I don’t normally post on weekends but I left my lunch in the office fridge and your response has been a grain of sand in my brain. Figured I’d finish up writing my response.

I didn’t address this directly because you didn’t do the work to show you were actually interested in the conversation. That’s why didn’t have the right to be there. This response is more serious and worth giving you my attention and energy. Had you provided the context and thinking you provided in this response in the first response, I would have considered answering especially if you were able to support it’s relevancy.

It wasn’t clear how I could have responded to pull out the counter arguments I wanted to get to. I want to skip to the core of the discussion because if I used up time on initial 101 arguments, statistically the person I’m responding too gets bored, suspicious, or tired of the argument overall. Also, being flatly and snarkily blunt about a specific thing without additional details gives a chance for someone to reveal what they actually think in anger without tactical obfuscation of their actual beliefs, wasting time.

Its doesn’t work often but it has every once in a while. The alternative almost always seems like I get the same old same old boilerplate.

I won’t be addressing the anti-natalist because I don’t see how it’s connected and it seems like it’s emotionally charged for you. Emotionally charged politics are important, but only if they are connected to the topic and if I judge that I have any relevant position to make any intervention. So I won’t be sounding off on that.

Its emotional to be natalist as well. Its connected to the discussion at a fundamental level, to be natalist means you value certain things as an axiom that lead to a certain derrived perspectives, one that I think is arguably similar to yours. Which is why I brought it up.

I stated it more to identify if this is a fundamental difference in our views. Something irreconcilable. Its a lonely feeling to have it confirmed. Very few have a conscious belief on the matter, pro or con. And default absent minded to natalist perspectives largely due to religion and cultural inertia.

On the face of it, an out group is not an adversary. If I attend a cancer survivor’s group and people who never had cancer show up, it changes things. People who never had cancer are not my adversaries. My goal isn’t to fight those people. I want to connect with others through a shared experience.

Segregation foments adversarial attitudes. Even with trivial or made up differences. It widens the empathy gap, creates perceived out-group homogeneity, and a sense of moral superiority. Group polarization absolutely can and probably will manifest in your suggested cancer survivor group, especially with an explicit ban on people joining who are not survivors of the disease. The goal is irrelevant, the result is what matters.

Men’s only groups in the past was often a place where real decisions for power and profit were made.

Statistically very true. Not a hard rule though, and to say there is no power in a woman’s only group that couldn’t further disenfranchise a dis-empowered non-woman would be disingenuous.

This is radically different from a the support some women may get in a women’s conference or the strategy and tactics developed from shared seed experiences for the political project of over throwing patriarchy.

“Over throwing patriarchy” is a vague goal at best though. What does that actually entail? Much like the rapture, the inevitable communist revolution, or judgement day this is just an in-group meta narrative, not really a goal at all.

Not advocating for their death. I said it’d be better (for themselves and others) if they had not existed. Those are not the same things.

I was largely challenging the person I was responding to with a provocative statement that I nonetheless think would be consistent with their own views, assuming they’re a systemic thinker rather than a worthless virtue ethicist.

I’m autistic. I’m well aware that I talk too much (meta-wise at least, maybe not always in the moment). I tend to be apologetic if I notice it and I am always trying to ask more questions. Makes for better conversation that way anyway.

If you really want techniques on how to end “passive gendered segregation,” then you need to adjust the character of cis men so they don’t feel that they’re being discriminated against at the exact same time they’re actually dominating things.

I don’t think this is the only reason passive gendered segregation happens. In fact its far from the primary reason. Especially in the US, the genders have been officially segregated for a huge portion of its history. That’s largely been dismantled (though not entirely frustratingly) but its residual effects have stubbornly stuck around. Its making everyone miserable.

This is largely motivated by religious puritanism and sex negative politics. Regardless if someone is an atheist or not, or if someone is a progressive leftist with sex positive values, we are all unsubtly mentally influenced to be heavily conservative about sexuality. Since most people are straight (or probably secretly bi tbh) this leads to segregation and in-group out-group politics that make men and women suspicious of each other at the outset.

Never said they didn’t.

I suppose my point is that exclusion of any group or category of person effects what is said. So it doesn’t really matter. Its not a good enough reason.

Making a group explicitly exclusionary implies a perspective that the excluded group is an out-group, and thus an adversary.

Men who formed explicitly exclusionary male only spaces, boy’s clubs, etc. in the past almost certainly feel some level of disdain for women. And men who enforce soft exclusion, like guys who do litmus tests to see if a woman is earnestly interested in whatever the club is about, aggressively disgust me.

This is not a feeling I apply with gendered prejudice.

I don’t know if you lack the ability to understand that these four points were made in the context of why women might want a meeting without men or something else.

I wasn’t being a smart ass. (well, mostly) I’m a soft anti-natalist, my suggestion was a half joking gendered version of what I actually believe. I think that, if you have given information on what a person’s life is going to be like you should be honest in your assessment if they’ll live a life worth living and make the world a better place by being in it. I just have a much higher bar to clear than most people.

My view is that, if society is to give birth to 100 people, if there is a chance 1 of them will live a life so miserable that they are driven to suicide, regardless of reason, you should probably birth none of them. Guess what the global percentage of people who die of suicide is?

Either way, I’m don’t think you belong in this conversation.

Its a good thing you don’t get to make that decision then, asshole.

The goals of feminism.

There are many kinds of feminists and forms of feminism. I assume you don’t care to elaborate on specifics because you think you’d show me I’m right to view exclusionary spaces with some level of suspicion and disdain.

Yeah, they’re miserable wretches. They’d be all better off having not existed.

EDIT: No one cares to explain why I’m wrong.

I mean, I accidentally commented on there and apologized when I revealed I was a man and agreed to stop. But I also hate not being able to comment/dissent when I read stuff so I blocked the community.

1. Men do the same.

2 & 3) We should birth fewer boys. It sounds like everyone would be happier.

4. I hate American “passive gendered segregation” culture and want to destroy it. Also, new theories and tactics to achieve what?

You’d think gang bangs would be more common. Guys/tops are mostly all very horny and you only need 1 bottom.

So you think you and those that agree with you should have power over people but have no responsibility to them?

I legitimately don’t care if you think I’m stupid I know what you think is smart.

Imagining yourselves as everyone’s parents… Literal unironic paternalism.

Having a .ml as one’s actual parent sounds like a nightmare though. Absolutely a sure fire way to create an anarcho-capitalist or some shit in the natural backlash.

I’m a dude. Had an inguinal hernia and got surgery to fix it, they actually strongly insisted that I would want to take hydrocodone and prescribed me bunch after I told them I was worried about taking an opioid. “Its going to really hurt, you want to take this ahead of time.”

Turns out I was allergic and it caused me horrible nausea. Took anti-nausea meds and it caused my heart rate to spike unusually with chest pains, thought I was having a heart attack. Fun. Further, the area I was in was well known to have a unusually high number of opioid related arrests…

After I swapped to ibuprofen and was fine.

Unfortunately, I’m infected with the “Why do something unless you’re trying to get gud?”

Which means, I’ll try something for a while and if I think I have some base talent as a foundation and I don’t have anything else I’m obsessed with at the time I’m absolutely going to fixate on it until I’m really good. But if I think I’m doomed to mediocrity I completely lose interest in it. Note that I don’t have to start off good, I just need to feel an intuition of “Oh, I could go somewhere with this.”

I suck at bowling and I don’t ever want to do it. I only begrudgingly do it because friends drag me to it and if they let me I’ll sit out and just chit chat instead of actually playing.

American Christian Evangelicals want the end of the world prophecy to happen.

Israel fucking hates Muslims and Islam and want to reclaim their holy land. They’re Jewish supremacists.

