In “Knowledge or Superstition?” I am writing of our rational idea of hatred or rather out justification for hatred. It seems no more evident that in light of increasing influence of progressive movements, there has been a perpetuation of a cycle of hatred. Where one half of the debate is about spreading norms of compassion and kindness, and the other is spreading norms of hatred and judgemental speech, which prides itself with being for freedom of speech.
There’s something I find peculiar about both stances as they both seem to believe they have the correct notion of freedom of speech. I shall endeavor to analyze both of these right now.
A primary protagonist of the Hatred movement is the “masculinist” movement, which does not literally call itself that, but rather seems to heark back to classical values of discourse, based on – it would seem – logic and reason. Where evidence is the only way out in a discussion that has none. These people often argue that they have evidence on their side, and thus use “science” to back up their claims. This group is normally content with maintaining the status quo and thinks that the “left” is the “regressive” movement rather than the progressive. They also make no statements FOR something but they are aggressively AGAINST many things. Which is why I identify these people as being “for” hatred.
- First reason being that they would rather spread notions of neutrality OR hatred, but not the other way around. Such is obviously too sensitive and feminizing and serves to feminize the population (or “pussify” as some put it), because what is sensitive is thus feminine and therefore ought to be reserved for the weaker individuals in society. This obviously plays into the feminist agenda, which is why these people are often branded by said movement as “misogynists” and they will readily respond with: “I’m not a misogynist, I love women!” And to a key, that is true. These people don’t hate women, but they hate all that women represent, subconsciously.
- The good things that this movement CAN bring about is perhaps a more rigorous approach to arguing one’s points. My problem with that is that they expect the highest level of scrutiny from the opposition while applying none of it for themselves. Rather, the moment one of their members steps outside of their norm, they are immediately and suddenly realized as irrational members of the group. I will call to the Thunderf00t controversy following the #Brexit, where he was simply stating on and on that the Brexit was a terrible idea and that none of its leaders would stick around, if things did not go well. He was unfortunately right, yet most of the people in the masculinist movement immediately jumped on the wagon to do a complete 180 and stab him in the back.
- No one in the masculinist movement is ever really safe, however. Unpopular opinions have the tendency of attracting unwanted attention, normally of the sort that the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) bestow upon the masculinists. They are kicked off of forums, get “censored” for their unpopular opinions (many youtubers of the movement get their videos taken down every now and then), and social media usually gets multitudes of reports for their unfriendly takes on social justice. Normally, these people flaunt traditional values, which no one in the leftist movements is willing to go back to, because that would mean a return to discrimination. That does not bother the masculinists, however, because they now feel that THEY are the targets of discrimination.
- As such, masculinists believe themselves as the ONLY defenders of free speech and the ONLY defenders against true dangers to society. Their “reasoned” view of the world permits them to see what the regressive left won’t. They can see that the islamists are invading their countries and that them getting censored only helps get Daech closer and closer to power. Not only that, but they are stuck between a rock and a hard place: On the one hand, they have religious extremists that despise them, because of their views on religion, and they have the social justice movements who despise them too, because they are unrelenting in their view that their world needs to go back to masculinist values, else society is doomed.
- A direct refutation of this however is that progressive movements do not directly restrain freedom of speech. What they do instead is that they attempt to make masculinists understand that the times have changed, and “masculinist values” are no longer wanted, as they create toxic relationships between humans. Such is evident when one looks at gaming communities, and internet forums aimed almost solely at subjects looked at through the male gaze. Note: These forums do not exclude women, nor does the masculinist movement exclude women. A masculinist can be a man or a woman or a transgender or a gay person.
- Due to the fact that masculinists are sticking tooth and nail to traditional, conservative values, and the leftists have most of the political pull nowadays (we are no longer the 50s), the masculinists are being shown the door. There is no one that will ever keep a man or a woman that wants to live in a traditional household to do so, but the times change to the point where a lack of empathy and a penchant for hatred are no longer desired. This is not censorship, this is not creating a generation of carebears or special snowflakes; this is creating a truly humane society. This won’t happen with the masculinists pulling while everyone else pushes.
