Category Archives: Q&A

Ask a Question 11.

I haven’t done one of these for a while. But to compensate, there are three questions. Well, one of them is not as much a question as a compliment. And what better reason to publish something, I ask you??


Name: kenshikenji
Comment: hello, i listened to a FDR podcast debate with you and stephan about UPB. We share the same criticisms of molyneux. The primary mistake with stephan is he conflates normative and positive claims when he sets out on his “proof”. Would like to compare your analysis with mine on UPB and was wondering if you would be interested in critiquing my philosophy and definition set. I think you will find my defintion of morality and property very logically consistent.

I’m afraid I couldn’t really make heads of tails of your explanation. There seems to be no explanation for the crucial term “maximizing self existence,” for one thing. It’s all very conceptual and ethereal.

I did want to correct one thing, though. In this, you criticize Labor Theory of Value, which is something I’ve written a lot about:

“The Labor Theory of Value says the value of good is derived from the labor inputs that went into that goods production. This is wrong because it is the relative value of a good that determines how much labor and other resources go into producing that good. If value were truly determined by labor inputs, producers would never be concerned with making a profit or avoiding loss since they would be guaranteed to recoup all the cost of producing that good. You dont see the vast majority of goods that arent brought to market because they were thought to be unprofitable.”

That’s just a more conceptual version of the mudpile argument, which I’ve already discussed as a misunderstanding of the relation between personal preference and economic value. Economic value is not directly related to personal preference, but preferences in society do dictate whether a product has any economic value or not.


Name: Amanda
Comment: I noticed you have radical ideas about gender on your blog, which is great, but it seems you follow the current ‘radfem’ idea of sexuality, which is that the current culture of sexual orientation is rather beyond criticism. I wanted to suggest some reading to you that might bring some awareness of the original radical feminist (and gay lib) critique of the culture of sexual orientation. I apologize if you’ve read this all before (I read you are not an avid reader so I will suggest only relevant passages): Andrea Dworkin Woman-Hating: Chapter 8 and 9, Dworkin Our Blood part 1 and 9. Which can be downloaded free here:
All very short.
Please disregard this is if it is not relevant to your blog or is uninteresting, only I find the few times Dworkin is mentioned among radfems it is to invoke her anti-pornography ideals, and that her other ideas have nearly been forgotten. Plus, I may have interpreted wrong, but I think her writing assumes determinism to an extent almost every other feminist work does not, and seems to actually be quite hostile to the concept of free-will and choice. And yes you will read her “defending” transexualism, bestiality and incest (which I imagine is what has repelled radfems)
Also Stoltenberg’s infamous Refusing to be a Man is an interesting book all around in and assumes determinism but part II is particularly relevant.
Sorry again if this concept is not relevant to your blog our congruent with your ideals. (if ever you make a post in relation to this comment please do not list my name or e-mail address as I have faced much abuse and scorn from radfems and lesbian separatists for advocating Dworkin’s call to pansexuality. Not to mention the horror show [which I realized then as now is totally understandable] I unleashed when I supported her analysis of incest.)

No, I don’t agree that sexual orientation is beyond criticism. I don’t mind wading into controversial topics, as long as I think they’re important and relevant to my usual subjects. In this case, I don’t really think it would be worth it.

My basic position is that all claims that a specific human behavior is innate should be rejected immediately unless we get strong scientific evidence to support it. Evolutionary psychology has shown that it’s ridiculously easy to posit plausible sounding just-so stories that are completely unsupported by facts. I also don’t believe that sexual orientation is a “choice” any more than I believe anything else is a “choice.” So both explanations are very implausible to me.


Name: Natalia
Comment: Excuse me if this is the wrong place to comment but I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you for your fantastic writing. I love your calm and rational style and am grateful for your voice. I have learned a lot from reading your blog and found the posts on transgender the most interesting. I am not such an eloquent thinker myself and you have articulated ideas for me that I have been grappling with for a while now. Thank you Thank you Thank you!
Best wishes,

Thank you very much! I’m glad you like the blog. If I can help you “get” something, then all the better.


