You need a metaphysical theory (commonly called platonism) to believe in abstract objects, because they have no bearing on this world in any explicable way. This is why I call the CSA panic a religion which mandates belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, because one is forced by culture and law to be a platonist about sexual abuse. The abstract object stands above reality and dictates how one must view reality, rather than the other way around.
Fake (i.e., consensual) sexual abuse, being an abstract object, is causally inefficacious, yet going by how criminalized it is society believes it to be literally the most harmful thing that can happen to you, worse than murder. To show that what is called sexual abuse can be causally inefficacious and hence is an abstract object one is obliged to believe in on faith alone, we only need to consider the ongoing persecution of Laura Caron.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14343587/Laura-Caron-teacher-New-Jersey-pregnant-victim.html
A teenage boy who says he got his New Jersey teacher pregnant when he was 13 and she was 28 is standing by her after she was arrested - and insists he instigated the relationship.This case is far from unique, but rather the very paradigm of what is now most often considered “child sexual abuse” (CSA) and persecuted in the justice system. What is different here is simply the reporting, which may indicate that the cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sex is in decline, as if my activism is finally starting to pay off. I don’t really credit myself, but this is the kind of media attention I would prescribe as a first step to getting the laws changed and exactly how I have been portraying sexual “abuse” on my blog all along.
But the boy in question - who is now 19 years old - insists he doesn't feel like a victim, loves Caron with all his heart, and is hoping they can be a family soon.
Prosecutors say she preyed [sic] on the youngster and subjected him to years of abuse [sic] before allegedly having his child in 2019.
The boy, who DailyMail.com is not naming, said in an extraordinary exclusive interview that Laura Caron, 34, should not be facing trial and criticized anyone calling her a predator.
If you believe the supposed victim, we are clearly left with an ABSTRACT OBJECT as a reason for persecuting Laura Caron. Yes, persecuting. This is a witch-hunt, and now it’s not just my words saying so but the reporting of the Daily Mail!
If you think hard about the nature of abstract objects they become very elusive and harder to pin down the more you think. Unlike the objects studied by mathematics, “child sexual abuse” was never based on any logical theory to begin with either. All we have is a script springing out of a moral panic which emerged in the 1980s repeating over and over again in the courtrooms. It is abuse because the law says it is abuse and there is no room to question it -- until now. This is a different cultural moment. I hope this momentum can carry it from here and then perhaps my work is done.
74 comments:
At the other extreme to Eivind are the faggotty victim culture MRAs : https://x.com/JohnDavisJDLLM/status/1889003927338733898
But what about this? Is Andrew Tate becoming our Male Sexualist messiah?https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1890004411792990537
Looks legit. The Andrew Tate post, that is. Apart from the bits about false rape accusations, “Gender Studies for Men” is only digging himself into irrelevancy. Precisely the direction the entire culture is just about fed up with now, I see he’s got a link to a book called “Women Who Rape Men” as his pinned tweet. This is a parody of men’s rights.
But Tate truly is impressing in the other direction!
I have double digit children.
All of my sons will elicit children from women half their age for the benefit of the Tate clan.
My daughters will never be allowed to date a man anywhere near their own age.
All this “she’s too young for him” talk is from bitter old hoes and men who are too poor to get a young girl.
Nobody dates old ladies unless they’re lacking somewhere.
I hope my daughters get pregnant at 19 from 50 year old ultra wealthy rich men.
I, Andrew Tate, as a globally famous ultra adored sexy human trafficker, have unlimited female attention.
Every Instagram baddie in the world is begging to meet me all day everyday I’m a famous rich badguy.
Why would I talk to a girl above 25? I’m not gay?
Well done turning the “human trafficking” accusations around to an accolade as well: another feminist concept bites the dust along with the age gap panic.
Feminists have brainwashed society into believing that 13 year olds can't consent to sex, no matter how willing they are. You need to address that. I'm sceptical as to how talking about Plato's forms or the 'metaphysical badness of sex' is going to change anybody's mind.
I did address it, by implication that it’s the abstract object of a child that can’t consent. Modeled on a moral panic rather than reality and inserted to replace reality. Real 13-year-olds can consent just fine, of course, so if we had bothered to look at reality rather than this bullshit abstract object we would never have gotten into this mess. But lo and behold, the Daily Mail is taking a look at reality for a change!
You didn't address it. "Abstract object of a child that can't consent' is just a fancy way of saying - "of course 13 year olds can consent'. It doesn't say anything, let alone anything that might be persuasive to literally anyone on the entire planet.
What about a 3 year old? I expect you might say a 3 year old can consent, but most of us even who believe a 13 year old can consent find that idea repellent. So where does Platonic Forms help us with that?
Feminists raise the age of consent to stop men having sex with younger, hotter females, motivated by jealousy, bitterness, and fear of sexual competition. They don't really care about women having sex with boys, or for that matter, homosexuals having sex with boys, but they have to be covered by the same age of consent laws or society would cry double standards and it would be obvious to everyone what they were up to. This has been explained to you a million times but still, you need to invoke increasingly obtuse metaphysical ponderings to stop yourself beating your head against the wall.
The Daily Mail has been instrumental in fuelling paedohysteria and promoting anti male sex laws. It routinely calls men who have had sex with 17 year olds paedophiles. It absolutely demonized and dehumanized that Eastbourne male teacher who ran off with a 15 year old girl he was clearly in love with and wanted to marry throughout his long prison sentence. Now it and its majority middle-aged female readership has sympathy for a female teacher who got caught banging a 13 year old Chad pupil. You think that's a victory - I think it's absolutely sickening and makes my blood boil.
It helps because the abuse industry has committed to a narrative -- a platonic ideal asexual hypervulnerable “child” -- which is supposed to apply to boys and girls and men and women equally. Now that they are questioning it for boys and women -- yes, that’s a victory in itself for selfless humanitarian reasons and a necessary step to freeing the men too. I have been saying that we should pursue the lowest-hinging fruit first and I do rejoice when this approach gets results, even if we are only at the first step, of possibly reversing the very most absurd part of the war on sex which is the female sex offender charade, so far.
3-year-olds are also human beings rather than platonic forms. For them reality will obviously be closer to the dominant narrative than for teens, who have precisely zero resemblance to it, but you have to look at reality rather than platonism there too to know the truth. It sounds like you are committed to abstract objects to some extent while I really am a pure nominalist. This is precisely the problem, thinking a gut-level repellent idea is so important it can override anything and you don’t need to pay any attention to reality whatsoever -- like feminists do when that gut feeling is jealousy too or just greed and grifting like most of the abuse industry is driven.
And yeah, I can count on the Antifeminist to complain no matter what I write. Attacking the CSA hoax via attacking abstract objects is one angle out of many, none of which is a silver bullet. It might hit a nerve in those who are convinced there are no abstract objects, for example some philosophy students who have a passion for this. As always, we are lucky to reach one person and even then only when they basically didn’t believe in the sexual taboos to begin with, but the Daily Mail does have a bigger audience and I am extremely happy that they are now doing my activist work for me.
I wonder how the AF thinks we are supposed to reach sexual liberation without freeing the women. That’s some bizarre misogyny which is wrong on every level. We finally get some remarkable publicity that 13-year-olds can consent and don’t feel like victims in retrospect as adults either, and he finds it “sickening.” What they used to do to women and still do to men is sickening and needs to end. A reversal for women is obviously a first step since it must happen for both in order to leave the CSA panic behind. If you don’t want sexual freedom for women then you are no sexualist, and “equal injustice for all” only got us the disgusting type of “MRA” who wants victimology for men too. Fairness is a legit ideal, but we have to expect that the moral panic can’t end all at once and be happy with any progress. Women were the last in and will be the first out of prison for fake sexual abuse; that’s just how it goes.
Some snippets worth including here from a conversation about Laura Caron on another forum:
Look at the sheer audacity of characterizing this as rape after stating the teen is emphatically protesting against it.
It's called Doctrine Over Person, part of Robert Lifton's eight point description of ideological totalism. If someone's reality doesn't conform to the cult doctrine, it has to be denied or reinterpreted to fit the doctrine.
Yeah that goes with almost any ideology. Ideologies are true by definition. There is no such thing as evidence against it.
