore than being born female makes said human “angelic” or “nuturing” or “a mother.”

        Are males biologically predisposed to violence? I suppose that’s the big question, right? I suppose I would ask, does it matter? There is abundant and overwhelming evidence that males as a class commit the overwhelming amount of violence that occurs in the world. That fact alone is reason enough for women to decide to disengage from males as much as they can. Women should be supported in disengagement without having to determine whether or not males are inherently violent.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: