Posts by Francois Tremblay

Ask a Question 2

People send me questions, this is the second time I answer them, so this entry is called “Ask a Question 2.” Let’s go!

Name: Marco den Ouden
Website: http://marcodenouden.com
Comment: What do anti-natalists think of adoption as an alternative to having children the natural way?

Antinatalists are obviously very positive towards adoption as an alternative to procreation. The fact that almost 150 million children await adoption means the decision to procreate is that much more unconscionable. Adoption is just a good idea all-around.

That being said, it must be pointed out that most parents are not qualified to raise their own children, and adoption does not change that dire fact. The conditions which make people bad parents also apply in this case.

Name: travis
Comment: Hi,

Why do you say about solipsism that “is patent pseudo-philosophical nonsense”? This look like a nice explanation on solipsism: http://www.uncoveringlife.com/refuting-the-external-world/

All the best!

The argument on these entries you linked basically reduce themselves to “all we really have are perceptions (of what?), therefore there is no reality, only perception.” But this is asinine. For one thing, all we’re doing is relabeling “reality” with other words, but whatever we call “reality” still exists. It’s just relabeled “perception” and “dream”.

I found this part particularly interesting:

“If you are still having doubts or are still under the belief that a external world exist independent of us, contemplate this:

If an external world does not exist, we would have exact the same reasons to believe that it does as we have now. The objects of our experience would still behave in accordance to the laws of physics. There would still be the regularity and predictability we are used to, because that is how the dream is designed.”

What the author is actually admitting here is that there is no way for em to distinguish between the proposition that an external world exists and the proposition that an external world does not exist; but this only proves that the entire enterprise is meaningless, because there’s no way for us, even in theory, to tell whether it’s true or not. Which is what we should expect if this was a simple relabeling of “reality.”

From the intuitionist standpoint, such intellectual gyrations are easily understood. There is no “purely logical” way of proving the validity of a given moral value (or even that moral values can have validity), that a painting is beautiful or that reality “really exists.” All those things are founded on human intuitions. Without them, we can endlessly argue in a circle that there are no values, or no such thing as beauty, or no “real reality.” But since our use of logic is also founded on intuitions, such arguments are ultimately groundless.


Filed under: Links
Tagged with:

Gary (Inmendham) – Undoing the imposition


Filed under: Videos
Tagged with:

The illusory desire for control.


From Everyday People.

I’ve written about why free will is philosophical and scientific nonsense. But there is a deeper problem with the concept of free will: it’s not even falsifiable.

If free will could be true, it would mean that we can “choose” between alternatives when confronted with a decision. In real life, we can’t prove this in any way because we can’t retake the same decision twice. Every decision is different, and we don’t have a time machine to go back to any decision we’ve taken in the past. So not only is free will not scientifically valid, but free will cannot possibly be scientifically valid!

Sure, one can still believe in free will even though it cannot be scientific. But the same can be said of other unfalsifiable belief systems like Creationism or astrology. So that’s not a particularly interesting question.

Here’s a more interesting question: why do they believe? The way they talk, I think the answer has to do with wanting to feel like you’re in control. They believe that without this belief in free will, humans must necessarily lose control over their morality and become depraved.

You will probably note that this is the exact same thing they say about atheists. I will address this later.

When I talk about “being in control,” I am referring mostly to two things: 1. understanding what’s going on and one’s role with a reassuring certainty and 2. being able to make choices based on these understandings (note: this is not the same thing as the control mentality I’ve discussed before, although obviously they are related). We’re talking here about control at any level: control over oneself, control over family, control over one’s environment, control over life, control over one’s future.

Take a simple example such as Christianity and the afterlife (which represents control over one’s future). The believer knows that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and that people go to either of them when they die. The believer’s duty is to believe in Jesus’ plan of salvation for them. By choosing to do so, one can ensure an afterlife in Heaven, with absolute certainty.

When faced with the rebuttal that ey might not actually go to Heaven, the believer has little response but to reiterate eir faith, because it is the faith that brings certainty. If one has faith, one will go to Heaven. The issue here is not to actually know anything but rather to live in the utmost confidence. Reliance on facts cannot bring certainty and therefore cannot fulfill the desired function of making one feel in control.

Perhaps the most recently famous case of an ideology which sells an extreme form of control is The Secret, which tells you that you can get whatever you wish for, if you wish for it the right way. Another such case is Scientology, which claims that at the highest levels you can achieve “cause over MEST” (mastery of matter, energy, space and time).