In the case of the CSA doctrine, you can point to a whole bunch of cultic features. Not just Doctrine Over Person but also Loading the Language, Milieu Control, Sacred Science, Mystical Manipulation, Demand for Purity.
To be fair, all of that is an absolute necessity due to how weak their position actually is.
Berge, on a side note, do you believe that a lot of the “rape/SA” trauma you hear from a bunch of women in the media the result of sociogenic-instilled beliefs, rather than actual harm? In other words, do you think that people are more traumatized by the immorality/tabooness and societal views of rape, rather than the act itself? Like since feminists announce rape as “worse than murder”, that others who “experienced” it have to reach societal expectations? People like Angry Harry were very critical and skeptical of the feminist uprising against rape, so was that even a point he ever considered?
(Mind you, I’m using a lot of quotations because definitions can be subjective and warped, as what we’ve seen with the abuse industry. Most importantly, the whole “anti-rape” system was made and advocated for women by women, so there probably was (or is currently) some sort of bias involved.)
I wouldn't say I'm sickened by Eivind's prioritizing of female sex offenders-he's not some cunning crawler- but I do believe it comes from a white knight instinct he hasn't completely shaken off.
The comments under the Fail article about Laura Caron are among the worst I've ever seen. OTOH, as has been noted, the "victim" is being allowed to express their views, so I consider the article as a whole to be a qualified victory.
If they'd allow a female "victim" of an older male to have her say, that would be a real breakthrough.
This could be in part due to the ongoing problem of alternative views literally not being given a platform.
-Anonymous 2
I am extremely skeptical to the entire concept of sociogenic harm. More likely the self-described victims are either lying or attributing all kinds of random problems in their lives to the supposed rape or sexual abuse. They are met with zero skepticism to this after all, so it’s a free-for-all to engage in that sport.
That said, I don’t doubt that real rape can be traumatic. I read the book “A Natural History of Rape” by Thornhill and Palmer which says there is good evidence for trauma. However, they define rape as “copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she will probably get killed or seriously injured.” How much of the “rape” we hear about in the media fits this definition? Maybe 1% or less? If it doesn’t, then I flatly don’t believe it traumatized them, sociogenically or otherwise.
Does anyone know if the speech Trump gave when he praised women and girls for their beauty as he was discussing the new ban on transgender "women" in women's sports has been noted anywhere but here, eg Sandman, Better Bachelor or Aaron Clarey? I haven't been interested in following these people for a while.
If it has, that would be great, but I have no idea. Will it turn out to be one of those things that have cropped up occasionally over the years which seem to presage better times, but which turn out to go nowhere? In answer to my own question, I find it hard to believe it means absolutely nothing, since the US President himself said it, but I don't know how much commentary or follow up there's been.
-Anonymous 2
I have not seen Trump's MAP moment noted anywhere else either. Maybe partly because he does so much worth paying attention to it got lost in the deluge and sadly the culture is probably not ready for it anyway. If Laura Caron gets hateful comments from the general public then that's a really bad sign that things aren't significantly changing at this time. The normies want their witch-hunt against victimless sexuality to continue I guess :(
Yes, and there are plenty of comments under that story about how the "victim" doesn't know their own mind.
Doctrine over person in action.
-Anonymous 2
It's a genius move Eivind. The AF is just a jealous little bitch. We need to wake up the millions of men being restricted or criminalised for their normal male sexuality. We need to wake up the tens of thousands of male sex offenders imprisoned and degraded by feminist anti-sex laws that serve women. A real men's rights movement.
So what better way than to highlight the injustice of another woman caught and punished for banging a 13 year old boy under her care? But adding Platonic Forms to it is the real genius move from Eivind. So not only do we tap into the burning rage of men when they read about another female sex offender charade case, we combine it with their tinderbox rage against Ancient Greek metaphysics. I was waiting for the bus just yesterday Eivind and two young men were almost coming to blows over the age old idealist/materialist debate. It's mayhem out there on the streets. There will be riots against Plato soon. With Eivind as leader, we will surely have millions of members before we know it, or at least one or two before we all get sexually genocided.. And surely one of them will be a female fan willing to hook up with Eivind, like Emma the Emu did, which is the really important thing, and why we call ourselves Sexualists now. I just hope you make a YouTube video of this in the shower Eivind. It will be watched by serious people. You should send it to Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson. They need your traffic.
There are many more men interested in metaphysics than sex law reform. Thousands enrolled in philosophy courses right now who study Platonism. We do have at least hundreds of activists against the sex laws, but only if we count the MAPs you hate so much. They are the only ones who will end up caring about either men or women. There is no MRA rage we can harness because men don’t care, or if they do it is only because the sex laws don’t go far enough. The closest we come is Andrew Tate’s assertion of masculinity with his millions of followers, but that never gets off the ground into activism against the laws. It does forcefully assert that there is nothing wrong with age gaps with 18-year-old women, but that’s as far as it goes.
The normies believe minors don’t know their own mind, as Anonymous 2 put it so succinctly. This is a philosophical belief. A belief that minors are sexual zombies as I’ve also characterized it, or a belief in abstract objects as I am doing now. Nothing I say has any measurable effect on public opinion, but it is more likely to at least be seen as relevant the belief system that we are up against than to go on about jealous old hags which no men care about. Even sex offenders in prison don’t care about that.
Did you see Eivind?
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/tidligere-sametingsrad-er-dod/s/5-95-2289029
I see, Norwegian politican Mikkel Eskil André Mikkelsen was driven to suicide by persecution for looking at heretical information.
Mikkelsen var siktet for at han i perioden april til juli 2024 i Bodø eller annet sted, delte og anskaffet han seg tilgang til materiale som viste seksuelle overgrep mot barn eller fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn.
I am guessing it was pictures but can also be texts according to the definition, could literally be my blog. I do have survivor’s guilt because if the witch-hunters were rational they would hunt me first because by any rational definition it is worse to be a lifelong public heretic than someone who takes a peek at heretical material in private and probably doesn’t even have a wholehearted heretical thought at the time. Mikkelsen was innocent as a lamb, not using his political position to voice a single heretical view as far as I know. Well, conducting a witch-hunt rationally is an oxymoron anyway, so I am pretty confident that won’t happen.
Even though I get reported all the time. Just last week Kripos (our version of the FBI) loaded one page at my blog and lost interest. They clearly prefer to hunt the innocent lambs and drive them to death in shame over giving me the public attention I crave. I guess that at least makes sense given that they are sadists, and they like to look at something arousing over my dry philosophical pontification. Which is funny, because if the “abuse” material isn’t enticing to the normies they might as well be reading my blog :)
It is also absolutely possible that the images that the now deceased by suicide politician Mikkel Eskil André Mikkelsen allegedly had looked at or downloaded or the stories he had read was of girls 17 years old. That would at least be most likely as that age is the age that men find girls the most attractive according to studies.
It strikes me that the Norwegian “child porn” law is not written in a way which necessitates any appeal to sexual arousal, which would be the traditional definition of pornography. From the meaning of “fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn” it can be dry as a mathematical formula or a denial of an abstract object and still fit this exceptional law which has all the hallmarks of a moral panic and then some. It is therefore misleading to call it a pornography law, except that tends to be the way it is enforced. In addition to using a nonsensical definition of “child” which includes 17-year-olds, It is also much more broadly worded to catch heresy as much as pornography if we take it at face value, plus it cracks heavily down on blasphemy against the idea that children are asexual and includes a voodoo aspect as well.
It is a mixture of a law against pornography, voodoo, blasphemy and heresy in that order, with the latter maybe not enforced at all unless another aspects is present.
The pornographic aspect is obvious and always enforced whenever they get a chance, sometimes even for fictional texts. This is material that is intended to be sexually arousing and involves a minor. Pornography in its very broadest sense including the most soft-core erotica of fully clothed minors in alluring poses, or adults posing as minors.