Keep sending in those questions!

Ask a Question 10.

Hey, I’m on my tenth of this. Didn’t really expect to get to this, so thanks to everyone who’s sent me questions! Pretty cool.


Name: Isabella
Comment: Hi! Your blog is awesome! Keep fighting against those bigots MRAs, they just won’t stop.
Question 1: Do you have a Tumblr?
Question 2: Is it possible for you to post a list of threats from MRAs (or just the bad things they do/say)?
Much appreciated! Thank you & stay safe!

No, I don’t have a tumblr. I’ve never really understood what the point of tumblr was, or why one should use it, or how it all even works. I usually can’t make heads or tails of it, and once you read enough tumblrs, they all kinda meld together because everyone reposts everyone else.

As for threats from MRAs, I’m not sure if you’re talking about threats to me or threats to others in general. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten any threats from MRAs, as they are generally too befuddled by a man arguing with them to have the presence of mind to make threats. As a general idea of the kind of threats they muster, you can always check out We Hunted The Mammoth.


Name: Black Metal Valkyrie
Comment: Hi Francois: I noticed you are a pro-feminist male with respect for feminist theory. There is a communist org called LLCO which released a book on their stance on women’s issues. It’s extremely problematic and I was hoping that some pro-feminist men with respect and regard to feminist works and understanding of radical leftism as well could respond to it and debunk it.

A Lulu book written by “Leading Light Commander Prairie Fire”? Yea, I’ll get right on that (and yes, I do realize the irony that I also have a book on Lulu). Maybe someone here will comment if they’ve read the book. From the abstract, it seems to be an “imperialism is more important than sexism” sort of argument, which is just oppression olympics.

Of course Western activists should not speak over activists in other societies and assume that what makes sense in our societies makes sense in theirs, but the fact that First World women benefit from imperialism and Third World women suffer from it does not deny the validity of feminism in the Third World. Gender hierarchies exists all over the world and so does anti-genderism. What it does point out is the importance of integrating anti-imperialism in feminist thought, which, from what I’ve seen, is not a problem for radical feminists.


Ask a Question 9

All right, two new questions.


Name: naer
Comment: Was a big fan of your helbound allee show. Whatever happened to it?

The Hellbound Alleee Show was a podcast that my wife and I did. It lasted quite a long time, but eventually we just ran out of steam. Unfortunately the archives are now gone. Alleee has gone on to do Mondo Diablo. I’m not doing anything, insofar as podcasts go.


Name: Sophie
Comment: Hello. I first came to your blog a few months ago and I’ve got questions.

Isn’t forced sterilization totalitarian and therefore immoral?

If someone believes that procreation is immoral they shouldn’t procreate. But what right do they have to impose their morality on others?

Only a small minority of people regret being born. Why should everyone be sterilized because only a few people will create children who will regret being born?

Forced sterilization used as an ethnic, racial or classist weapon is clearly immoral, I would think, and that’s exclusively how it’s been used. And frankly I don’t see any government using it any other way.

Your second question is very silly. We always impose our morality on others, and we could hardly live in society without it. We definitely do want to tell people they’re not permitted to kill or harm us, steal from us, and so on. Any indignation at someone trying to impose their morality on others is disingenuous.

That being said, you seem to think I am advocating sterilizing everyone by force. I’m pretty sure I never said that, because it’s an unrealistic idea and it’s also a coercive course of action that would itself cause a lot of suffering. Since the end goal here is to cause less suffering, that would seem counter-productive to say the least.

That also answers your last question, although you seem to be veering into the “everyone’s happy so why be against life?” nonsense. As I’ve pointed out before, this argument doesn’t touch on antinatalism in the slightest, because antinatalism is about not starting new lives, not about existing lives being regrettable. The fact that you are alive as a biological organism means that you constantly have reasons to want to stay alive. It is only natural that few people regret being alive. I certainly don’t regret my life, but so what? That doesn’t prove anything.

