Anonymous asks: "Here's atwister for ya. You can believe that everything in the world is subjective, but you do uphold that as an objective notion, that everything is subjective. On the other hand, you can believe that everything is ruled by underlying objective principles, but you do uphold that notion which makes it a personal belief, thus it is subjective. What gives?"
Aww yeah, philosophy! Well, I just woke up, so I may not be able to give it my absolute best, but here’s my take on it:
Believing that everything is subjective can still take many different paths. For example, since it rejects the existence of an objective, factual reality right off the bat, it must be decided whether one’s own subjective perception takes priority over others’ (assuming one even acknowledges others’ existence as factual and not just a figment of their own imagination; it’s like a sliding scale of solipsism) and if not, whether the many subjective experiences converge into a grand shared hallucination or not. As such, just based on these factors, several distinct approaches can be identified, from most solipsistic to least:
- “I myself am the only thing thats existence I can be sure of (cogito ergo sum), everyone else is merely part of this illusion called reality, therefore my experiences are the only ones that matter.”
- “Each and every person, including me, experiences the world differently, and each of them shall prioritize their own experience, so I shall hold my own in higher merit than theirs.”
- “Each and every person, including me, experiences the world differently, so I shall respect their own perspective as much as I expect them to respect mine.”
- “The sum total of everyone’s own image of the world is what creates ‘reality’, and as such, by changing the image, reality can be changed, too.”
Compared to the above, the second part of your question is rather simple to explain. To one who considers reality objective, subjective perceptions of it are categorized as correct (as in, describing some part of reality accurately) and incorrect (describing it erroneously). So while the thought that reality is objective may in and of itself be subjective, the same evidence that led one to come to that conclusion confirms the validity of the thought itself, making it a descriptor of said objective reality, linked to it instead of being fully subjective. But since this last sentence is a hell of a clusterfuck, I’ll try to put it like this:
"The world is objective. This thought of mine is subjective. But since it describes the world accurately, it is an objectively true statement, as opposed to different subjective perceptions of the world, which are, due to describing it inaccurately, objectively false to varying degrees."
Star Jones Kicks Racist Lawyer From Her Show
I really appreciate Star Jones speaking about rape culture with regards to an 13 year old child who was solicited for sex by his teacher.
Star: How does a 13 year old child a child consent to go with a grown woman to have sex?
Lawyer: I resent the term child. This kid is a latino, latino machismo, he’s manly. Is there anyone who has a higher sex drive than a teenage boy?
Then Star booted him.
I like how it’s framed as racism when it’s primarily misandry. Or do you really think said lawyer would’ve presented the same question if it was about a Hispanic girl instead of a boy? No, the primary message was “boys can’t be raped, they’re always horny after all”. And that is not racism, that is pure misandry.
UK Police Officer Speaks Out
As a serving policeman, there are several things I am not allowed to talk about.
There are plenty of operational secrets we cannot discuss, but I’m not referring to those. I’m talking about the taboo subjects. The ‘detection’ rate for rape is one of these.
It’s very frustrating to sit and listen to pundits talking about the low number of rape convictions in Court, when as police officers we all know what lies behind these poor numbers.
For example, I couldn’t possibly tell you that out of every ten rapes which are reported in XXXtown, at least eight turn out to be nonsense. To be fair, eight out of ten of everything reported at XXXtown police station is nonsense, why should rape be any different?
I couldn’t tell you that of the remaining two, an existing alcohol-fuelled chaotic drug-based relationship is a factor in at least one of these, and ‘consent’ is probably present in the other to some degree. In my whole service I can only recall three stranger rapes and a half a dozen where consent was withdrawn at the time and he carried on. But I can’t tell you that.
I can’t tell you that most of the adult rapes reported in XXXtown represent either the latest in a series of allegations designed to score points against an ‘ex’, lies designed to fend off an angry parent when a curfew has been missed or a defence mechanism when a jilted ‘partner’ discovers an infidelity.
A rape once reported, even if withdrawn later, is in the system and a failure to bring someone to justice, even if it never happened, shows up in the ‘detection’ rate. The ‘detection rate’ is low because the number of rapes which actually happen is low. I couldn’t possibly say that though.
So who suffers when Charlene drops by the nick to accuse Wayne of raping her because she is hacked off that he used her child benefit money for drugs? Who suffers when we deploy a full investigation team, send officers out to arrest Wayne and deploy CSI’s and specialist rape officers to the victim suite, all for Charlene to suddenly decide that she loves him and he didn’t do it after all? Who loses when she can’t identify a scene (because there never was a scene) when we can see on CCTV that Wayne was in the High Street (on his own) at the material time and that her mobile phone records show that she was texting her mate who works at Tesco, right at the time she was supposed to be being brutally taken by the boy?
The next genuine rape victim to walk into the police station, that’s who. The next genuine victim who may face the cynical looks and delayed reaction from officers who have just finished dealing with the last ten Charlenes.
