Categories
antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? disgusting women evil fat fatties evil women evo psych fairy tales hate it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men PUA reactionary bullshit ugly feminists

Are feminists conspiring to make all women as ugly as they are? Misogynistic douchebags say “yes.”

Back in the day – way, way back in the day – dudes opposed to women’s suffrage loved to depict suffragettes as ugly spinsters (that is, when they weren’t depicting them as sexy young women using their feminine wiles to manipulate men into supporting suffrage). We looked at some examples of this yesterday and noted that, when it comes to dismissing feminists as uggos, some things never change.

But why, oh why, are feminists so (allegedly) ugly? Or, to turn the question around, why are so many (allegedly) ugly women (allegedly) drawn to feminism?

Well, we’re in luck, because some manosphere dickwads have stepped forward to provide us with possible explanations.

Over on Freedom Twenty-Five, the “red pill” Casanova who calls himself Frost offers this theory:

Feminism is the set of ideologies whose aim is to redistribute the natural allocation of access to desirable men. It is Marxism in the Sexual, rather than Economic Marketplace.

Frost is so proud of this sentence of his that he puts it in bold, as I have. He continues:

The ultimate goal of the Feminist is to create a world in which all women are as hideous and awful and dead inside as they are, so that everyone can have an equal timeshare in the alpha harems, and everyone’s fatherless offspring can be raised by the same uninspired bureaucrats in the same grey-walled, concrete and plate-glass buildings.

I can confirm that this is indeed the ultimate goal of feminism; we talk about it at all the secret meetings. The penultimate goal? To get Sleater-Kinney back together again.

Frost breaks it down:

– Feminists tend to be some combination of fat, old, ugly, abrasive, and slutty.

– Feminists want to convince men that we should be attracted to fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts.

– Feminists want to convince women that it is OK for them to be fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts. They want desirable women to become fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts, so that the feminists no longer look so bad in comparison.

– Related to (1) and (2), Feminists want to convince men and women that it is immoral for men to not be attracted to fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts.

This is why Feminism is working so passionately to ruin American women. [Who benefits] from the widespread adoption of feminist beliefs that destroy our once-slim, once-feminine, once-nurturing women? The answer, first and foremost, is the women who were already destroyed to begin with.

Feminists know that, in a monogamous world where everyone pairs up with an equally desirable mate, they could only ever earn the favour of weak, bottom-feeding men. Feminist ideology, i.e. the hysteric and childish whining about Patriarchy, Shaming Language, and Socially Constructed Gender Roles, is no more than the set of rationalizations with which they seek to drag the rest of womankind down to their level.

Over on the blog of a fellow named Anatoly Karlin, meanwhile, a commenter calling himself fcomp has a similar theory to explain why so many feminists are (allegedly) fat fatties.

If you think about it, there is a strong rationale [sic] self interest between feminism and the increase of female obesity. If feminism is to be defined as increasing the societal power of women, then it would serve them well for their to be more obese women.

Go on.

The desirability of a women to a man is far more objective then subjective. If women were to be, across the board, more attractive, if all women became, at minimum, 6s, men who ended up marrying 6s, the men who would be the lowest in male desirability in such a society, wouldn’t nearly be as unhappy as men who end up marrying 1s in our society.

I’m not quite sure that fcomp really understands how averages work. Lake Wobegon aside, you can’t actually have a world in which all women are above average in “objective” desirability.

The logical result of that, is that in such a beautiful society, ironically, the value of female beauty would become far less valuable, and beauty would be far less desired. If there isn’t a chance that one might end up with a landwhale, I suspect that most men would hardly bother with stuff like game and the like. I would imagine that such a society would experience little sexual discrimination, but at the same time, be very anti-female, in the sense that women who are competitive with men in economically productive fields would be quite successful, but at the same time, “feminine virtues”, a females capacity attracting men, the only area in which women surpass men, would be far less valued.

If all women are beautiful, then no women are beautiful?

There is a upper cap on female attractiveness, which are the feminine ideals hardwired into us by evolution, but there is no downward cap. …  [F]eminism is intrinsically a downward trend because the only thing a beautiful women can do to that makes herself more desired in a society, is to reduce the amount of beauty in that society.

The blogger on whose blog this muddled comment was posted, Anatoly Karlin, is so impressed with fcomp’s theory that he highlights it in a post of his own, adding

This is why your typical Third Wave feminist or rape activist is fat, has a manjaw, or is otherwise unattractive.

If you are ugly, devaluing beauty is not bad evolutionary strategy.

On a blog called Misanthropy Today, meanwhile, Dan Y. is not only convinced that (most) feminists are ugly; he also seems bitter that anyone would dare criticize him for calling women ugly.

[M]ost women who try to guilt us out of using looks as a criterion for judgment tend to not be very attractive. It makes sense that someone lacking in a certain perceived quality would want to dissuade others from assigning value to that quality, and would want those who possessed that quality to be humble and not flaunt it. It also seems extremely self-centered and petty to try to convince others to think and feel a certain way just so we can marginalize our lesser qualities. …

Feminists’ cries of outrage at man’s obsession with physical beauty are not altruistic. They are … upset that other women are benefitting from a quality that they don’t and probably never will possess. Their own perceived value relative to better-looking women will inevitably increase if looks are dismissed as unimportant.