Of course such ideologies can never deliver what they sell. But it is also no coincidence that both ideologies are almost ridiculously optimistic, i.e. that suffering is secondary and that one can lead a charmed life, if one follows a certain method to the letter. Optimism, like positive thinking, always buckles under the weight of reality, and control provides the way to reassure oneself that everything is going according to one’s will.

Positive thinking is another ideology which relies heavily on control. I have previously highlighted the proto-fascistic language used to symbolize the amount of control a positive thinker must maintain. It requires the individual to repress natural urges and bottle emself up, a surefire recipe for loss of control and guilt.

Many conspiracy theories feed into this need also. It may seem strange to posit that believing that one is ruled by shadowy and omnipresent forces leads one to feel more in control, but it is the certainty involved in “knowing” the secret truth that is reassuring:

The power structure: government, academia, corporations… take your pick. Whatever flavor of paranoia you favor, it can fit into the widespread panic that shadowy elites are not just in control of your life but actively hiding the truth from you. Clearly, this reflects the complexity of modern society and the alienation many feel from the structures of power, which impact our lives from afar. Unable to understand how society actually functions, it becomes reduced to a conspiracy by powerful elites keeping us from our alien destiny. By revealing this truth, their power will evaporate and you, the powerless Everyman, can finally take your rightful place among the chosen. Yes, you, the lowly middle-class worker drone who hates big government and thinks that PhDs want to keep you oppressed, you too can commune with aliens and stick it to the Man.

Control implies reassurance through belief. In the case of failure of a traditional belief (such as the failure of Creationism), the one thing a control freak can never say is “I don’t know,” because this completely nullifies the effect of belief. Instead of saying “I don’t know,” the believer must either make up false data, or ignore the problem. In real life, individuals and groups will choose one or the other branch as the new tradition to follow (“theistic evolution” or “Intelligent Design”).

Coming back to the issue of depravity resulting from loss of control, I’ve mentioned that free will proponents and religious people share the belief that once you abandon their pet belief system you will lose control of yourself, murder, rape, steal, and so on (that is to say, you will no longer be a moral agent but be reduced to what they see as an animalistic state, even though other species can be moral agents too).

What’s interesting is that it seems to me that the believers implicitly prove that their supposed control is really entirely subjective. Some free will proponents argue that even if free will does not really exist, we must still promote it as a concept because otherwise people will go rampant. So they admit that it is the belief, not the fact of the matter, which retains control. Likewise, religious believers claim that atheists are evil even though [they also believe that] God exists. How is that possible unless it’s the belief that’s operating, not God?

Of course it seems obvious to us that control is subjective. The concept of losing control is hard for people to imagine, but it remains solely in the imagination. Despite the belief that people can “lose control” and become animalistic, there really is no such thing as a nihilist. There are people who claim to be nihilists, but as far as we can tell they behave more or less like everyone else.

The thing about deconversions to atheism and determinism is that they are not a loss of control but a loss of meaning. And a loss of meaning is always temporary, because the creation of meaning is second nature to human beings. We do it all the time whether deliberately or nilly-willy, and we even have whole masses of people whose job is solely to do this for others. It does not take long for a new atheist or determinist to realize the meaning vacuum, and then to start filling it up (so what happens after we die? how does the universe work?).

The human mind, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If nihilism actually means anything, its meaning must lie in that short, unstable period between abandoning one framework of meaning and replacing it with another or others. Such a state cannot be permanent.

I do want to make clear that I am talking here about illusory mental control which really refers to meaning. I am not talking about actual control over one’s bodily or mental functions. That’s an entirely different issue, and one which is genuinely worrisome and scary.

I think we can observe from true believers that control does not work. The more people obsess over being in control, the more that need controls them in turn. The attempt to control oneself leads to obsession which leads to compulsion. The supposed signs of “loss of control” are observed in all kinds of people, including true believers. All that is left is a hollow shell of the procedures which supposedly bring about control, such as religious rituals, self-censorship, aggressiveness and passive-aggressiveness, and childish dogmas.


Filed under: Morality, Pessimism
Tagged with: ,

The myth of the rape fantasy.

It is a common myth propagated by men that women have rape fantasies, and that therefore they want to be raped and to be subservient to men. This is of course absolute bullshit. Elkballet debunks this dangerous myth.

While people do usually attempt to blame women for being raped, generally if people can accept that a rape actually happened, the woman is not responsible.