I also shouldn’t tell you that it is Force Policy, in all but the most exceptional cases, not to prosecute Charlene for wasting police time. Apparently this would prevent genuine victims from coming forward. Make no mistake, the genuine victims suffer, the detection rate is low and we keep pretending that everything is alright.
The facts about rape seen from the street are this: most genuine rapes are against children under 13 years old and are within the family or family circle. Genuine adult rape is rare and nearly always charged to Court; what a jury do next is for them, but it usually comes down to ‘consent’ issues, and being as they were not in the bedroom at the time, and we are not simply proving intercourse because that is already admitted by the defendant, it’s not really within our gift to prove or disprove consent. Consent can amount to one word, said in a half whisper six months before in a darkened room where no one else was present.
But we can’t possibly say any of this. We will simply accept that it’s all our fault and promise to do better in the future.
American Police Officer Speaks Out
For 16 years, I was a kickass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. I am unaware of any Colorado prosecutor who put as many rapists away for as much prison time as I did during my prosecutorial career. Several dozen rapists are serving thousands of years as a result of my efforts.
However, during my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. It was remarkable and surprising to me. You would have to see it to believe it.
Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is.
… The above statements are heresy to say publicly for many politically correct prosecutors. That is especially true if they want to maintain good relations with the victim advocacy community.
I seldom ask for “signal boosts”, but this is extremely important. Spread this like wildfire. Disclosures like this are the coffin nails of the rape myths pervasive in the media.
BECAUSE YOU GUYS WANT EQUAL RIGHTS WITHOUT EQUAL CONSEQUENCES, YOU GUYS WANT EVERYTHING MEN HAVE EXCEPT THE BAD SHIT, AND YOU STILL WANT TO KEEP YOUR FEMALE PRIVILEGES ON TOP OF THAT, THAT IS NOT EQUALITY IT IS SUPERIORITY GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKIN HEADS.
Men and women will never be completely equal because they are inherently unequal. Each gender will always have privileges and consequences of their own, if you want to have the privilege of being a man, you need to accept the goddamn consequences, too.
Feminists are trying to eat a Shrodinger’s cake — one that they can both eat, and still have left untouched.
This begs a simple question: just who the fuck do you want to be equal to, then?
Anonymous asks: "Hey 'vader, when you have the time you should check out the "Nazifest" tumblr. It has funny edits of an unfunny radfem comic that replace "men" with "jews/blacks/etc" and make them look like nazi propaganda with little effort. Definitely worth perusing."
I know exactly what comic you’re talking about without even having to check it. And I wouldn’t call it radfem, considering that radfems would have a fucking aneurysm if they knew you called a man one. Ishida is just your run-of-the-mill “hey look at me, I’m so feminist, see, I hate men too, now won’t you please give me the time of the day?” bootlicker.
"'Here’s the deal. Anyone who hates something feels threatened by it. A guy who says he hates feminism (a) doesn’t understand or know feminism, and (b) is scared of powerful women. Most attacks come from fear'"
I must be terrified of Pina Coladas, coconut, and shrimp then.
Say, why is there a major feminist website about attacking MRAs? Are the women there afraid of powerful men, and don’t understand what the MRM is about? What about women who hate feminism? What about the fact that the website I mentioned is run by a man? If many feminists are so afraid of people just discussing men’s issues that they have repeatedly broken the law to silence such discussions, what does that say about their level of fear?
This is a very interesting quote, as far as knowing how to successfully manipulate the human mind goes. It layers “attacks”, so to speak. Firstly, it starts from a valid statement (sorry, SYABM, but hatred IS a result of an expected negative consequence, which can be simplified to fear) and guides the audience’s mind to make the conclusion seem valid (the actual conclusion would only state that anti-feminists fear feminists, but not for what reason; the “scared of powerful women” part is cleverly slipped in to give it a semblance of truth). Secondly, it combines the erroneous assumption that said fear must be unjustified with implicitly shaming men for expressing their emotions. Why exactly shouldn’t men be afraid of and hostile to a movement that uses its influence to enact biased, anti-male laws and policies and socially legitimize misandry, again?
uwu destroy tumblr uwu
yeah tumblr is a super sekirt club with a super sekrit language!!!
surprise, trying to type cute won’t actually make you cute
and surprise, people on tumblr are super uncritical and have unhealthy attachments to internet personalities
ps misspellings don’t make you cute either
For once, I kinda have to disagree. Any large community can create its own culture, and websites aren’t exempt from that rule. The best example might be 4chan’s use of “-fag”. Here on Tumblr, it would immediately invoke the wrath of a thousand angry whiners, while there “Xfag” has come to mean “person possessing X attribute”, losing its otherwise widely accepted meaning to the point that homosexuals are described as “gayfags”. Similarly, it’s not too outlandish an idea that a collective as large as Tumblr can assign an otherwise arbitrary-seeming interpretation to certain conversational patterns.