Discourse About Discourse and “No Means No”

Deconstruction (although past its sell-by date these days) in its most radical version asserts that any speaking or writing can mean anything, and all interpretations are equally valid. All communication is self-undercutting. Feminists— a group which has significant overlap with deconstructionists— also maintain that “No” Means “No.”

Which is it?

Rapists should love deconstruction. “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as sarcasm, which is just as good as the interpretation that she meant it literally.” Or, “Sure, her lips were saying ‘No,’ but that tight, short little skirt was saying ‘Yes’.” Or, “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as ‘Bend me over and slam me hard, stud!’” Or, for a serious deconstructionist: “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as critical commentary on Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica.

Deconstruction and No Means No are mutually exclusive.

There’s something else funny about the whole “No Means No” thing: If a man were not inclined to accept No as meaning No, why would he accept the statement “No Means No” as meaning “No Means No”? Doesn’t that statement itself also require a meta-statement to reveal its meaning? Maybe feminists should put up posters saying

“No Means No” means “No Means No.”

Hmm, just to be safe, better do posters saying,

No Means No means No Means No

means

No Means No means No Means No

Actually, that’s probably not clear enough. What is actually needed, just to be sure the point is getting across, is… (etc.)

Advertisements

False Rape Accusation Culture

UPDATE: Welcome Jim readers! I had to notice when my “daily views” graph was forced to re-scale its vertical axis.


Recently a Less Wronger/ Slate Star Codex/ Bay Area “rationalist” killed herself.

(Via Jim’s Blog.)

This woman was a horribly evil and insane person who made frequent – apparently almost incessant – false accusations of rape and sexual assault and whatnot about every man who was in the same time zone as her. If you follow the links, you’ll see that several men stopped attending “rationalist” meet-ups in her area on the mere possibility that she’d be there.

Actually that “rationalist” community had been, as per standard SJW practice, taken over by SJWs, who killed it and wore its skin as a skinsuit.

Due to this, the community had no way to deal with this person who was a steaming cauldron of pure poison. Indeed, they couldn’t even call her what she was or address the problem, since the SJW position is that there is not, and never can be, any such thing as a false accusation of sexual assault. Oh, officially that’s not the position, but really, of course, it is.

Thus there was no way to deal with the problem, especially for the men, except by leaving the community.

It’s especially hilarious that the community that literally invented the phrase “evaporative cooling” as it applies to social situations couldn’t see, or name, what was going on there. So much for the “rationalist” toolkit.

At the second link above, the blogger notes that, by her own admission in her suicide note, as well as from other facts about the situation, it is obvious that part of the problem was this nearing-40 woman’s inability to attract the kind of man she wanted. That is, hard alpha.

This affords me an opportunity to climb up on my soapbox on this topic:

So many modern women are so completely insane because the biological hardware in their heads, and their socially-installed software, are telling them exact opposite things. Obviously this is guaranteed to make them miserable.

Female neural hardware, which is many millions of years old, is basically telling them, “Find a strong male who appears physically and emotionally capable of ravaging you, and is tough enough and/or socially dominant enough to get away with it.” If this is an exaggeration, it’s not much of one. Modern SJW/feminist software, which is insane, is telling them the exact opposite of this, that they want a deferential nice guy who will buy them a Maserati before presuming to ask them out on a date, and will, before every sexual move, politely ask, e.g., “May I now kiss your lips? May I now kiss your neck? By the way, girls rule! May I now fondle your left buttock?” Etc. All this is consciously designed by feminists to kill any speck of arousal in anyone.

If the man is aggressive, the feminist software screams “He’s oppressing you!” If he’s a nice guy, the biological hardware screams, “This is a weak male! Avoid mating with him at all costs!”

Given all this, it is no surprise that so many of our women are insane. It is a testament to the power of biology that, in this cultural environment, most of them are still sane. Of course, that’s to be expected; most women see through the ridiculous feminist bullshit, thank God, because it’s so flagrantly idiotic.