The blasphemy aspect goes further than this because it also criminalizes non-arousing material which shows “abuse” (“materiale som viser seksuelle overgrep mot barn”). Even if it is presented to show how bad abuse is and pedophiles don’t get aroused by it either (unless they have some kind of entirely unrelated sadistic deviance), it is criminal. This is highly curious if you think about it. Perhaps the most bizarre part of the whole law, because if it were a general principle it would impede awareness-raising about atrocities, and it does indeed prevent that for real sexual abuse. Note that one does NOT have to be a heretic to be covered by this! And not sexualize children either, since they can be seen as asexual victims who only have something sexual done to them and the material merely documents this. I guess this is why they had to split the definition up into two categories. This aspect covers DOCUMENTING abuse, which is mind-blowingly absurd if you imagine that they had the best interests of children in mind, because if so we definitely would want it to get documented for awareness and justice purposes like one does with a genocide. To make sense of this we have to insert a voodoo aspect which is the belief that abuse is ONGOING in information like ones and zeros just because it is sexual and this voodoo grows every time it is viewed or shared. Which is what the normies literally believe. This is the closest parallel to the witchcraft supposedly hunted by previous witch-hunts, every bit as absurd to believe in.
And then there is pure heresy, which does not either attempt to arouse or does not depict or narrate “abuse,” but merely “sexualizes” children in the abstract like we do here politically and philosophically. This is covered by the wording of the law but not in practice -- at least not yet in Norway. Not by Google admins either, who thrash all the constant reports against me by the feminist trolls.
We can still get away with heresy some places in the mainstream, even Facebook where I routinely say the same things as here. But not on X. Not on YouTube except when worded extremely carefully like my Nathan Larson eulogy. Not on Quora anymore either. I quit answering questions on Quora because they started removing my content for being “sexually suggestive” about minors, which is another away to encompass heresy that moderation policies are increasingly adopting beyond the “explicit” or “exploitatitive” rules.
Finally it strikes me that this analysis I just did of the meaning of the law is completely irrelevant to the normies and they would never read or understand one word of it. To them, it all boils down to simply pointing a finger at a pedophile, and it does not matter whatsoever how that was accomplished, be it a sting or loading the wrong webpage or receiving a nude selfie from a 17-year-old admirer or whatever (the most likely kind of scenario for a politician). It all collapses to the shame which killed Mikkelsen because he had that finger pointed at him. The real issue is who gets authority to point that finger; how it is used is irrelevant because that is a “fill in the black” sort of deal where that authority gets to make up anything. I have discovered that I can’t point that finger at myself, because no one cares that I say am a proud pedophile, so the mythology of how the authority to identify the witches of our time is constructed is its own topic for analysis that I will explore another time. It does not exactly correspond to the law since you can get cancelled for not breaking the law too. But one thing is sure: once you are cancelled, nobody besides your family cares that you commit suicide because you are already dead to society.
Regarding the topic of “knowing one’s mind,” a recent extendive brain study sheds some more light:
https://cambridgebrc.nihr.ac.uk/2022/04/07/brain-charts-map-the-rapid-growth-and-slow-decline-of-the-human-brain-over-our-lifetime/
The volume of grey matter (brain cells) increases rapidly from mid-gestation onwards, peaking just before we are six years old. It then begins to decrease slowly. The volume of white matter (brain connections) also increased rapidly from mid-gestation through early childhood and peaks just before we are 29 years old. The decline in white matter volume begins to accelerate after 50 years. Grey matter volume in the subcortex (which controls bodily functions and basic behaviour) peaks in adolescence at 14-and-a-half years old.
So, the number of brain cells peaks before you are six years old.
Your brain matter for controlling basic behavior (sexuality is surely basic behavior) peaks at 14 and a half, which coincides with the full adult mental age as measured on IQ tests.
Brain connections keep increasing until you are 29 and then decline.
We must be careful with concluding from a measurement of the brain to an ability to know one’s mind or making the right decisions. For one thing, if we use this approach for knowing when you become yourself, you have to conclude that people lose their ability to “know their mind” as they decline past age 29 or even 14.
But it’s interesting nonetheless that the brain matter responsible for basic behavior peaks at 14 rather than 25 or 30 as the myth goes for what you need for sexual consent.
I guess the normies will still argue that sexuality is not basic behavior but something super-complicated you need maximum brain connections to manage. But then how do they cope once they hit 30 and start declining again?
On second thought, we do observe that many don’t cope very well indeed. Many middle-aged and older women call everything abuse, perhaps because they have lost the brain cells and connections needed to understand consent which was as clear as it could ever be to them when they were 14.
Weirdly enough Dagbladet published a newsstory about his death today. Even though its a days old story already.
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/tidligere-sametingsrad-er-dod/82689849
I see he even intended to plead guilty. He had no fight in him, was just an obedient lamb to the slaughter and then even though the punishment for this would have been not very severe in Norway went all the way and killed himself because that's what public opinion calls for.
Well his career was over, he probably lost all his friends, perhaps even his family. You, of course, don't have to worry about such things.
Looks like he may have been a typical paedocrite too. https://www.highnorthnews.com/nb/sexual-abuse-northern-norway-we-must-not-abandon-them-now
True enough. The only area where I have a little bit of prestige is as a MAP activist. So no wonder I want to maximize that and be the best activist I can be. If I lost my reputation as a pedophile it would be a step down for me, lol.
That said, the lack of any willingness to make sacrifices is sad, given the enormity of injustice happening over and over again to perfectly harmless people like Laura Caron and now Mikkel Mikkelsen.
Did you see the guy who burned himself to death for Gaza? The American soldier who wasn't connected to them in any way. Even I wouldn't go that far, but there is a middle ground between doing nothing and losing everything.
Hmm. I see he was a driver of the "Tysværsaken," which is kind of like a Norwegian "grooming gang" case connected to a municipality. As I recall it was Sami people supposedly raped by Norwegians or something like that in a structural way similar to how the Brits lost their mind over Pakistanis. I remember a lot of hysteria form around 2017 but not how it turned out. How many convictions did they get and was any of that anything more than hysterical bullshit? I am strongly guessing the latter.
In any case, I think that tells me enough to retract my characterization of Mikkelsen as harmless. He was a pedocrite. Didn't deserve to die though; ideally his own persecution should have thought him a lesson about being the kind of politician who is pushing for that sort of thing!
Ok, I looked into the Tysvær case. Here is a very long article about what I concede is a core of truth to it:
https://www.utdanningsnytt.no/hovedsak-overgrep-i-barnehage-og-skole-seksuelle-overgrep/laereren-misbrukte-elever-i-35-ar/183667
But that’s just one pederast who was a teacher and operated for 35 years. It is much exaggerated in its own way as usual because we can tell at least most of this must have been consensual, consisting of teenage boys who kept coming back for more “abuse” again and again. The teacher was eventually convicted to four years in prison.
But this is only the beginning of the peak hysteria in 2017 which Mikkelsen fanned some more which claimed 151 abuse cases in the municipality. At that time they had 82 victims and 92 suspects… none of which have been convicted to my knowledge even after researching it. My memory about an ethnic grooming gang panic was somewhat faulty but my judgment was as not wrong.
Seems like the hysteria just died down until now our political hero of that investigation tasted his own medicine. Karma?
After perusing that tour de force CSA narrative about the police investigating that pederast teacher which was also a tremendous tour de force delving into cases long past the statute of limitations because the police just can’t get enough “abuse” to investigate…. I must say it is a textbook case of stereotypical CSA panic where all of reality is twisted to blame the villain of our times. With some added unintentional humor:
Overgriperen lagde sår i guttene. Sår som ikke er grodd. Én orker ikke tegne, én drikker ikke kaffe av liten kopp og en tredje spiser ikke karameller. Mange av dem har hatt problemer med nærhet og seksualitet. Alle samtalene har gjort etterforskeren klar på at man må ha åpenhet om seksuelt misbruk av barn.
When it comes to the supposed harm, I was expecting something more sinister than “not eating caramels,” lol. When you interview scores of men and ask them about problems in their life which can possibly be related to the “sexual abuse” which can’t possibly be defined as anything other than abuse even if they liked it and the entire culture is expecting them to come up with something devastating -- yeah, you will find harm, because nobody is perfect, but I can’t imagine this is worse than you would find in a random sample similarly pressured to blame any random cause. This evidence is at the level of astrology. And the one who does not eat caramels because it reminds him of his abuser -- hmm, if that bribe was enough to turn him gay as a teen -- NOT a child -- then I don’t think he was altogether straight anyway.
