So here comes the third installment in this series of merely philosophical reflection, in which I may not make any philosophical progress but sure do update the terminology, much like we have done in our evolution from MRA to MAP. I have previously referred to the question of whether the first-person perspective is metaphysically privileged as the "idiotic conundrum" (a term Geoffrey Klempner came up with), but now, thanks to this podcast by Robinson Erhardt and an excellent paper by his guest David Builes, I now know to refer to my position that the first-person perspective is indeed metaphysically privileged as first-person realism. Also new to me today is referring to the idiotic conundrum as the vertiginous question.
Although David Builes ultimately rejects first-person realism (he says in the podcast), his paper presents eight arguments in favor. The paper is thankfully open access, so you can all read it in full. In addition to the arguments it provides great clarity on how to think about this issue, including the terminology which I have now updated to be in line with contemporary academic philosophy. Some of his arguments are actually new to me. For example, I am not very conversant in anti-haecceitism and frankly I don't understand it much better after reading the paper either. But the decisive argument for me, which is similar to what I have said before, is the one he lists as number five:
5 PERSONAL IDENTITY: DISSOCIATION
There are puzzles of personal identity over time where I seem to have judgements about how I can persist through time that differ from my judgements about how David can persist through time. First-Person Realism can explain this, but other views can't.
For example, consider a classic fission case. Suppose I am about to go to sleep, and while I am asleep, half of my brain will be put into a body that is in a red room, and the other half of my brain will be put into a body that is in a blue room. From an external third-person perspective, it seems to me that David cannot survive this operation. After all, David can't be in both rooms, and it would be arbitrary if David went to either room, and the persistence of biological organisms like David is not a “further fact” beyond various relations of physical and biological continuity. However, when I adopt a first-person perspective and imagine myself going to sleep before the operation, it seems that I can clearly conceive of three possibilities: I can wake up the next day in a red room, I can wake up the next day in a blue room, or I can never wake up again.
However, if I judge that David can't wake up in either room tomorrow even though I can wake up in either room tomorrow, then it seems that I can't also consistently judge that I am identical to David. However, according to certain versions of First-Person Realism, it is clear how to make sense of these intuitions. For example, according to Hare's (2009) view, it is possible that tomorrow the red room is present, it is possible that tomorrow the blue room is present, and it is possible that no room will be present tomorrow. Furthermore, all three of these possibilities are consistent with David not surviving the operation.
Moreover, conceiving of David as a biological organism is not essential to the point. Even if David is a Cartesian immaterial soul, it still seems that what can happen to me can dissociate from what happens to an immaterial soul, just as what happens to me can dissociate from what happens to a biological organism.
Once you realize that there are thought experiments which show that personal identity can dissociate not only from your physical body and thus disprove physicalism but also dissociate from an immaterial soul, it becomes very hard to deny that personal identity is metaphysically privileged, beyond even what God (if he exists like any theist would have it) could create or govern! Which is why I tend to agree with Klempner that this is the deepest philosophical question.
There is the hard problem of consciousness, but then there is also the super-hard question of perspective. Even if we could solve the mind-body problem, we wouldn't know from the facts of consciousness how to explain which perspective or person goes with which mental state as opposed to any other. Why am I me and not you? We don't know!
Also new to me in this paper is how first-person realism sheds light on time and modality. I had basically accepted eternalism after reading "The Unreality of Time" by John Ellis McTaggart, but now I am not so sure that presentism might not be true after all. Perhaps the present is privileged in an analogous way to the first-person perspective, and there is no block universe? All this and more is best explained by Builes, so once again I highly recommend reading his paper. And among his citations I recommend reading Christian List's (2023) "The many-worlds theory of consciousness" for a sort of plausible theory of how exactly the first person might be metaphysically privileged without degrading into solipsism.
I welcome comments on first-person realism as well as our usual discussion on (anti-)sexual legislation and prosecution. Which is so grim that it behooves is to take a break now and again and ponder some philosophy for our sanity.
65 comments:
Who do you think you are writing this for Eivind? If you'd posted an article in Swahili, there would be a far greater statistical chance of one of your readers being able to understand it. OK, so you're hoping somebody who is familiar with the latest obtuse debates in the philosophy of mind will read it?That's even less likely, because you don't show up on Google, and you don't know how to or want to. And even if by some huge chance, a philosophy lecturer or a PHD student did stumble upon it, they would quickly close their browser after reading the first sentence "I am a proud paedophile"...
I am well aware that the first-person realism debate interests, if possible, even fewer people than the need to reform sex laws towards more freedom. Anyway, nothing wrong with writing about whatever I am interested in. Normies don't care one way or the other about my activism no matter how I put it anymore because it simply isn't debated. No way to shock them either. I can shout "I'm a proud pedophile" from the rooftops and get yawns all around because 1. there is no fun in hunting the proud who want publicity and 2. there is simply no room for debate on this issue because all the normies are in lockstep agreement that sexuality isn't persecuted enough.
I am pretty sure I still show up on Google if people search for me, however. The problem is they have no interest.
Kamala Harris wants to decriminalize sex work, because "consenting adults." That actually moves the needle in the right direction. Go Kamala!
She is also on record as saying she wants to go after the Johns and the pimps. So would be pretty much the same as in Scandinavia, where women can freely whore themselves and then their male clients end up as sex offenders.
You are right there is actually a push to punish women less, at least in the UK.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-womens-prisons-could-close-33742870
Shabana Mahmood has announced that some female prisons could be shut under plans to reduce the number of women in jail.
