New video coming tomorrow. As usual, patrons get early access and uncensored edits. This is gonna be the last social commentary vid for a little while; they do alright on Substack but just tank on YT. But if you're interested in discussions of society and (especially relevant lately) gender, I recently had a talk with Dean Moriarty of the Feel Better Soon blog on the state of Genderslop discourse and whether it's worth it. It was a good talk and we covered a lot of ground. Check it out if you're interested.
So Edward Cantu is a professor of law at UMKC and wrote maybe the best thing I've read on the subjects of feminism and how we treat women's agency (substack.com/home/post/p-219627570), reiterating and elaborating on many of the same points that I made in my Obsession essay/video. And in case you're wondering, yes after swimming in an ocean of braying morons for several months, it does feel kind of nice to see a law professor validate your take. Sadly, the idiot mob has come for him too now: fox4kc.com/news/umkc-law-professor-faces-criticism…
Of course none of the criticism is addressing his arguments, rather, they have simply threatened his position at the university and painted a target on his back. From the article:
“Now that we know these inner thoughts of his, it does. It poisons the way that he’s teaching those students, too,” said Sarah Duggan, a UMKC law school alum.
The debate is not over whether Cantu has the right to express his opinions. It’s whether those opinions could affect what happens inside his classroom.
“My main concern is that these offensive opinions will leak into the classroom,” said Avery Owens, a current UMKC law student.
Understand that what you are witnessing is a LAW STUDENT loudly exclaiming that she hasn't the FAINTEST FUCKING CLUE how free speech or intellectual freedom work, and is also, ironically too stupid or fragile to argue her case. They will always claim that they have principles or that they value free discourse, but then when it comes to apply those principles, there's always some reason why they don't think they should have to.
The trailer for River is so good. Looking forward to all the new and fascinating ways that it's going to fail to live up to expectations. While I'm at it, It Ends while not a proper horror flick is legitimately good. It is very much a Zoomer movie, but in all the right ways.
Not sure what’s motivating the obvious stupidity regarding women’s workout attire. Men (most) are clearly not annoyed by the fact women are wearing revealing clothing at the gym. Like, what? Are you stupid? Are you a fucking dummy? They are annoyed because the revealing clothing is paired with the insane demand that men not look at or “sexualize” women with the possible punishment being exposure to the idiocracy of social media. So if your response is to laugh at the guys and say “no man should NOT want to be around hot, scantily clad women” and then add that women are ridiculous to think that they won’t be ogled, I’m sorry, you just failed some kind of IQ test.
Of course, this is to say nothing of the standard issue fuckwits who think that women ought to be able to work out in the nude and men should just "control their lust." These people are of course beneath contempt, but we're used to them now.
The past few months have been totally absorbed by cultural events orbiting the question of women’s agency: the film Obsession and it’s insane popularity, the Lindsay Clancy trial, and now the Cornell 7. This is a fault-line for our societies; how we resolve it will (or ought to) determine how and whether we can continue to live with each other.
Much of the confusion is due to the fact that we hold two incompatible theories of human agency. On one hand, we believe that people have free-will and for this reason, when they do bad things, they have to be punished because they could have not done that thing. This is the cornerstone not just for our entire legal system, but for any moral framework of justice. On the other hand, we believe in material determinism, that people’s actions are per-determined by material causes, such that if a woman murders her children because of her hormones, she does not bear responsibility for that action. Exactly the same logic is at play in the Cornell 7 case. If a woman has sex while under the influence of any substance (even if voluntarily taken) then she is not responsible for that choice and that means she was raped, even though the men who had sex with her were (as far as I know) ALSO under the influence of substances and so (if we were being consistent) shouldn’t bear any responsibility for having had sex with her.
What emerges from these philosophical contradictions is a system of unaccountable privilege that benefits women in such a way that they may at any time claim that they do not bear responsibility for their choices, even if those reasons are that she was “too emotional over a breakup” or even that she just REGRETS it. In daily life she gets to enjoy the status of moral agent, but if ever she feels inclined, she may revoke that status and say that her agency was overwritten by some deterministic cause and therefore, she isn’t accountable for whatever thing she did.
For the record, I believe that women have equal agency to men, but this means that they must bear equal responsibility for their actions, regardless of whether the considerations and forces that act on men and women in any given situation are the same or different.
This shambolic state of affairs is untenable and intolerable. Men should not have to live alongside this kind of person. They should not have to live in a society that grants women opt-in accountability based on utterly incoherent theories of agency. They certainly should not have to live under this arrangement while being forced to call this “equality.”