There was no force, just the usual metaphysical redefinition into abuse. The boys were 13-16 and resourceful ones rather than special needs kids and then the abuse magically ended when they reached the age of consent but it does not say whether the sexual activity ended or we just quit pretending it is abuse at that point?
Have we no ability to comprehend that a teen is actually a human at the height of his mental powers as I just posted a study of? If he can be “abused” by some caramel candy then something is wrong with your definition of abuse!
This culture is insane, but we knew that and we can’t make them understand -- once again they have to drift out of it.
Another lamb to the slaughter...
https://eu.jacksonsun.com/story/news/crime/2025/02/03/jackson-youth-pastor-pleads-guilty-sexual-crimes-against-minor/78183021007/
Ryan McElrath, a former Fellowship Bible Church youth pastor in Jackson, pled guilty to sexual crimes against a minor in court on Monday.
Appearing in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service in the U.S. District Court for the Western Division of Tennessee, McElrath, 40, entered a plea agreement on Count 1 of his indictment on charges of Statutory Rape by an Authority Figure, Sexual Battery by an Authority Figure, and Aggravated Statutory Rape.
The plea agreement stipulates that he faces a minimum prison sentence of 10 years and a maximum of life, a maximum fine of $250,000, and supervised release for not less than five years and up to life.
I am noting this case because it quite possibly holds the world record in metaphysically invalidated text messages sent by a teen girl (aged 14-17). Of course none of these in any way indicate that she was into him or that there was any kind of mutual relationship. It was all abuse :)
Morrow noted that over the course of three years, McElrath and the victim exchanged more than 39,000 text messages, many of which were sexually explicit in nature, including the scheduling and various locations for sexual activity.
The ability of this panic to ignore reality is absolutely limitless.
"On June 11, 2024, the father of a minor teenager, referred to in court documents as "Minor A," reported the assault against his daughter to the Jackson Police Department, according to the state warrant."
Another Conservative Red State Male Feminist Simp H*mo F*ggot Jealous Evangelical Christcuck.
The f*ggot "right wing" is simply a party of deranged pedocrite lunatics, more oppressive and brutal than the left. Their feminist thought leaders like Nancy Mace are also more shrill and psychotic.
anon69
Hate to say it but I can't see how men who study philosophy, as a group, are going to be very good MAP activists.
I take an intermittent interest in philosophy and I've seen one or two y/tube videos in which the speakers are totally on board with the program.
Here's another example-https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=larkin+rose .
This guy absolutely takes the cake.
He criticizes people for being emotion-led but towards the end says all child sex offenders should be shot. No nuance whatsoever and he's supposed to be a libertarian.
Maybe he knows and hasn't got the stomach for a fight, just like the vast majority of philosophy geeks I'm sure.
The video is nevertheless interesting for a couple of reasons. He reminds us of the limitations of US Presidential powers, specifically in relation to the (rumoured?) possible future Executive Order about executing child sex offenders. It's also good, I guess, that he's prepared to call out people who are happy to have the rule of law subverted without considering the possibility that it erodes the rule of law and leads to dictatorship. But that's as far as he goes. He doesn't question blowing "child sex offenders' " heads off, only who should sign the death warrant.
It's a lot like the Libertarian slogan I've come across about how they want to see a gay married couple being able to defend their marijuana patch with fully automatic weapons while saying nothing about paedohysterical laws. Whoop-de-frickin-doo.
-Anonymous 2
With these pederasty cases, when you are not a pederast and not gay, it’s easy to think that was disgusting so it must be harmful. I do that too with descriptions like this of that Tysvær pederast:
Etterpå kler de på seg og kjører videre. Nå skal de på kaffebesøk, sier læreren og er glad. Fredrik vil hjem, og i alle fall ikke på besøk. Han er redd for at noen skal kjenne at det lukter sæd fra munnen hans. Men han sier ingenting og blir med på besøk til de voksne vennene til Læreren.
I can easily get carried away into thinking this is bad too because I am not a homosexual, but then I remind myself that disgust is not the mechanism they believe in. They believe the same harm applies when the teacher is a hot young woman. That means we are dealing with metaphysics.
Don’t lose sight of this. It’s all superstition. When the abuse industry can’t distinguish between a pederast and a beautiful woman they can’t be taken seriously to even attempt to define anything real. Their entire “theory” of CSA harm is 100% bullshit. And even if you only look at pederasty we have a control group consisting of tremendous pederasts like Norman Douglas who has sex with hundreds of boys but left behind no “victims” at all because the culture at the time did not believe they were victimized and the boys didn’t end up believing that either. There can’t be anything real to it and even the supposed sociogenic harm from the CSA panic probably goes away when you compare to a random sample, because they now get to blame every problem in their life on the supposed abuse.
A boy who does not like pederasty can simply say no and of course it would be abuse if he is coerced. But that is not what we are talking about and there is no harm from the sex itself.
@Anonymous 2 I’m actually libertarian, I have a bit of right-wing/conservative beliefs, voted Trump, but I don’t agree with what that guy said at the end of the video.
Believe it or not, I’m actually against the death penalty. I find these asinine and ridiculous sex offender/pedo panic laws completely irrational and out of control. Not a shocker for a place like this, but I’m probably an outlier for my party because I don’t pour myself onto Twitter and wish death for “pedos” every five minutes. It will be shocker to “them” that most people who commit and fulfill “CSA” are not even pedos. So, in turn, ironically wishing death on “pedos” isn’t literally going to give them what they want.
I’m also not the one for the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” mentality either because America’s CJS is also hogwash too. Some many things wrong with it, yet everyone else thinks it’s so perfect. QANON is baseless too, so that’s just a bunch of foolishness as well.
Several months ago, a user on Quora hostility declared me a liberal, (even though I’m not) after I told him that I was against a Spanish mother setting her daughter’s rapist on fire (especially since he had already served his time) after he “taunted” her. He screamed and yelled at me in capital letters, making all sorts of misconstructions and assumptions, before finally ending the sentence on the notion that I must be “liberal” because I don’t support vigilante justice against sex offenders. Checked his profile and he definitely was a conservative Trump supporter. Yet, little does he know that he just disrespected one of own kind. Never got to respond to him because blocked me in I presume an act of moral righteousness/superiority. I have an extra account, just in case I feel like I need to respond, but so much time has passed since then that I am still contemplating on whether I should continue the conversation or not. Lesson here is to engage in critical and intellectual discussion in a respectful manner. Though alas, polarizing politics have made this nearly impossible.
I will admit that I have seen liberals act like this too, in a way that they also use the whole “rape/pedo” rhetoric against Trump and his supporters. The whole “rage” against “CSA” comes from all sides of the political spectrum, but conservatives have been the most historically and staunchly vocal about it because their party revolves around “nuclear family values” and “law and order”. Feminists are the one that got the laws in book because their push was so loud and prominent.
The Clintons, Tipper Gore and Joe Liberman were also running amok with the “protect the children” dogma in the 80s and 90s with the PMRC, opposition to violent video games, and tough on crime agendas. Though, they’re all well known democrats with liberal ideologies, so it really isn’t that black and white. You just have to aware that the whole “pedorage” infects the minds of anyone who is a “normie”, not necessarily because of their political party affiliation. The true believers are the whole recognize this bullshit and fight against the ocean tide.
I studied philosophy at a leading university. I remember noticing during my first tutorial with our professor that he actually had a book of age of consent arguments on his shelf. He flirted openly with the 18 year old female freshers, and (allegedly) had many affairs with students. He is sadly dead now.
If you mean philosophers as a group won't be on our side (speaking not as a 'MAP' but as a real man), I think that's just true of any group. I remember Peter Singer once said something very controversial about sex with children, admitting that his consequentialist philosophy might lead to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with it. And that's where Eivind goes wrong. It's not about a belief in Platonic Forms, it's the lie that willing sex as teens leads to bad consequences. That has to be addressed. Women say that the sex they had when 14 has led them to have all sorts of problems at 30. They do this for many reasons. Partly it is reframing their experience to cope with their loss of SMV. Partly or many times they are simply lying out of bitterness and jealousy. Sometimes they are seeking victim compensation. They may also just have been brainwashed by the feminist narrative, or genuinely scarred by the victim label or any forced therapy. This all needs to be addressed and fought against. The simplest way is to point out the sexual motivation or jealousies of feminists (and older women in general).