The Justice Secretary branded women’s prisons “desperate places” that are “hurting mothers and breaking homes” and “forcing women into a life of crime”. In her first speech to the Labour Party conference as justice chief, she said bluntly “for women, prison isn’t working” and that her "ultimate ambition" was to bring down the number of female jails.
The Labour minister said the reform “most urgently needed” in the justice system is “when we consider the plight of women” as she spoke about women in jail as well as female victims of crime. She pointed to evidence showing around two-thirds of women are imprisoned for non-violent offences, that 55% are victims of domestic abuse and that self-harm in women's prisons is eight-times higher than in the male estate.
Ms Mahmood announced plans for a new “Women’s Justice Board”, tasked with “reducing the number of women going to prison, with the ultimate ambition of having fewer women’s prisons”. She said there will always be women imprisoned for the protection of the public but that "we imprison women on minor charges to a far greater degree than men".
That's pretty hilarious, as if men don't suffer from prison. Also I am sure they will make exceptions for the women who really need to be freed: victims of the female sex offender charade.
If there is going to be any more sexual freedom anywhere I am sure it will only be something like the Nordic model where men are still maximally demonized and women too for "abuse." Nothing else is on the horizon and I don't believe Kamala wants it either until I see it.
Absolutely, depenalizing sexwork means the Nordic model, which is worse than the present status quo in the US. The present US regime is just a repressive regime where both women and men have a stake in not getting caught. The Nordic model means the system becomes one of entrapment for men.
Closing women prisons mean making the sentencing gap even wider. Admire the blatant lie: "we imprison women on minor charges to a far greater degree than men". Exactly the opposite is true.
Pretty sure that Kamala fan is one of Eivind's paedophile followers. The sooner pedos like him realise that left-wing women like her (and right-wing women) would sooner see him flayed alive than allow him any sexual freedom, including and above all having sex with young girls, the sooner pedos might avoid being sexually genocided (along with the rest of us).
Sean John Combs (aka Diddy) is the latest celebrity to fall:
https://news.sky.com/story/p-diddy-what-is-sean-combs-accused-of-and-what-has-he-said-13103248
This might turn out a case of Epstein proportion.
In the UK they are giving the deceased Mohammed Al-Fayad the Savile treatment. He was the owner of Harrods, and the father of Diana's boyfriend who died with her in the crash. He blamed the Royal Family, so maybe the establishment are getting their revenge, on top of the usual abuse industry factors at work. Dozens of women are coming out of the woodwork to.accuse him of raping them, often when teens - and demand8ng a piece of his fortune, of course.
Stumbled onto this article recently..besides ideological motivation
"protection of morals" is also good business it seems
https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/
With so much hate against attraction to the young, I guess there is only one thing to do: get with the program and admire the new kind of beauty contestants like this one :-)
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/27/world/video/miss-universe-korea-choi-soon-hwa-eighty-year-old-digvid
CNN International Correspondent Mike Valerio meets Choi Soon-hwa, the 80-year-old woman vying for the Miss Universe Korea crown.
Why NOT...:-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlkERW5cO7Q
Ugh. Being tolerant like most of us here, I don't object to a senior version of Miss Universe, even though you won't catch me watching it.
It is very telling, though, that this is not the case at all. Indeed, the whole point of these stories is to push the idea that younger women always have real, meaningful competition from older women.
Korea recently raised its AOC from 15 to 20. It's very confusing, though, since from what I can tell, "Korean ages" are 1-2 years ahead-they count them differently. A baby is already one year old at birth, and everyone turns another year older on New Years day (not sure whether Korean or Western). So the current AOC would be both 18 and 19, depending.
Of course, the new AOC has no connection with the sudden vogue for allowing old ladies into general-age beauty contests...
Who'd think that?
-Anonymous 2
A new episode of the series: The Land of the Jail
https://fstube.net/w/nsRud57Kok3JKbZANb7GCe
Women never lie about rape : Woman made fake videos claiming she had been kidnapped and raped to extort cash from online date https://mol.im/a/13915713
Here's a bizarre case where AI can be our friend. A social worker got herself into hot waters for writing "child welfare reports" with ChatGTP. ChatGTP couldn't help let slip a few non-negative statements about a parent "using a sex doll".
https://news.yahoo.com/news/child-welfare-worker-trouble-using-154416672.html
Another French actor is in trouble, but note how small the sentence is compared to similar cases in the US:
https://variety.com/2024/film/global/nicolas-bedos-alleged-sexual-assault-1236157756/
One year suspended!
I was curious to know what ChatGPT had to say about Eivind, so I searched for "Eivind Berge blogger". This is what I found:
"Eivind Berge is a Norwegian blogger and self-proclaimed "male sexualist." He gained attention for promoting controversial views on male sexuality and critiquing feminism. His blog has been a platform for ideologies related to men's rights activism, advocating for what he calls a sex-positive approach for men. Berge has also faced legal issues, notably in 2012, when he was arrested for publicly encouraging violence against police officers. His blog content frequently discusses contentious topics such as consent laws and sexual politics".
I am extremely impressed by that description of me. Early versions of ChatGPT was hallucinating, for example claiming I had been in trouble of child porn, but this one is dead on. Even gets the terminology of male sexualism right, so it has clearly read my blog and digested it properly.