Ask a Question 8

You’ve got questions, I’ve got answers (maybe)! We’ve got two good long questions today, so let’s get to it.


Name: Anonymous
Comment: Hey, I found your blog a couple of days ago and really like your stuff on AN even though I don’t share your position on anarchism for mostly practical more than ideological reasons.

My question is – given a hypothetical “terrorist” who manages to synthesize a virus or something similar that has the capability of rendering every single living human sterile with no possibility of a fertility treatment for anyone, would you be willing to be the one to release it? More generally, what’s your take on the practicalities of antinatalism and how much of your freedom-based ideals would you be willing to give up to actually see global infertility?

Your first question is very similar to the “red button” scenario (which I already discussed in the case of Anarchism): if you could press a button which would magically resolve the issue you’re concerned about, would you do it? The trouble is in the details, of course.

In the case of antinatalism, there are two basic “red button” scenarios: one where all sentient life is rendered non-existent, and another where all sentient life is sterilized. I strenuously object to the former because, no matter how much worse existence is, we all have the right to continue to exist and I don’t think we can make such decisions for other people.

The case of sterilization is much easier, since we don’t have the right to procreate, and sterilization prevents suffering. The main issue with your question, from an antinatalist perspective, would be that it’s restricted to humans: even a plummeting human population would still be free to inflict suffering on other species (through the continued use of factory farming, for example), and when humans are gone those species would continue to exist and experience suffering.

Would I be willing to release such a viral agent? Doing so would come at great personal risks, one assumes, but I don’t see why not.

Your second question seems to be based on some assumption that implementing antinatalism would be counter to freedom-based ideals. On the contrary, both stances are based on the same fundamental principles: do not use people as means to an end, and assume all hierarchies and privileges are invalid unless proven otherwise. It would be abstruse for an advocate of self-government to promote natalism, and it wouldn’t make much sense for a statist to be an antinatalist, or at least that’s how it seems to me (although I have run into one antinatalist Christian, so I guess people can rationalize quite a lot).

Keeping in mind that antinatalism means that procreation is wrong, I certainly think antinatalism is practical, insofar as it informs people’s choices. But if by “antinatalism” you mean human extinction through ending procreation, then no, I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. I think humans are in far, far greater danger from the Collapse, global warming, World War 3, grey goo, or whatever other doomsday we can bring on ourselves, than from ceasing to procreate.


Name: Hil
Comment: hey, i love your blog. My question is about repression of women. I like how in your genderism, trans theory, and hostility to radfems, you describe how gender should be eliminated as a social construct, where other theories use it as a basis (division). I noticed too, how women get oppressed by males through a patriarchal system to ‘put females in their place’, i noticed also there is an echo of this behavior in trans circles: why is dismissing women ok, but to shine light on trans bullying women not ok to discuss or acknowledge? how do they win allies by being hostile to the gender theyre trying to be (replace?)

I don’t want to speak for transgender people, and I think most of them, like most people in general, couldn’t care less about gender politics and just accept the options that are presented to them. It is the trans genderists I write against, the advocates of this new trans conception of gender, because gender reduces itself to the subjection of women.

I don’t think trans genderists want radical feminists as their allies, because radical feminism is too small. They’re going for the mainstream, the liberal feminists and the sex-positives, and in order to gain cred as a liberal feminist, one of the things you do is shit on radical feminists (usually, shit on their positions against pornography, against prostitution, against BDSM, stuff like that). That’s just how it works.

I don’t know if you noticed that, but I added Violent Threats to my radfem blogroll. This is a blog which lists all the death threats made against radfem (and some made by radfem as well), mostly by trans advocates. So this can be pretty instructive as to the nature of the “debate.”

Another obvious issue is that radical feminists are against gender, as you pointed out, and a lot of transgender people use gender as their primary self-identification. So when they try to engage the ideology (if they indeed do so), they feel as if radfems are attacking them personally, as if they want transgender people to fall to the wayside.