Apparently, suggesting there’s more to a person than conventional attractiveness = shallow and petty. But basing your judgment of a particular women largely on whether or not she gives you a boner is the height of sophistication.

As these guys show again and again, real ugliness is more than skin deep.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

288 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kupo
kupo
5 years ago

@No Need
What you don’t seem to understand is that we take issue with you coming in here and talking about how women do or do not turn you on. That’s what we call a boner update. No one gives a fuck how your boner feels. If you have something of substance to discuss, we won’t reduce it to “boner” because you won’t be reducing women to fap material.

Edit: somehow, even after spending so much time on here, my phone doesn’t recognize boner or fap.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@NoNeed,

You repied! Thank you. Often the visitors just show up, drop an annoying screed and then leave again. You have some tenacity, good for you!

I’ll be brief, as I haven’t a lot of time. I’ll be around later this evening however, if more replies show up. So, a few brief points.

Point the First: Sir, while you did indeed not mention specific people when talking about ‘shaming language’, but you were directing it at the commentariat of this website. You said, as your first line, “I see a lot of shaming language posted by the ladies in the comment section.” (Assuming that the commenters in question are female is a pretty questionable thing, too, but I’m happy to let that go!)

So please, don’t try to claim that you were behaving politely and distantly, talking about decency in the abstract. This is blatantly false. You were making a direct attack on the commenters at this website, and it’s well within rights that the people here raise their ire at you.

(I won’t! I try to avoid that unless and until someone really deserves it.)

Point the Second: Your understanding of logic is primitive, sir. Please pardon my bluntness, but it’s the simple truth. The core of your issue in this specific application is that you simply can’t apply the sort of boolean logic you’re using to language or social interaction – it’s reductive to absurdity. You’re using syllogisms here. I use syllogisms at work all the time, but they aren’t useful for determining truth, only alidity.

More generally – and importantly – the number of triples you need to apply to the simplest social interaction is often in the tens of thousands, and easily millions. You can’t just rattle off some IF-THEN clauses in capitals and call it done, there’s real work in there. Your statements steamroll the context of the situation in absurd reductionism.

Point the Third: You see ‘misandry’ everywhere. This is not an indication that there is actually misandry everywhere, it’s only a perception. You need to back up your hypothesis with tests by way of evidence. Feminism has those tests and evidence as part of a deep corpus. The Men’s Rights’ movement does not. If you don’t have that corpus, then for all you know your perceptions could be coming rom confirmation bias or any of a hundred other possible biases.

When you see the thing you’re looking for or thinking about everywhere you look, that’s generally a greater sign of unclear thinking than it is of being right.

I’ll check back later on to see if you’ve replied, have a lovely night sir.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
5 years ago

“= NOT PENIS” – I am a human being first, and a male second. For evolved people, their sexuality is managed as a part of themselves, not their primary mission or only topic of conversation.

All humans are equally evolved. Methinks you’re confusing ‘evolution’ and ‘pretension’
As far as 1sts and 2nds, I’m human and male simultaneously, thanks much. My conceptual humanity and corporeal maleness are inseparable. There’ll always be conflict between what my personality wants and what my body allows, but that doesn’t make 1 subservient to the other. My orientation, sex, gender, whathaveyou are no less important than anything else about me. So, as such, let me retort: YES PENIS!

I see numerous people everywhere, in jest or not, talk about “Misogyny” and in their very next sentence reduce the male perspective, regardless of merit, to…
“Boner”
You can’t see the rank hypocrisy in that? Welcome to Misandry!

You keep using that word…
I’ve never had my person reduced to only my erections by anyone here. Even on the occasions when I’ve mentioned my erections, the response hasn’t been summary dismissal. See, the difference between us is that I’m not here with the express purpose of announcing my intent, or lack thereof, to ‘engage’ the Mammoth women. I don’t thrust my preferences on them as thinly veiled rebuke. The ladies, fellas, and the rest here aren’t some pool from which to scout suitable mates? They’re a community of lovely, wonderful, decent people. My community. Now kindly quit treating them as livestock to be appraised

Thank you for the Johnny Cash song!

Your welcome, jackass!

(Literally everything conked out on me last time, so lemme try posting this opus again)

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Why do you feel rejected by me personally?

I don’t. I don’t care enough about you to feel rejected by you. That’s why your boner notes are unwelcome. We don’t care. Way to spectacularly miss the point.

Do you speak to others the way you post to me? In your family? At your job? To random strangers at a social gathering? I am always seeking to improve the way I communicate with people I care about, which basically includes everyone alive. Sometimes I stumble and fail.

