I currently can't publish comments on my blog, so making a new blog post in order to troubleshoot and see if it is a glitch or censorship (please help by making a comment to see if it gets through). This is the comment I was trying to post, in relation to Amos Yee's latest blog post:
So, Amos is now also in trouble for "inciting racial feelings" and "harassment." Most disconcertingly his views on pedophilia appear to be criminalized in Singapore, which goes to show it is probably the most draconian nation on earth against MAP speech.
So for the 4 new charges I have, 2 of them are for my views on pdfs (1 charge is for the videos I made in 2017. The other is for the blog post I wrote recently). They got me under POHA, the protection against harassment act. My views were apparently so disturbing to some people, someone filed a police report on it, and they considered my words 'harassment'. And so I was charged. To break the law for this, as long as you say something that causes people 'alarm', you have broken the law. The punishment for these charges isn't too much, just a fine that can be converted to about a week or so of a prison sentence each.
Here is a blog post he wrote recently which might be the one he is referring to?
https://www.amosyee.org/14-year-old.htm
It certainly does not "harass" anyone in any reasonable sense. If this is criminal speech in Singapore then they have gone way more insane in their crackdown on speech than the UK and anywhere else I know of and would pretty much make MAP activism illegal there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
From what I understand, Amos Yee was charged for his writings denouncing the way Singapore discriminates against Chinese and other minorities, and not so much for MAP issues.
Now I can comment again. Must have been a bug.
Yes, seems they care more about the racial issues, but Amos says himself that he is also charged for his blog and videos on MAP issues, which is more sinister than the usual "hate speech" prosecutions but thankfully limited to Singapore for now. It would really mess up our speech if anyone could shut is down just for feeling "alarmed."
Although I guess it can only affect me and Amos and about five other people worldwide since no one else wants to risk saying anything that is not politically correct about "sexual abuse" unless they are sure they are speaking anonymously.
Eivind's comment is on point. I would add that I find it worrisome that Amos Yee is apparently being charged with stirring up trouble over MAP-related issues in a country that was not previously especially noted for paedohysteria. Singapore has already suppressed free speech on other topics, but moving to MAP-related issues-and being nearly the first country in the world to do so-is quite worrying. I say "nearly" because I believe in Poland it is now a crime to say that the age of consent should be lowered.
-Anonymous 2
Lesbian debater says that women are never more attractive than when they are 14-15 years old. She's of course correct about that.
https://youtu.be/Oh8sDlUfoqc?t=2275
Yes, women will never be prettier than at 14-15. This is very straightforwardly stated by lesbian activist Tonje Gjevjon at the "Snakk med Silje" podcast there as the obvious fact that it is.
Any thoughts on Lindsay Clancy?
I don’t think women who kill their children in the course of postpartum psychosis are evil. They are victims of a brain disorder and should be excused from criminal responsibility. That’s exactly what the justice system settled on as well except for one juror who blocked an acquittal, and despite a surprising amount of public sentiment in agreement with that insane juror I don’t think it can be reversed to the point that an entire jury will want to convict if there is a retrial either, so women don’t have much to worry about from this kind of persecution. Despite prosecutors trying, thanks to jury trials it’s not really much of concern and feminists should be focused on the female sex offender charade instead which is a massive injustice against women that actually succeeds in filling the prisons with good women.
You’re not off, Eivind. Michael Tracey has been expressing similar sentiments…
https://www.mtracey.net/p/remove-these-foul-creatures
https://www.mtracey.net/p/lindsay-clancy-men
Yeah, Michael Tracey is showing a pattern of sanity here that resonates with me just like he does with Epstein.
On the other hand I am seeing a shocking pattern where men whose judgments I used to respect at least on some things come out with hysterical views that we are “condoning child murder” and risking an epidemic of it by letting Lindsay Clancy get away with it. For example Michael Huemer is a philosopher who can think clearly and intelligently on many things, but now he wrote this blog post:
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/what-is-positive-about-child-murder
The second thing is that, even if some people feel sympathy for Clancy, they *should* be afraid to say so publicly. They should be afraid that large, public demonstrations of support for Lindsay Clancy would be misunderstood as condoning child-murder, or as communicating that homicidal feelings toward children are normal. (Perhaps homicidal feelings toward people who operate leaf blowers in the morning are normal, but not toward your kids. Unless your kids are operating leaf blowers; then all bets are off.)