- Freedom of speech or expression changes over the years. Back in the times of Voltaire, not everything could be said, but Voltaire himself said he would defend the rights of anyone whoso said something that he disagreed with, to say it. Yet, I have a strong inclination to believe that he would not agree to internet bullying, perpetuating a society based on hatred and warlike tendencies, and outright sexism. Voltaire existed in a time where disagreeing with the church or the wrong noble meant prison, exile or worse. Other philosophers of his time, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau were not as lucky. Well… I’ve yet to see someone put in prison for merely disagreeing with a feminist. I’ve also yet to see someone BANNED from their own country for disagreeing with a feminist. I HAVE seen people get banned from social media, for expressing controversial views and also helping in the harassment of individuals. More on that later. —
I enjoyed my time on youtube doing so for many, many years during my teenagehood, and not one CSIS (Canadian CIA) agent came knocking to my door about my deeply conservative views. I’ve changed since then, it is true, but I have not moved away from critical thought, and when I see bad arguments made by feminists, I point it out. One such bad argument is that “all women are progressives”, which believe it or not, I have heard being said. One could not have heard of Hoff Somers, Coulter, Palin and said this with a straight face. I spent way too much time trolling on the internet with complete impunity to even fear disagreeing with fellow feminists now. There is no risk to my well-being through it.
This is perhaps the meat of the article as I will also have to formulate a refutation of the social justice movements, to retain my philosophical edge. After all, if I do not perform critical thought against my own beliefs, what worth am I to philosophy? I have meditated on this for many years, and I believe I have found ideal ways to refute certain arguments of social justice. Let’s however begin by outlining the primary arguments of the “Against Hatred” side.
- The SJWs I mentioned earlier comprise the body of the opposition to masculinists. They are the cream of the crop of the danger masculinists face toward their point of view. Why? Because when atheists started coming out many years ago, they faced ostracization from the religious fundamentalists. As such, atheist movements were born out of anger, having been rejected from common society. Due to that, atheists tend to think that they are counter-culture thinkers, but seeing as a lot of atheists came from religious backgrounds, they HAVE kept the traditional outlook on life. Armoured Skeptic, in his personal channel called “Armoured Gregory” has a video dedicated to such traditional values.
- Therefore, SJWs seek to safeguard the progress already done, and because masculinists feel like this is keeping them from living their lifestyles outwardly, lifestyles which have been in vogue for literally centuries, they think they are now the marginal ones, on the fringe of politically correctness. SJWs add to this fear by asking for more and more genteel treatment of minorities, such as muslims, transgender people, gays, hispanics, etc… We treat racism, homophobia, sexism as the worst ails of modern society, and in a way they are. When there is nothing as terrible as women sufferage to push, SJWs must push simple traditional values off to the side. These include the old conceptions of freedom of speech, which guarantee that any speech, no matter how hateful is permitted to be broadcast on all channels if need be.
- The criticisms of SJWs in that regard are that normally, hatred is much easier to spread than compassion and kindness. As such, this “generation of pussified sissies” is simply as a reaction of an old masculinist generation where emotions were repressed and kept deep inside, lest they would reveal the weakness within. It’s sort of like wearing a burqa for the mind. SJWs instead say that they think emotions and sensitivities should not be a crime and should not be condemned as is openly the case with masculinists. This “toxic masculinity” as they often speak about, is going to stay unless something is done about it. Therefore, the masculinists are in a nutshell, fighting against new values that defy their own traditional values. Yes, they are generally NOT racist or homophobic or transphobic, but they’re also not pro anything, which means they are nobodies’ allies, yet they are extremely vocal about being nobody yet everyone.
- So in that case, the arguments of the SJWs appear to be easy to understand and to agree with. They are just the new norm, they’re the new generation of people who want to usher the world into this utopia of caring and niceness, which the masculinists simply cannot resolve with, because they’ve been used to testosterone and violence all their lives (although they don’t normally fight with their fists but with their words). The SJWs are extremely vocal as well and their activism takes them to the streets and they, being a sort of self-regulated militia of politically correctedness, tend to openly strike down opposing protests. So here are my problems with that.
- Activism is a tool I tend to believe has no weight on a government if not to make it more active itself in repressing the words of those rioting. In fact the Mohawk Valley formula was used since the 1930s to quell civil unrest, but instead of using sheer force, government resources use more insidious methods. Firstly by inserting contrarian opinions in the movement, to make it shut itself down or to create pointless debate from within. Secondly by making the conditions through which said movements can riot close to impossible to comply with. As such, the movements have to spend a lot of time negociating proper conditions only to be met with repudiation and then have to carry out the activism themselves, at the risk of being arrested. Therefore, once they are sufficiently frustrated, there is the threat of being arrested and having a criminal case, which will make employability much harder. The list goes on, and I’d invite my readers to inquire within Noam Chomsky about this part.
