Rape Apologists Suck

It sadly doesn't surprise me that popular youtube uploaders get mostly thumbs up regardless of what they say. A recent example of this would be thunderf00t's video in which he says that women can control certain factors of being raped. This is more absurd that he would have you think. Wearing a short skirt for example doesn't make a difference in whether you get raped or not. Suggesting that women cover themselves to avoid being raped IS the mentality of the middle eastern extremists and take all the responsibility away from he rapist if a woman does dress revealingly.  What really makes the difference is being in a vulnerable state or not and of course no one wants to deliberately be in a vulnerable state. Sure people enjoy getting drunk but being vulnerable isn't the point of that and by no means does a woman take on responsibility for being raped if she is drunk. Being raped isn't a choice a person can make. It's something that another person has to do to the victim without their consent. There are basically no ways possible that a victim can "control" whether they're raped or not. There are ways to make it less likely to happen but that's no promise of safety. For example, if you're going out to the bar it's a good idea to have friends with you but if you go alone you shouldn't be blamed if someone rapes you once you black out.  Thunderf00t also assigns a "control factor" to women for giving off the "prey" body language. How absurd. I don't even know how to rebuttal something so blatantly wrong. Just because a person looks cautious they are giving off signals that they can be raped? Crazy. He goes on to say that women who want to avoid being raped should never have "alone time" with their date because that would make them more vulnerable and that the alternative is to be so paranoid that you never have a relationship. Gee, nice choices here thunderf00t. Either we can get raped or never have any kind of consensual relationship. Then he goes on to say that people who don't like those choices are being unreasonably emotional. Urgh.

Mission Impossible

Do you ever feel like it's impossible to get a point across to someone because they are just SO dumb or have such a flawed view of reality that you cannot possibly even communicate with them? I experienced this yesterday with an exgirlfriend of my current partner. I have no ill will toward her for dating my partner or in general but she just seems entirely delusional about reality. I was trying to explain the fact that gender is a social construct and therefore not real by using Santa Clause as an analogy for something that people believe in but isn't real. Boy was that a mistake. She claimed that Santa was only not real because people believed he wasn't real but would actually be real if people never learned that he isn't. That makes no distinction between reality and fantasy. She went on to say that there is a kid who she works with who sees ghosts as schizophrenic hallucinations. She doesn't want to tell the kid that the ghosts aren't real because it would be "disrespecting their reality". So she sees this kid's schizophrenic hallucinations as equally as real as her own perception of reality by her own words. That's INSANE! And when I said "don't you think you're being a little dishonest in validating something that you know to be untrue?" she said "well it might not be true to me but it's true to them" and when pressed further she said she wasn't being dishonest but rather "empathetic". When will the madness end?!

Utilitarian Consequentialism

Although I'm hesitant I think I would assess utilitarianism as the best moral philosophy.

The reason I'm hesitant though is because you could easily say something like this:

"There are 10 violently criminal people and 1 saint. The 10 criminals are on one train and the saint is on the other. You can only save 1 train from exploding" Then it would seem that saving the 10 criminals would be the "utilitarian" choice.

However I say that choosing the metaphorical saint could be the "true" utilitarian choice because you have to look at the bigger picture. If you save the 10 criminals it would result in more "bad" for more people if they go unchecked because their bad influence would ripple out and cause harm to a greater amount of people.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of "what if"s like "what if the criminals all changed their ways?" but we have to look at what's most likely. Whether you like it or not, a person's past says a lot about their future behavior. We're creatures of habit to say the least. If someone is a staunch vegetarian their whole life it's not likely that one day without provocation they will suddenly start eating meat.

Also, we must consider how OUR choices affect outcomes. If people are saved based on their numbers alone it says nothing about moral repercussions. It would mean that going with the crowd is always right no matter what the crowd is doing. If we reward people who are good all along even if it defies the crowd it encourages the behavior throughout society.


I don't know if it's possible to measure happiness without something like a survey for each individual to fill out and people could easily lie. Perhaps instead of measuring the happiness felt we can measure the good deeds done. Of course that's also very subjective and somewhat fuzzy but it's far more tangible and perceivable by others.

I think it's legit to analyze what good/bad and right/wrong mean.