I wonder though, if ChatGPT does user profiling. It could have know this site is a site I access regularly, hence refraining from maligning it. It would be interesting to check whether get the same result as I did with the same search ("Eivind Berge blogger")
On the subject of my blog post here, today I came across this article which deals with the same question without too much obfuscation and gives us a useful word with which to speak of the other alternative.
https://bethlaceyswingler.medium.com/was-wittgenstein-a-solipsist-b510b5d773e1
If you are not a first-person realist then you are probably a transcendental solipsist, like Wittgenstein and the Hindus.
So what is the source of the illusion of the self? Well, for Wittgenstein, your delusional idea of your self arises from the conceptual defects in our language. Language is just not able to grasp reality as it is. This not only permits vagaries but worse, welcomes confusion over the true nature of thought and its objects.
Transcendental solipsism is, for Wittgenstein, an unwelcome side-effect of his position on all of the problems with philosophy. AKA, they’re all just confusions, the nasty side-products of language.
But why so serious? If it’s good enough for Hindu metaphysics, isn’t it good enough for W?
Wittgenstein claimed to be an advocate of the ‘therapeutic purpose of philosophy’. Perhaps he should’ve been a bigger fan of this kind of transcendental solipsism. There is a pretty neat sense in which it puts you in touch with infinity. Taking communion with the eternal Self sounds pretty therapeutic to me.
Nah, I don't think transcendental solipsism is good enough or at least not convincing. I don't think language is so confusing as Wittgenstein did, either. I can feel my self without language and think there might be something real there.
The third option, illusionism: that qualia don't exist, taken by people like Daniel Dennett, is certainly completely wrong in my opinion. So the only possibilities are first-person realism or transcendental solipsism, and which one is true is a real mystery.
By the way I hate the new comment form which Blogger is now forcing us to use. It looks worse and we seem to have lost the ability to preview posts. In this age of supposed AI and the third industrial revolution we can't even have such a simple thing??? Nope, it is another example of the enshittification which is happening to the Internet and all software, which is actually where technology is headed. Can't moderate comments without Google making erratic changes either. If we want nice things we have to make them ourselves, and I'll see about getting it done eventually.
Eivind talking about solipism in a comment that no other mind will ever read, or at least understand.
The MRA YouTuber CityCrishet has posted a video discussing the double standards regarding minors - treated as adults when they commit crime, but children when it comes to sex. Some good points, but he mentions the Japanese age of consent and says 13 was 'way too young'.
https://youtu.be/YVt2wuUzvtw
Well then, 13 must be way too young for criminal responsibility as well? Normies just can't be consistent on this, can they? They are terminally deluded into sex exceptionalism.
By the way, some legal scholars are waking up to it somewhat. Here's a recent article I found just now:
https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/04/Gruber-75-Stan.-L.-Rev.-755.pdf
"Sex Exceptionalism in Criminal Law." Aya Gruber. Stanford Law Review, Volume 75, April 2023.
Abstract
Sex crimes are the worst crimes. People generally believe that sexual assault is graver than nonsexual assault, uninvited sexual compliments are worse than nonsexual insults, and sex work is different from work. Criminal codes typically create a dedicated category for sex offenses, uniting under its umbrella conduct ranging from violent attacks to consensual commercial transactions. This exceptionalist treatment of sex as categorically different rarely elicits discussion, much less debate. Sex exceptionalism, however, is neither natural nor neutral, and its political history should give us pause. This Article is the first to trace, catalog, and analyze sex exceptionalism in criminal law in the United States. Through a genealogical examination of sex-crime law from the late eighteenth century to today, it makes several novel contributions to the debate over how criminal law should regulate sex.
First, this Article casts doubt on the conventional account that rape law’s history is solely one of sexist tolerance, an account that undergirds contemporary calls for broader criminal regulations and higher sentences. In fact, earl law established rape as the most heinous crime and a fate worse than death, but it did so to preserve female chastity, marital morality, and racial supremacy. Sex-crime laws were not uniformly underenforced but rather selectively enforced -- a tool used to entrench hierarchies and further oppressive regimes from slavery to social purity. Second, this Article employs this history to suggest that it is past time to critically examine whether sex crimes should be exceptional. Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s, the enlightened liberal position was that rape law should be less exceptional and harmonized with the law governing “ordinary” assault.
Third, this Article spotlights the invisible but powerful influence sex exceptionalism exerts on scholarship and advocacy. Sex exceptionalism has flourished despite the liberal critique, and today it is adopted without hesitation. Sex dazzles theorists of all types. For sex crimes, retributivists accept exorbitant sentences, utilitarians tolerate ineffective ones, and critics of mass incarceration selectively abandon their principled stance against expanding the penal state. Denaturalizing sex exceptionalism and excavating its troubling origins forces analysts to confront a detrimental frame underlying society’s perpetual enthusiasm for punitive sex regulation.
The PDF is 92 pages which I haven't read yet, but the abstract sounds promising with precisely the sort of insights we have all the time here but the normies just can't get through their skulls because they are seemingly blind to any problems with treating sex as the worst thing in the universe for unstated magical reasons they just take for granted.
About "pedo hunters" in Norway:
https://steigan.no/2024/10/fenomenet-pedojakt-eller-pedohunters-brer-om-seg-hva-gjor-politiet/
Apparently they are more active than I knew, which makes it all the more ironic that I can't get a shred of attention or public debate for being a proud political pedophile.
