Friday, February 15, 2019

Hard determinist therapy

Today I am writing a sequel to my post about Quisling therapy, which I came up with as a way to manage your (hyper)political hate and live with odious laws. What I am proposing now is along the same lines, but less mean-spirited than my original stab at Quisling therapy, because it is time to honestly admit that hate is a real problem that can't be solved merely by tweaking the same feeling.

It is time for a radically new account of our enemies, one without free will. Free will is a perennial philosophical question with no clear right answer, and I don't claim to have made any theoretical advances either, but I have found what works to improve the lives of hyperpolitical sufferers like me. Much of my suffering stems from attributing moral agency to the perpetrators of feminist sex laws, and moral agency being such a philosophically problematic concept anyway, why am I letting this belief blight my life so profoundly?

I am talking about literally convulsing with hatred against feminist sex laws and the people who support them for hours every day here -- no joke! Today I managed to avoid that for the first time in two decades, by reminding myself that our enemies don't have free will. They are no more responsible for their persecution of sexuality than a rabid dog is for its aggression. Society is infested with antisex rabies, and we need to address this horrible fact as best we can, but the one thing we don't need to do is obsess over how hateful people are for perpetrating or condoning sex-hostility, because they didn't have a choice in the sense that matters for that.

To temper your hatred, I suggest becoming an incompatibilist determinist like Gregg Caruso, who explains his philosophy in this conversation with Robert Wright. While he talks mostly about criminals, taking this position seriously means that our political enemies also don't have free will, and we ourselves don't. Our political enemies ought therefore to be regarded with the same compassion as he wants for criminals. Criminals are to be quarantined and treated, as humanly as one would while defending society against infectious disease that necessitates the use of force against morally innocent victims. Retributivism has to go, and I really don't have a problem with this for criminals as long as they accept it, but the problem is, how do you decide who is a criminal? I get the feeling that Caruso and others like him take the intersection of criminality and politics too lightly. "Treating" criminals who don't want to be treated because they don't think there is anything wrong with them and they have political disagreements with the law, such as terrorists and egosyntonic sex offenders, runs afoul of serious ethical contraindications. But for the purposes of self-help, which this post is about, I am down with discounting personal responsibility of the kind that goes along with libertarian free will.

Hard determinism (or however you go about believing that there is no free will; some random chance can be permitted also) doesn't solve political strife, but at least we don't need to hate our enemies. On the downside we are not entitled to revel in righteousness either, but I need to relax before the stress hormones do me in or ruin my health. It is one of those rare times when philosophy can save lives. Incompatibilist determinism is the attitude that life does you, and you just go with the flow. There are horrible people around, but they're being done in the same way, so it doesn't make sense to hate them or think them evil. Thus I bring my stress levels down from hyperpolitical disorder to something approaching normal, while keeping my same wholesome ideology and activist bent.

There is a higher level still, which consists of seeing our enemies as cogs in a machine that is not even conscious. Government is intelligent, a sort of AI, but probably not conscious, so hate is even more misguided against the system. Not coincidentally, I've come to this realization at a time when I have reaped the full benefits of nofap. I see now that hatred is a lot like masturbation, a kind of political equivalent that is similarly maladaptive and counterproductive. It doesn't get you any closer to the real goal, and in fact hurts, since you waste time and energy shaking with hatred when you could have been a more effective activist, writing more and better blog posts, books and a proper manifesto, participated in debates and so on. Extreme hate is always toxic to the hater and only rarely to the people you hate. When it doesn't incapacitate you, a lot of times it empowers them, like the feminist trolls who are more likely to succeed in their campaign to have me censored if I lose my temper.

I can only say that I am ashamed of all the time and opportunities I've wasted. I could have been a so much better MRA if I had realized this earlier. As with my ignorant failure to embrace nofap in my youth, my political hatred has been been a waste of life and vitality -- but it ain't over yet.

Let us now look at what happens when the rubber meets the road and society sics one of its rabid dogs on you. Firstly, don't hate the dog, because he can't help it. Keep your cool and be rational. If the rabid dog is a vigilante trying to kill you, you can safely follow the traditional advice for rabid dogs and put him down, since self-defense against criminals is still permitted. If you are attacked by an official rabid dog, however, this approach does not work since he has unlimited backup of more rabid dogs, so then you need to play by the rules of the justice system while defending yourself, like I did so successfully myself once.

But preferably, we should avoid attracting the aggression of rabid dogs. That means obeying the law while working to change it in legal ways. There is no cure for rabies (outside of intensive care, by which a handful people have survived), but there is a vaccine, and male sexualist activism is about developing and disseminating that vaccine -- our ideology -- in which hatred is not a helpful ingredient.

14 comments:

Sue said...

Hey einstein, didn't ya get the (very pre-internet) email? the Lord judges fornicators. Really, are the qwik thrills worth spending an eternity in the Lake of Fire (that's even worse than hell). We have free will, we are not mere carbon-based machinery. Have a nice day.

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe we have free will -- no one knows for sure -- but I am not going to bet on it to the extent of holding evil people morally responsible anymore or wishing retribution upon them, because that is just not worth the mental anguish. This post is primarily about how it is wise and healthy to live -- ethics rather than epistemology and ontology.