- The problem with that is it appears that SJWs could eerily be using similar tactics toward the masculinists, by forcing them to comply to their terms, by showing up in their conventions and disrupting the peace (shouting loudly at Christina Hoff Sommers while she makes her speech, to the point where she has to stop and heckle the disruptor), by assaulting conventions en masse and shutting them down by making too much (sometimes way too much noise, either via speakerphones or shouting slogans), and by basically resorting to quick knock-out ad hominem arguments. It is true that there are men that are misogynists but not every man who disagrees is a misogynist. Every man that disagrees and uses misogynist reasons to disagree could very well earn this label, however. (ex.: You’re just being irrational. Actually, that’s not how that works, let me show you. Silly, honey, dear, etc. – Or any outright sexist remarks.)
- By portraying themselves over media as the primary victims of harrassment, SJWs might be missing part of the message of tolerance, which is to be inclusive of other opinions, even those who we strongly disagree with. Therefore, when I see university teachers forcefully push dissenting students or “amateur journalists” out of campus because they pick little fights with other students on campus – which I find to be a prime moment for students to practice their own arguments! – they could simply advise the students that these amateur journalists will ask them questions, and they can refuse to answer them if they so wish. I’ll not agree with the likes of Lauren Southern on how to voice your opinion toward SJWs because well, sparking controversy is the first and last step to cutting off communication. That’s not how to start a conversation. With that being said, SJWs should be the better adults by letting these people in, rather than shut THEM down when they make their own conventions and then expulse them when they come into theirs. I cannot agree, ethically, with wanting to have freedom of speech and restricting it for others. If you think freedom of speech should be restricted, you should be open about it. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with putting restrictions on certain forms of speeches.
- It cannot be stressed enough that the SJW movement has a lot of toxic figures within its fold as well. Misinformation has been disseminated and less than honest practices are abound. Some introspection might be necessary. For example, you cannot presume that everyone knows what you know and therefore that because Marriam-Webster has put “genderqueer” in their dictionary, that everyone should now fully understand where you come from. At best, masculinists are misguided men who have lived lives of utter privilege, and simply need to be educated on your issues. The best way to do that is to be patient, and barring patience, simply disengage. You’ll be the better adult by doing that, than by spending countless hours explaining to this one “dudebro” why you’re right and he’s wrong. Your movement will have more strength if you preach the same ideology of compassion and kindness you ask everyone to have about you.
To give a bit of a background on my position in the whole issue: When I grew up, I was convinced of the existence of a Matriarchy, in which women are superior to men and men suffer the might of castrating mothers. It has to be said that there was a lot of masculinist propaganda in the early 2000s, especially around the time of the Afghan and Iraq war, possibly as a result of wartime duress, as is usually the case. Therefore, for most of the 2000s, I was convinced of women’s inherent weakness and that they should go back to submitting to men. I don’t really like that part of my life because I also had terrible self-esteem, but hating women made me feel better. Hating politically correctedness made me feel better.
Becoming an adult, I got children rather early, and both my kids turned out autistic, one with intellectual deficit. My diagnosis with ADHD was reminded to me by my wife and my wife’s autism was finally diagnosed. So, I was in a perfect situation to start understanding that my insensibility toward people with disabilities and minorities was misplaced. I had gone in the wrong direction and attacked the wrong people. It wasn’t my freedom of speech I should be safekeeping; it was their quality of life. Because aside from hating on these people, I had done very little else. I had simply cried about being silenced for having a different opinion, when I should have instead be offering support to these people.
Karma, maybe? I don’t know. I began to question my motives to be an antifeminist before I got my kids, and I came to my conclusions as my kids started growing up and got their diagnosis. This isn’t the way to speak about freedom of speech and it isn’t a speech worth safe-keeping, not if it means putting more stigma on a bunch of people that already have enough of it as it is. Carebears? I don’t think so. I think the world needs more carebears if anything, because this constant hatred has done little else than spark pointless and facetious debate about questions that concern the privileged, and not the underprivileged.
Your freedom is not being attacked, simply your unpopular opinions. You will not get imprisoned for having them, but you will be kicked out of conventions for being a dick and you will have people insulting you back if you think your speech is completely immune from backlash. Mine wasn’t, yet I suffered not from it. Not one bit, not for the many years I outright bullied feminists and SJWs on the web.