But yes, Ivory Tower philosophers talking about metaphysics and Plato make poor activists. (AF)
If CSA leads to bad consequences, there must be some kind of mechanism for it. Very well, let’s explore what the mechanism is. Is it because it is a bad experience? Nope, it can be an absolutely beautiful experience with the most beautiful woman and it is still dogmatically believed to cause problems. Is it because it is shameful? Nope, a boy who gets a beautiful woman becomes the envy of both his peers and older men.
The normies believe in harm that is out of this world. Disgust, coercion, shame, whatever you can think of that might plausibly be a mechanism for harm is irrelevant to the dogma because it is always applicable anyway. It is unfalsifiable. The essence of CSA is causally inefficacious by any identifiable mechanism and still believed to cause harm.
When the normies don’t need a mechanism in this world to explain their supposed harm, what else is there left for us to do but to confront the metaphysics? They are making a metaphysical claim about abstract objects at that point, so that’s how it must ultimately be dealt with.
Do you remember the name of the book by chance?
When there is no causal harm, the only arguments they got left are of the type “it is wrong because it is wrong.” So it might be about belonging to a community of believers. Who cares if the belief if true? You just gotta believe to belong. This is how religious groups operate, and CSA is indeed the state religion of our time.
There are so many other reasons to restrict sex. Parental control. Jealousy. Employment for the abuse industry and payouts to “victims.”
If you want to upset this status quo you automatically become a big misfit like me. There is no way to make a living that way and as a rule you are either hated or ignored, with the latter most usual for me.
We are misfits and outsiders just for questioning CSA. Most of you dabble in opposition rather than do it full-time like me, which does not threaten the status quo. Governments don’t even care about MAP or sexualist activism at all because it is so insignificant. In contrast to…
Germany’s Orwellian Nightmare: Police Raid Homes Over Memes—JD Vance Slams Insane Hate Speech Crackdown! Prepare to be shocked as "60 Minutes" exposes Germany’s jaw-dropping crackdown on free speech, where posting a meme or an insult online can land armed police at your door! In this viral segment, German prosecutors proudly admit to raiding homes, seizing phones, and fining citizens for what they deem “hate speech”—including reposting memes or even liking controversial posts. The absurdity reaches new heights as "60 Minutes" rides along with police storming an apartment over a racist cartoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTnnMO6FWxs
Ok, maybe it’s a good thing that we are so obscure at the moment, because we wouldn’t have a chance if they really decided to crack down on us. On the other hand, what they are cracking down on there might actually get so strong that it will prevail in Europe. Too bad it is led by antisex bigots like Tommy Robinson and I don’t know if AfD is any better?
Right now maybe fighting the Russians is a bigger priority though. Is Europe deciding to go to war without the US? Crazier things have happened before. Not most likely but it might happen. We will be crushed for sure.
“That said, I don’t doubt that real rape can be traumatic. I read the book “A Natural History of Rape” by Thornhill and Palmer which says there is good evidence for trauma. However, they define rape as “copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she will probably get killed or seriously injured.” How much of the “rape” we hear about in the media fits this definition? Maybe 1% or less? If it doesn’t, then I flatly don’t believe it traumatized them, sociogenically or otherwise.”
Exactly, how much of “rape” is actually just benign, like interpreting “no” as “yes” or a mutual “rape fantasy” where two people are aroused, but one has to at least “initiate” the intercourse. Perhaps someone was doozy, but not impaired, though the cues given were ambiguous. You know, the non-violent rape? Not the “rape-rape” where an armed, foul-mouthed, and ski-mask-wearing thug breaking into her home and tying up a woman in a chair or a man pinning down his wife/girlfriend after a fight escalated from a domestically-violent argument. That what’s most people (especially woman) think of as the ideal rape scenario. That it is also sadistic and pervasive at epidemic levels because feminists love to use a rape as a figurative metaphor for all the suppression from “patriarchy” that is happening to them. Rape trauma is subjective to the circumstances and the situation involved. Not to mention, a lot of women’s problems could be attributed to a bunch of other things occurring in their lives, such the relationship between the person that did it.
Regardless, rape is legally considered sexual violence, even if it doesn’t involve violence, force, or coercion. That is where the nuance should be applied. Even if there was trauma, I don’t it’s permanent. Even people with near-death experiences and serious injuries who are still left intact don’t suffer for the rest of their lives. It is not like torture or getting paralyzed where you may not be able to function for the rest of your life. I just hate how the whole anti-rape system can’t just let “real-rape-rape” women be resilient or grow out of it because they wanna how “wrong” it is.
I would love to see a “Rind-esque” meta-analysis conducted on non-clinical/legal samples of assault/rape and see where it ranks on the scale. Let’s see where the ones that don’t report or don’t feel strongly about being a “victim” stand.
But a study like that would probably be extremely difficult to conduct because how tedious it would be to find people willing to respond, participate in research and then get compared to a control group that deals with such sensitive topics?
I know I haven’t spoken fondly of Reddit in the past, but I did discover a thread where a woman who was raped didn’t feel traumatized and said that most rape victims just want to play the victim. She said that has been around women and believes that they can just be as cunning, evil, and nefarious as men. I remember one of her comments mentioning “The Trauma Myth” book by Susan Clancy. So, take of that what you will. If I find it, I’ll post it.
Yes, rape law has been corrupted beyond any resemblance to what might be traumatizing. You have to go back to the common-law definition of rape to find it reasonable. There are still remnants of this in some jurisdictions but then that's called first-degree rape and they have added on many more bullshit categories including statutory rape which in turn keeps getting expanded. As I recall, Thornhill and Palmer does not even humor the possibility that that sort of thing might be traumatizing. The definition I quoted is very good at capturing what might plausibly be traumatizing because it involves literally overpowering the woman's will. An abstract notion of "consent" need not be factored into the definition if you look at how much she resists. Even a very drunk woman can resist enough to make it unambiguous, so there is none of that grey area stuff where it is a matter of opinion whether she "really" consented. Also they do not consider being young a substitute for force like corrupted rape law does, and they hypothesize and present some evidence that women are most likely to be traumatized at the height of their fertility whereas raping a postmenopausal or prepubescent girl is less traumatizing. I don't know if exactly that research has been replicated and I wouldn't put TOO much faith in it, but it does follow logically from the idea that it hurts more to lose something more (reproductively) valuable. It is exactly opposite to popular belief which can't imagine anything other than children being most vulnerable to everything.
@ Anonymous, Monday, February 17, 2025 10:14:39 PM-I was commenting in the context of Eivind's idea about reaching out to men with qualifications or a serious interest in philosophy.
Larkin Rose might not be quite what Eivind had in mind, but close enough, and his lack of self-awareness appears to be off the charts.
My basic point is that I don't see an army of giga chad philosophy PhD's taking up the cause.
Good for that professor, but how long ago was it?
BTW, with his views on abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, I wouldn't want Peter Singer on my side about anything.
@Anonymous, Monday, February 17, 2025 9:58:27 PM- I can see where you're coming from and I too am against the death penalty and long prison sentences for the sake of it, even though many of my views are conservative/libertarian.
I was once speaking to someone I liked and respected with somewhat similar ideas about the world, and the topic of "paedophiles" came up and he said he though anyone who had sex with a person under 18 should be executed.
Just as with the Quora jerk, most of the time one doesn't have much to work with.
And absolutely, both sides try to out-do each other.
-Anonymous 2
The concept of "rape" is a feminist hoax as it is currently defined, which is sex against "consent". Women talk about "rape" constantly because they fantasize about being "raped" and want it. And b4 anyone says anything else, 50 shades of grey is the top female porn best seller, there is nothing to debate here, it's right there out in the open and confirmed. Most women also have orgasms when they are "raped" even when it's the classic "punch and rape". Also, if you've ever banged women successfully without paying them money, you already know you have to be aggressive and push the line between consensual sex and rape if you want to get laid.