Real progress will have been made, and women and men will be much happier, when we’ve changed the social software so that it affirms and complements the hardware, instead of fighting it every moment at every step.

Netflix Five-Second Rule

Netflix Bans Employees from Looking at Each Other for More Than Five Seconds

May favorite aspect of this: How is anyone going to enforce it?

Ashley: Bob was looking at me for six seconds!

Boss: How do you know?

Ashley: Because I was looking right at him the whole ti- uh, never mind.

Another Netflix rule: “Don’t flirt.” Ah, leftism. Smell the sanity!

I think this is one of the reasons that every society in the history of the world, before western society starting several decades ago, had segregated sexes in everyday life. The problem with men and women in close association in everyday settings is that women are so eager to gain access to alpha males, and so determined to prevent any and all contact with beta males, that they destroy the functioning of the organization with insane rules designed to accomplish those things.

Think about how bad it has gotten in only half a century – this stuff didn’t even start until feminism got traction in the late 1960s – and extrapolate into the future. If this sort of dysfunctionality were allowed to progress unhindered, it would destroy the ability of groups of people to get things done.

Notice that we do see mingling of the two sexes in all societies in situations in which nothing has to get done. E.g., you take an Anthropology class, you see a video of everyone – boys, girls, women, men – sitting around a fire singing folk songs or whatever. But that’s because there is no particular task which must be accomplished. As soon as shit gets real, e.g. food acquisition – hunting meat or gathering plants – boom, sex division pops up.

Thus, I suspect gender mixing has been tried in many times and places in the past, and either been squelched with a return to sex-segregation, or caused the destruction of societies that didn’t squelch it. That’s why we don’t see mixed-sex groups in general, in veritably all societies in human history.

Murderer Cruz Gets Tons of Love Letters

Sorry, red pill deniers. If you refuse the Red Pill, you have to get it in enema form.

Excerpts from the article:

Mass murderer Nikolas Cruz is getting stacks of fan mail and love letters sent to the Broward County jail, along with hundreds of dollars in contributions to his commissary account.

The attraction of women echoes the fascination with killers like notorious cult leader Charles Manson. Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Beverly Hills brothers convicted in 1994 of murdering their parents, attracted a pair of brides while spending life in prison. So-called “Bundyphiles” sent bags of mail to Ted Bundy, the serial rapist-murderer.

“I reserve the right to care about you, Nikolas!” writes a Texas woman. The letter was mailed six days after Cruz murdered 17 students and staff and injured 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14.

The reverent note takes up all available space on the front and back of a greeting card showing a furry bunny holding binoculars looking out at the ocean. The inside of the card says, “Out of sight, but never out of mind.”

A teenager wrote on March 15: “I’m 18-years-old. I’m a senior in high school. When I saw your picture on the television, something attracted me to you.”

The letter was mailed from Texas and tucked inside an envelope covered with hand-drawn hearts and happy faces. “Your eyes are beautiful and the freckles on your face make you so handsome.” She goes on to describe herself as white with big, brown eyes. “I’m really skinny and have 34C sized breasts.”

A woman from Chicago enclosed nine suggestive photos, including a shot of cleavage, another in a skimpy bikini eating a Popsicle and a tight shot of her backside as she bent over.

Now, deniers, how many nice guys get this kind of attention from women? Take your time.

“There’s piles of letters,” said Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein. “In my 40 years as public defender, I’ve never seen this many letters to a defendant.”

“The letters shake me up because they are written by regular, everyday teenage girls from across the nation,” he said. “That scares me. It’s perverted.”

Via Anonymous Conservative:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/news-briefs-3312018/

Sexual Harassment: The Left’s Three Bad Options

November 2017: The proliferating sexual harassment scandals that started with Harvey Weinstein are now proliferating too rapidly for one to keep track. And they are disproportionately affecting leftist men. Enhancing the deliciousness is the fact that the left itself started this crap, back in the 1990s.