If we had such a charitable society that no one would have such misunderstandings, that would be one thing. But we don’t, and I don’t think the supporters believe we do. Rather, I think they don’t care or did not consider whether they would be seen as condoning child-murder. This may indicate that condoning child-murder is now more socially acceptable than it has ever been. It’s hard to think of a clearer way in which a culture could be corrupt.
This is silly. There is no risk that women will somehow be encouraged to kill their children, nor that society is starting to approve of child murder just because we don’t want to convict Lindsay Clancy as a murderer.
Maybe she is lying about some things like hearing voices for this purpose only, but I think the impulse to kill her children by itself was pretty conclusive evidence of insanity because it is something no sane woman would want to do, at least not in any kind of society we are on the way to. Human sacrifice of children can be a thing, but this is not the path to it.
Women are already encouraged to kill their children by Clancy's pussy pass. I posted the relevant link on the AF's. The murderess in this case if I temember right even used a similar execution method (strangulation)
I heard there was a similar case but we can't conclude it is anything more than statistical noise from one more case. Yes, people go insane sometimes and this is one way. It's not socially generated child murder.
Eivind, you should reach out to Lindsay Clancy and invite her to join Fertile Dating for a second chance at motherhood. You could offer to impregnate her. The controversy would be free publicity for your site and maybe some fertile young liberal women would join Fertile Dating too and even the sexualist movement.
Eivind, I believe the blog post he's being charged with related to MAP issues is this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20260720065241/https://www.amosyee.org/babysex.html
He had to delete it as they threatened to revoke his bail if he didn't.
Please shut up! You are nothing but a despicable, insufferable troll. Instead of trying to mock Eivind like you always do (we know exactly who you are but you shall not be named), perhaps you could learn to be more receptive of other’s perspectives instead of just whining or mimicking for the sake of your own selfish ego?
The fact that even Michael Tracey himself called out the MRA moment on this should tell SOMETHING, which most of you are CLEARY missing.
So let’s get real here, you obviously don’t want the facts or the nuance (or anything reasonable for that matter), you just want to validate the revenge/ “just desserts” fantasy most modern “MRAs” are hungry for whenever a woman is put on trial.
Obviously nothing wrong with that post on free speech grounds, but I can’t categorically get behind what he is arguing. We do not endorse sex with babies and toddlers here either. That would obviously be abuse if understood as penetrative sexual intercourse. But there is something off about this panic against all “sexual acts” as necessarily “exploitative.” For example, does he want to lock up women who engage in the time-honored tradition of fellating little boys to calm them down, such as the Victorians were known for??? That would be crazy. I can generally agree with what he is saying if it is taken with common sense, but not if it is taken literally like the justice system unfortunately has a tendency to do if we program it in this categorical way.
I can’t endorse sex laws based on terms like “sexual acts.” We MUST have some room for interpretation to make it a sensible standard. For example “indecent” is a better word that is still used in some countries. A sexual act can be decent or indecent based on other factors. Amos has fallen into the retarded feminist trap of discarding all the old wisdom of using looser or more nuanced terms in favor of the CSA hoax which postulates that sexuality itself is abusive. This is a lie, and it is never sufficient to define a crime strictly by identifying a “sexual act” and ignoring all other details.
Being the undiscreet sensual persons that we are around here, let us take some solace in what Robert Burton has to say about undiscreet sensual persons in his ANATOMY OF MELANCHOLY:
If fitly match'd be man and wife,
No pleasure's wanting to their life.