And voila, the “rape” fantasy is born. If she is not responsible for the sex, then it does not make her a whore to enjoy it (which it shouldn’t anyways). If women did not have to feel guilty about sex, enjoying sex, or masturbation, they wouldn’t feel obligated to blame it on someone else in their fantasies. In other words, in case you didn’t catch this, women do not fantasize about rape, they fantasize about being able to enjoy sex guilt-free. But because most of these women have no idea what a situation of completely egalitarian seduction and sex would look like, in order to feel guilt-free they fantasize about an anonymous pleasurebot coming in and ravishing them. Society puts into women the idea that if they say to someone, “yes I would love to have sex” she is a whore. So in her fantasy, she has to imagine not having said yes in order to be ravished. In the real world that would be rape. But that is not what rape is. Rape is the most soul-destroying horrific crime on the face of the Earth (short of murder) and no woman fantasizes about being raped. Women fantasize about guilt-free sex in a word that makes them feel guilty about having sex.


Filed under: Links
Tagged with:

Dustin Hoffman on TOOTSIE and his character Dorothy Michaels

Gender Fatigue pointedly titled her entry for this video “Dustin Hoffman Breaks Down Crying Explaining Something That Every Woman Sadly Already Experienced.” Male privilege, ladies and gentlemen…


Filed under: Videos
Tagged with:

When people should not have children.

Daniel Mackler is the spiritual successor to Alice Miller and a tireless fighter for children’s rights. In this important entry, he discusses the situations in which one should definitely not have children, and why.

2) You feel your life is incomplete.

It is a myth that children make parents’ lives complete. If your life feels incomplete without children then your job is to find a way to make it complete BEFORE you have children. Lives are made complete by internally resolving one’s traumas, not by adding new and perfect young lives to adult ones that are already traumatized. Children should not be brought into the world to meet any of YOUR needs. It is your job to meet their needs, and to devote yourself to this end. Not the other way around.

3) You are lonely and want love.

No child deserves a lonely, needy parent. Your child will not love you. That is a myth. Your child needs you – and needs you desperately – and if you think your child loves you then you, along with most of our culture, have mixed up love and need. Now granted, if you need your child to love you, your child will quickly pick this up on his emotional antennae and will adjust his behavior toward actually loving you…but this will be devastating and perverse for his emotional development. Learn to love yourself fully before you have kids.


Filed under: Links
Tagged with:

Making the analogy between racism and sexism.

In making an analogy between racism and sexism, I don’t want to imply that understanding racism is dependent on understanding sexism, or that racism is less important than sexism, but I think there is definitely a great deal of correlation.

The main axis of sexism runs along the following lines:

sex-gender-genderism-sexism/Patriarchy

Sex is the given, what we are all born with biologically, the rationale upon which everything else is based. Gender is the imposition of superior and inferior roles based on sex. Genderism is the ideology which defines and defends gender. And finally, sexism is the prejudice which is the result of accepting and supporting genderism, and the Patriarchy is the set of those institutions which support genderism.

Likewise, we can trace the main axis of racism as such:

culture-race-racism-imperialism

When two societies meet, what we observe directly is different cultures, by which we mean the specific ways in which people concretely fulfilling their needs (what they eat, how they talk, and so on). Race is the artificial construct which divides people into superior and inferior groups, on the basis of hostility between cultures. Racism is the ideology which defines and defends race. And finally, imperialism is the prejudice against other cultures which is the result of accepting and supporting racism, as well as its concrete implementation in internal and foreign policy.

This is probably not a perfect analogy, but the symmetry is pretty striking to me. In both cases, sex and culture are “the given” that we observe more or less directly (although I am not saying here that sex and culture are not constructed at all or cannot change, because that’s not at all true), while gender and race are clearly social constructs. By using these social constructs to form a hierarchy, we can then go back to “the given” and assign it a new layer of meaning.

The derivation would more specifically look something like this:

1. “These people look and act different than us.”
2. “These people are a different race than us.”
3. “These people are an inferior race to ours.”
4. “These people deserve to be killed/deprived of educational opportunities/deprived of some human rights.”

Like gender, races form a hierarchy, although the order of this hierarchy has greatly varied depending on the era. Until recently, the Whites were always at the top of the rankings, but now Ashkenazi Jews, the new darlings of the pseudo-scientists, occupy the apex; East Asians also occupy a high place in the rankings, often above Whites.

I think it’s obvious with these two examples how race is our way of dealing with different cultures. For centuries, Christians, and the Nazis (the highest point of Christianity), put the Jews at the bottom of their racial hierarchy; because of the Holocaust, it is no longer possible to do so. Likewise, the industrialization of Japan and China, their integration in the world economy, and the stereotype of Asian people being advanced in technical and technological areas, makes it impossible to put them at a low point in the hierarchy.