If they give unsolicited boner updates, I do speak to men like that. As long as it’s safe. Do you barge into spaces full of strangers and give your opinions on whether or not you want intimate relationships with them? If you do, stop. Just trying to improve your communication skills. If you don’t, then you must on some level grasp that it’s not socially acceptable. Well, it’s not socially acceptable here either.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
5 years ago

I don’t feel a right to call myself part of this community (yet), but I’ll second Axe on the rest.

(((VioletBeauregarde))): Social Justice Necromancer
(((VioletBeauregarde))): Social Justice Necromancer
5 years ago

I’m positively quaking in my boots.

Me too…quaking with laughter

@joekster: You may not think so, but you’re just as much a part of this community as I am. I, for one, do enjoy your input, even if sometimes I may not agree with what’s said (usually I do agree though).

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

Wait, are feminists conspiring to take the extra pockets away from men and give them to women? Since we all know functional pockets are clearly unattractive, that has to be it. I found the link between the two threads!

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

Aww, joekster, you are as much a part of this community as anyone <3

(((VioletBeauregarde))): Social Justice Necromancer
(((VioletBeauregarde))): Social Justice Necromancer
5 years ago

@kupo: Awesome! We’ll make a proper Feminazi out of ya yet 😈

@Scildfreya: Seconded!

No Need for a Shallow Grave
No Need for a Shallow Grave
5 years ago

@Axecalibur

Much of polite discourse and diplomacy is only thinly veiled in a veneer of respectability. That doesn’t undermine the effort to present your ideas, see if you can discern the position of another person, and maybe find middle ground, without resorting to outright insults and caustic epithets.

I actually think you are wrong about what it means to be Human. It isn’t an uncontrollable mix of the Lizard Brain, the anima/animus, and the spirit. What makes humans unique among Earth’s inhabitants is that there is a questing for Justice outside of our own survival needs. Justice requires symbolism, and this symbolism allows for the calculation of odds of outcome between a myriad of life choices, such as can be known or predicted. I believe some non-human species such as the various Great Whales, and perhaps Orca and Dolphins may also ponder on such matters, but without the apparent need to craft technological implements.

It is then precisely Human to consider dispassionately the animal drives, the sexual proclivities given to them by their corporeal construct, the gender roles, and then ARBITRARILY OVERRIDE SUCH DRIVES if their higher self deems it desirable or necessary. In my case, it is an aesthetic preference, derived by me from my interest in historical philosophy, my theoretical framework of self, and my personal understanding of the diffuse concept of God as the vision of what is possible when taking the “high road”, an alternative calculus to the Law of the Jungle that is the default state of Nature.

This does not mean that I reject my physical self, but it does mean that I ponder carefully before ingesting a substance, undertake a project, act a certain way with others, and so on. I am not on autopilot. I regularly say no to instinctive reactions. I also fail in that attempt, but it doesn’t keep me from continuing the effort of self-determination. This means cultural deprogramming, because so much of what many people think is their own treasured list of wants and desires is IMPLANTED into them, by evolution, accident of circumstance, and/or by design.

@Scildfreja

This leads me to respond to your #2 point, regarding a reductionist approach in relation to language. I personally believe that the reason language developed among humans is that in order for Human Justice to even be possible, to supplant the Law of the Jungle as mentioned above, precisely such basic symbolism is required.

Would I argue with you that in a spoken interaction there are numerous sub-cues of status, tone, wording choice (and the value payload or “fnord”, the invisible feeling quotient of terminology), body language, and cultural attachments? Of course not.

But the ENTIRE UNIVERSE has only three mathematical relationships possible between two adjacent data points, and those are correlation, inverse correlation, and the APPEARANCE of zero correlation, the last of which is usually a value judgment or lack of information, and not a fact.

It is thus not in any way absurd to test concepts with this basic metric, before adding complexity to the point that the system has the texture of chaos to the analytical observer. I retrace the mental footsteps of such a luminary as Wittgenstein and his followers to appreciate Logical Empiricism as one way to decode language.

I taught myself Boolean Expressions in grade school, and find such terse scaffolding for concepts very useful for the description of PERSONAL CHOICES, not LANGUAGE ITSELF. And yes, I also design and build gate-level digital circuitry for money. Your objection against deconstructing the entire synthesis of language into some kind of grain structure is noted.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

So I still don’t get this. It’s all very well to say that you’ve conquered the id and annihilated the ego and now you are PURE SUPEREGO MAN, free from base animal urges, but what does it have to do with necroing threads on this website? What is the logic behind your actions, O Mighty Man of Logic? How is this the most perfect use of your time to advance your schemes? Where is your plan?

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

Thank you for your reply! It is late, so I will reply tomorrow. I apologize for the wait.


Two little travellers were waiting at a gate;
one came early, one came late.
Late had brought his shovel and there began to dig;
the ditch had started small and then the ditch had gotten big.

Early watched the mound of earth beside him as it rose,
and sat amongst the standing pines encircling the grove.
“Late-man, late-man, tell me why you toil;
you sever all the roots and you rend up all the soil.”

Late stopped hip-deep, still standing in the turf,
“I’ll tell you why I turn the earth.
A grave’s too shallow for a man,
I’ll dig it deeper if I can.