Caamib said...

Eivind, ffs. For a smart guy you can be pretty damn dumb. I don't mean this post but your comments policy.

Obviously, your new comments policy is a complete flop. People today use gmail with their own real names for business and education. You think they're all gonna start commenting on your blog, with such controversial topics, for some reason ?! Who do you think you are.

I barely found the time to log in into this account as, believe me, I would not post here under my real name (which is not known to the public, despite what some crazed lunatics might believe).

You're going from one extreme to another. You were bothered by all the threats? Why didn't you police your own damn blog? Instead you allowed all the comments through and of course many were threats and insults. Now you went into a completely different extreme and turned the comments section into a wasteland. You, who at one point had several hundred comments per post.

Restore your old comments policy, as this one failed, and start policing your own damn blog. You were letting all kinds of idiotic comments for some idea of "free speech", even if their free speech was to just insult you all day, and you wonder why you got jaded with it. Now start removing such comments but allow anonymous posters again.

Jesus fuck, for a smart guy you can be so damn blind.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is unfortunate that I lost the lively comment section, but I can't allow completely anonymous comments after what it had degenerated into. It is not just a matter of moderation, since I can do that before letting comments through anyway, but some minimum accountability for those who want to post threats and other disruptive comments. Remember that I use my real name, something you say you wouldn't do yourself, so your own experience is not comparable until you try that. We are up against some seriously unhinged people, and I am one of very few people who speak out publicly on the side of sex-positive men's rights issues. If they are going to target anyone, I am one of the first in line, and I really don't want to make it easier for them to mess with me than it needs to be.

As to who I think I am: I am still committed to blogging and think I can attract commenters again by writing good blog posts, even if they need a Google account. I feel I have more things to say than ever, just need time to write them down. We are just getting started here -- I mean the men's movement is, and I am not going to jeopardize either this blog or my mental health by dealing with the kind of creeps who tried to sabotage us. And no, I have not gone to an extreme as I still don't require real names, or your wouldn't have been able to post that comment. And as I recall, you used to use your Google account in the old days too.

Caamib said...

Sorry, I get your arguments to a certain degree but they don't make all that much sense to me, to be honest. They make sense only if you're extremely upset by these comments even while you're moderating them. I don't know. I know I stopped being so upset with them long ago, moderated the shit out of any unfair practices and rarely received such comments after I have shown that I will take no shit from anybody. On your comments I saw hundreds of posts that wouldn't pass basic review at any sane site and would never, ever get published. I just delete such comments, ban the moron and don't lose any sleep over it.

You say that you want them to be accountable if they post threats or disruptive comments. They won't be accountable for anything because they will simply not post them. But neither will your commentators be able to post. It seems that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Yes, you use your real name, so? Most idiots online believe they know mine as well. You can still delete whatever nonsense you see in the comments without us ever seeing it. Right now it's extremely hard for somebody to comment without revealing their real identity.

Maybe try installing Disqus or something like that?


Yes, I posted 3-4 comments with this Google acc but that was when I was heavily into this shit and heavily into arranging some deals via that e-mail. Now that I am using my real name for some business projects I have to switch e-mails to even get to write you. It's complicated and tiring. And even before most of my comments weren't via this Google acc.

Or let me put it this way - I'd like to go on commenting here, it's just that it's gotten too inconvenient for me. And so is for basically everybody else. At least look into Disqus. This can't work this way. I know I won't comment this way simply because it's too difficult.

If you wanna experiment try making a post where you ask the commentators how they feel this current policy is working and enable anonymous comments again. I'm pretty sure most will agree with what I'm telling you now

And one more thing - most comments before this policy weren't even from evil scum. There were like 80 percent of comments that were either supportive or disagreed politely. Other 20 percent were vile beyond belief and they were all allowed. So remove those 20 percent you'll be getting. I obviously can't know what goes on in your head but you are being irrational about this. It's really no coincidence that you suddenly dropped from hundreds of comments to zero. And it's damn shame, since you are obviously a brilliant person.

Caamib said...

Also, I now noticed that EVERY comment has to be approved individually. That is insane and will kill any discussion in its roots. I can understand having to approve the FIRST comment from somebody but after that we should be good to go. Nobody normal is gonna wait for his every comment to be approved.

Eivind Berge said...

There were also vile comments that you never saw because I stopped them in pre-moderation, after I had enabled that while still allowing anonymous comments. And here's the thing: when you don't know anything about where a comment is coming from, because they also use anonymous proxies, and it consists of talk about how much they feel I deserve to be killed for my opinions, is that an acceptable situation? Would you really allow that, if you blogged under your real name? These comments were probably from some far-away losers, but you can't know for sure when they are given complete anonymity. I believe Tom Grauer dropped out of activism because he couldn't handle it, and I would rather not deal with that kind of potential threats. I am open to alternatives to make it easier, but I don't think Disqus is good for free speech. They host the comments and can pull the plug and delete them any time. One thing I can invite right now is that if anybody absolutely wants to comment anonymously, simply email the comment to me and request that it be posted (from a secure email if you want), and I will publish it if it is acceptable. What I can't allow is a way to post anything at all that I then have to look at without having a clue about the source, because that will be abused, based on recent experience, in three ways that are all very damaging: impersonation, sabotage (by attempting to post illegal content) and threatening comments. The combination of all that was just too corrosive and I don't think I am overreacting.

