Kenneth Escamilla wrote:I'm writing because I would like some clarification on your views concerning minority groups seeking further civil rights protections.
That is a quite disingenuous way to put it -- though I grant you it is the usual way. The correct way, however, would be this:
"I'm writing because I would like some clarification on your views concerning loosely defined groups of people seeking to deceive others into granting them further powers."
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:How have you come to the understanding that feminism's ultimate aim is to eradicate the differences between the sexes, and why have you failed to focus on widespread, and less extreme, goals of these groups?
Because the so-called "less extreme" goals STEM FROM THESE DIFFERENCES. If women were not different from men there would be no reason to treat them differently -- in fact they would not even be women, they would be men -- in fact we would not even HAVE the words "men" and "women" -- we would all be, sexually at least, the same.
But we are not the same. And because we are not the same we also find it impossible to treat each other as if we were the same. Hence if you want people to stop treating different types of people differently (which is what all these so-called "civil rights" groups want) you have to eradicate these differences. There is simply no other way. Even the most extremely repressive dictatorship (which is what the subhumans would like to institute, if possible) would find it impossible to force, say, a healthy man to treat a woman as if she were a man.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:Feminism, as I understand it, is not about, and has never been about, a pursuit of equality to the extent that the sexes would be understood as equals in every, or, hell, most circumstances.
Consequently you don't understand feminism. You are just some stupid uneducated kid vomiting your forum- and blog-acquired retarded nonsense on the internet.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:Rather, it is about the understanding that women are individuals who should not be dismissed, mistreated, abused, or shamed simply because they are women (which would be judging an individual primarily on a group they belong to, and not their abilities--which it seems you loathe).
But being a woman, moron, i.e.
having the qualities that women in general have, IS PART OF THEIR "ABILITIES". Just as I have a right to look at cockroaches and judge them wholesale as disgusting and despicable BECAUSE THEY ARE COCKROACHES (notwhistanding the fact that there are, of course, some cockroaches which are perhaps smarter and less disgusting than others), and to look at eagles and find them amazing and magnificent EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EAGLES (i.e. because they all share a set of basic characteristics which I deem amazing and magnificent -- notwithstanding the fact that there are, of course, eagles that are less aggressive and less fearless than others) -- just so I have the right to look at women and judge them wholesale as weak and stupid (notwithstandig the fact that there are, of course, some women who are less weak and less stupid than others).
In short, no amount of ludicrous lies are going to prevent healthy, intelligent individuals from using conceptual categories to form value judgements and communicate them beween themselves, and no amount of ridiculous absurdities are going to convince us that the concept of "equality" has any meaning in the real world (i.e. outside of pure logic and mathematics).
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:Feminists, in general, want blah blah blah
I do not give a flying fuck what feminists, or gays, or niggers, or gooks, or any other categoy of subhumans want. I only care about what
I and my friends want -- everyone else can go hang themselves as far as I am concerned.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:I'm sure that you know all of this, and, judging by your posts as a whole, even support these aims
lol
I also support the claims to rights of cockroaches. Have you been to a cockroach colony lately? They are all demonstrating about "equal rights". It's catching on. Bacteria will be next.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:I haven't seen you address the legitimate, not-balls-out-crazy aims of these groups in the forums
There is no such thing as "legitimate" aims. Every "aim "is a play for power, and every play for power is illegitimate -- at least to those from whom one tries to seize power (to the attacker himself of course everything he does is perfectly legitimate).
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:To be blunt, you're smarter than this, dude. I mean, you're really fucking smart
You have no idea. And note that I do not take praise from inferiors as a compliment -- you are in no position to compliment me -- I take it as insolence, as presumption.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:and I don't understand why you're not bringing the same nuance to this topic that you do to others.
You cannot expect my random posts in the forum to display the thorougness that I put into my articles. Each of my articles represents my last word on the subject in question -- they therefore HAVE to be thorough and "balanced", as a subhuman would put it (though
their balance and mine are completely different things, for their balance here is again a disguised form of "equality" ("everyone has a view, all views are equal"), whereas my balance is a complete perspectival appraisal FOLLOWED BY A CHOICE OF DIRECTION, i.e. a privileging of one viewpoint to the expense of the others, specifically of the one that leads
upward -- something which is therefore an incitement to
inequality, to an
increase of inequality -- this is what all critique comes down to in the end, this is its purpose).
