[Genteel Death]

From what I read he wasn't really into it to start with. He actually enjoyed the obscene stuff she wrote, so it's not surprising if he had genuinely put it away and it got lost. Was it called 'up your ass' or something?

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

all i'm saying is that if you so want the extermination of the males of the species you owe it to your principles to start with yourself.

I very much doubt that was ni'k's intent in posting this. He's no sway.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

me too! did you laugh? i sure did. i guess a lot of things trigger his insecurities. "woe unto you who doth not suffer as i do" or some such resentful shit. i enjoy the spectacle of his case of rabies.

I had a little laugh. Surprised he didn't do it earlier though.
Resentment, that's the word. He's full of it. His opinions are just a series of revenge tactics.

[!@#$%!]

i guess i always have some room for always, particularly with internet personas, but i've seen him say that in various places, hence my premonitory (though undisclosed at the time) linking him with poor poor solanas. i was not surprised at all when he posted this (which i've read before).

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

pffffft!-- i owe you no explanations regarding my meaning or intentions. read into it what you want. all i'm saying is that if you so want the extermination of the males of the species you owe it to your principles to start with yourself. otherwise you're all talk and no show. permanent paralysis.



me too! did you laugh? i sure did. i guess a lot of things trigger his insecurities. "woe unto you who doth not suffer as i do" or some such resentful shit. i enjoy the spectacle of his case of rabies.

of course not dear.i believe you.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ni'k

of course not dear. i believe you.

no! i believe YOU! you are the internet supreme leader and messiah. you're our kim-jong-il and jim jones combined! we strive to follow the shining path of ni'k thought unto interweb revolution. hasta la victoria siempre and bring on the apocalypse!

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by Lurker

I had a little laugh. Surprised he didn't do it earlier though.
Resentment, that's the word. He's full of it. His opinions are just a series of revenge tactics.

it was a link to read all your posts, because your words speak on your behalf, not that anyone would be remotely interested. but you know how the song goes, wont get trolled again.

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

no! i believe YOU! you are the internet supreme leader and messiah. you're our kim-jong-il and jim jones combined! we strive to follow the shining path of ni'k thought unto interweb revolution. hasta la victoria siempre and bring on the apocalypse!

very nice dear. i'll certainly heed the implied criticism from a fine, upstanding and sane democratic citizen such as yourself. but i'm afraid you are still falling into the boring trap, and i'll have to excuse myself, since i know from experience your quite happy to drag it out for at least 7 pages.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ni'k

my mistake for paying attention to you again. if anyone was bored enough to care they could however thru all this.

a login screen? have i been sent to the gulag?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by ni'k

my mistake for paying attention to you again. if anyone was bored enough to care they could however thru all this.

I have a phobia of links. Can you please just describe the internet content you are directing me too?

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

From what I read he wasn't really into it to start with. He actually enjoyed the obscene stuff she wrote, so it's not surprising if he had genuinely put it away and it got lost. Was it called 'up your ass' or something?

yeah, it has since been performed. and he did seem to have genuinely lost it, since it was found at the bottom of one of his trunks after his death.

scum is a fascinating piece, it does seem to have some foreshadowing of the situation we are fast apporaching. soon, sperm will be able to be manufactured in a lab to a higher quality than what a human male can produce. thus rendering male sexuality in a way obsolete, or at least in dire need of a fresh justification for its existance. considering the technological potential in transhumanism thru genetic engineering, we will probably soon be facing a time when a certain conception of "natural masculinity" will become widely recognised as something of a conservative fetish. after all, why keep our current biological set up, it being so imperfect and prone to flaws. if we can produce better quality sperm in laboratories, then why does anyone necessarily have to be born with that particular sequence primed to occur in its genetic code? males that don't pass through puberty tend to be prone to less diseases than their counterparts. you can imagine the counter arguement, which i'm sure will go something like "its dangerous to alter ourselves too much, less we irreparably alter for the worse". it opens up a fascinating area of thought, which will (and is already?) engendering a profound existential crisis in male subjectivity. something like a literal castration anxiety, haha.