The basic fact of the matter is that transwomen were socialized as men. Now, I’ve got nothing against people who were socialized as men (I’m one myself!), but such people need to stay out of feminism in general unless they examine their privilege and genuinely listen to what women know. I know some transwomen do this, and I am grateful for that, but most do not (again, like most people, they have no particular motivation to care).


Thank you to Anonymous and Hil, and keep sending those questions.

Ask a Question 7

I have three questions this time. That’s 1.5 times the usual levels of FUN!


Name: ondrea
Comment: is the world today more towards a culture of life,or towards a culture of death ,and why?

That’s a complicated question because the terms can be used in many different ways. From an antinatalist standpoint, we can meaningfully say that we live in a culture of life, in the sense that people do not question the necessity to create new human beings and the assertion that sentient life is worth preserving. From another standpoint, I’ve written an entry about how we live in a culture of death, in the sense that we are desensitized to death, preach death, have death-oriented religions, and want to stamp out all that’s vital in children.

So it’s really a matter of the metaphorical aspect you’re using when you’re using the terms “life” and “death.”


Name: Louise
Comment: Hi –

First of all I really like your posts on sex positivism and couldn’t agree with you more!

I’m also interested in your opinions on anti-natalism – would you mind elaborating on your stance a little? I’m working towards a PhD on motherhood and I know very little about this movement – would love to know more.

Thanks and all the best,

Your question was not very specific, so I don’t really know what you want me to clarify. I’ve written quite a bit on the subject. For a sort of introduction-level reading, I would recommend the following:

A little lexicon: childfree, antinatalist, efilist.
Making the case for antinatalism.

Please don’t hesitate to ask me another question if you want to get into more specific issues.


Name: Ethan
Comment: Hello there. Awhile ago a friend had linked me to your work that was discussing critique of radical feminism from a transgender persons perspective. It’s my understanding that some radical feminists or “TERFS” as they’re commonly called, don’t believe that transgendered women can rightly claim womanhood. Could you elaborate more on your position in relation to this? I understand that gender is purely a social construct, but I don’t understand what’s inherently wrong about choosing to make your biological sex match up to what’s in your head, or as Gloria Steinem says “making the shoe fit” and I don’t understand why we shouldn’t ally ourselves with transgender people in the struggle against patriarchy. I condemn people like Cathy Brennan that actively seek to stand in the way of transgender rights, but it also seems that the word “TERF” is often used as a snarl world to dismiss legitimate points such as biological femaleness being an integral part of women’s oppression. Could you offer some clarity or insight into this issue?

I do have entries on this term “TERF” and criticizing trans genderist arguments coming later, but I will answer your question in general terms.

You say “some” radical feminists are TERFs (although you should be aware that the term “TERF” is used as a slur most of the time), but this is incorrect. All radical feminists are against gender to some degree and must therefore be TERFs, because the concept of “trans inclusion” necessarily means acceptance of the doctrine of trans genderism in toto– including the belief that gender does dictate behavior, and that people who act in ways incompatible with their gender must switch to the other gender for their behavior to agree with their gender.

This is why your statement that we should all ally with transgender people against patriarchy doesn’t make any sense. Trans genderism is just another form of genderism and is no more liberatory for women than traditional genderism (patriarchy).

You also refer to “make your biological sex match up to what’s in your head.” The latter is the concept of innate gender, which is a construct made up by trans genderists, as I’ve discussed here. I honestly don’t care what transgender people do with their own bodies, and they can adjust their bodies to fit some imaginary mental gender if they want to. I no more begrudge them that right than I begrudge a religious person’s right to worship the god they feel exists in their “hearts.” But that does not confer any obligation upon any feminist to recognize gender as valid, any more than revelation confers any obligation upon atheists to recognize God as real. And most importantly, I also recognize that both the religious believer’s feelings and the transgender person’s feelings are heavily conditioned by society: they did not appear out of nowhere or out of some hidden part of their brain.