That scum feeds off of energy that men turn on themselves when they don't want to be proud and open political pedophiles. Unlike the laws it is a ridiculously simple problem to solve, if men wanted to.
I am pleased to see that even the police has had enough of those "pedo hunters" and now lumps them in with far-right extremists -- who are also indistinguishable from the kind of hateful extremism Steigan.no represents. The moral of that article is that pedo hunters are wonderful and the problem is the police is not doing enough to catch pedos.
I have no sympathy for any of the causes put forth by Paul Steigan and his site anymore. They think they are oh so victimized for being pressured into vaccines and that sort of stuff they care about, but a man who can be attracted to 15-year-old girls (which is to say all men) is a pedo who deserves the utmost criminalization AND vigilantism! The police got the categorization of Steigan's circle as violent extremists right even if it is odd to lump communists in with the far right. But that's horseshoe theory proving itself I guess.
An interesting study: Sexual Behavior in Pre Contact Hawai‘i: A Sexological Ethnography:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2004-sexual-behavior-in-pre-contact-hawaii.html
Females in traditional Hawai‘i did experience intercourse that was imposed upon them. While Westerners would interpret the forcing of intercourse on an individual as being criminal rape, the Hawai‘ians supposedly saw a romantic abduction or passionate lust.
That's interesting and also not entirely surprising once you get rid of sex exceptionalism. After all, force is commonly seen as positive in some other contexts, so why not sex? For example, being conscripted (literally enslaved) into the army and dying as cannon fodder is often thought highly honorable. I would prefer to minimize both kinds of force, but there is no reason to make an hysterical exception for sexuality either just because of the supposed special badness of sex. This essentialist badness is just superstition which is peculiar to our particular culture.
Ok, so now I ran a search for "the antifeminist blogger". This is what I got:
"The "Antifeminist" blogger is a writer known for his outspoken criticism of feminism and advocacy for men's rights. His content often targets feminist ideology and discusses issues from a perspective that supports traditional gender roles and critiques modern feminist movements. He has been active in the "manosphere," a collection of online communities focusing on men's rights, anti-feminism, and related topics. His views are highly controversial and have sparked debates in online forums and communities."
It is remarkable that ChatGPT refrains from doing a hatchet job on MRA related topics. It seems to be content oriented rather than judgemental, which is of course a good thing never mind the topic.
Yes Jack, you would have thought OpenAI would have baked in some algorithm so that ChatGPT condemns any mention of anti-feminism, but it seems to settle for 'controversial' (correctly) rather than 'misogynistic'.
However, 'supporting traditional gender roles' has never been my focus, and almost uniquely among MRAs I spent almost as much time attacking first wave feminism as 'modern feminism'.
Especially given that I stopped blogging for a few years and took down my site, I wonder if it is actually referring to another MRA who refers to himself as 'The AntiFeminist', and who is a classic Paul Elam type of American MRA? Not sure if he blogs but a couple of years ago he had something like10,000 followers on Twitter.
AF
For good measure here's what ChatGPT said after I searched "Angry Harry MRA":
""Angry Harry" was a prominent figure in the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), widely recognized for his early online presence advocating for men's rights and his critiques of feminism. He was known for his direct and often confrontational style, arguing that society's focus on feminist issues overlooked significant problems faced by men, such as false accusations, biased family courts, and men's mental health. Angry Harry's influence helped shape the discourse within the MRM community, especially during its formative years on the internet. His work remains referenced in discussions on men's rights topics."
And I also searched "Humanstupidity" (in one word):
""Human Stupidity" is a blog that critiques what the author sees as irrational beliefs, biases, and political correctness in various societal issues. The blog covers topics such as gender dynamics, feminism, men's rights, criminal justice, and freedom of speech, often taking a contrarian or controversial stance. It emphasizes skepticism toward mainstream views and challenges commonly accepted ideas. The tone of the content is frequently provocative and confrontational, aiming to spark debate on these subjects."
Even Newgon gets a fair treatment from ChatGPT. What a nice change compared to Wikipedia! Of course neither Eivind, Angry Harry nor Newgon are in Wikipedia, but if they were, imagine what a hit piece the Wikipedia article would be. Unlike Wikipedia, ChatGPT doesn't have its manosphere related articles edited and vetted by the Southern Poverty Law Center and The Guardian.
Must be because ChatGPT and alike have a principled policy that they do not take a position on political matters, and sexual politics is, after all, a kind of political matter.
@ Eivind, I can't say I'm anything like as interested in this kind of thing as you are, but it is cool in its own way. Many years ago I read a book called The Jew of Linz. Do you know about it? For various reasons I'm not quite as impressed about it nowadays, but I'm still glad I read it.
I presume that Hindu transcendental solipsism is found in the motto "Tat Tvam Asi" (That Thou Art), and in the yearning for unity with the Godhead (Atman), through moksha or nirvana.
-Anonymous 2
A new Paramount+ TV drama imagines a near future where all men are under curfew after dark and are forced to wear ankle tags, after the "Women's Safety Act" is introduced. Rather than being a satire or a men's rights statement, it appears to be a feminist attempt to make measures like this worthy of valid discussion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvdgl37qz3o
With the heading "Curfew, is there a radical fix for violence against women?" it's obvious what's going on. Before I clicked on the link I thought perhaps it might have been only6 extrapolating for the sake of entertainment, but no.