The left now has three bad options for dealing with the current sexual harassment conflagration:

1) Keep going with it, ruthlessly assailing the leftist men and ending their careers. In this scenario, Democrats like Al Franken and John Conyers are forced out of Congress. And many a leftist media personality is gone, gone, gone. The left doesn’t want this, obviously.

2) Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes. That means that a fullthroated affirmation of the presumption of innocence replaces the “Always believe a female accuser” thing that the left has embraced now. It also means a return to sanity about what constitutes “sexual harassment” and so forth. E.g., grabbing someone’s boobs is sexual harassment; saying something that some woman claims made her “feel uncomfortable” isn’t. This requires a return to sanity by the left and is therefore almost certainly off the table as an option.

The other problem with this option is that feminism is now such a huge part of the modern left. For the non-feminist left to try to excise the feminist branch would not be like excising a tumor; it would be like the tumor trying to excise the rest of the body.

Furthermore, the culture and incentives of “victimhood” are too deeply embedded in leftist constituencies for this to be stopped now. Victimhood claims now ARE the left; that’s what modern leftism IS. To admit, even as a theoretical possibility, that a claim of victimhood could ever be wrong would be to undercut the very foundations of modern leftism itself. They will never do this.

3) Explicitly say “It’s okay if leftist men do it, but not okay if non-leftist men do it.” They actually do go that far, some of them, but it’s not a convincing argument for sane people, naturally.

The problem for the left here, obviously, is that “Anyone who agrees with my politics should be allowed to get away with sexual molestation” is not going to be a winning argument with most people.

In the event, what they are actually going to do is try to have their cake and eat it too, as the left has always tried to do. That is, they will try to make a big deal out of it when men of the right commit some leftist sin, or are accused of doing so, but to totally ignore it, or do the minimum amount of media coverage and commentary possible, when men of the left do it or are accused of doing it. This is a bad choice for the left, especially now that we have the Net to provide information, but they may think that it’s their best of a set of bad options.

Memo to leftists: The actual best option is (2), Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes.

The left won’t want to do this, though, because it would constitute an admission that it is possible for a leftist witch hunt to go too far. For the left, even admitting that such a thing is possible in theory is unacceptable. So, while that would actually be best for everyone, it won’t happen.

This is one of the reasons, of many, that I hate sharing a planet with leftists. Out of spite and blind stubbornness, they will do everything in their power to AVOID win-win situations, if that requires admitting that non-leftists are correct about something.

ADDENDUM: Mike Pence’s rule about being alone with women who aren’t his wife doesn’t look so dumb now, does it, left-wing morons?

Game Will Kill the Left

In the comments here, Peppermint articulates a thought (lightly edited) that a lot of men on the red pill right have had over the last five or ten years:

In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should.

Women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men is false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you…

The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

I don’t know if it’s the #1 reason, but it’s certainly a reason. And this is excellent.

And aside from the advantage it gives us fighting the civil war in this particular society in this particular time and place, it also is a beneficial fact for the human species in general: It implies that there is always a biologically instantiated negative feedback mechanism to prevent any set of ideas from becoming too metastasized: Young women want rebels. Therefore, to get sex, young men have to be against the prevailing norms. Therefore there are very strong incentives for young men to set themselves against whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy. This is true of all men in general, who are a significant demographic group, obviously, and especially young men: The fighters.

Feminist: The Players Are Right

Via The Rational Male: Feminist Sheryl Sandberg (of “Lean in” fame) admits that PUAs are right about the nice guys versus jerks thing:

When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands.

Of course, she quickly reverts to standard feminist form:

When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

At the end she couldn’t resist a parting shot of standard feminist BS, so she says that women find men who “value fairness” sexy.

Overall, though, it’s interesting and encouraging that even feminists now admit that the playahs were totally right all along about the bad boys thing. (I use the plural “feminists” because Sandberg isn’t the only one who has admitted this.) Though I imagine it’s not politically correct in feminist circles to phrase it as, “the playahs were totally right.” Of course, the accusations of misogynist women-hating rape ideology will not cease, even as feminists say the same things. Orwell was not exaggerating about double-think.