Now as regards the subject of videogames, the issue of sexuality (and hence of feminism) is extremely minor -- there is no such thing as sexuality in a virtual world, just as there are no such things as violence, or ethics, or any other of these venerable categories, which is why I have not yet written a thorough essay on the subject. My Cocksucking article is enough: it makes fun of hobags hijacking the hobby to pursue careerist agendas, and it briefly explains why women are in general indifferent to videogames and therefore inferior when it comes to critically evaluating them. That's all that needs to be said on the subject of womend in conjuction with videogames -- and even that is already too much.
The next -- and last -- time I will deal with women (and indeed with all types of subhumans) will be in my Manufactured Realities, and there the discussion will be as thorough and nuanced as anything else I have so far formally published.
Note that my definition of subhuman has nothing to do with gender, race, social position or any other such conceptual category: a subhuman for me is merely someone who, for whatever reason, is incapable of understanding philosophy -- if I came across a dog tomorrow who understood philosophy I would have no qualms of calling it (him) human and placing him above women, gooks, niggers, fagots, cockroaches, bacteria and other democrats.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:Second question: What exactly do you mean when you say minority groups (or individuals) should simply seize their equality (especially when considering societal constraints)?
Oh, that's an easy one. To "seize" something is the opposite of to "beg" for it.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:You've dismissed civil rights groups because, by placing themselves within such a group, individuals have somehow furthered, and made certain, their inequality. But what is a viable alternative?
To wake the fuck up and educate yourself. All the rest will follow. (-- Note that I said YOURSELF, not others. Fuck others. Not only is it impossible to educate everyone -- it is also highly undesirable.)
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:I understand that in nations that have shown considerable acceptance of minority groups, individuals may have an opportunity to excel even when their differences, "otherness", is known (which can serve as a vehicle for acceptance and a giant "fuck you" to bigots), but what of areas where they are severely discriminated against, or, hell, killed, if their minority status is known?
What about them? Those are the still strong (in respect of
values), still healthy nations -- nothing needs to be done about them -- at least not in this respect.
Our societies, on the other hand, are in decline, and have been so for centuries. Nothing can be done about that either (barring the invention of mind control technologies). The only thing left to do, again, is to work on yourself, to strengthen and educate yourself -- the rest will come of its own accord when the conditions are ripe for it.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:How can an individual succeed as an individual when they are placed within a despised minority group by the majority, and told, whether explicitly or implicitly, that they are a subhuman because of this?
You are asking this as if it's something impossible -- which is clear evidence that you yourself are merely another weak subhuman with low self-esteem. Do you have any idea how many names people have called me on the internet? What difference does it make? I am above all of them and
know it -- what does it matter what curses they might scream at me while I am stomping on them? What COULD it matter? To allow oneself to be determined by one's environment is
decadent -- to do so is
proof of decadence -- every worthy individual climbs to his height by
overcoming his environment, it is for this very reason that he NEEDS outside hostility, without which nothing would ever be achieved. And the greater the achievement, the greater the outside hostility that is necessary to make it possible. These depised subhumans that you pity -- they are in an ideal position for achieving great things -- why do they never do so? Perhaps because they can't? Perhaps because they ended up in that position
exactly because they lacked the strength to resist being forced into it? And what would happen if someone simply handed them what they themsevles were never capable of seizing for themselves? Does a chicken that is let out of the coop suddenly become something higher than a chicken just because it has been let "free"? Is it not in fact merely confused and lost, and unable to even deal with this newfound "freedom", so that it ends up either being devoured by wolves or returning to the safety of the coop, where it belongs? where it was born and bred to be a chicken?
A parable.
Kenneth Escamilla wrote:Why is joining with others who are called lesser, and fighting for acceptance, the wrong approach?
Fighting for "acceptance" is decadent. It is like begging someone to like you -- it is disgusting. As long as you like yourself there will always be others who will like you of their own accord -- without any need to deceive them or force them into liking you.
As for joining up with with others and conspiring together for power -- there's nothing wrong with that. The problems begin when, in the course of the conspiracy, the conspirators fall victim to their own lies. If in the course of the stuggle these lies prove to be useful, they never again manage to free themselves of them -- and become stupid.