This is also why pluralism doesn’t work in the long run. Eventually, the things on which our societies depend are deep philosophical and religious questions about value which have no clear answers. We simply have to collectively agree to how we will resolve those questions, and if people do not agree with that resolution, they should not be a part of that social arrangement.
Lol. So I had the bright idea to replace my thumbnails with some different ones that I though looked a little bit nicer, and somehow that action immediately assassinated my latest vid in the algo. I LOVE THIS PLATFORM SO MUCH!! Anyway, if you haven't seen it, here's the latest: https://youtu.be/1NXvB8nJPMw
Check it out and leave a like if you enjoy it. Maybe it'll resurrect the poor bastard.
I've also unlisted the Obsession response video because as much as I enjoyed making it, I don't want newcomers to the channel to happen across it and be completely confused. But I'll still keep it handy here.
Alright, I didn't want to post the essay until I could back it up with the video. These are really meant to be companion pieces. Anyway, the vid is about why Kant is wrong and sometimes you’ve gotta tell the categorical imperative to suck a fat one and mainline vampire blood for your homies.The essay...well the essay is much weirder. Vid: https://youtu.be/1NXvB8nJPMw Substack: thebarkingyears.substack.com/p/how-miyazaki-got-pw…
When I wrote my take on Obsession, I for one, did not realize that it was going to be the beginning of a month long siege of seething, brain-dead zoomettes and manlets, but I also didn’t predict that the discussion of women’s agency would prove so prescient. The Lindsay Clancy debacle has torn back the curtain on the way we think about female agency: that for a shockingly large number of people, it only exists within some idealized, friction-free state in which there are no external (or internal, as in the case of Clancy) forces acting upon her. And if any action that she takes is made in something less than that perfect state, she is not responsible for that action. I don’t think it requires a genius to understand that there is no moral or legal framework than can be shared by men and women on the other side of that belief.
The Barking Years
New video coming tomorrow. As usual, patrons get early access and uncensored edits. This is gonna be the last social commentary vid for a little while; they do alright on Substack but just tank on YT. But if you're interested in discussions of society and (especially relevant lately) gender, I recently had a talk with Dean Moriarty of the Feel Better Soon blog on the state of Genderslop discourse and whether it's worth it. It was a good talk and we covered a lot of ground. Check it out if you're interested.
2 weeks ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
The Barking Years
How to build an idiocracy.
So Edward Cantu is a professor of law at UMKC and wrote maybe the best thing I've read on the subjects of feminism and how we treat women's agency (substack.com/home/post/p-219627570), reiterating and elaborating on many of the same points that I made in my Obsession essay/video. And in case you're wondering, yes after swimming in an ocean of braying morons for several months, it does feel kind of nice to see a law professor validate your take. Sadly, the idiot mob has come for him too now: fox4kc.com/news/umkc-law-professor-faces-criticism…
Of course none of the criticism is addressing his arguments, rather, they have simply threatened his position at the university and painted a target on his back. From the article:
“Now that we know these inner thoughts of his, it does. It poisons the way that he’s teaching those students, too,” said Sarah Duggan, a UMKC law school alum.
The debate is not over whether Cantu has the right to express his opinions. It’s whether those opinions could affect what happens inside his classroom.
“My main concern is that these offensive opinions will leak into the classroom,” said Avery Owens, a current UMKC law student.
Understand that what you are witnessing is a LAW STUDENT loudly exclaiming that she hasn't the FAINTEST FUCKING CLUE how free speech or intellectual freedom work, and is also, ironically too stupid or fragile to argue her case. They will always claim that they have principles or that they value free discourse, but then when it comes to apply those principles, there's always some reason why they don't think they should have to.
3 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 26
View 5 replies
The Barking Years
The trailer for River is so good. Looking forward to all the new and fascinating ways that it's going to fail to live up to expectations. While I'm at it, It Ends while not a proper horror flick is legitimately good. It is very much a Zoomer movie, but in all the right ways.
3 weeks ago | [YT] | 15
View 0 replies
The Barking Years
Not sure what’s motivating the obvious stupidity regarding women’s workout attire. Men (most) are clearly not annoyed by the fact women are wearing revealing clothing at the gym. Like, what? Are you stupid? Are you a fucking dummy? They are annoyed because the revealing clothing is paired with the insane demand that men not look at or “sexualize” women with the possible punishment being exposure to the idiocracy of social media. So if your response is to laugh at the guys and say “no man should NOT want to be around hot, scantily clad women” and then add that women are ridiculous to think that they won’t be ogled, I’m sorry, you just failed some kind of IQ test.