In general, races are delimitated and ordered in ways which support the interests of the power elite which does the delimitation and ordering. While they “technically” belong to different races, including Whites, Hispanics are routinely classified as inferior to Whites. This is the result of Hispanics being seen as a nuisance and, at best, cheap labor.

Racism comes first, then its rationalization under the guise of pseudo-science. This has always been the case. The correlation between black slavery and the rise of proto-Social-Darwinism in the US is another example of that.

Nowadays “ethnicity” is the new concept used to engineer cultural divisions within society. While “race” is being increasingly questioned, “ethnicity” remains outside of the scientific domain because it is more subjective, therefore easier to manipulate. “Hispanic” is not considered a race, but it can be an ethnicity.

Like genderism, racism entails “racial roles.” Whites are leaders and thinkers, Blacks are criminals and made for low-wage jobs, Asians are technical workers, Hispanics take the jobs no one else wants. It also entails stereotypes, such as Hispanics being prolific breeders (“they’ll outnumber us upstanding Whites!”) and Asians being bad drivers. These roles and stereotypes reflect people’s racist fears and hopes, just as gender roles and stereotypes reflect people’s sexist fears and hopes.

In sexism, a man is the default human, while women are a specific sub-species. In racism, we see that Whites are the default humans, while other races are sub-groups. So it makes sense for a White to ask a Black a question like “what are you gonna do about Black-on-Black violence.” No one would ever think of asking a White “what are you gonna do about White-on-White violence.”

I have said that “snti-genderism means fighting with all your strength against all attempts to equate biological characteristics with behavioral expectations.” I think this does not even need any change to fit anti-racism. In the case of anti-imperialism, simply replace “biological” with “cultural.”

There is one major difference between sexism and racism: self-definition is easier within a “race” than within a “gender” because people of the same “race” tend to live with each other, while people of the same “gender” are forced to intermingle with other “genders.” It took centuries for women to achieve what Black slaves had from the very beginning, a conception of themselves as an oppressed class.

This doesn’t mean that sexism is “worse” than racism. It doesn’t really make sense to play Oppression Olympics because there’s nothing measurable to compare. All hierarchies must be eliminated, no matter who’s affected.


Filed under: Radical feminism
Tagged with:

Universe Crueler, More Uncaring Place Than Previously Thought


Filed under: Videos
Tagged with:

Julio Cabrera’s antinatalism.

Julio Cabrera has claimed to have been writing about antinatalism prior to David Benatar’s book Better Never To Have Been. He has published on the Internet a summary of his ethics (he also seems to like to talk about himself in the third person, for some reason).

1. Human life lacks value in its very terminal structure in basically three dimensions of suffering: pain, tedium and moral disqualification of human beings in general. This must discard the usual difference between honesty and dishonesty in moral theories because, given human condition, it is impossible to live a moral life in the strict sense.

2. All positive values are intra-wordly creations and inventions of attitudes and actions; positive values are always reactive (produced against the terminal structure of being) and onerous (paying high prices or damaging other’s projects). This must deny the usual idea that a human life consists of a mixture of pains and pleasures. Infact, pleasures are reactive and onerous, intrinsically connected to suffering and subordinated to them.

3. Consequently, procreation is in any case morally problematic, even the so-called “responsible procreations” (and perhaps them specially), because it consists inproviding to others the terminal structure of being and its consequent pain, tediumand moral disqualification, and the mere possibility of inventing reactive and onerous positive values to support terminality. This must contest the usual idea thatbirth is a gift and procreation the paradigm of an ethical action.

4. A second corollary concerns suicide: beyond the impossibility of suicide intraditional metaphysical philosophy, and keeping distance from vulgar pessimism establishing suicide as a sort of necessity, Cabrera’s negative ethics sustains suicide as a plausible possibility of human life, no more immoral than human acts in general (given the general moral disqualification) and with more chances of being amoral act than many other actions, provided that suicide succeeds in defeating the powerful inclination to preserve one’s own life in any circumstances, which is the source of non consideration of
other people’s interests. All this must defeat the usual idea of suicide as the worst of human sins.


Filed under: Links
Tagged with:

Louis C.K. being a creepy sexist fuck.

Apart from the above, here is a page with a list of misogynistic things Louis C.K. has said publicly.


Filed under: Links
Tagged with: