the feminization of man

Over at KT, aeon and I are engaged in a discussion about diversity of opinion. There and here.

He makes the claim that any number of KT folks have been banned from ILP. The reason being that their opinions angered those here who are able to ban members.

In other words, it wasn’t because their posts were bursting at the seams with taunting and contemptuous ad-homs, huffing and puffing, personal attacks, inflammatory language etc…

Instead, they were banned solely because the opinion itself angered a moderator.

In particular he cited The Feminization of Man thread.

Anyone here remember it?

Anyone here care to note the extent to which aeon has a point?

Anyone here able to cite other examples of folks being banned here not for breaking any rules but for simply espousing a point of view that pissed a moderator off?


Pretty sure it’s the biggest ILP thread ever.

Biggest thread is a bit ambiguous. Going by post count, there are active threads that are 5000+ posts and 10000+ posts, compared to the just over 3000 posts for FoM. May be longest for word count, but I’m skeptical that FoM posts are 3x longer on average than the What Are You Doing thread (especially if we don’t count block quotes). Likely our longest thread that can be called ‘philosophy’.

As for banning people for their views, we certainly try not to. We have people on here currently advocating for some fairly abhorrent views who aren’t being banned. And we’ve lost many more users, and even mods, over refusing to ban people for their views, because a lot of people have a line beyond which they don’t want to be associated with a site that hosts certain ideas. But obviously we’re a bunch of humans, so controlling for bias is imperfect and aspirational.

And I don’t think it’s implausible that ideas that many people find abhorrent are often held by generally anti-social people who are unable or unwilling to participate in civil discussions. Those personality traits are almost certainly correlated. Overrepresentation of abhorrent ideas among people who are banned would be pretty well explained by that fact alone.

The biggest maybe, but where’s the part that confirms Aeon’s point?

I asked him this:

Again: cite an example of someone from KT who had provoked a thought at ILP and was summarily banned based solely on the substance of the opinion itself.

And he sent me to this thread.

Who got banned [presumably permanently], what was the substance of his/her opinion, and how was it not in violation of rules relating to ad-homs, inflammatory language, huffing and puffing, personal attacks etc.

Basically the part where if another does not share your own views regarding the “feminization of man” he or she becomes a “retard”. And is then often pummeled with abuse.

And you’re still here, aren’t you? And you post some rather extreme opinions. Yet Aeon seems to suggest that he and Satyr and Lyssa and others from KT were perma-banned simply for expressing some rather extreme opinions of their own.

To what extent is that true though?

And over at KT, they take pride in [supposedly] never banning people. Instead, what they do is to dump the folks not deemed “one of us” into the dungeon. Prohibiting them from posting on all of the other boards.

And though Satyr seems to insist that is solely because folks like me are breaking one or another rule, it seems instead to revolve more around not toeing Satyr’s gene/meme line regarding “natural” behaviors in The Lectures.

Yeah no shit I meant a philosophy thread and I’m aware of the What Are you Doing thread, having participated in it myself in the past. iambiguous also has these long threads where he posts quotes and whatever and updates them regularly, maybe some of them have more posts too but I don’t count them as philosophy either.

What are these “abhorrent” ideas, Carleas, and why does it matter more how you feel about an idea than whether it has reference in reality or not?

I dare say that most ideas you think of as “abhorrent” were actually accepted by the general population for most of history, at least in white countries, until just a century or two ago when the liberal subversion began. So if you’re gonna use the argument from popularity (“many people find abhorrent”), realize it can be turned against you.

Mine is the biggest.

the feminisation of man.

There are a few of those over at KT.

They must be bored AGAIN, needing the stimulation of ILP to keep them going. Ho-Hum…

There’s been an allegation that we ban people who express ideas we don’t like. As such, it matters that there are plenty of ideas expressed on ILP that I don’t like and which have not led to the banning of the users who expressed them.

Given that humans as a species know significantly more now than we did at any time in the past, I don’t think that’s entirely true.

But in any case, I wasn’t making an argument from popularity here. Right or wrong, presenting ideas that are unpopular takes someone who is willing to transgress norms. Similarly, shitting all over civil discourse takes a certain amount of norm-transgressing. As such, we should expect that people who engage in the former will be more likely to also engage in the latter, and so if we look at the population of banned people, we should expect to see an over-representation of people who express unpopular ideas. That is true even if banning is not biased against unpopular ideas.

"Given that humans as a species know significantly more now than we did at any time in the past, I don’t think that’s entirely true. "

Maybe with regards to certain specialized areas of knowledge as well as new ones which didn’t exist in the past, but fundamental general knowledge about how reality functions (perceiving patterns/causal relationships) is lacking, and some really basic observations which should not be controversial are made so or even rejected as “wrong”.

Regarding a lot of things, especially relating to politics/society, reality has been inverted on its head and insanity has become the norm.

[tab]Meanwhile, in the wider world:

-People are getting murdered randomly on the streets by foreigners every day, we are told not to worry.
-American blacks are murdering white people every day, the government is covering it up while claiming blacks are victims of invisible racism that is somehow everywhere.
-Women are parading through the streets naked, attacking people, for unclear reasons.
-Governments are purposefully replacing their populations with unevolved primitive barbarians, claiming that to not do that would be “hatred for the color of the skin.”
-We have collectively agreed that our entire history was evil.
-Women rule over men, by state mandate.
-Entire Western economies are based on debt.
-Infanticide is being committed on a mass scale, to the point where it has become “a routine medical procedure.”
-We are being told, with a straight face, that neither race or gender actually exist. That they are illusions.
-The West is funding terrorists to overthrow stable governments.
People are fat.
-History-altering political decisions are being made based on the media repeatedly showing images of dead children.
-It is a generally accepted assumption that that life came from nonliving matter for no reason, then managed to turn into people.
-The defining event of modern history, the Holocaust, has not been proven to have actually happened, and there is no evidence to support the claim that it did.
-The West is attempting to incite a World War with Russia, for reasons that are unclear.
-One in sixty-seven children born in the United States is diagnosed with autism. This has not been declared a crisis. No government authority has attempted to explain why it is happening.
-Wars are started in the name of “human rights.”
-The only ethnic group on the planet with an apartheid state is the same ethnic group that goes to other countries and accuses them of “racism.”
-Russia is being blamed for all kinds of things that make no sense by every government in an attempt to incite conflict with them.
-Major Western governments are run by (usually childless) women.
-We are subsidizing the third world to breed completely out of control – in 80 years there will be 4 billion people in Africa – and there is absolutely zero plan to deal with it.
-Germany and the Netherlands both have legal bestiality brothels.
-We have replaced our entire religion, formerly the core of our cultural identity, with hedonistic nihilism, claiming that the decision to do so had something to do with science.
-Donald Trump is being crucified based on a conspiracy theory of which not a single piece of evidence exists to support.
-A Jewish pedophile, who published documentation of his sexual contacts with toddlers, is serving in the European parliament and being given awards.
-The Canadian government is taking people’s kids away from them if they refuse to inject them with the hormones of the opposite sex.
-Ariana Grande is being hailed as an international hero for singing a song about “dick bicycle” in memory of victims of a terrorist attack.
-James Comey just testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about a vast Russian conspiracy, his entire evidence for which was that “his guys” talked to “their guys” (referring to CrowdStrike, the private company hired by the DNC to examine their server after they claimed it was hacked) and that they were “certain” it was the Russians. That is what we are talking about impeaching Trump over, and attempting to incite a World War over – “our guys talked to their guys and they were sure.”

This is all insane.

In the world we presently inhabit, “sanity” is defined as the inability to recognize how insane all of this is.

We cover this stuff every day. This insane stuff.

And we are being classified as irrational and abnormal and unironically (still) called “Neo-Nazi White Supremacists” simply for pointing it out. … -insanity/[/tab]

How did your views suddenly become the standard for sanity?

Getting back to the OP…

What were the opinions expressed on this thread that garnered a ban for the posters who expressed them? Where is the evidence to determine that the ban was predicated solely on the substance of the opinion itself and not on the manner in which it was delivered?

Further, where is the argument able to sustain the accusation that this is the norm here at ILP? That, if you express an opinion that angers a mod, you will be risking a ban.

Concomitantly, where is the argument/evidence that if you persist in challenging Satyr in the agora at KT, you will not be dumped in the dungeon?

What is the “fundamental general knowledge about how reality functions” — as it pertains to gender roles? And is that not entirely linked at KT to the manner in which Satyr has determined in The Lectures [his general description of human interactions] that all rational men and women are obligated to grasp the relationship between genes and memes in nature?

Also, as Phyllo speculated above:

“How did your views suddenly become the standard for sanity?”

And then [in my view] we are back to objectivism. One or another intellectual rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

Which from my frame of mind is but one more psychological rendition of this:

[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
But I repeat myself. :wink:

This is another aspect of reality inversion, the idea that a view should not be judged against reality and that there is some standard to judging views about reality other than reality. Reality is the standard for what is sane and insane, and views are to be judged by how they correspond to reality.

Matters of “is”, descriptions, how things are, which is in reality objective, is considered a subjective opinion now.
Matters of ought - morals, how one ought to behave, which is in reality subjective, is considered to have objective grounding now.

I wasn’t around in 2005 so I can’t comment on what happened then on this forum.

All you did was change the wording somewhat to make it appear as if YOU are not setting YOURSELF up as the standard.
So now the question changes from :

“How did your views suddenly become the standard for sanity?”


“How did your views suddenly become the ones which correspond to reality?”

You’re still claiming to have a better knowledge and understanding of reality than others. :-"

*than some others regarding some aspects of reality. And yes, I most certainly am claiming this.

Okay, so what makes you think that your understanding of reality is better than the understanding of “cucks”, “morons” and “retards” when you disagree with them. Perhaps they have a better understanding.

If someone says that an idea is “abhorrent” and you say that it is not, perhaps they are labeling it correctly because have a better understanding of reality than you. How do you know that they don’t?

phyllo, why do you insist on ignoring reality?

If I say this horse is white and another person says it is green, how do we figure out who is right and who is wrong? Whose understanding of reality is correct and whose is false?

Again, WHY do you insist on ignoring reality so much?

Are you scared of it? Does the idea of an objective reality existing outside of your thoughts, desires, dreams, and wishes, scare you so much that you just cannot muster the courage to accept it?

What’s the issue here?

You don’t have any reasoning to support your statements beyond “I think this is right”.

You dumb down everything so that you reach the conclusion that “this is so obvious, everyone should think like me”. Your “white horse” is an example of that. People don’t dispute that it’s white … but people might dispute whether it’s right to raise pigs on industrial farms where they are confined to a pen which does not permit them to move or even turn around. What’s the ethical reality of that?

Or what’s the ethical reality of giving men and women different rights?

Or the ethical reality of limiting the powers of police to imprison, question, torture and kill the citizens of a country? Or to do the same to non-citizens?

Phyllo wrote


Might makes right, not right makes right, huh?

I’ve already told you this in another thread. In fact, I’ve already spoken about this in multiple threads. But fine, shortened version, here we go:

There isn’t an objective answer to matters of “ought” such as “what rights X or Y ought to have”.

If you phrase it as a matter of “is”, a causal relationship in which you’d be asking “If we want to achieve effect X, what action can cause it?” then yes, then there is an objective answer as different actions have different effects and we can observe reality and draw conclusions on what action will cause which effect. Scientific method is a sophisticated, systematic way of doing this.

But there is no objective way to decide what “ought” to happen, aka what effect we want to achieve.