But to undiscreet sensual persons, that as brutes are wholly led by sense, it is a feral plague, many times a hell itself, and can give little or no content, being that they are often so irregular and prodigious in their lusts, so diverse in their affections. Uxor nomen dignitatis, non voluptatis, as he said, a wife is a name of honour, not of pleasure: she is fit to bear the office, govern a family, to bring up children, sit at a board's end and carve, as some carnal men think and say; they had rather go to the stews, or have now and then a snatch as they can come by it, borrow of their neighbours, than have wives of their own; except they may, as some princes and great men do, keep as many courtesans as they will themselves, fly out impune, Permolere uxores alienas, that polygamy of Turks, Lex Julia, with Caesar once enforced in Rome, (though Levinus Torrentius and others suspect it) uti uxores quot et quas vellent liceret, that every great man might marry, and keep as many wives as he would, or Irish divorcement were in use: but as it is, 'tis hard and gives not that satisfaction to these carnal men, beastly men as too many are: What still the same, to be tied to one, be she never so fair, never so virtuous, is a thing they may not endure, to love one long. Say thy pleasure, and counterfeit as thou wilt, as Parmeno told Thais, Neque tu uno eris contenta, “one man will never please thee;” nor one woman many men. But as Pan replied to his father Mercury, when he asked whether he was married, Nequaquam pater, amator enim sum &c. “No, father, no, I am a lover still, and cannot be contented with one woman.” Pythias, Echo, Menades, and I know not how many besides, were his mistresses, he might not abide marriage. Varietas delectat, 'tis loathsome and tedious, what one still? which the satirist said of Iberina, is verified in most,
Unus Iberinae vir sufficit? ocyus illud
Extorquebis ut haec oculo contenta sit uno.
'Tis not one man will serve her by her will,
As soon she'll have one eye as one man still.
As capable of any impression as materia prima itself, that still desires new forms, like the sea their affections ebb and flow. Husband is a cloak for some to hide their villainy; once married she may fly out at her pleasure, the name of husband is a sanctuary to make all good. Eo ventum (saith Seneca) ut nulla virum habeat, nisi ut irritet adulterum. They are right and straight, as true Trojans as mine host's daughter, that Spanish wench in Ariosto, as good wives as Messalina. Many men are as constant in their choice, and as good husbands as Nero himself, they must have their pleasure of all they see, and are in a word far more fickle than any woman.
For either they be full of jealousy,
Or masterfull, or loven novelty.
Good men have often ill wives, as bad as Xanthippe was to Socrates, Elevora to St. Lewis, Isabella to our Edward the Second; and good wives are as often matched to ill husbands, as Mariamne to Herod, Serena to Diocletian, Theodora to Theophilus, and Thyra to Gurmunde. But I will say nothing of dissolute and bad husbands, of bachelors and their vices; their good qualities are a fitter subject for a just volume, too well known already in every village, town and city, they need no blazon; and lest I should mar any matches, or dishearten loving maids, for this present I will let them pass.
Being that men and women are so irreligious, depraved by nature, so wandering in their affections, so brutish, so subject to disagreement, so unobservant of marriage rites, what shall I say? If thou beest such a one, or thou light on such a wife, what concord can there be, what hope of agreement? 'tis not conjugium but conjurgium, as the Reed and Fern in the Emblem, averse and opposite in nature: 'tis twenty to one thou wilt not marry to thy contentment: but as in a lottery forty blanks were drawn commonly for one prize, out of a multitude you shall hardly choose a good one: a small ease hence then, little comfort,
Nec integrum unquam transiges laetus diem.
If he or she be such a one,
Thou hadst much better be alone.
I can’t really disagree with this. None of us obligate polyamorists are married, are we?
I did not know the story of Mariamne and Herod, had to look it up. Now that's an interesting way to make a woman fall out of love:
Mariamne I was the Hasmonean princess and favorite wife of Herod the Great, who had her executed in 29 BCE.
Relationship and Marriage
• Political alliance: Herod married Mariamne in 37 BCE to unite his family with the royal Hasmonean (Maccabean) dynasty and gain local legitimacy.
• Family tension: Herod deeply loved her, but he also systematically executed her male relatives—including her grandfather, brother Aristobulus III, and uncle—out of fear of rival claimants to the throne.
• Secret orders: Before leaving on political trips, Herod twice left instructions with confidants to execute Mariamne if he did not return, ensuring no other man would have her; Mariamne discovered these fatal "insurance policies," which destroyed her love for him.
Downfall and Execution
• False charges: Urged by his jealous sister Salome, Herod accused Mariamne of plotting against him and committing adultery.
• Trial and death: A tribunal of Herod's chosen judges condemned her, and she was executed in 29 BCE at around 28 years of age.
• Aftermath: Her death plunged Herod into deep remorse and marked the beginning of his physical and mental decline.
Post a Comment