Women are attracted to the concept of a man who doesn't care about a woman's opinion or the law, a man who is so turned on by the woman that he is willing to risk his life to have sex with her. This is another reason why women will keep pushing more ridiculous sex laws, because the man who is willing to break them to bang her must be more daring, which turns the woman on. Then, of course, the woman can control the man by blackmailing him with the sex laws afterwards, crying "rape" at any time to get money and attention.
The worst baby boy male feminist pathetic simps implement this system, especially conservative english-speaking populations that ban prostitution and push the "human trafficking" feminist myth. Best to just leave these people to their misery, since they will die off soon anyway because they are weak.
anon69
Misandrist stereotypes. That’s exactly what these sex laws are rooted in and inspired by: To keep debaucherous men away from women and girls. That’s why men are punished so severely for these crimes because society believes they have powerful and pervasive impulses.
There is much truth in this. Given how rape is defined these days to mean almost anything, it follows that women enjoy rape if they enjoy sex at all. Which they do, especially when the man shows some initiative which is so often confused with rape. And that's without getting into their explicit rape fantasies which are also numerous.
Is this sick or what?!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3415628/It-motivated-love-Professor-s-begging-letter-judge-jailed-sexual-relationship-diaper-clad-man-cerebral-palsy-not-speak.html
Anna Stubblefield gave this disabled man the time of his life and she was sentenced to prison, supervised parole for the rest of her life and in addition has to register as a sex offender.
Because sex is first of all bad.
And it’s the root of all evil. Remember, if you ever want to make an audience despise a character, turn him into a rapist and you’ll have everyone begging for his comeuppance. At least, that’s what most “cop-paganda” soap operas do.
There is a non sequitur in all these cases based on a supposed inability to consent, such as with Anna Stubblefield and a disbbled man and all the female teachers and their contrived "victim" students. It does not follow that sex is a bad thing even if we were to grant them that first step of denying consent.
How can we so totally disregard the real issue? The most relevant question to ask is, was the sex a bad thing in any way? And if not, then don't prosecute! Definitely don't prosecute when all you have is metaphysical badness. But that is what they do, and the normies are happy with. Even when the facts attest that the sex was a very good thing, it is taboo to consider that aspect (until the Daily Mail at least reported it with Laura Caron).
So yes, the supposed badness of sex is the supreme principle of this civilization. It is the most sacred truth to the religion of our time. None of the traditional religions managed to demonize sexuality to this extent. It took a supposedly secular legal framework to go this insane.
I'm not sure about this. It's clearly about whether he could consent and, unlike the schoolboy sex cases, not clear he even enjoyed it - at least from my quick initial reading of the article. We can all agree that feminist society inflates the harm of even unwilling sex AND raises the consent threshold way too high, but just framing it completely as a superstitious or metaphysical belief that 'sex is bad' or in ' Platonic Forms' seems to be missing a huge deal. If somebody showed me a video of a tranny coming into my bedroom last night and sucking my cock and touching my butt while I was asleep, for sure I'd be absolutely disgusted and want to do him some harm, and it's not because I'm a Platonic Idealist who believes 'sex is bad'. Eivind might say the tranny merely 'physically assaulted me' but I'd feel less victimised if he'd just punched me, even if he left a tangible physical harm such as a black eye. Eivind may also argue that it would be different if it was a (real) woman. Well, I'm not sure that it would, if it was an unattractive middle-aged woman like the one in the article. (AF)
@,Anonymous - No, sorry, I can't remember the name of the book my Professor had. It was the 1990's. Around that time I read a couple of books in libraries arguing for sexual libertarianism whose authors and titles I forgot, and I so wish I hadn't. One was by a male author and he devoted a chapter to the age of consent. He made the argument that paedophiles are probably providing an evolutionary benefit in teaching children about sex, and that's why their genes persist (he must have been talking about real paedophiles, but I can't remember for sure). The other book was actually by a heretical feminist. What I remember about that book is that she claimed many sex offenders in prison are there because they actively chose political resistance against age of consent laws. Whenever I'm browsing second hand bookshops in the UK I hope to come across those books.
I don't agree with you, but even if it is true that this disabled man didn't enjoy it, it is much worse to deny sex to all the disabled people who do enjoy it just because it's unclear if they can consent. This is an evil general rule and therefore evil to apply in a particular case like Anna Stubblefield too. Comparable to antinatalism in its anti-life philosophy, or worse because it means disabled people must be born and bear all the drudgery of life but can't enjoy sex just to be on the "safe side" that no one has it without consent.
The only reason why that general rule seems like a good idea to this society is because the metaphysical badness of sex is the supreme value. The culture assigns no positive value and infinite negative value to sex. Absolutely no positive value which can weigh against the need to be on the safe side that no one is abused. They would rather do away with sex altogether than risk any "abuse." I don't want to live in that kind of world, which is why I am an activist against it.
I found it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/8cl6ej/comment/dxk4xqp/
“Rape is one-sided sex, and I’m finding it hard to see it as any more damaging than any other kind of physical assault. Rape victims would have a better argument if they emphasized the fact that rape means unwanted risk of pregnancy and STDs instead of the “trauma” it inevitably causes. Like, do people think that unwanted dicks are covered in “oh poor me” spores that’ll infect women and ruin their lives? Some of the bullshit I’ve heard equating rape to things like losing an arm or being tortured is just unbelievable; sex doesn’t magically go from being the greatest human pleasure to something torturous simply in the absence of consent.”
“My mother was raped at the age of 23, but she wasn’t traumatized; my college friend was raped at the age of 19, but she wasn’t traumatized; I was raped at the age of 16, but I wasn’t traumatized. I don’t know what you think trauma looks like, but everything I’ve ever seen or experienced when it comes to non-violent rape has directly contradicted everything I’ve ever heard about rape. It makes you wonder how many women out there believe they are traumatized because they are told that they just have to be, how many women out there were depressed before they were raped, how many women out there use the fact that they were raped just to feel like they belong to a larger community (of other women who were raped), how many women out there would rather blame their inability to succeed on the fact that they were raped than on themselves, how many women out there justify their own character flaws with the fact that they were raped, how many women out there use their having been raped as a source of empowerment and entitlement, and how many women out there fool themselves into believing they’re traumatized because they know that they can use that fact to gain sympathy from anyone for anything in almost any situation. As a woman who lives among women, I can gaurantee the existence of the halo effect (hell, I’m guilty of taking advantage of it), and make it abundantly clear that women can be just as conniving, ridiculous, and evil as any male, they just have different urges that drive different behaviors.”
It’s an old thread from an alternate account, so it’s not like you can respond to her.
Well, I do agree with your general sentiment, but just like with the age of consent, there has to surely be a line somewhere, and it's not entirely reducible to a metaphysical belief that 'sex is bad'. If you think it is, then it follows you think a man having sex with a baby is fine, so long as it gives no clear indication that it doesn't like it, as well as sex with a coma patient.
The details of this particular case are that he is severely mentally retarded and cannot communicate at all other than through controversial 'facilitated communication'. This woman was fulfilling that role for his family. His family claim that she told them that the man 'communicated' to her that he liked listening to Bach in the car (just like her), that he wished to be a vegan (just like her), and then that he wanted to live with her.
BTW, he is black, just like so many of the 13 year old Chads that white female teachers get caught with. Seems 80% of Eivind's activism in resistance to white women restricting the sexual rights of men with teen girls is actually defending the right of white women to suck underage (and now sometines even vegetable) BBC. It's as if Sinwar thought the most important thing was to fight for the right of Jews to live in beachfront mansions in Gaza.
Feminists have amplified the issue of 'sexual consent' and given it all-importance as a means to restrict male sexual opportunities with young girls, prostitutes, casting couch etc. etc. A few women getting locked up for sucking a 13 year old black Tyrone or a black man in a wheelchair is just insignificant collateral damage as far as feminists are concerned.
But if you believe in the mysterious metaphysical entity of 'cultural drift' as the explanation, then you remove human agency and goals, such as that of feminists. When Marx saw that the job of philosophy was 'to change the world, not just interpret it', he realized that he had to abandon the Hegelian idealist belief in a 'world spirit' directing social change, and instead become a materialist and look only at Earthly economic processes driven by all too human motivations for profit and greed. I wish Eivind could give up on superstitious abstract nonsense like 'cultural drift' that explain nothing and inspire nobody and look instead solely at the manifest human motivations behind sex laws.