Of course, this is to say nothing of the standard issue fuckwits who think that women ought to be able to work out in the nude and men should just "control their lust." These people are of course beneath contempt, but we're used to them now.
4 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 34
View 11 replies
The Barking Years
The past few months have been totally absorbed by cultural events orbiting the question of women’s agency: the film Obsession and it’s insane popularity, the Lindsay Clancy trial, and now the Cornell 7. This is a fault-line for our societies; how we resolve it will (or ought to) determine how and whether we can continue to live with each other.
Much of the confusion is due to the fact that we hold two incompatible theories of human agency. On one hand, we believe that people have free-will and for this reason, when they do bad things, they have to be punished because they could have not done that thing. This is the cornerstone not just for our entire legal system, but for any moral framework of justice. On the other hand, we believe in material determinism, that people’s actions are per-determined by material causes, such that if a woman murders her children because of her hormones, she does not bear responsibility for that action. Exactly the same logic is at play in the Cornell 7 case. If a woman has sex while under the influence of any substance (even if voluntarily taken) then she is not responsible for that choice and that means she was raped, even though the men who had sex with her were (as far as I know) ALSO under the influence of substances and so (if we were being consistent) shouldn’t bear any responsibility for having had sex with her.
What emerges from these philosophical contradictions is a system of unaccountable privilege that benefits women in such a way that they may at any time claim that they do not bear responsibility for their choices, even if those reasons are that she was “too emotional over a breakup” or even that she just REGRETS it. In daily life she gets to enjoy the status of moral agent, but if ever she feels inclined, she may revoke that status and say that her agency was overwritten by some deterministic cause and therefore, she isn’t accountable for whatever thing she did.
For the record, I believe that women have equal agency to men, but this means that they must bear equal responsibility for their actions, regardless of whether the considerations and forces that act on men and women in any given situation are the same or different.
This shambolic state of affairs is untenable and intolerable. Men should not have to live alongside this kind of person. They should not have to live in a society that grants women opt-in accountability based on utterly incoherent theories of agency. They certainly should not have to live under this arrangement while being forced to call this “equality.”
This is also why pluralism doesn’t work in the long run. Eventually, the things on which our societies depend are deep philosophical and religious questions about value which have no clear answers. We simply have to collectively agree to how we will resolve those questions, and if people do not agree with that resolution, they should not be a part of that social arrangement.
1 month ago | [YT] | 30
View 6 replies
The Barking Years
Lol. So I had the bright idea to replace my thumbnails with some different ones that I though looked a little bit nicer, and somehow that action immediately assassinated my latest vid in the algo. I LOVE THIS PLATFORM SO MUCH!! Anyway, if you haven't seen it, here's the latest: https://youtu.be/1NXvB8nJPMw
Check it out and leave a like if you enjoy it. Maybe it'll resurrect the poor bastard.
1 month ago | [YT] | 15
View 2 replies
The Barking Years
I've also unlisted the Obsession response video because as much as I enjoyed making it, I don't want newcomers to the channel to happen across it and be completely confused. But I'll still keep it handy here.
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
The Barking Years
Alright, I didn't want to post the essay until I could back it up with the video. These are really meant to be companion pieces. Anyway, the vid is about why Kant is wrong and sometimes you’ve gotta tell the categorical imperative to suck a fat one and mainline vampire blood for your homies.The essay...well the essay is much weirder.
Vid: https://youtu.be/1NXvB8nJPMw
Substack: thebarkingyears.substack.com/p/how-miyazaki-got-pw…
1 month ago | [YT] | 12
View 0 replies
The Barking Years
Next video is in production (might be putting out a teaser soon) but in the meantime, here's the latest essay from the Sub: thebarkingyears.substack.com/p/the-btch-hypothesis
1 month ago | [YT] | 23
View 3 replies
The Barking Years
When I wrote my take on Obsession, I for one, did not realize that it was going to be the beginning of a month long siege of seething, brain-dead zoomettes and manlets, but I also didn’t predict that the discussion of women’s agency would prove so prescient. The Lindsay Clancy debacle has torn back the curtain on the way we think about female agency: that for a shockingly large number of people, it only exists within some idealized, friction-free state in which there are no external (or internal, as in the case of Clancy) forces acting upon her. And if any action that she takes is made in something less than that perfect state, she is not responsible for that action. I don’t think it requires a genius to understand that there is no moral or legal framework than can be shared by men and women on the other side of that belief.
2 months ago | [YT] | 49
View 33 replies
Load more