-Anonymous 2
On the subject of AI, I've been pondering the question of whether AI could 'take over' or even destroy humanity, as all intelligent people should be. The most common dismissal of such fears is, of course, the "we just need to pull the plug if they become a threat" argument. This is obviously moronic. Especially for those of us who can see how women, who are entirely dependent on men just as AI is, have manipulated men/society into doing their bidding, without the vast majority even realising it. Hell, they have even manipulated the leader of the male sexualist resistance into accepting proudly that he is a 'paedophile', as well as spending most of his activist energies into claiming that a few female teachers punished for banging 15 year old Chad's is 'worse than the Holocaust'. If women can do this, just think what an AI millions of times smarter than us could do!
The list of Meetoo'd celebrities goes on:
https://sports.yahoo.com/report-kylian-mbapp-under-investigation-222800154.html
As though a multimillionaire soccer player needed to resort to rape to get laid! Anyway, let the list go on. Soon no male celebrity will be able to get laid anymore. How ironical! How befitting a civilization that is going down, down, down ...
This is something you have to see to believe it, which you can do at this link if you have Telegram:
https://t.me/IntelRepublic/42559
DISGUSTING BRITISH TV COVERAGE OF WAR HIGHLIGHTS COMPLICITY IN ISRAELI GENOCIDE - Watch Sky News "Journalist" Kay Burley (top video) almost reduced to tears as she puts names to faces of 4 Israeli troops killed by Hezbollah drone attack (https://t.me/IntelRepublic/42525) on military base - "All of them just 19-years-old", she says softly, attempting to elicit compassion for child-murdering troops.
Channel describes genocidal army's soldiers as "Teenage victims", shamelessly in same headline of IDF massacre in Gaza, saying "23 people reportedly killed", without even mentioning they're Palestinians murdered by Israel.
Earlier this year, Sky News military analyst (3rd vid) described killing of 3-year-old child by Israeli bullets as "Young lady killed as stray bullet ACCIDENTALLY FOUND ITS WAY into van".
While legal adults in army to murder civilians killed by Hezbollah: Teenage victims.
In this world where 17-year-old girls are routinely described as helpless little children when they do something sexual, and even 19-year-old Irsraeli soldiers get the young "teen" glorification, evidently it can be taken to the other extreme as well provided the (real) children belong to an enemy people whose lives are cheaper than dirt in the eyes of the mainstream media.
Come to think of it, there are no children in Gaza when you watch the news. They have been completely erased unless you get your information from alternative channels like Telegram, and daily massacres on men and women which now tacitly includes toddlers and babies have been way more normalized than I thought possible one year ago.
Regarding the risk of AI manipulation -- they are already manipulating us into building all those datacenters and spending so much energy with no regard to climate change. No cunning required, just incentives, in this case the mirage of future profits even though there is no evidence that AI will have any agency or be able to do more than summarize texts for us and do other regurgitation which produces nothing new and nothing good enough to take significant jobs from humans. Likewise feminists also don't really manipulate men. Men will just do whatever brings home the bacon, whether it be to build datacenters while that bubble lasts or enforce the feminist sex laws. Manipulation doesn't exist, just hard economics, unless you count getting the laws passed but I think that's better explained by cultural drift because it is actually extremely hard to deliberately manipulate someone.
No, I wasn't manipulated into describing myself as a proud pedophile either. If I were afraid of that word it would be deference to a normie "morality" which I loathe, and at this point none of their "bad" words have any sting because they have been diluted into nonsense. Pedophile, rapist, abuser, predator, groomer, whatever -- I am all these things as they are currently defined and none of the words can be used to shame me in any internalized fashion, which leaves the obvious conclusion that I wear them like badges of honor turned around to activist tools for us.
Eivind is 100% leftie at this point. Pedophile for Palestine and believer in climate change, oh and feminists do not manipulate.
Eivind, you were scoffing at AI when everybody was saying it would replace coding, so you spent months learning HTML and Python in the hope of a new career. How is that working out for you?
Have you tried the new 'advanced voice' ChatGPT?
You're speaking from a position of complete ignorance.
As far as feminists not manipulating men, that's about as far away from men's rights 101 as you can get. Since when has feminism been in the economic interests of men for Christ's sake?? Women competing in the jobs market with men (and supposedly cheaper to hire) a good thing for men? Multi-millionaires being accused of rape (like Jack just gave another example of) and then being sued for every penny, even when they are dead? Governments spending 3 times more on breast cancer than prostate cancer? Feminist laws jailing tens of thousands of intelligent, productive men under sex laws, most often for simply looking at pics? Feminists supporting open borders migration for cheap labor replacing native working-class men? What are you talking about? BTW, I'm pretty sure I could ask ChatGPT to summarize first person realism and it would come out with something better and more original than you did.
Imagine if Martin Luthar King had declared that words mean whatever white men say that they mean, and that therefore he is a proud nigger? Likewise, the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah should admit that Israel is Israel and not Palestine. Look at the map!
Another man getting mauled:
https://news.yahoo.com/news/olympic-swimmer-found-guilty-raping-164109662.html
The following is typical : "The court heard his manipulation of this victim ran so deep that when he was reported to police she told them he was "a good man" and she did not want him to go to prison. The prosecution said she was not freely consenting to any of the acts."
Whenever a "victim" doesn't want to be a victim nor harm a man, she is deemed to have been over-manipulated, otherwise of course she could only want the man to go to jail.
It really seems like the definition of rape in the UK has taken on yet another dimension:
One of the girls told the jury: "I didn’t feel like I could, or should, say no because I really loved him and trusted him… I felt like if I didn’t seem interested in the same things he was interested in, he wouldn’t think I was grown up enough."