The AF (I think, hard to tell when everyone is "Anonymous") is preaching sex exceptionalism, which is another word for the metaphysical badness of sex. He thinks there is some special badness which is only found in sex just because it is sex. It is really simple if you get rid of that.
A rock does not have the capacity to consent. That means it also does not have the capacity to NOT consent. These go together. The only way you can construct one without the other is by metaphysics or sex exceptionalism.
A man who is so intellectually disabled that he does not have the capacity to consent (except as claimed by his lover Anna Stubblefield) likewise also does not have the capacity to NOT consent. This part is made up out of sex-exceptionalism and I reject it entirely. At that point it must be treated just like any other activity a person might reasonably enjoy, and he should get to enjoy the things that make like fulfilling for the rest of us, not be excepted from them based on an assumption that he can’t consent to them.
Still not clear? Very well, let’s take another example. Suppose his caretaker or friend wants to play some music and thinks he would enjoy it. Do we inject some music exceptionalism and claim he can’t consent to listening to music and that that there is some grievous harm worthy of 15 years in prison like prosecutors wanted for Anna? Crazy, right? If he can’t communicate clearly enough for courts to believe whether he likes music then there is also no reason to assume harm in it, unless there is an obvious problem with it, for example being too loud or repetitive such that a normal person would also object to it. Thinking he needs to be carefully shielded from sexual activity is just as crazy as thinking he needs to be shielded from music his whole life, because sex works the same way if you get rid of sex exceptionalism.
This way we can say no to harmful things like forcing him to be vegan based on unclear communications because a reasonable person wouldn’t want that (not make a hysterical crime out of it either though if he tries it for a while and gets adequate nutrition). It is also not okay for a random man to walk in and have sex, because most men would not want that. But a woman he is close to? You have to be insane to impute harm to that. Sex exceptionalism is insane. They think sex is “obviously” a tremendous problem just because it is sex, and even if a person by all appearances enjoys it, just because there is no “consent” as that is hysterically defined. And this virus of the mind is so pervasive it has infected the AF too, or rather he hates women so much that he is willing to resort to it to put them in prison.
Yes, for some reason it won't post my comment unless I choose the default Anonymous option. I might reply to you later here or on my own blog post. Maybe we can find a 'synthesis' of our opposing positions?
Meanwhile here are a couple of interesting and optimistic unrelated links for discussion:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c778ldvpn0po
https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace
Trump's officials are putting pressure on Romania to relax Andrew Tate's travel restrictions. Perhaps he really is going to do something for men's rights and male sexualism this time?
The second is an essay by the CEO of Anthropic. It's worth reading by anybody here aware that AI will shake up the world in the next decade, certainly before 'peak oil'. He is optimistic, but more realistic than a hard-core 'Singularitarian'. He believes that within a decade or so of super-intelligent AI (which he expects next year), we will enjoy 'biological freedom'. What he means by this is that we will have full control over our DNA to modify our physical appearance in just about any way we want. In other words, everybody could choose to look 18 and hot (as I've always predicted, most women will choose to look 14 or 15 - to the delight of 'MAPs' and just about every other man on the planet). You can say he is just hyping up AI but I don't believe that. And he's not exactly alone in having these kind of predictions. Anyway, I prefer to have hope than to just to sit around praying for the collapse of Industrial Civilization and our own painful deaths in order to 'spite feminists'. (AF)
Eivind, this is getting very ridiculous. Are you seriously going to spend your time arguing with 'AF' who is an incel that actually hates women and is waiting for robots to have sex with, or are you going to at least try to make a difference? You are obviously very intelligent, your writing is extremely good and you have arguments that are really eye opening. The solution is to get into the mainstream media if you want to make a difference. Im absolutely sure some newspaper in Norway is going to accept an opinion piece from you, and when they do it will get noticed for sure.
AI is not going to do anything. In my profession some companies have introduced AI that is not able to do anything other than to produce some pretty and useless pictures. AI is a hype. Its not going to solve anything.
"Biological freedom"? "Full control of our DNA"? ."Everybody could choose to look 18 and hot"? Bollocks! Not even DNA itself if it wanted to could achieve that. It has had millions of years of evolution to do so, why hasn't it? More to the point, how could an information retrieval and photoshopping technology (for that's what AI is) be a game changer?
Modern biology and medicine are a failure. All modern medicine has been able to do is replace death by heart attack by death by malingnancies + old age with Alzheimer's. Modern medicine has not been able to develop an efficient topical cure for nail fungus. In order to get rid of the nail fungus you need to take liver toxic tablets for weeks on end. How's that with looking 18 and hot?
Remember the cartography of the genome? What's come out of that? Nothing, except some clever people could retire millionaires at 35. Same with nanotechnologies, gene therapy, ... All such hypes are at best mountains giving birth to a mouse.
The purpose of "LIFE", that earthly tragedy everyone worships, is to maximise mayhem and suffering. It has no interest in health, beauty, harmony, happiness or rationality, and it will resist any attempt at treatment or improvement like it always has.
Yes, Jack, I don’t believe AI will be transformative until I see it. I have lived through so many hype cycles which amounted to nothing or very little. I remember all the hypes you mention. I remember when Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess in 1997. Very impressive, but it didn’t change the world. Now AI can do a few more tricks. It can actually diagnose diseases very well if you tell it your symptoms, but curing is another matter which we are no closer to, least of all with the one disease which progresses like clockwork for all of us, which still can’t be slowed down a single second per year.
AI can’t even take enough jobs to move the unemployment rate noticeably. I think it will mainly raise expectations for what you are expected to do for the same pay. I doubt we get any better quality of life for that added efficiency, which will rather go towards making billionaires richer.
And AI will spy on us in creepy ways, seeing everything we see on our devices:
https://youtu.be/6bPJzLXdEcA?si=iDxxFlZ7rV1HtKHU
On new devices now end-to-end encryption is dead not because it doesn’t work anymore, but because your AI assistant is watching everything you type. You can still prevent this by using Linux but can’t have a private conversation unless the person you want to talk to does the same.
In the future, the old advice not to talk to cops will be obsolete because they can just interrogate your AI assistant anytime they want. It already is mostly obsolete because they have complete surveillance already. We are getting all the downsides and hardly any upsides to this technology.
I am impressed that some people get a sort of “friendship” out of the chatbots. Some very smart people I know does this. But this is more a disappointment with humanity to me because I don’t see this value myself. All I see is a new way to have information regurgitated that was initially better put by humans. Sure it can summarize and save you time, but it can’t do anything new and good.
Some good news for a change, and from Australia of all places-https://cairnsnews.org/2025/02/19/do-not-always-believe-a-sexual-assault-victim-nsw-police-charge-fraudulent-claimants-over-1b-paid-in-false-claims/ .
The amount alleged to have been defrauded by alleged victims and laws firms that have been representing them is $1 billion, but more allegations could emerge.
Cops are attack dogs and will just as easily attack false accusers as innocent men if the tide turns. It's only a vibe but to me it seems that the cops themselves are actually p*ssed off about it.
A number of laws have been passed in NSW in recent years that make this kind of fraud easier, but these can be either repealed or countered by other legislation.
An example of the former is this-
"Civil libertarians say the former statute of limitations which prevented alleged claimants going back 20 or more years should be reinstated and the MeToo movement should be investigated for false claims."
Okay, it hasn't happened yet but until now it seemed inconceivable that any of these laws would be in the firing line at all. It's also remarkable that civil liberties groups, which have been so damned quiet about these crazy laws, are now weighing in on the subject.
In the case of the latter, there is a proposed Bill in NSW Parliament to outlaw claim farming, which is what it sounds like.
-Anonymous 2
"I remember when Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess in 1997. Very impressive, but it didn’t change the world."
Everybody knew at the time that Deep Blue and other chess programs won with brute processing power. Still, it was a milestone and a demonstration of the information processing power that computers were now reaching, enabling them to do certain cognitive tasks better than even the best human. Around the same time, computers and the Internet were literally taking over the world.