For men should live in dignity,
and when they die, it too should be
a stately bed of gentle rest
for our repose, only the best.

All men live and die in turn;
so we must dig when we adjourn.
So while we live we too must toil,
and break the roots, and rend the soil.

For roots are small and souls are big,
so for this cause is why I dig.”

Early watched the mound of earth and severed roots of pines,
that stood around the circle in their unregulated lines.
She saw that he was digging, and she saw that he meant well,
and she saw that he had dug his hole near half the way to hell.

“There’s no rest for you, O Late Man,
no gentle long repose;
no escaping turning earthworms
chewing scalps or eating toes.

Not you, nor me, nor anyone
left standing at the gate
can dig for peace that separates
our origin and fate.

There is no hand that’s digging,
There is no stately bed,
Not you, nor me, nor anyone,
None are alive or dead.

No dignity of purpose can exist beyond the signs.
We are the roots you sever of the sacred grove of pines.”

I will reply tomorrow. Thank you.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
5 years ago

There’s one thing though… what is it that you keep constantly refering to as “shaming language” ? Because somehow I think you and I may have extremely different notions of what it means.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
5 years ago

@Needless Gravel

ARBITRARILY OVERRIDE SUCH DRIVES

Hmm… You’re quite right. “Overriding” our physical, human instincts is arbitrary. I don’t override my “drives”. There is no “higher self”. Continuing from my last comment, it’s not an “override” to treat the people here like people. As valuable outside of my appraisal. That’s a base level of decency
It’s not an “override” to delay or sidetrack my sexual drive in furtherance of another aim. As I said, my sex, orientation, and gender aren’t separate from everything else. I’m a whole, not a series of distinct parts. I’m not suppressing my “drives” by temporarily focusing on other things. Nor, in the same vein, is it suppression of my cognitive faculties to temporarily engage my kinesthetic side (usually by touching cold objects, lightly punching walls, wiggling my hips a bit. I’m a tense person, so it’s freeing to just move sometimes). You feel the need to compartmentalize? Great. Doesn’t make you more “evolved”

@John

what is it that you keep constantly refering to as “shaming language” ?

In the mind of the hyperrational, there are 2 linguistic registers: civil and barbaric. You or I can manage 6 of the fuckers (formal, intimate, consultative, etc), plus dialectal codes (proper English versus… the way I muthafuckin write) and shifts in tone (subtext, connotations, the like). A rational gentleman (and it’s usually dudes), at least at 1st, determines the rationality of another person or opposing argument thru the filter of civility. Hence comes the ‘tone argument’. This isn’t to say that we don’t use similar filtering tools. Humans after all. It’s just that the tool employed by ‘the rationals’ is pretty terrible for reasons I’m sure I don’t need to spell out

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
5 years ago

@Axe

proper English versus… the way I muthafuckin write

“the degenerate slang that regicidal beasts-of-burden like yourselves spew forth”

Anyway I get your point but… what shaming language ? I mean according to the shallow and graven person, Mammotheers use a lot of it, apparently. Like… we shame them poor MRAs for being MRAs ? Or something.

Oh and, ANOTHER THING. DO YOU know WHO this guy REMINDS ME of ?

Joekster
Joekster
5 years ago

@ax: do you have a favored reference for linguistic registers? It sounds like something I should try to familiarize myself with.

@violet, schildfreja: thank you.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
5 years ago

@joek
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA2xRVMOThc
(Not exactly scholarly work)
These list 5, but I tend to think as standard formal and more technical, jargony formal differently, thus 6. It’s mainly useful to me in my writing. Do I want someone to read it? Do I plan to go back and read it? Is specificity important here? More personal guidelines than rigorous study, I’m afraid

@John

Anyway I get your point but… what shaming language ?

That’s where connotation and subtext come in. As is custom among neoreactionaries, that which is not laudatory is shameful. Black and white, ya know? Ghostbusters isn’t just a movie that happens to have a largely female main cast. It’s part of the manocidal vagenda to destroy their childhoods. Child support isn’t just the basic expectation that the richer parent (usually dad, cos of the pay gap) in some way help raise their progeny. It’s a global conspiracy to steal men’s money, so the ungrateful [slurs] can spend it all on bonbons. Couldn’t tell ya whether NoNeedForGraphPaper has those particular views, but the mindset is the same

See, everything that’s not specifically for their enjoyment or betterment is secretly an oppressive, shaming mechanism. That’s the whole point of the manosphere. PUAs try to overcome that shaming, MGTOWs attempt to subvert it, GGers move to silence it. Same shitty tune, different dumbass key. So when someone responds to a person announcing their unwillingness to “engage” the women here with a curt ‘nobody was interested in your junk to begin with, random asshole’, that’s shaming him and his boner. And, of course, he’s so #rational he ignores the fact that trolling up the joint with his unwelcomed wife selection is more shaming than anything said to him. And he started it anyway, so he can have a seat

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Anything that’s not complete deference to boner notes and anything less than sweet understanding of the emotional pain that men who make misogynistic hate speech are in. That’s shaming language. Women are supposed to always be nice and always perform emotional labor for men. Anything else is misandry.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
5 years ago

@Axe & WWTH

Not to splainshame (har har), but I meant, what specific examples can the fine gentleman give of the shaming language used against him ? :3

Admittedly, that was a bit of a rhetorical question. But that makes your answers all the more worth reading for No Need For CAPSLOCK, and also for me, since what goes without saying is still worth saying and hearing one more time anyway.

I AM THE PLATYPUS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE QUOTE MINE.

Joekster
Joekster
5 years ago

@ax: thanks. Communication is a facet of my profession that often gets overlooked in the ‘drinking water out of a fire hydrant’ chaos of medical education, so I’m always glad to learn how to be more effective at it.

@everyone: I have an Internet etiquette question: obviously it’s illogical to resurrect a 4 year old thread to yell about what was said by commentators who don’t even comment anymore*. However, is it rude to comment on an old post if I’ve got something to say about the actual post? I’ve run across a couple older posts on the random post feature that I thought I could comment on, but refrained from doing so.

* case in point: one of his complaints was about the word ‘moron’, which is ableist language and thus (now) a violation of the comments policy.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
5 years ago

@joek
1)don’t directly reply if you can help it. Fucks up the comment section sometimes (Thanks, Phryne 😃)

2)speaking of communication, pretty sure you’re using “illogical” wrong. “A waste of time” may be what you’re looking for

3)Violet regularly necros old threads, don’t see why you can’t…

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
5 years ago

@joekster

Nothing wrong with necroing. If a troll does it though, it’s just another thing to make fun of. FEMINAZI DOUBLE STANDARD.

Wait, “moron” is considered ableist ? I thought it just meant “idiot”. If my engrish is lacking something here, please tell me, ’cause I’ve been using that word a bunch of times by now. Damn you, ESL !

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ sinkable john

Originally, ‘idiot’, ‘cretin’ and ‘moron’ were medical categorisations for different degrees of mental impairment. Some people find the terms ableist.

Joekster
Joekster
5 years ago

@alex: thanks for the heads up about replying to whole posts. I won’t do it again.

@John: what Alan said. Although, if ”moron’ has entered the lingua Franca enough to be not considered ableist, I suppose it’s OK. I think it would be up to Dave what he wants on his blog.

Also, ‘cretinism’ specifically refers to a form of congenital hypothyroidism caused by insufficient iodine in the diet of a developing child. According to what I learned in med school, it originally meant something like ‘Christ-like’, because people who suffer it are simple and trusting, which is how medieval Europeans imagined Christ was. Medical facts are fun.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
5 years ago

@Alan

Thanks, glad to know this now. “Crétin” and “idiot” in french just mean plain ol’ stoopid. “Moron” is a trickier one, since the closest french equivalent I can think of is “con”, which in modern parlance only means stupid, but originally means the same thing as the c-word in english. As such, “con” is acceptable (and wiiiidely used) in french even in feminist circles, while its literal english translation is to be avoided. That’s because the original meaning has been completely lost to the ages, for example I only learned of it like three years ago, whereas I’ve been using the word itself for a good 15 years now.

These three words are great examples of how literal translations can still have incredibly different meanings. AND a great example of why I need to make extensive use of them translation dictionaries that I should have bought years ago, being, y’know, a translator 😐

ETA : @Joekster

Right, I also need to find out where I left my old etymology dictionary, then. Thanks for the clarification.

Joekster
Joekster
5 years ago

Blast, missed edit window.

That should have been ‘acquired hypothyroidism’, not ‘congenital hypothyroidism’. I know the difference between the two, really I do 😉

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ sinkable john

The etymology of such words is interesting. We have a word here ‘bedlam’ to describe a chaotic or noisy environment (eg. “It’s like frikking bedlam in here!”. But that comes from the old Bedlam (Bethlehem) Hospital which was a notorious mental institution.

(Actually the same name for three separate locations over the years)

We also have ‘doolally’ which means a bit daft but that’s from the British Army Hospital for shell shocked troops at Deolali in India.

Joekster
Joekster
5 years ago

Re etymology, we’ve got quite a few words in the States named for US civil war generals. A few that come to mind: Burnside (a mustache), Hooker (slang for prostitute), and Bragg (unjustifiably touting ones own accomplishments).

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

Good morning! I apologize to everyone for the terrible poetry. Wasn’t able to sleep well, so I’m a bit of a mess. Ill try to reply to the integrated conversation that’s happened in the interim. I’ll warn you that I get philosophical and wordy in this state. I’ll be sure to do an editing pass and trim out anything that’s too verdant.

(And now that I’ve edited, it’s still long as heck and overgrown with weeds. Sorry!)

You directed me to your reply to Axecalibur, where you made your most central point.