Imo "good" is utilitarian by its definition. "Good" is happiness. We say that things are "good" because they make us happy. Sure, you can say that sometimes people are shortsighted and I think that just goes to prove that "good" is truly utilitarian. It's not what just makes us happy temporarily, it's what gives us the maximum amount of happiness. Often choices that make us happy in the short term will make us unhappy in the long run, thus making them actually "bad" choices.

Like the veggies vs cookies argument. Cookies may make us happy in the short term but if that's all we ever eat we will likely regret it because we'll have health problems.

Right and wrong may more or less be a matter of efficiency. If you're trying to mow your yard it's "right" to do it with a lawnmower and "wrong" to do it with a spoon. Applied morally, things that are "right" give you more efficient outcomes of "good" or happiness.

Let's Play The Victim Game!

While I know what it's like to be abused I think that a lot of people out there like to make themselves out to be victims when they're not. Their lives could be perfectly happy but they can take something like racism or sexism and make it a personal problem regardless of never having directly experienced it. These people seem eager to label themselves as victims and have a personal sense of retribution due. Why would they do that? Most probably because they were brought up in a prejudiced environment. One girl in particular comes to mind. She claims that she's half black and so she seems to be a bit conflicted. On the one hand she hates white people but on the other she has inherited white guilt. Neither of these are acceptable. Hating people based on their race is awful no matter what race or races you happen to be. It's prejudice pure and simple and it's wrong. Hating people based on their sex is wrong too. I don't care what the statistics are for rape and violence, it's wrong to say that all men are equally guilty of "oppressing" women. I believe another reason that people like to play the victim game is so that they can have a sense of self-righteousness about their hatred and bigotry. A "holier than thou" thing.

What pisses me off even more is the idea of privilege. While I know that white men for example may have higher chances for "success" in life simply because of the mindset of the masses I don't agree with it. I don't think that racial or sexual privileges should exist. Yet you see people pushing for privilege who are minorities too. They think that just because they're minorities they should get special rules made just for them such as "equal opportunity" for school enrollment and jobs despite the fact that they may not be the most qualified candidate. Ideally companies and schools should be monitored as to how qualified the applicants are and the most qualified applicants get the placement.

Going further it annoys me that many people who claim victimhood will get utterly pissed when you point out what advantages they have because it crumbles their facade. Women for example can manipulate men easily with the mere hint of sex, but this statement is forbidden. Women are only to be seen as helpless, brainless victims. To say that they have any sense of autonomy would be blasphemous. To suggest that women are intelligent and even crafty enough to make the system work to their own desires is heresy. Do I know that women have had the short end of the stick in some cases? Sure, but they're not all brainwashed into subservience. Many like being submissive sexually and socially because they know that if they do they can control the man in their life however they want. It's a sly contract that's unspoken. Sure, there are men who don't give a fuck about what the woman in their life thinks but for the most part those types of men are sociopaths. Normal men want love and acceptance like any other human being and so they're willing to do what it takes to keep the woman in their life happy. If every man were a total abusive asshole and women were simply being victimized I'm sure there would be far more cases of women killing men.  The legend of the Amazonian women might even have come to pass, but it never did because for the most part women liked the status quo of being puppet masters to the men.

This isn't to say that feminism has no upsides. I'm sure it has made the lives of many women much better for those who had more dominant personalities, but simple observation reveals that most women, indeed most people in general don't want to be dominant. Most people are sheep by nature. I'm all for the elimination of sex based social roles but let's be frank here, many people enjoy them.

Red Flags in Dating Profiles

Whenever I'm looking for someone to date there are of course obvious red flags like if the person says that they're looking for casual sex or awful spelling and grammar or no photos but I'm talking about the possibly less obvious red flags.

1.) I'm a "gamer"
While being a gamer isn't necessarily an inherently bad thing, I feel that identifying yourself by it means that you're a little obsessive about it. No one would say I'm a "shoe tier" unless they were obsessive about tying shoes. To me when I see that someone is obsessive about gaming that means 1 thing to me. Less attention. I can just imagine myself huddled in the corner alone while the person I adore just sits at a computer monitor all day playing World of Warcraft neglecting my emotional needs.