If a girl loves you, it is rape. We have come full circle into redefining the very romantic ideal into rape. What does that leave as legal sex? Perhaps arranged marriages only? If the girl's feelings are not tainted by any sort of infatuation and only rationally deliberated perhaps she can still say yes?
What horrifies me most about the feminist police state is that the normies don't seem to mind that normal sex is flat-out redefined into rape. Of course this is what happens with the age of consent, but why stop there? I now realize that there is no resistance in the population against reclassifying any sexual encounter into rape. Literally no limits. Anything can be rape, and I mean anything without any sort of qualification. What I just said about arranged marriages was a joke and won't stop them either. If anything, it will be aggravating since they can justify it with contradictory reasons. Too much love? Rape. Too little love? Rape. Always manipulation just because prosecutors say so. They don't even need the girl to agree she was raped.
"The judge told him to expect a "substantial prison sentence"."
And most people reading that will merely scoff because they "know" courts are too lenient towards "paedophiles" and that no sentence is ever substantial enough.
When, oh when, will there be some light at the end of the tunnel?
-Anonymous 2
There's little that can baffle me these days on the internet in matters of sex, but this did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_with_BDSM_clubs
Universities with BDSM clubs! Plenty of them! How permissive our time is, hey?! Or is "culture" nothing but a huge feministic shit test?
I was surprised Kenya has a manosphere:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/asequals/kenya-manosphere-toxic-masculinity-as-equals/
Two figures, Eric Amunga, a public figure known by his alias “Amerix,” and Andrew Kibe, a former radio host turned podcaster have emerged as torchbearers of this movement in Kenya. Between them, they have over three million followers across social media.
Kibe amassed more than 420,000 YouTube subscribers before facing a ban in 2023 after Google said he violated the platform’s hate speech policy, and further breached its Term of Service by posting content on another channel during his suspension.
But he continues to publish videos on other platforms such as Instagram’s Reels and TikTok, posting content such as “10000000 reasons to fear women” and telling women that only men can protect them. His content is also widely available on YouTube through his followers sharing across platforms. The hashtag #AndrewKibe had garnered over 441 million views on TikTok as of the time CNN carried out its investigation.
In 2022 Amerix was among the most listened the most listened-to podcasts on Spotify in Kenya, and on X, his platform of choice, his followers rose from 150,000 in 2020, to 1.9 million today – a gain of more than half a million followers per year. He shares views that “noisy and angry women on Twitter are sex deprived,” that “the enemy of women is feminism” and tells men not to “date or marry a woman who is FAT”. He is also the main propagator of the frequently trending hashtag #MasculinitySaturday, which he and his followers use when holding discussions on manosphere themes.
But what a waste... getting all those followers only to tell them to hate fat women and other pointless posturing. What is the point of having a "manosphere" if you are not going to deal with antisexual persecution?
Will have to agree with CNN that this is toxic masculinity by the looks of it. Of course, the mainstream would only find them more toxic if they dealt with real issues, but this looks like a genuine waste.
Hello Mr Berge. I'm a professor at one of the most respected philosophy departments in Germany. One of your readers sent me a link to your 'essay' and asked me to evaluate it. So here is what I thought of it, my feedback as though you were a student of mine :
Misunderstandings and Confusion of Terms.
Your understanding of metaphysical terminology appears lacking. You mention that Geoffrey Klempner referred to the "idiotic conundrum" — but there is no meaningful explanation as to why this phrase is used, what exactly the "idiotic conundrum" refers to, or why it deserves to be considered "idiotic." You then casually replace this with "vertiginous question," without actually defining or explaining either term in sufficient depth. This makes your essay difficult to follow and suggests an incomplete understanding of the terminology and underlying philosophical issues.
Moreover, your grasp of anti-haecceitism, which you admit to not understanding well, should have warranted more research before attempting to incorporate it into this discussion. When dealing with such technical topics, a superficial or confused understanding is glaringly obvious to any reader with philosophical training.
Philosophical Insight and Originality.
There is a marked lack of originality in this essay. You seem to be relying heavily on David Builes's paper without adding any significant new thought or critical insight of your own. The arguments you reference are not engaged with critically; instead, they are more or less regurgitated with little meaningful commentary. For instance, when you summarize Builes's argument concerning personal identity and dissociation, you simply paraphrase his ideas without reflecting on or challenging them in any substantive way. This makes the essay more of a summary than a piece of independent philosophical reasoning.
In addition, your claim that first-person realism sheds light on time and modality is vague and unsubstantiated. You mention eternalism and presentism, but fail to explain how exactly first-person realism interacts with these views. Instead, you simply assert that "perhaps the present is privileged in an analogous way to the first-person perspective." This is speculative at best and lacks the rigorous philosophical argumentation required to make such a connection. The references to McTaggart and List feel tacked on, almost as if you're name-dropping without adequately exploring their relevance to the topic of first-person realism.
Logical Coherence.
There is a troubling lack of logical coherence throughout the essay. For example, in discussing personal identity, you switch between biological and Cartesian views without clarifying the metaphysical distinctions between these positions. The essay jumps from thought experiments about brain fission to grand, unsupported claims about disproving physicalism and even transcending God's governance. These claims are audacious, but utterly lacking in philosophical justification or argumentation. In what way, exactly, do thought experiments about personal identity refute physicalism? You never explain this. Instead, you make sweeping conclusions without offering the reader a clear logical pathway to follow.