What makes humans unique among Earth’s inhabitants is that there is a questing for Justice outside of our own survival needs. Justice requires symbolism, and this symbolism allows for the calculation of odds of outcome between a myriad of life choices, such as can be known or predicted. … It is then precisely Human to consider dispassionately the animal drives, the sexual proclivities given to them by their corporeal construct, the gender roles, and then ARBITRARILY OVERRIDE SUCH DRIVES if their higher self deems it desirable or necessary.

You’re very well-read in philosophy – and good for you! Philosophy and mathematics gives an excellent foundation for an education. I love philosophy and really enjoy wandering the twisting corridors of works translated from German. It’s exhausting and rewarding, a mental marathon.

Unfortunately, philosophy is largely castles built on clouds. This doesn’t make it worthless – far from it! – but it is a mistake to fall back to philosophy when evidentiary science contradicts it. Philosophy is idealized and abstracted, using rhetoric as evidence; science is concrete and testable, with the whole world as its proof and corollaries.

And oh, is there a forest of science through which your philosopher’s shovel digs.

Do you know how rationality works? Not the Boolean operators of logic and the precise edifices of mathematics they construct, but how the mind generates their existence and possibility. Not the trees, the thick loam of dead needles and burrowing beetles from which they spring.

Did you know that it is impossible to defeat emotion? The very mechanisms of the brain which generate options and choose between them burrow deep into the evolutionary strata of the midbrain you claim to have overcome – these mechanisms rely on dopamine, on serotonin, on the existence of emotion. Without instinctual emotion there is no ability to choose; without instinctual emotion there is no perception of option. Rationality is a thin layer of moss that has settled on the topsoil. It is impossible for you to ‘defeat’ instinct. You can only train it.

Did you know that the fight-or-flight response, is one of the primary mechanisms humans use for processing social information? The stress response is responsible for perceiving options, evaluating those options, and for providing us with motivation in moving towards it. It is a short-sighted system, concerned first with safety and survival, then with preserving that which we already have. Only after that, and only in the presence of dopamine and other “positive-emotion” neurotransmitters, will it present options for personal advancement. It is not a long term thinking system, and rational thought enters this process at no point. It is impossible for you to ‘override’ the animal drives, for it is the animal drives which provide your perceptions.

Do you know what willpower is? You call to it a lot in your text, and say that you use it to “deprogram” yourself, and to assert your higher self over the “Law of the Jungle”. Do you know what it is? Our science on this is still quite sketchy, but we have some tantalizing hints. There exists a pathway in the brain routing backwards from the prefrontal cortex and into the cingulate cortex, from there to the hippocampus and other midbrain regions. This pathway activates when a person applies willpower to resist a temptation. It is an inhibitory pathway, suppressing midbrain activity – this halts the hippocampus’s important role in ideation and emotion regulation.

This slimy little skein of meat, barely more substantial than the skin of an egg, is willpower. It is a hungry little gremlin, requiring volumes of ATP to operate. It also requires neurotransmitters to operate. Without these things in ample supply, willpower does not function. This is a frequent occurrence for the healthiest of brains. Neurons can be built up through use, but the most robust neuron bundles have reflex periods, and they all undergo activation fatigue. This pathway is no different.

And when it does function? It is a miniscule thing, its electrical potential is tiny compared to the massive bulk of the hippocampus and its associated structures. It is easy for that application of will to be overwhelmed by the neural storms which the midbrain can unleash. Willpower is ephemeral at the best of times. Believing that one can apply it to their every decision is nothing more than self-deception.

There are so many details to talk about. I’m willfully slicing out enormous chunks of how decision making, perception, and rationality operate so as to be more direct – if you would like to contest anything, please do, and I will reply as best I’m able. Instead of presenting those arguments in exhaustive detail, I will give you one last thing to think about.

I talked about how the fight-or-flight response constrains our ability to perceive options. (This is actually tightly linked to the reason why people with chronic depression feel so hopeless, an an example of how tenacious and unbeatable this effect is). Do you know what else the fight-or-flight response does? It regulates the perception of ones’ own emotions. It subdues panic, asserts resolve, regulates fear into anxiety. The high road you take through the forest of pines is a marble promenade in your mind. It is not, it is the same forest path we all take. Brains are terrible liars, and they lie to us about our own emotions most of all.

You came here spoiling for a fight – you came here with insults about swathes of people you don’t even know, and you came here with arguments tailor-made to offend. And you at the same time came with cool civility and controlled poise, and called us emotional for getting angry.

You are deeply in the sway of the stress response right now. It brought you here, it whispered your arguments into your conscious ear, it soothed your anger into civility. You aren’t lashing out, you’re debating, it tells you. You’re the one being reasonable. I recognize this beast, because it’s the same one I wrestle with every day. I’ve been wrestling with it as I write this, even now.

You obviously care deeply about being right, about being rational and measured. I’m the same way. There are ways to find a path through the dark forest of the unconscious, but it’s not by cutting the roots and digging a road through it – you’ll be long in your grave by the time you’re done that. You can’t separate yourself from the roots from which your mind springs.

I’d be happy to talk about the path I’m following through the trees, but before that, you need to understand that no Wittgenstein and no discrete logic can separate you from the deep forest of your evolved history. They’re lies your brain tells you to make you feel better.

