Another Twitter rant, lovingly preserved for your delectation. This one was inspired by partisans taking exception to my being disgusted when other partisans compared a tyrannical, pro-police-state politician to women fighting for rights under Islamic theocracies on the grounds that said politician has a vagina. The rant seemed to confuse a lot of doofuses who don’t follow me, but must have seen it in retweets; the idea that the behavior of cops and politicians might be rooted in psychosexual drives was apparently so deeply disturbing to them that many of them felt compelled to hurl insults at me, most of which can be paraphrased as “lol girls are dumb”. But without further ado:
NEW POLICY: Defend a politician in a reply to me, be instantly muted without appeal. Politicians are all sociopaths who want to control others non-consensually. I don’t give a fuck what party they belong to or how much they’ve dazzled you with their bullshit; I’m not interested in it. And I have no stomach for watching you grovel to them in my timeline. Look, y’all, I totally get that dominating other people is a huge turn-on; it certainly is for me. BUT I ONLY DO IT TO THOSE WHO CONSENT. Politicians & cops want to do it to those who do NOT consent; in fact, most of the thrill for them seems to be inflicting their will on non-consenting participants. That is evil & wrong. We have a word for using other people to get a sexual charge without those people’s permission; it’s called “rape”. And I won’t engage with those who try to defend it in real-life, non-fantasy scenarios. Furthermore, as a switch I also fully understand that being controlled by someone else can be a huge turn-on. But once again, with consent. I’m not turned on by random assholes trying to top me without negotiating my consent, using threats & violence to wring compliance out of me. If you want to grovel to random assholes, call them the equivalent of “master”, lick their boots & let them beat & exploit you, that is your affair; may you get all you’re looking for out of that relationship. But I don’t want to watch, and I’m not going to indulge you in your exhibitionist submissive fetish by watching you grovel to cops & politicians in front of me. You want me to participate in your perverted public humiliation scene? I’m willing to do that for my normal posted rate. But try to force my participation without negotiating my boundaries & conditions first, and I’ll mute you so fast you won’t know it happened.
And no, I’m not interested in debating “social contracts” with you. I signed no contract, nor do I implicitly agree to one by participating in the lie of “elections”. Nobody has authority over me unless I choose to give it to them; anything else is just cooperation gained by force or the threat of violence. I reserve my BDSM games for the bedroom; those who want to act it out full-time, lifestyle, in public, with the possibility of permanent damage or other permanent negative consequences, are far more perverted than I’ll ever be.
Reblogged this on O LADO ESCURO DA LUA.
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for years now, even though I know it sounds flippant and glib:
“And no, I’m not interested in debating “social contracts” with you. I signed no contract, nor do I implicitly agree to one by participating in the lie of “elections”.”
Does that mean you’ve found a way to not pay the taxes that go to enforce the contract that you never signed?
And just to stress this point, I’m not defending any politician or the idea of a ‘social contract’ here.
I suspect she pays taxes in much the same way one builds a fence to keep predators off one’s lands. You don’t acknowledge the coyotes’ “right” to kill and eat you and your livestock by taking precautions against it.
You merely acknowledge the ability to do so.
Exactly correct. The government has no “right” to demand money from me for “protection”, but it sure has the ability to destroy all I have if I don’t hand over the pound of flesh they’re demanding. I am not King Canute; I know full well that tide will roll in on me whether I want it to or not.
It’s very difficult to articulate my thoughts on this because I know any position I come up with is bound to be flawed in some way. That’s why I ask questions and why I normally look at these discussions with as much distance as possible. It’s too bad this can’t be face-to-face, or even in real time.
It makes me curious, what did you think of those men in Oregon that tried to take over that wildlife refuge?
Are they groups that were/are doomed to fail before they start, or something else?
I’m with Maggie and Terry Pratchett on this one, “politicians are the worst people to hand power to, because they want it”. It’s particularly evident in the US, but the UK is not, in my opinion, far behind.
We’ve got to outgrow the tendency to say to other people “protect me from these people” because thats exactly what a politician wants to hear from us, because we hand over our own keys to them at that point.
Most people ignore the outrageous abuse *as long as they think the victim deserves it* or simply don’t care about the victim.
And oh, boy, does humanity ever prove that paradigm again and again and again.
“We’ve got to outgrow the tendency to say to other people “protect me from these people””
I think you ask the impossible. It seems to me that instinct for protection is ingrained almost from birth where we run to Mother and Father to protect us from danger because we are too small and weak to survive the danger on our own.
That being said, I don’t know what the answer is either. Anything I could think of is a dead-end because otherwise people far more intelligent and charismatic than me would have already done it.
If only:
Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State: Gerard Casey
Chaos Theory: Rorbert Murphy
On Anarchism: Noam Chomsky
Anarchy, State, and Utopia: Robert Nozick
Everyday Anarchy: The Freedom of Now: Stefan Molyneux
Well! In that case….. I think I’m in love 🙂
If anyone insists on a debate on social contracts, you could always suggest this:
The Problem of Political Authority
Michael Huemer