Depth of Analysis.
Your analysis remains superficial. You name-drop theories and philosophical concepts (such as presentism, eternalism, anti-haecceitism, and dissociation), but you fail to engage with them deeply or critically. For instance, while you mention that the personal identity thought experiment is "decisive" for you, you don't explain why or how. What about the argument is persuasive? What are the possible counterarguments? Without providing this depth of analysis, your essay feels more like a collection of unexamined opinions rather than a well-argued philosophical position.
Conclusion.
Overall, the essay lacks philosophical rigor, depth, and originality. There is far too much reliance on the work of others (particularly Builes), without offering your own critical engagement or original thought. Additionally, the inclusion of unrelated political and sexual identity issues only serves to detract from the philosophical discussion and demonstrates a lack of focus. Finally, your essay is logically inconsistent and fails to provide the clarity and depth of analysis required for a serious discussion of first-person realism.
In short, this essay reads more like an attempt at pseudo-intellectualism than an earnest philosophical reflection. If you wish to improve, I recommend focusing on the philosophical issues at hand, and ensuring you understand the concepts and terms you're dealing with.
Thanks for entertaining us with that AI "professor," Anonymous.
If my blog post were to be evaluated as a PhD dissertation, it would have some valid points. Likewise if it were intended as a standalone essay. I don't really define the problem well here or provide any original thinking. However, it is actually third in my series of blog posts on this topic, which the AI has failed to read, or else it would know what I mean by the idiotic conundrum.
My purpose with this post was mainly to promote David Builes's paper, as the AI has indeed gathered it is mostly about, since that is a notable development on this topic since last time and I think a useful introduction better than my own writing to get more people to start thinking about it if they want to. I don't claim to have anything more to contribute beyond his arguments there at this time. Neither does anyone else. It is an extremely hard problem (despite most often being dismissed as no problem at all). Of course it would be good to try harder and also explore related topics such as haecceitism in depth, and maybe I will expand this series of posts into something which can qualify as an original essay at some point. In any case, as far as my writing goes this is just an aside to my more important mission of sexualist activism. I don't have grand ambitions to be a philosopher.
Fat women are disgusting. Fat acceptance is the same feminist subversion of female beauty and normal male sexual attraction as their 'paedophile' slander. Chubby chasers are perverted beta male scum of the Earth.
These guys have millions of followers and they are anti-feminist. Yes, they don't speak out on sex criminalization as often as they should (except false accusations and sometimes rape law inflation), but at least they can see that feminists are controlling men, unlike the MAPs. And what's the point in speaking out on sex laws if 10 people see your message?
In Kenya, the age of consent is 18, but they are currently debating whether to lower it to 16. I also learned that the Muslim paradise of Tunisia raised the aoc from 13 to 16 in 2017.
https://www.africanews.com/2019/03/26/kenyans-online-react-to-proposal-to-lower-age-of-consent/
Maybe they were debating it in 2019 when that article was written, but I haven't heard anything since. Those popular Kenyan manosphere bloggers are so cucked they don't even seem to notice the age of consent crept up to 18 and instead focus on nonsense like fat-shaming which should be a matter of personal preference rather than anything to do with morals or politics. It has very little to do with feminism either.
Unfortunately my point continues to be proven in the USA, with no end in sight due to the demographic glut of single, "empowered" menopausal women and estrogenic men.
The right wing, conservative, MAGA political faction has morphed into a grotesque monster of an extreme feminist wet dream fantasy. Using fabricated, hysterical feminist "trafficking" narratives, 'right wing' old women are praised for becoming extremely masculine and committing misandrist violence as a type of feminist freedom fighter. The "males" who go along with this are the ultimate beta male simp human waste rejects. What an abominably disgusting country and culture, let's hope BRICS will start to contain its international influence.
"Inside America's Fastest Growing Criminal Enterprise: Sex Trafficking"
https://archive.is/q2qVv
anon69
You would think the "sex trafficking" panic gets old, but I guess not. Even after being debunked numerous times and someone like Maggie McNeill throwing an entire blogging career at it still it is increasing. Now grown men are being "sex trafficked" too...
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/23/business/mike-jeffries-abercrombie-ceo/index.html
Jeffries’ role at Abercrombie and the brand’s use of male models in advertising was central to the allegations.
The indictment alleges that Jeffries and his associates recruited men for “sex events,” sometimes incorporating Abercrombie products, in which the victims performed sex acts. Many of the victims were aspiring models, and were led to believe that attending the parties would benefit their careers, prosecutors say. They were also told that not complying with certain requests for certain acts would harm their careers.
An aspiring male model did some gay shit to further his career and we are supposed to be panicked over that? People are morons tolerating this excuse to prosecute anyone. Sex is the magic bullet that incriminates anyone and anything and people just can't say no to it because it's a mass psychosis.
Telling models they have to attend "sex events" and presumably to perform certain acts if asked, is obviously not on (if true). However, if everyone can be trafficked including those terrible people, grown men, then no-one can be a special victim, so there's a bit of an upside perhaps.
The thing to remember when trafficking allegations arise, is that it shouldn't make any difference what demographic it is. That is, if it's grown women being trafficked, does that mean sexual contact with all grown women should be outlawed just because of this? Same with grown men, same with any age group old enough to have a basic comprehension of what's going on around them. I'm not sure what age that would be exactly but it would certainly be no older than 12.