Good luck out there, sir. Reply if you’d like.

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

And Schildfreja drops another knowledge-bomb for the win 🙂

There is a quote from one of David Edding’s books that may apply: ‘I’ve never seen anyone use logic to prove something they didn’t already believe’.

Lanariel
Lanariel
5 years ago

@scildfreja
If I’m alowed to be a little bit selfish, I would love to hear more about this as it is a question I’ve found myself recently struggling with.

@No need For Trolling
Not only do I not care about the tone policing or your claim that people are uncivil, but I find the way you try to setup the argument juvenile and tiring. Could you please try to make the point you’re trying to make both stand out from the wall of text and follow from your premises.

@mammothers
Continue being awesome. You do good in this world.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

I’d like to add two things to the ablism discussion.

First, using one’s cognitive ability, or lack thereof, as an insult is inherently ablist. It also assumes that this is a quality that can be known and measured, and as most of us are aware, attempts so far at measuring intelligence have been extremely biased.

Second. I would add dumb to the list of ablist words. David disagrees and allows it on this blog, but for those looking to expand their knowledge it’s really insulting to deaf people to this day. The history is that it was once believed that deaf people who could not communicate in a sufficiently advanced language like written French (the dude who started this was French) were incapable of sophisticated thought. People don’t outright say these things today, but they still treat “deaf and dumb” people like they’re less intelligent through everyday microagressions. I get a small taste of this myself with my hearing loss. I get a lot of hate from people when I don’t hear what they think I should have been able to hear.

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

@Kuppo: I couldn’t agree more about ‘dumb’. I don’t use the term for anything, not for intelligence or for muteness (I’m pretty sure it initially referred to the inability to speak), for that very reason.

Second, you are absolutely correct about the danger of confusing ‘hard of hearing’ with ‘low intelligence’, although in my circles, we’re more likely to confuse it with dementia. One of the things my fellowship stressed is the importance of ruling out hearing impairment as part of the dementia (or ‘cognitive impairment’) w/u. You’d be amazed how often an elderly person gets referred to the geriatrician for ‘memory issues’ that clear up as soon as you get the wax out of their ears. Or get them hearing aides. Or glasses.

It turns out, it can be really difficult to keep track of what’s going on around you when you can’t hear.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

@joekster
Yeah, there’s a reason hearing and vision tests are mandatory in grade school. (I always hated that day because they would pull me into a quiet room and test me 3 more times to be sure even though I could tell them which frequencies I couldn’t hear.)

And you’re right, it initially referred to muteness but became associated with deafness because people can’t seem to divorce the ideas of being physically unable to speak and being unable because of deafness.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

@Joekster
2 out of 3 ain’t bad. Sideburns and hookers yes, but the word brag has been a part of English for basically as long as there’s been such a language. The actual etymology is unclear, and may relate to the norse word for poetic excellence (From Bragi, god of poetry), or from a Celtic word meaning arrogance.

@Kupo
Which, on another linguistic note, is why exercise weights are ‘dumbbells’; they’re shaped (roughly) like (some ) bells, but don’t ring.

Re:ableism
The loss of ‘Idiot’ particularly frustrates me, as before it was a diagnosis, it originally meant ‘someone who puts petty personal concerns over civic duty’, and that pretty much sums up conservatism.

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

@Kupo: that’s fair enough 😉

I typed out a rant about primary physicians referring patients for cognitive testing without checking their ears for wax, then decided no one needed to see it 🙂

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

@Kupo: Oh, and my best friend growing up was born without external ears, so I have a slight inkling what growing up may have been like for you. Hugs/warm wishes if you want them.

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

@Dalilama: that’s fascinating about ‘idiot’. Also, thanks for the correction re. Brag. I thought it was related to the way Braxton Bragg managed to offend the entire Confederate hierarchy by claiming credit for victories that weren’t his and by trying to shuffle the blame for his failures, but I guess it’s just a coincidence. Good to know.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

@Lanariel, I’d be happy to! Is there something specific? You say you’re working through some stuff recently. What would be helpful for you?

#Hearing Loss, thank you for sharing, Kupo and joekster and Dalillama, and all. I find my hearing is getting weaker, and I really know the frustration of people getting annoyed if I don’t hear them clearly. It’s very discouraging. Really nice to hear that I’m not alone in that, thank you.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

@Dalillama
I always wondered about that. Thanks!

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

Prior to the U.S. general, a ‘Boston Hooker’ was a fishing boat made by Irish immigrants in the style of the traditional Galway Hookers. These boats most likely borrowed their name from Dutch hoeker or hoekboot (hook boat; fishing vessel ), becoming the Irish húicéir. This has been more useless facts.