and i feel that its criminal to expect women to go through the labour of childbirth, if you have technology that can act as an artificial womb. such technology is on the horizons, and it would liberate women from the risks associated with "natural birth". of course there will be a backlash, but isn't there something blatantly cruel in expecting a woman to perform that labour herself if a safer and easier alternative is available. i realise that the technology will of course not be perfected as soon as it appears, but it would seem unlikely that it won't at some point surpass "natural" childbirth in safety and quality.

we do seem to be approaching a point in our technological development were the idea of the "natural human" becomes a liability, one component among many with its flaws, advantages and particular characteristics, rather than that which is the central focus of our civilisation to preserve.

what i like about scum, is that it has a unique "madness" that treats the idea of being "male" as some horrendous abberation that can only fail if it tries to justify its right to exist. by basically advocating gendercide, she opens up a space in which we can better imagine the dissolution of the gender binary, which is something that i feel will soon be a reality.

and i think since there is a certain correlation in the way that liberal society treats homosexuality, as an abberation or exception to the rule, despite making slight concessions to tolerance, if not yet the positive or ethical benefits of it - valerie was able to recognise that someday the tables will be turned, and it will be the current oppressive position that will be in the docks facing charges of existential invalidity.

i still have no qualms in saying that there is nothing in any way natural about white male heterosexual authority and the oppression that comes with it, and it has only arisen due to particular material conditions. it's an obstacle in the progress of humanity that we need to destroy. and at this point it has been very blatantly and visibly exposed for the christian madness it always was, and its tactics of violent assault against women, foreign races, gays etc. are and always have been the only way it can maintain its illegitimate privelege. that's why reading certain feminist bloggers and authors is so exciting to me right now. and also i wouldn't also be condeming this authority if i didn't also think that it was damaging and painful for those that wield it aswell. and not that i would dare question their right to talk over everyone else, or freedom of speech as they call it, but its not like the smug sarcasm/irony bros seem to be coming from a particularily pleasant or admirable place...

[knox]

Originally Posted by ni'k

'

i have never personally got the foot thing.

its even weirder when you go to a club where regulars beg women to step on them.

[Genteel Death]

Nick/?!@ - why do you not write public poems to each other? Go on.

[gualbert]

Brave New World, that's what you want?

There's no sense in producing human beings in factories or laboratories, because robots are much more efficient.

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by gualbert

Brave New World, that's what you want?

There's no sense in producing human beings in factories or laboratories, because robots are much more efficient.

i havent actually read brave new world. but i do think thats a bit of a simplification.

the point is - what is the distinction between human and robot? think hard enough and i don't think you can really find it, just different places to draw a line between the two. are people who have prosthetic limbs robots? or just their arms? what if the only non prosthetic part of them is their head? what about putting a prosthetic brain into a human body? and what would be the difference between a prosthetic brain, a brain grown in the lab and a brain that only exists in the genetic code of a fathers sperm, and would take a partner and a few years to grow to a specific size? thats why i like reading about transhumanism, because it shows you there are no clear definitions of these things, and any that we have are just abstract groupings to categorically seperate matter.

the question should also be "why make humans "naturally" instead of making something different that's much more efficient.

[Lurker]

You really do talk a lot of shit don't you.

[ni'k]

i dont see how anything i've said is more "shit" than a troll attempt to make someone think what they say is illegitimate. but i'll leave that to your expertise.

[knox]

I don't know.

I don't agree with this whole preaching "natural" child birth, when certain drugs and C-sections can make it a loss less painful. I do believe that should be a woman's choice. I would never mind being cut open, but certain places (like the uk) do not give you the choice. I think it's probably more a money thing rather than "it's better for you" thing, since most doctors saying that are male and never went through that bullshit themselves.

In the case of the UK, I think it's a contradiction that they won't perform C-sections when requested by a woman (even women who have a phobia of childbirth), but they allow women to choose to get an abortion. I guess that means the whole motivation behind these decisions is more economic than "giving women the choice over their own bodies and reproductive systems".

But you're forgetting that women who wanna be mothers want to go through pregnancy and the whole hormonal thing and the whole experience.
Life changing or not, it's an important part of developing a connection, instincts for both men and women.