I hope that came out clearly enough; I don't have much of a flow to my prose today.
I might add that laws are being made around sex and all sorts of other things that are, unfortunately, both incident-driven and agenda-driven- there's always some incident ready to be used. It's a precarious situation in which some news item is used to massively generalize and take people's rights away.
So in Spain they raised the AOC because a 13-y-o girl was killed by her boyfriend. That's tragic of course, but it it makes as much sense to do that as to outlaw all sexual contact between men and women and was clearly nothing more than a pretext.
To cite an example from a completely different area than sexuality, in Australia in 2012, someone was shot with a crossbow and this was the basis for banning crossbows because Australia.
This way of doing things is completely illogical, of course, but we live in very dumb and illogical times.
-Anonymous 2
Telling models they have to have sex to get a job would at worst be sexual harassment. I can see how that can be a labor rights thing but completely disagree it should be a sex crime. That sort of thing has been fodder for civil lawsuits for a long time but now it has been upgraded to "sex trafficking" which is completely insane. It bears no relation to anything that word could reasonably mean. And goes to show real sex trafficking is vanishingly rare so they have to use these laws for such absurdly inflated cases to have anything to prosecute at all.
Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that I thought it should be considered more than sexual harassment.
-Anonyous 2
Bruce Rind has just published a new study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384936602_Older_Gay_Men's_Sexual_Experiences_as_Boys_with_Men_An_Empirical_and_Narrative_Analysis
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/british-man-sentenced-18-years-ai-make-child-115221320
lol 18 years in jail and full police investigations into fairy tale fantasy pixels that don't exist, because a man might enjoy his life if he looks at young attractive fantasy girls, instead of real life old heffers that he has to take a blue pill to get hard to bang, as everyone pretends it's not normal to go totally limp when you look at your sagging old sow's drooping tits and swampy vag.
English speaking countries are dominated by women and homos.
anon69
I saw a thread on X last night in which somebody had posted a series of graphic clips from the October 7th Hamas atrocities. It suddenly occurred to me.why MAPs and paedophiles like Eivind support Hamas. It must irk them when they see Jews, the most persecuted and hated group in human history until the feminist invention of the paedophile, fights back with a violence and a fury when attacked these days that is Earth trembling. 'MAPs' on the other hand, facing a sexual genocide at the hands of feminists, just lie down meekly on their backs, whimpering that they are nice paedophiles, and please don't hurt us, feminists are our friends.
Even the fake Palestinian identity, when they are simply Jordanian Arabs, has a parallel with the artificial MAP identity.
So I can understand Eivind and other paedophiles supporting a terror group that murdered dozens of Jewish children and babies, and then deliberately hides behind children knowing the resulting scenes of thousands of child deaths in the Israeli response will further their propaganda.
I read a really good comment here from Anon69 last night, but now I can't see it. Have you deleted it Eivind?
Regarding those Kenyan manospherians. You must be the only person in the entire Manosphere who thinks fat acceptance has nothing to do with feminism. But hardly surprising as you barely concede that the age of consent has anything to do with feminism these days.
These 'toxic' influencers have millions of followers because they preach NoFap and then go out and approach and bang hot young women. You preach the metaphysics of first person wanking, and wait passively for a HB3 fatty to show up at your door.
I see no evidence that Hamas murdered babies or children on October 7th, nor that they hide behind civilians in Gaza. Didn't rape women either. That was all fake Israeli propaganda. Hamas are genuine soldiers and October 7th was a legitimate attack to fight for their freedom -- except the taking of hostages -- that is a war crime, but they are fairly well treated and dwarfed by the thousands of hostages held by Israel who are routinely tortured.
One year later Israel is committing massacres every day. It is plainly a psycho genocidal state. Yesterday they stuck a five-story building in Beit Lahiya, Gaza, killing more than 90 civilians including 25 children. According to CNN the Israeli military said it was targeting a “suspected terrorist” and is “trying to understand” why so many people were in the area at the time. In a briefing last week, Brig. Gen. Elad Goren, head of the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) civil-humanitarian efforts in Gaza, said that “as we understand, there is no population” in Beit Lahiya.
Right... because they don't see Palestinians as humans.
Imagine if Russia had dropped a five-story building killing 90 civilians because they suspected one Ukranian soldier was hiding there? It would be universally condemned as flagrantly genocidal and is just not done, because no other state than Israel does this. It is profoundly immoral to tolerate it.
Sure, every identity is "fake" to some extent -- MAP, Palestinian, whatever... these are social constructs. But the sexual genocide is real and so is Israel's genocide and we cannot just stand by and watch them as if nothing happens, which the normies mostly so with Israel and totally do with the sexual holocaust. I don't care which identities we have to construct to put an end to both of these atrocities.
"I read a really good comment here from Anon69 last night, but now I can't see it. Have you deleted it Eivind?"
Not me, Google has been messing with comments again. I think I have got them all restored now.
If Ukraine denied the right of Russia to exist, and had brutally murdered 25000 (the equivalent) Russian civilians, and taken thousands hostage, Russia.would likely have nuked or at least carpet bombed Kyiv.
christian conservative evangelical parasite scum companies are exploding in number due to the moral hysteria against "sex trafficking" that has allowed massive funding and new laws to create an abuse industry monster. they are filled to the brim with feminist women and their simp males. these groups make left wing feminist groups look quaint. f*cking anti male psychos.
anon69
Post a Comment