"AI can’t even take enough jobs to move the unemployment rate noticeably."
Good thing about these predictions and the dismissals of them by philosophical Luddites is we don't have to wait very long. This year will see the release by all the top AI companies of 'autonomous AI agents". I agree that if in 12-18 months, there has still been no noticeable impact on the jobs market, then this was indeed all hype and you can call me out on it forevermore. On the other hand, if there is a clear impact, and you're still saying it's all hype, and confidently predicting peak oil etc, then I would go as far to say that anybody who still takes you seriously about anything you say would be borderline retarded. Personally, I had been paying for a virtual assistant in India to help me for a number of years, but now I can get AI to do everything he did in a week, in minutes - mostly for free.
This would have to be the biggest hype in human history. It might not cure disease in a decade, and certainly not turns all into hot teens, but any intelligent individual can see it will cause increasing social disruption over the next decade, likely starting in the next 2 or 3 years. I want to change our situation. I don't want to sit in my Ivory Tower waiting....and waiting...for peak oil and the collapse of civilization. I see an opportunity. AI is going to change the world, even it's 'no more' than how the Internet change the world. As activists, rather than would be leaders of sex cults, we need to understand it in order to possibly exploit it.
And yes, I agree that 'overhyped' AI will be used to spy on us. I think it's much more likely that AI will result in a dystopia and things being even worse for us, but in a small way, that might depend on us. (AF)
Wow, this is huge. Up to now, if the police had to acknowledge a false accusation they have always included a sanctimonious statement about how rare it is and how they continue to take every single claim extremely seriously no matter how old it is, but this is different. It is the first time I have seen the abuse industry admit to any kind of systematic problem. And yes, the police can be repurposed to fight the other way. The lawyers, not so much unless there is money to be had addressing the false claims, and I don't really see a source for that.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov not because it was more intelligent, but because it was much faster than him.
A computer cannot think, it can only perform very simple calculations according to algorithms that were taught to it by humans. The strength of that computer was that in a second it could analyze millions of possibilities, while Kasparov could analyze at most three or four.
Essentially, therefore, a computer is nothing more than a lightning fast idiot. But an idiot cannot be intelligent by definition. Therefore, AI does not exist.
Yes, I largely agree with your Schopenhauerian/Houellbecquian view Jack (BTW, I finally finished 'The MAP and the Territory' the other week!). Even if AI could do that almost overnight, there is no way society could cope with it, especially with all the other radical upheaval - unless AI becomes our benevolent overlords.
I do think, however, that you're a bit too pessimistic, perhaps for psychological reasons. As regards the cartography of the genome, I think I mentioned recently that I had genetic testing for a mutation that leads to colon cancer, which means I have to get screened every year. If my brother had taken it five years ago it would have saved his life. I'm not a biologist, but would things like the Covid vaccine have even been possible without the mapping of the genome?
People are getting more attractive (leaving aside the in rate in obesity for those of us not into BBWs). You just have to watch films and TV from the 70's and 80's to see that. And it's not just about fashions, 40 year olds back then looked like 50 year olds do today.
Anyway, as I said - we don't have to wait long to determine whether it is all hype. My concern is that commentators here are entirely defeatist. Maybe you're right, but it doesn't make for a 'movement' or for activism. We surely need some hope in order to fight. (AF)
If in 12-18 months, there has still been no noticeable impact on the jobs market, then this was indeed all hype and you can call me out on it forevermore.
Yes, we shall see. By 2027 AI needs to prove it can earn its keep and turn a profit in some measurable way. I will be the first to admit AI is impactful if unemployment goes up, unless it is obviously for other reasons like peak oil and financial collapse. If we get more unemployment AND society continues to function, with the same or better products and services we have available today, I will admit you were right about this. It doesn't need to prove AGI or sentience or any of that philosophical stuff. It just needs to become economically useful to many more than the grifters who hype and "research" it today and promise us all this stuff.
Another sign the times are changing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39vljzn0mlo
Rubiales the kisser gets a token fine. To someone like him €10,800 is nothing. Until recently there was talk of him going to jail.
Rubiales found guilty:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/20/sport/spain-rubiales-guilty-hermoso-kiss-intl/index.html
However, they rolled the hysteria back several notches compared to what prosecutors were asking for.
The Spanish High Court set a fine of $11,270 – to be paid as $21 daily instalments across 18-months – but acquitted former soccer boss Rubiales of coercion. Prosecutors had been seeking a two-and-a-half year prison sentence for the 47-year-old, but the ruling sees him avoid any jail time.
The ruling also banned Rubiales from going within a 200-meter (roughly 656 feet) radius of Hermoso, and from communicating with her for one year.
Yes, I would say the Rubiales verdict is a half victory. The time of infinite gullibility to "sexual abuse" might be ending.
At the same time I don't know what to think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyctJ7w7kxY
Drama about an immigrant raping & killing a woman. Of course it's not just anti-sex this time, it's also xenophobia. Female victimhood being used to fuel xenophobia. Maybe we should be thankful such a case is being used for anti-immigrant political purposes. Under the Democrats this would be recycled for misandric purposes only ("rape culture" etc.).
The "White Slavery" fear in the U.S. during the early 20th century was because of the immigration panic. In fact, it's many states decided to elevate their age of consent laws from 10-16 years of age as a result of this "fear".
AI is huge, people are having relationships with AI, it's actually incredible and will only get better. To what extent is it a robot if it's an amalgamation of all human input? You'd be hard pressed to find the difference anyway while interacting with your hot young AI girlfriend who never does anything to piss you off.
Also, cops are surprisingly based about under 18 sex exactly because they know it's a hoax because they see the false complaints first hand. They see the supposed victim isn't really a victim, that the supposed victim is either manipulating or being manipulated by parents/authority figures in 99 out of 100 cases. But the laws are strictly feminist, and written in a way that the cops need to follow them to keep their job. Not saying cops are great at all, in fact they are scum, but compared to the politicians, the courts, the general feminist population of the west...they are saints.
anon69
Berge, do you remember what happened to Colleen Ballinger and the barrage of cancel culture she faced a couple years ago? Apparently her apology video wasn't enough and it was disliked into oblivion. In that case, what can you expect from a bunch of normies who never question the dogma that they are fed?
AI cracks superbug problem in two days that took scientists years. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyz6e9edy3o
The tool - Google Co-scientist - was only released yesterday. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-develops-ai-co-scientist-aid-researchers-2025-02-19/
I didn’t keep up with it at the time, but see now on Wikipedia that the hysteria concerning Colleen Ballinger was one of the most absurd moments of both #Metoo and the female sex offender charade, except it luckily didn’t proceed to criminal charges. I would like to say this can’t happen again, but the reaction to Laura Caron makes me not so sure. Boy receives lingerie, lock woman up? Many normies are still insane enough to want that.
In April 2020, 17-year-old fan and YouTuber Adam McIntyre accused Ballinger of "[enlisting] his unpaid help" for content he had suggested for her Miranda Sings social media accounts and of sending him lingerie when he was 13 years old. Ballinger responded that McIntyre had asked for the lingerie after it was offered in one of her livestreams as one of several joke gifts for fans; she said it had been poor judgment to send the underwear to him. She noted that she often uses comedy ideas suggested by fans but admitted that it had been a mistake to allow the young fan to post directly to her Twitter account for a day without carefully vetting the content that he posted. Ballinger also addressed criticism of some of her older videos satirizing Latina and overweight women, agreeing that they were insensitive and apologizing for having posted them. Afterwards, McIntyre continued to post videos criticizing Ballinger.
In June 2023, YouTuber Kodee Dahl, another former fan, posted "purported screenshots" of a group chat of Ballinger participating with minors, including McIntyre, then about 15, where he asked for suggestions for a Q&A on his YouTube channel. Ballinger suggests "Are you a virgin?" and asks McIntyre his favorite sex position. Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans and employees, including of racial insensitivity on the set of Haters Back Off. Ballinger posted a video in response while singing and playing the ukulele. She admitted that she had made mistakes but denied being a groomer and called the accusations "lies" and "gossip [...] made up for clout". The video received negative comments and was widely parodied online.
Post a Comment