Iran fucking hates Jews and Judiasm and really fucking hate Israel, and not because of the Gaza genocide. Out of these three, Iran would merely prefer to stick to proxy conflicts and not direct conflict, but they still fucking despise Jews.

They’re all religious nutcases. This is basically 40k level mindless hatred, every group is evil.

Its both. Its religious cope to suggest that religious belief is not a motivating factor for a significant portion of this war and its participants. Both among the owner class and working class.

Religion is fucking stupid and harmful.

They are terms for different axes of belief.

Atheist and theist refer to whether someone believes in any kind of theism. Anti-theism and pro-theism would take it further in terms of whether you want to promote or reduce the amount of theism.

Agnostic and gnostic merely indicate a level of certainty in any belief. Its extremely rare that people are perfectly neutral between atheism and theism. They usually lean in one direction or another, so agnostics are either agnostic theists or agnostic atheist. They are usually the latter, as they are also often atheists trying to minimize the social costs of being a non-believer.

That is not true. There are gnostic athiests and agnostic deists.

They’re an agnostic atheist. And which of those words they use to describe themselves effects people’s opinions of atheism and atheists. If I want to criticize them for their cowardice I’m going to.

The sooner religion and spirituality dies the better. Its mass psychosis.

You can be an agnostic deist. Agnostic just means you have no firm belief. Most people who identify as “nones” in polls are technically agnostic, even if they personally believe in a higher power. Its a lack of certainty.

Most atheists are also technically agnostic atheists. A gnostic athiest would be someone who holds the absence of any higher being or spirituality as an almost axiomatic belief. Though they merely can be so certain that the small chance they’re wrong seems irrelevant to them.

You can just call yourself an atheist. Hell, if you call yourself a pastafarian you are basically an anti-theist.

I’m about to clock out from work and I wont have access to this account until Monday morning. I may or may not respond to you after this, but I am curious enough that if you have something notable to say I probably will.

Why would I give a shit about anything you have to say after hearing something like this?

I don’t know you so I couldn’t say. It sounds like you shouldn’t if you are an incurious person or intellectually fearful person.

I don’t care about your virtue though. Why should I? We will never meet in person. We don’t need to respect each other here, that isn’t why we’re talking still. We’re here for the discourse, no?

As a matter of strategy, a very good phrase, I don’t take opinions from people who are societally suicidal.

Strategy to achieve what? I’m advocating to make things better for individuals. Conscious beings. However, the collective, society, human civilization, none of these things are themselves conscious. Why do you care about these concepts over the conscious individuals materially contained within them?

When I talk about bolstering and reinforcing a strong community, perspectives like yours are exactly the kind I’m talking about pruning. Society cannot suffer your intellectual poison. If you want to die, do it on your own terms.

I never said I wished to die. At least not in the sense that you probably think. I already exist, me dying does not close Pandora’s Box, it cements the the fact that to live at all is a horror and a tragedy. Conscious mortality is fundamentally disturbing.

I’m sad that I have ever existed because I’m doomed to face death and suffering, but mostly the former haunts me. It haunts me that my loved ones will one day die, some already have a long time ago and it still disturbs me on a fundamental level. I’m also horrified at the prospect of bringing more conscious beings to suffer the same nightmarish fate of being brought into existence strapped to a metaphorical conveyor belt ending in death and oblivion.

My only expectation of you is that you will live, and that living means something to you. The only thing you can do is disappoint me.

Because I will continue to live or commit suicide? Or are you saying either or? I’m not entirely clear one what this means. As paradoxical as it sounds I don’t legitimately know if I’m capable of suicide. Its strange to even think about given my sheer terror of death itself, but also yeah… death will happen eventually, why not rip off the bandaid? I really don’t know what is the rational choice. Perhaps I am a hypocrite in this way.

If our axioms are really fundamentally different from mine, then perhaps there is no reason for us to continue. But if any of the questions in this response to you has you reconsider anything there might be something interesting here to talk about.