The primordial issue is protecting women’s spaces. That is a vital issue because women’s spaces are absolutely necessary for feminism to advance, and that’s always been true historically. People who are born and socialized as men do not understand male privilege (unless they make the effort to listen to women and understand their position, which is something very few men ever attempt) and should not participate in feminist dialogue. Most transwomen believe that, by becoming transwomen, they are automatically entitled to the status of woman, while retaining their socialization as men.

You will note that most treatments of this issue, even the more serious treatments of the issue by transgender people, do not discuss socialization, because they have no ready answer to it (except the very weak gambit of “but we’re all raised differently,” which is not denied by the framework of socialization anyway). I am aware that such treatments do exist, however, and I intend to address them at a later time.

As an anti-genderist, I don’t believe in the validity of “womanhood,” and neither do most radical feminists, so this is not a concern. The issue of whether transwomen are “really women” or not diverts attention from the fact that they were socialized as men, which is the real issue. On that issue, I definitely think they were socialized as men: that’s an undeniable fact. On the other hand, transmen were socialized as women, which is why they are considered part of women-only spaces.


Ask a Question 6

Time for more questions!


Name: ellahawthorne100
Comment: Hi Francois, just wondering if you speak French? I’ve been looking for someone to translate I Blame the Patriarchy with me. I have Twisty’s permission to translate to French but I can’t do it alone. Just wondering since you have a French name.

Yes, and I have minor experience in translation. I’m nowhere near professional level, obviously, but I’d be happy to lend a hand. I was sad when I discovered IBTP and saw that it was dead. Now she seems to be resurrecting it, which is great news.

Name: peter cowen
Comment: Hi Francois,

Big fan. Commented a few times, reposted more than a few. Your thoughts are compelling and I am definitely a fan of your processes.

I’m curious. There are various philosopher protagonists around the internet, now for no particular reason than convenience (absolutely nothing to do with personal history or debates between you two) I’m going to compare your exposition to Stefan Molyneux’s. My curiosity is on what you think frames the nature of your enquiry and your content. This is where the comparison comes in, I’d say there is definitely a genuine curiosity and desire to rationalise and understand the best way for society to progress in both people and you both started off with quite tightly defined political philosophies. His deepened, you questioned and expanded your thoughts. You are both concerned though with what makes a good society, what are the least harms and what is the best way for society to progress (or at least your desire to spread information suggests this).

Over time though in both cases the gestalt of the societal problems seem to have fragmented down into say anti natalism as a natural logical outcome, or in SM’s case into Child Abuse. And then a further evolution or fragmentation into feminism in your case (damn feminazi..kidding) or in SM’s case into the rather silly position MRA, a stance apparently furthered by the propagation of shit statistics and endorsing the poisoning of a woman by her spouse who did not want to be pregnant. He relented and admitted it was shit after being directly questioned by myself on his wall – still though.

So I have to ask, when a philosopher or a man seriously seeking solutions arriving at complex ideas facing society, do you think that this fragmentation of focus and ideas is a way of chunking down problems to big into easier to manage small issues?

None of this is meant in a derogatory way FYI, except for Stefan Molyneux endorsing poisoning – fuck that.


First, I think Molyneux’s new pro-MRA stance and his position of blaming mothers for everything that’s wrong with society is absolutely wrong and unconscionable. I haven’t followed him for a very long time and I have no idea how he got to this point, but it’s pretty pathetic.

I can tell you what my approach is. My motivation has always been to try to understand how society works. My first interest was in cults (especially Scientology, since it’s a paradigmatic example) and trying to understand how they brainwash people, how the doctrine is a means to that end.

The one good thing I’ve inherited from Objectivism, which ironically has led me to radicalism, is the belief that ethics and society, like nature, function according to laws that can be discovered and analyzed. I say ironically because that basic insight has led me far, far away from Objectivist tenets (such as anti-feminism, capitalism and selfishness) and its over-simplistic “logic.”

I would tend to agree with you that a person’s ideology should ideally “fragment,” in that it should stop being general and get into more specific issues. There is only so much you can do by staying at such a general level of inquiry that you can’t really focus on anything specific. I find it’s much more useful to draw conclusions from specifics than to try to derive some Aristotelian “logic” about specifics from very general statements. By definition the specific is always gonna be closer to reality.