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

@Schildfreja: you are definitely not alone. Fortunately, hearing aides are becoming progressively more discreet and easier to wear, if your form of hearing loss is one amenable to them. How easy is it to get hearing aides through the Canadian system? We hear stories here in the US about long waits for ‘elective’ stuff, and I really hope hearing aides are not counted as ‘elective’.
-Not trying to suggest you need hearing aides, as obviously only you and your own physician can know that 🙂

-I don’t know if this applies at all (not knowing your age), but wax build-up does become more of an issue the older you get, and cerumen impaction is among the most common causes of hearing loss among the elderly. I’ve met quite a few people whose lives improved dramatically after using Debrox (Carbamide Peroxide) for a couple weeks.

@Dalilama: ‘there is no knowledge that is not power’.

Yes, I just quoted Mortal Kombat. (cymbal crash). Although, I think the quote originates with Emerson, so that’s OK.

joekster
joekster
5 years ago

One other side-note: I keep using the term ‘physician’ rather than ‘doctor’ not to be snooty, but because I’ve been told that in Europe, only people who do research get to call themselves ‘Doctors’. If that’s an unnecessary distinction here, let me know, and I’ll use ‘doctor’ instead.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
5 years ago

@kupo
I’ve been tryin not to use ‘dumb’ since you 1st brought it up way back. It’s worked pretty well, but, as evidenced upthread:

Same shitty tune, different dumbass key

I’ve not entirely succeeded. My fault. I’m not a ‘cold turkey’ person, so it takes time for my habits to die. It’s something I need to work on, and I’ll try harder. So sorry, and thanks for the reminder 🙂

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

@joekster, I’m not to the point where I need a hearing aide, but I’m happy to say that we get that sort of stuff covered very quickly and easily up here, at least in my experience. The stories you hear down there – well, in my experience, our health care system is incredibly good.

My dad’s recovering from an invasive surgery, and he’s been scheduled for two types of physio, speech therapy, and checkups – all without asking, all frequent and prompt and professional. The cancer institute calls to check in on him frequently, and lets him know if a machine breaks down and they have to reschedule. That sort of rescheduling is the only time he’s ever had to have an appointment moved, and it’s not common. (Twice for an imaging appointment, which is getting frustrating. But machines do break!)

The only bad experience is from a friend I know, with an elective jaw surgery (shouldn’t have been elective, she had major migraines, and it turned out that she got early onset osteoarthritis in the jaw.) However, that wasn’t covered – they had to pay $14,000 for that surgery, and it took two years to get the surgery done. That was the private system – the public system isn’t that slow and doesn’t charge you for the follow-ups you need to make a good recovery.

That’s just my mileage, though. There’s crowding issues, sure – but honestly, if the solution to crowding is “Well, then poor people aren’t allowed in”, I’d rather have the crowding.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ jokester

in Europe, only people who do research get to call themselves ‘Doctors’

In the UK at least ‘Doctor’ is both the job title and the form of address for physicians. Except for surgeons, who for some unfathomable reason are called “Mister”.

Joekster
Joekster
5 years ago

@schildfreja: I always suspected the stories we hear in the US about Canadian healthcare are capitalist propoganda, but it’s good to have it confirmed.

@alan: it actually was a surgeon who told me that. I’ll just say ‘doctor’ then. Thanks for the clarification.

Smithshadow
Smithshadow
5 years ago

@Scildfreja Unnýðnes

Once again I am in awe of your ability to clearly explain difficult concepts. Thank you.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

There’s crowding issues, sure – but honestly, if the solution to crowding is “Well, then poor people aren’t allowed in”, I’d rather have the crowding.

^^^^^^This

When I want to see a doctor here (Sweden), I go to the doctor’s office which is a 10 minute bus ride or a 20 minute walk from my apartment. Then I wait around for about 20 minutes in a comfy couch, until the doctor is ready to see me. I don’t have to schedule an appointment. For me, this is free of charge (since I’m a frequent flyer, so to speak), but the full price would be around 6 or 7 USD (100 SEK). If I want to see a different doctor somewhere else in the city, or anywhere else in the country, it would still be free of charge for me, but it would cost 3 times the normal charge 20 USD or 300 SEK). When you’ve paid a total of around 130 USD (1100 SEK) for doctor visits, appointments, x-rays, physical therapy, etc, any additional visits will be free for the rest of the year (counted from your first visit, not by calender year). The cost for medication also has a (separate) yearly cap.

My dad had hip replacement surgery 4 years ago. He only had to wait a few weeks, if I recall correctly. He did have complications from the surgery, but the treatment of those was free of charge, with no waiting time.

In my experience, the long waiting times are a complete myth. But even if they were real, as Scildfreja points out, allegedly shorter waiting times would only have been accomplished through removing a class of people from the queue. This is not something to strive for.

And, for the rich assholes out there, private health care still exists. If you want to avoid imaginary waiting times, just go to a private doctor and stop bothering the rest of us with the high pitched whining.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
5 years ago

@IP, it was a troll or two ago (Sedentary Reactionary?) that was trying to claim that liberals were hypocrites for approving of democracy *and* the scandanavian system, since Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are monarchies.

Yours are monarchies the world would do well to emulate, at least when it comes to your social services and attitudes towards the economy! There are some things that capitalism is really, really bad at, and health care is one of them.