2.) I'm "laid back"
What does that even mean? I've seen soooo many people say that they're laid back but then they often go on in the next sentence or paragraph to talk about how they have all these neurotic and aggressive tendencies. It's more like "I'm laid back when I get my way".

3.) Lack of details
I don't want a huge essay on the person but whenever their self summary consist of "I'm awesome" and nothing more I've got to say they don't seem very awesome to me. I think there's a happy medium of information to be put out there. If it's super long then no one is going to take the time to read it. At the same time if you don't put effort into your profile why should I put effort into talking to you? Furthermore, what should make me think that you'll put effort into anything else if you're that lazy when it comes to finding the love of your life? This goes for mail messages as well. I'm not likely to answer people who don't suit my taste but if I do think you're good looking and you send me a meaningless generic message that doesn't say much I'll be less likely to answer. I admit that I'm somewhat guilty of sending short messages but at least I try to incorporate something as a common interests and a request to chat in more depth at a later time.

4.) Materialism and shallowness
On okcupid in particular there's a section called "six things I could never do without" and typically people just write mundane every day things like "air, water, food" and that's horribly boring. Some people instead say something slightly more meaningful but still very dull such as "my toothbrush, my sneakers, the internet" but come on, this is supposed to reveal your character! Maybe it does. Maybe some people are just very shallow and mundane. I personally enjoy lists that are more ideological like "truth, justice, equality" and so forth. If it has to be something material then couldn't it at least be something more interesting like "my copy of Plato's The Republic"?

5.) Pop culture references and memes
Nothing will make you come off as more of an obnoxious jerk than referencing memes. Oh, you don't understand the mudkips comment? LOL you must be such a loser. I need someone who's so immersed in internet pop culture that they get all my jokes that I don't even know the story behind. I'm far too cool to come up with something original so I'll just take other people's ideas and pretend that I'm funny.

That and zombie references.  It's so cliche that it's not even cool in the ironic way. Remember back when The Dark Knight first came out and EVERYONE had photos of themselves up with their faces painted like the Joker? Yeah that would be you. Another sheeple following pop culture to piggyback on it's popularity.

Determinism

Whether you like it or not there is no such thing as free will. It doesn't make sense for it to exist and makes for a fairly egocentric view of the universe. To think that there is an entirely new universe created simply because YOU made a choice to have apples instead of oranges is absurd. Now I'm sure that proponents of free will would say "well it's not just me" because they think an entirely new universe is made every time anyone or anything makes a choice but this is equally silly. It doesn't take causal factors into account at all. The only reason you think the things that you do is because you have been caused to think them.  If you didn't know that a fence was electric you might touch it, but if you did know it was electric you would be far less likely to touch it. You couldn't automatically know "this fence is electric" without reading any signs, observing someone get shocked or being told that it was electric. There would be no reason to know.

Free will is ultimately mathematically unsound. If 1 and 3 are causal factors then the result will always be 4. If you believe in free will however that's saying that 1 + 3 can equal ANYTHING because there's this mysterious thing called "choice" involved and that "choice" is irrelevant to causal factors. If there were really  such a thing as free will then you could start speaking Russian with no exposure to it. You would be able to do something regardless of causality. Everything is caused to be the way that it is and there is no other way.

To think that you have free will is as silly as a molecule in baking soda being mixed with vinegar "deciding" that it's going to fizz. We're nothing more than a giant chemical reaction reacting in a predictable manner.