Realistically, it also takes a lot of time for a person to find out about these different fields. I just didn’t hear anything about antinatalism until I found Benatar’s book. I didn’t hear anything about radfem until I found the famous blog entry about Schroedinger’s Rapist. So there is always the issue of simply not knowing where to look, at first.

But in answer to your question I’d answer not necessarily, no. Someone who wasn’t born in privilege like me could very well start from a specific position and use it as a springboard into other areas and to observe certain universal phenomena and go from there. I’d say that’s probably where most radfem are coming from. And I think it’s probably a better starting point, if only because you’re actually starting from something real and therefore true. I started purely from philosophy bullshit and it took me a very long time to get down to anything that had any considerable level of reality to it.

Ask a Question 5.

I get two questions, I post them and answer them. This is the fifth edition, so it’s number 5 (to read previous editions, click on the “Q&A” tag). Here we go!


Name: travis
Comment: Hi,

Have you considered doing an interview with alternative media creators who disagree with you, for instance Aurini (, Jay Dyer ( or Peter Joseph (


I’m afraid I don’t know any of these people. How do they disagree with me and why should I do an interview with them? I mean, what topic are you talking about? I write about a number of things on here. I am willing to write refutations of things other people write, but just pointing me to someone’s blog is kindof a vague reference.


Name: Thomas Eisenecker
Comment: Dear Mr. Tremblay,

while I have to say that our views (concerning radical feminism, atheism and anti-natalism; regrettably, I haven’t given much thought to anarchism) are astoundingly similar, I feel that I have to object to how you respond to some women in your articles.

The most glaring example of what I mean is your article on BDSM as a patriarchy manual. Did you really have to talk to the pro-BDSM woman like that? Even though I passionately disagree with liberal feminism (and with her, for that matter), you, as a man, are in absolutely no position to tell a woman that she is doing feminism wrong, even if you happen to have the better arguments.

And calling her an “incredibly self-righteous C U N T” (emphasis mine)? Are you joking? I don’t really care how you meant it. It is a profoundly misogynist slur and you should abstain from using it.

If it was a dudebro posting pro-porn, pro-BDSM, pro-[insert misogyny here] screeds, it would be entirely different. (Deliberate) ignorance of feminism, especially when coming from men, is to be expected. I would even flame some of those dudebros myself.

I would really advise you to change how you disagree with women and to at least try to show some solidarity with women (even with the ones you most fervently disagree with).

With regards,
Thomas Eisenecker, from Germany

First of all, I admit I went a little overboard in my comments to the pro-BDSM advocate in question. I apologize for using the word in question, it was far too exaggerated. Not trying to excuse it in any way, but it was the end result of a frustrating “dialogue” with a troll (because let’s face it, anyone who comes on your blog, says they have evidence for a position opposed to yours, and then repeatedly refuses to give that evidence, is pretty dang trollish), and frankly I thought I was pretty patient with her.

That being said, I am absolutely not required to act in solidarity with women who are not only not radfem, but have no consideration whatsoever for women’s well-being. Why would you possibly think I am? Do you seriously think I should respect Sarah Palin and Andrea Dworkin equally? Should ally blogs give equal time to Sheila Jeffreys and Beyonce? If you seriously think that, then I’m afraid you are quite deluded indeed and have bought into the liberal feminism-for-everyone ideology.

Frankly I am astounded at the male allies who seem to believe such things and try to convince me to follow their party line. Any feminism that shows solidarity with male class interests because they are presented by women is not an ideology worth following. If this is what it means to be a male ally, then count me out. But I’m pretty sure (unless radfem tell me otherwise) that’s not at all what it means to be a male ally.

Actually, as I understand it, my main role as a male ally is to tell other men to stop indulging woman-hating, so here I go: Thomas, stop claiming that woman-hating should be respected on the same footing as radical feminism.

