promethea.incorporated

brave and steely-eyed and morally pure and a bit terrifying… /testimonials /evil /leet .ask? .ask_long?

"Frankly, I don’t see why we should subsidize sexless men that women don’t like. If you’re that much of a loser and you’re going to try to hold the world hostage with threats of violence if you can’t get a date, we should probably execute you or at least do everything possible to make sure you can’t reproduce."

SSC commenter Adam

I don’t necessarily endorse the solution, but at least the attitude and general approach are correct.

(via eccentric-opinion)

Yes let’s just throw millions or billions of humans under the bus, that probably won’t have any negative consequences.

(via drethelin)

To be fair, I very much doubt that billions of men would ever wind up involuntarily celibate.

On the other hand, this seems… incredibly unsympathetic to involuntarily celibate people? I do not think it is kind to refer to involuntarily celibate people as “losers” or “men that women don’t like” (IME, most involuntarily celibate people’s problem has nothing to do with attractiveness and is mostly the product of shyness). Threats of violence do not lead to the death penalty in any civilized country. While some involuntarily celibate people are obnoxious, it’s important to note that long-term loneliness fucks people up. Humans are social animals; a fulfilling social life– which the obnoxious involuntarily celibate people do not have– is a basic need as much as food. They deserve our sympathy, not our condemnation. The whole thing smacks of hurting people because they’re weak and I don’t like it. 

(via ozymandias271)

Endorsed. Also, OP? Literally every expression of Objectivism like this makes people like it less. Whether it’s poor people as in your usual schtick, lonely people as perhaps less expected, etc. Notice the parallels. Maybe, just maybe there are better responses then smugly going, “None of my business la la la”.

(via multiheaded1793)

Of course, there is a perfectly consistent position that just because we shouldn’t oppress poly people doesn’t mean that it’s not a tragedy that a lot of people end up incel.

For example, homelessness. I don’t think there is anything wrong in using the lowest necessary amount of force to evict a homeless person who tries to nonconsensually place themselves as one’s roommate, or that a homeless person shouting “someone who doesn’t want to be my roommate become my roommate anyway or I will do violence to innocent people aka. anyone except me” deserves a roommate (if anything, I’d bump them down on the waiting list really hard), or that we should scorn people who have five roommates but don’t take a single homeless person to live with them; but I do think that we should try to minimize homelessness in ways that don’t coerce people to be roommates with people they don’t want to be roommates with, such as by replacing bullshit welfare with UBI, reducing artificial limits on the housing supply that render housing inaffordable, etc.

An autonomy-respecting response would be “no, you don’t get to institute monogamy; if you want people to have partners, figure out a way to make them attractive to partners so you don’t need to coerce anyone to be their partners as people would partner with them voluntarily”.

If the PUA and redpill movements were fixed into “a social skills, self-respect, and better ability to satisfy one’s preferences for shy men movement” without the “women are shitty people, scorn dem” part, it would be a very good development. If mainstream feminists stopped ignoring the fact that there are a lot of “incels” who aren’t the shitty people they think of when they hear “incel”, it would be a very good development. If we managed to break down the expectations of hegemonic masculinity that render men who fail at them insecure, low-self-esteemed, and unattractive, it would be a very good development. Breaking down ableism, classism, heterosexism, and other unjust social biases and normativities; and decriminalizing sex work so that people who only want sex don’t need to hoard the relationship opportunities so much, etc. would be very good developments.

Of course, such ways of addressing the issue require thinking while coercive ways (such as “let’s just scorn non-monogamous people” or “let’s just scorn involuntarily celibate people because it’s not like "policy debates shouldn’t appear one-sided” is a Thing in the diaspora or anything" because most coercion is not state coercion) are easy; just take away other peoples’ choice until you get the result you want. And that’s why I have way more respect for someone trying to figure out a clever way to fix social problems with voluntary action, than for the person advocating a coercive solution.

(via multiheaded1793)

1 month ago · tagged #violence cw #steel feminism · 75 notes · source: eccentric-opinion · .permalink

  1. vincentmunsmusings reblogged this from wolffyluna
  2. wolffyluna reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin
  3. almostcoralchaos reblogged this from chroniclesofrettek
  4. professorcat17 reblogged this from gingerautie
  5. gingerautie reblogged this from cyborgbutterflies
  6. diffractor reblogged this from cyborgbutterflies
  7. 1nsomnizac reblogged this from funereal-disease
  8. mitoticcephalopod reblogged this from fierceawakening
  9. inferentialdistance reblogged this from chroniclesofrettek
  10. hotmario reblogged this from chroniclesofrettek
  11. chroniclesofrettek reblogged this from funereal-disease
  12. fierceawakening reblogged this from funereal-disease
  13. earthboundricochet reblogged this from funereal-disease
  14. lipstickchainsaw reblogged this from funereal-disease
  15. funereal-disease reblogged this from ozymandias271
  16. socialjusticemunchkin reblogged this from multiheaded1793
  17. cyborgbutterflies reblogged this from multiheaded1793
  18. eccentric-opinion posted this