The idea that women have to take "control" in order to eliminate sexism and that it would make anything better is kind of naive and absurd. Would genocide, discrimination and war not exist if all societies were matriarchalist? Doubt it. That suggests that men are not victims of sexism - and they are, only not as harshly, generally. It also suggests some kind of pre-established behaviour. Sort of like what happened in the past 20 years, when being a housewife and a mother is seen as being a bum and a submissive twat. So now, women are forced to be a housewife, a mother, a sucessful professional, behave like men in the workspace, behave like a sex beast at home, be thin, young, well-dressed and educated, otherwise, YOU ARE NOT LIBERATED.

Being liberated is a lot of work.

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by knox

I don't know.

I don't agree with this whole preaching "natural" child birth, when certain drugs and C-sections can make it a loss less painful. I do believe that should be a woman's choice. I would never mind being cut open, but certain places (like the uk) do not give you the choice. I think it's probably more a money thing rather than "it's better for you" thing, since most doctors saying that are male and never went through that bullshit themselves.

In the case of the UK, I think it's a contradiction that they won't perform C-sections when requested by a woman (even women who have a phobia of childbirth), but they allow women to choose to get an abortion. I guess that means the whole motivation behind these decisions is more economic than "giving women the choice over their own bodies and reproductive systems".

But you're forgetting that women who wanna be mothers want to go through pregnancy and the whole hormonal thing and the whole experience.
Life changing or not, it's an important part of developing a connection, instincts for both men and women.

The idea that women have to take "control" in order to eliminate sexism and that it would make anything better is kind of naive and absurd. Would genocide, discrimination and war not exist if all societies were matriarchalist? Doubt it. That suggests that men are not victims of sexism - and they are, only not as harshly, generally. It also suggests some kind of pre-established behaviour. Sort of like what happened in the past 20 years, when being a housewife and a mother is seen as being a bum and a submissive twat. So now, women are forced to be a housewife, a mother, a sucessful professional, behave like men in the workspace, behave like a sex beast at home, be thin, young, well-dressed and educated, otherwise, YOU ARE NOT LIBERATED.

Being liberated is a lot of work.

i agree about the women who want to go through pregnancy, however won't we soon be facing the question - why keep creating women that even have that particular biological system in the first place? and yes you are totally right with the developing a connection point. it's been discovered that one of the most crucial stages in parents and child developing a bond is just after birth, when their close contact causes certain enorphin like chemicals to be released into the parents brains. and so for mothers who have a history of substance abuse, their brains are less capable of experiencing this chemical release as strongly, and so the bond can be less strong that it could have been. my point is why leave all these processes intact for the sake of some sort of naturalism. after all, by even eating food you are altering the structure and composition of your brain. so when we begin to map and master these components of the human body why wouldn't we start altering and refining them, hell why wouldn't we even scrap them alltogether and develop something else?

what i'm proposing is not that women "take control" of the existing order, but that the creatin of a new social order (something we are in dire need of) must necessarily liberate women from the position they have now instead of replicating it. i don't know enough about histories examples of matriarchys, but don't they open up a whole new realm of potential benefits compared to what we have now?

and like you say, being "liberated" is hard work, and its a strain that people can only seem to bear fictiously. i see it more as capitalisms innovative compromise with the discontent that always threatens to destroy it, and it seems to mask a lot of the unfair demands that women are actually burdened with.

[knox]

Originally Posted by ni'k

i don't know enough about histories examples of matriarchys, but don't they open up a whole new realm of potential benefits compared to what we have now?

No. You'll go back in history and find the same abuse, barbaric behaviour and hierarchical systems in most matriarchal societies. Morals and values are not gender generated, for the most part. There are countless aspects of biology, history and culture that brought us to where we are today. I don't believe in any "revolution" that'd change everything for the better, there's a slow process of improvement here and there, and different cultures are living very different stages. Human history is mostly bloody and horrible, we're a little bit better off than ever in certain parts of the world at the moment.

If you think you have the answer, and your answer is right. If you think "why create women that have that biological system in the fist place", then you are thinking something fascist, no?

I'm not really into sci-fi.