Caamib said...

"And here's the thing: when you don't know anything about where a comment is coming from, because they also use anonymous proxies, and it consists of talk about how much they feel I deserve to be killed for my opinions, is that an acceptable situation? Would you really allow that, if you blogged under your real name?"

I can't really know how'd I'd react if I posted under my real name or my real name was known since I never experienced it but think of it this way - these people would still think the same things about you even if they didn't post them. So just sending you that crap means little. If they wanna harm you irl they will try regardless. If you're not feeling secure carry a mace or a gun.

"I believe Tom Grauer dropped out of activism because he couldn't handle it, and I would rather not deal with that kind of potential threats."

Then he shouldn't have posted under his real name, if he wasn't ready for the inevitable backslash.

"I am open to alternatives to make it easier, but I don't think Disqus is good for free speech. They host the comments and can pull the plug and delete them any time."

I see. This might be a problem.

" One thing I can invite right now is that if anybody absolutely wants to comment anonymously, simply email the comment to me and request that it be posted (from a secure email if you want), and I will publish it if it is acceptable."

This is again too complicated for 99 percent of people. Too much of a hassle.

"What I can't allow is a way to post anything at all that I then have to look at without having a clue about the source, because that will be abused, based on recent experience, in three ways that are all very damaging: impersonation, sabotage (by attempting to post illegal content) and threatening comments. The combination of all that was just too corrosive and I don't think I am overreacting."

Isn't there anything you could do like asking them to give e-mails before they post, and then banning the e-mails that break the rules? It's what I do.

What you're doing right now may seem reasonable to you but believe me that it's not gonna result in anything good. Your enemies don't need you to be killed or injured if they can just make you irrelevant. This approval of ALL comments by you is killing any discussions.

If necessary, move to Wordpress. You can have better control there.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree Wordpress does this better since you can log in from multiple platforms, but I don't want to move there now that I am so established here. It is an unknown whether Wordpress would allow my speech, but here I am thoroughly stress-tested due to constant reporting by the same vigilantes who post abusive comments, and I'd rather not go through that uncertainty again too. I will think about opening up anonymous commenting again, but can't promise it. It's such an asymmetric situation to have a group of anonymous people harass a public figure and you should understand that we don't want to make it so easy for them. In the early years we didn't have quite so nasty enemies, but times are different now.

"Isn't there anything you could do like asking them to give e-mails before they post, and then banning the e-mails that break the rules? It's what I do."

I would love to, but don't know how to implement that here.

Also, I don't have a policy of approving all comments anymore. Even if they are not the really problematic kind of abuse, if they don't contribute to the quality of this blog I won't approve them because quality is now my priority. I realize that an unmoderated forum just doesn't work because it won't be an attractive place for anyone worth having, so I agree with you on that, just not how to best get rid of the nastiest kind of abuse in this exceptional situation of being basically alone against the world in our activism, attracting the vilest scum of the earth who think they can have a socially acceptable outlet for their psychopathy on us.

Caamib said...

Well, you said your piece and I said mine. I have nothing more to add. You make ok points but they're outweighed by the damage this policy is creating to you. You are already tough but you need to toughen up more and ban people on industrial scale. They will give up soon enough, it's easier for you to wipe their diarrhea with a click or two then for them to write it.

Please, please restore your old policy. And this is coming from me, who implemented tight moderation on his own blog since at least 2014. This is just harming your good commentators. As you once said, you can't have an omelette without breaking some eggs.

The crucial thing is that these assholes will likely not touch you offline and if you feel they will carry a knife or a mace. But if somebody wants to do that are unlikely to comment on your blog first.

Caamib said...

Also, ultimately why not just pay for your own site?

Eivind Berge said...

I agree getting my own site is the logical solution. I've found the perfect job to combine with this unpaid activist blogger lifestyle -- bitcoin trading -- but it just got banned on me right when I had mastered it unless you have a license from the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway, so my first priority now is to secure that license. Which is very difficult and only three people or businesses are approved so far. Bitcoin trading is easy, but compliance with anti-money-laundering laws is hard. So hard that I don't know if I can come up with routines that will satisfy the authorities, but I am giving it my best shot.

Caamib said...

Get your own site and post your articles there before you settle this Bitcoin thing, which sounds like it might take awhile.

tg said...

Come on guys, I didn't drop out. I took a break to concentrate on some IRL issues, such as divorce (>tfw neither child support nor custody). Now that this is over with and I'm a free man again, I can re-focus my energies on giving our enemies the headache they deserve... no, I probably won't be as active on the blogosphere as previously, but maybe somewhat. Here, I wrote a text you may find useful:

https://ia801407.us.archive.org/5/items/RadicalMaleSexualistManifesto/Radical%20Male%20Sexualist%20Manifesto.pdf