With regards,
Francois Tremblay, from the Internet

Ask a Question 4.

It’s been quite a while since I posted some questions, but to be fair, I didn’t really get any. So there you go. But hey, now I have two, so here we go.


Referring to the previous Ask, John Douglas says:

I am interested in your paragraph beginning ‘The obvious antinatalist reply…’ in your answer to Travis (‘Is there a connection between eugenics/transhumanism and anti-natalism?’) which appears to at least imply that antinatalism assigns a positive value to suffering because striving against it gives humans a reason to exist. It then goes on to assert that without suffering there would be no reason for humans to exist at all. Surely, if you subscribe to the antinatalist equation (the amount of suffering exceeds the amount of pleasure/any suffering at all renders non-existence preferable), then a world in which there is no suffering at all (a ‘pleasant’ existence), far from strengthening the non-existence case, would actually invalidate it (unless the fact of death itself – albeit a suffering-free, pleasant death – is still seen as a negative value present in such an existence).

For your first point, no, I don’t agree that striving against suffering gives humans a reason to exist. I said it gives people a reason to live and strive, which is very different. I don’t think there is any reason for humans to exist, but once they exist, suffering does give people a reason to go on.

As for the second point, I’ve pointed out many times that antinatalists are not doing some kind of weird utilitarian comparison between pleasure and suffering (however you could do that). But do suppose that we live an existence with no suffering at all. Yes, obviously a lot of the antinatalist case would be invalidated, but as I said before, what would be the point of such an existence? Therefore teleological arguments would still be in full force.


LoneSword7878 says:

I know that it’s pretty lame to ask for attention like this, but I just wanted to know if I was able to provide some interesting feedback on your articles. Not to whine, but I feel a bit left hangin’ after I maybe said something a little dumb, but I tried to correct it. I’ve been thinking about writing comics in the future and adding social and cultural criticism into the mix.

I have commented on a number of your articles. The first that commented on was “Free Speech is elitist,” which really struck my fancy. I am, in the rarest of the rare, sick to death of everyone glorifying it and the constitution to hell and back and everyone backstabbing each other just to hold it up. I am saying this because I can be categorized into a few certain groups. I have Asperger’s Sydrome, have been questioning my sexuality for a long time (you probably don’t need to hear my ordeals,) and am formerly Catholic.

The second article that I commented on was “Morality as a tool of control,” which is where I apparently logically slipped up. I do know that everything in this based on perception, which is why I prefer not to believe and just do, if you understand me. What I was trying to say was that morality is something that is invisible and shaped into whatever form he or she who invokes it finds the most convenient and to appeal to some sort of higher imaginary power. The more we insist on enforcing these systems of “good and evil,” the more we lose our ability to use our brains to properly analyze and determine like the organic computers they are. Therefore, I feel that the best solution is to simply let go and learn from experience.

The third article I commented on was “Why I am against gay marriage.” I agree with the claim that marriage is a generally oppressive and conformist institution, but that’s not really my main point. My main point reflects on our sensationalism of marriage the so and so’s about it. My problem with same-sex marriage is that we gave it a name and attention in the first place. We talked and began fighting over it when we never really had to because we’ve all been brainwashed by our democratic setting.

Basically, Instead of just going ahead and living and studying ourselves the way we wanted to live, we’ve been forced to seek out approval when it’s not remotely required and if none of this ever happened, we would already be living in a utopia, pardon my idealism.

Anyway, that’s my feedback history and I hope that you and as well as your other visitors found them insightful. If they weren’t up to par, I’m open to some constructive criticism myself. I consider myself to have a radically different worldview compared to everyone else and have gotten little to no feedback with it from other people.

I’m sure there are other people who read this blog who share your positions. I don’t know if they’ll comment about it or not, but there you go, I’ve posted your question so everyone can read it.

As for me not replying, I just want to point out that I often do not post replies to comments, because I’d rather not say anything than just blandly agree or disagree. If I don’t have anything interesting to say, I usually just shut up. I especially don’t reply on comments to older articles, for some reason.