Ironic Condescension

Ever notice how adults in particular say "teenagers think they know everything"? Isn't it ironic that they would accuse someone else of knowing "everything" while they themselves are so fucking smug? They say things like "I remember when I was that age and thought I knew everything..." well guess what? You haven't changed a bit. You were an arrogant cockwad back then and you're still one now. If anything I was far under confident in myself as a teenager because every adult I ever met was assuring me that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. How fucking rude. I can't stand ageism among other prejudices but this one still gets to me to this day. People who are older than me (even now that I'm into my late 20's) say "one day you'll be older and see things my way". Oh please. As if you're so fucking knowledgeable and wise. Being a decrepit old fart doesn't automatically give you any  kind of superiority or even more life experience. If you're 100 years old and you've been pampered and sheltered all 100 years you're not going to know half as much as a 10 year old who's gone through a ton of shit. But that won't stop people from their arrogance. Everyone seems to assume that their life has been the most enlightening experience a human can have. People also assume that the more you agree with them from the start the more intelligent you are. It's as if they hold their own opinions as the measuring stick for all knowledge. If someone disagrees with me personally I don't automatically dismiss them as being a fool. I want to know why they think what they do and if they can convince me that they're right then I will be impressed with them. But this is the age where admitting that you've learned something means that you're admitting "defeat" in some backwards bullshit way. It's more about dominating other people than actually being truthful. If you can convince someone of a lie it's treated with more respect than if you are able to come to a new understanding. No one congratulates people on learning things. They're seen as sell outs for not being stubborn enough to hold on to a lie.  They just want to argue and put people down. It's so annoying that the world is full of bullies and sheep.

Ideal Government

•     No killing of anything other than plants, bacteria, viruses and insects. (but assisted suicide is allowed)

•     Comprehensive sex education, free access to birth control including BC pills, condoms, morning after and plan B pills.

•     Free basic level housing (3 bedrooms 2 baths, max). More extravagant housing will cost you out of your own pocket.

•     Free basic food allowances. Extra food for parties or whatever would be out of your own pocket.

•     Free public transportation 24/7.

•     Free unlimited phone and internet access.

•     Free public education, including college.

•     Free health care.

•     All food must be organic and safe.

•     All people over 18 have can marry anyone who consents who is also a human over 18. (so that includes gays, lesbians, trans, intersex, polygamy etc)

•     Guns are allowed if you pass a psychological exam and a safety course. No gifting of guns. All guns must be registered. If someone is convicted of a crime using a gun, their gun rights are taken away and they are sent to prison. The only time killing someone with a gun is legal is if it's self defense, even if that defense is against the government.

•     Presenting false information on public media (radio, television) is punishable with fines and/or occupational termination and the false statements must be recalled.

•     Prison should provide mandatory therapy for all prisoners.

•     Prisoners should be required to do supervised community service tasks. (such as cleaning up the highways)

•     All people must work at least 16 hours per week  (two 8 hour days) unless they are unable due to being handicapped in some way.

•     People who do not work and are not handicapped at all must join the military.

•     Marijuana and all drugs are legal to buy, sell and use on yourself. Using drugs on other people without their consent is punishable by prison.

•     Being paid for doing work without paying taxes on it is punishable by prison.

•     "Anchor Babies" must live with their parents in their country until they are 18, then they can legally be citizens of the country they were born. Otherwise they can live in this country with a foster family.

•     Refusing to learn the language of the country you attempt to gain citizenship in does not count as a "disability".

•     No preferences or laws are allowed in regards to race, sex, gender, orientation, ethnicity etc. All people are to be treated equally.

•     All wiretaps require probable cause and a warrant.

The Mass Illusion of Gender

Something I'm sure I was massively disliked for on the asexuality community was the acknowledgment that gender is simply a concept and a social construct at best. Gender in short is what people perceive that the sexes "should" look and act like via stereotypical archetypes based on sex. People see gender as a form of self expression but what they don't realize is that they are putting themselves into archaic and sexist boxes. Everyone says "I hate labels" yet when it comes to gender people are even proud to say that they are male or female. There have been new gender labels that have arisen over the years that challenge the idea that there are only 2 genders. On the one hand this is great that people can identify as androgynous or neutrois etc. but on the other hand it further divides us. As long as there are words for differentiation there will be hate for them and the more wide spread the ideas are the more hate will gather. For example, I have a slight prejudice against blue eyed people but there is no hate group for people of various eye colors because there is not a word for it. Blematiphobia is a word I just made up for it with Greek root words. Ble means blue, mati means eyes and phobia means fear. Now if that ever caught on as a word you would see hate groups arising because they have a common word to gather under just as there are hate groups against men, women, masculinity, femininity, races, sexual orientations, religions and so on. Not that I want that to happen, I'm just pointing out the facts.

Getting back to gender, the reason that gender is ultimately a bad thing is simply as I said before, they're based on archaic sexist stereotypes and roles. It's because of gender that a man is seen as less of a man when he wears make up. With sex, there's no denying what a person is because there's empirical proof of their sex. There is no empirical proof of gender. The closest you can find is brain MRI's that say there's a vague correlation between various brain structures and gender identity. This by no means is conclusive proof that gender is purely genetic rather than environmental. Even if "gender" were genetic what does that say about gender roles and stereotypes? Does that mean that everyone must play the role of their gender? I vehemently disagree. I think that people should be allowed to take on whatever roles they please regardless of gender but Nooooooo people MUST be confined by old fashioned gender roles and stereotypes!

The problem is that people have no sense of identity so they just take on whatever identities they can take from society. It's monkey see monkey do. People simply aren't creative enough with their own lives to have personalities that are distinct. They feel they have to "fit in" with society by taking on roles they see others doing. It's purely for assimilation purposes.

In case you people haven't noticed, things are becoming more and more androgynous socially. Maybe in a few hundred years gender roles and stereotypes won't exist. Then gender would only be about wanting a biological change and you'd be seen the same way that people see certain furries today. Some furries want to live in an animal body despite the fact that they're human. Transgender people want to live in the opposite sexes' body despite the fact they were born their own sex.  I think that taking the best from both sexes and making them into one androgynous norm would be the best solution rather than having 2 absurd binary options that force people into bringing out the worst in themselves.

Taking Over the World

Ever notice how if someone suggests taking over the world they are automatically deemed either a nut case or pure evil if not both? It seems like Hitler is the vision that comes to mind or some horrific 1984 scenario yet people "keep calm and carry on" as if all is normal when the US government employs ridiculous "security measures" such as wire tapping every American citizen without warrant. It's more and more a case of guilty until proven innocent or "if you're doing nothing illegal you shouldn't care that we're monitoring your every breath as if you're a homicidal maniac". I'm sure that the NSA is doing nothing positive. I hear on The Young Turks all the time about how NSA members are listening in on phone sex conversations. I wouldn't be surprised if that were 90% of what they're doing rather than caring about actual terrorism or illegal activity such as child molestation etc. But on the bright side they're confiscating cell phones if you work in a state level legal marijuana dispensary! Woo yeah! All those dangerous pot heads getting chilled out and getting the munchies. So evil, they must be stopped. Meanwhile let's ignore all the rape victims and claim that they have "no proof" or that it's "their own fault" for being drunk or wearing short skirts or whatever. Yeah... I'm sure a single person who has the benefit of mankind at heart would be SO much worse than the US government. They might do something awful like giving people better sex education! Gasp!

Asexuality.Org Part 2

As per my expectations I have been temporarily banned for expressing an opinion on my own blog because I let the people of "aven" know what I think via a link. Clearly there is no room for criticism in the hive mind of aven. The moderators are elected by blatant popularity contests rather than at the discernment of a head administrator. This means that at the very least there will be clear bias for their friends who agree with them no matter how depraved their opinions may be, ala misandry etc. It comes across as very cultish after a while. Either you must conform to the masses or face banning for opposing ideas. It's all very unprofessional considering the facade they present to the public. Now I'm sure that The Self Righteous Brigade is cheering with schadenfreude at the fact that I have received "disciplinary action" for having an ideas that differ from their own. Funny how the front page of aven says that they encourage "honest and open discussion" but I suppose that only extends to asexuality.. no? Oh that's right you can't even bring up the fact that asexuality may in fact be a lack of an orientation rather than an orientation itself. It's kind of like arguing that atheism is a religion when it's a lack of a religion.  I hold no strong feelings about the orientation status of asexuals. I've just read that other people have been banned for similarly absurd and harmless things. I'd like to see what these prissy pants moderators and admins do if they ever encountered real trolls and raiders. Posted gore and porn all over the place... I doubt they could handle it but maybe it would open their eyes to the fact that there are worse things out there than suggesting that they're being a tad biased in their operation. By the way, if anyone who reads this ever goes there, know that ithaca is the bitchiest administrator there. 

Update: I have a new account there now with a proxy IP.. They haven't detected me yet but then I realize how pathetic they are and it makes me not even want to bother reading the shit. Maybe I'll go back sometime to talk to my friends there and get them to join up at another site.