One of the fascinating claims I’ve heard lobbed around political debates on social media is this: “women never lie about rape/sexual assault.” This is sometimes qualified or modified to be “women rarely lie about rape/sexual assault.” That happens most often when someone brings up something like the Duke Lacrosse case, or something like this. If challenged, the Leftist (this is claim is most common among them) will attempt to back up the statement with statistics like this bit of research conducted by Stanford. The meat of the study is that only 2% of rape accusations are proven to be false.
At first glance, this would appear to support the Leftist assertion. But it really doesn’t. First off, while I cannot verify Stanford’s claims, let’s operate under the assumption that the stats are true. Here’s another statistic you may or may be aware of. According to RAINN, out of 310 reports made to the police (i.e. accusations), only 11 cases are referred to prosecutors, and only 7 result in felony convictions. This means that only about 2% of rape/sexual assault accusations are proven true.
What does this mean, if all these stats are true? It means that 96% of rape cases are indeterminate. We don’t know if the accuser is lying, or if the accused is guilty. Neither is proven true. Furthermore, given the fact that human memory is not infallible, and that human interpretation/perception can result in one participant believing it is a rape and the other believing it is not, there are permutations where both are speaking truthfully. There was some speculation to this effect with Kavanaugh, especially given that the alleged incident was both 36 years old, and involved copious amounts of alcohol.
In other words, the Leftists are either lying or are ignorant of the facts. Fact is, rape accusations are proven to be lies at roughly the same rate as they are proven to be true, but the vast majority are unproven either way.
That puts a different spin on the notion, doesn’t it? That means, if there is no supporting evidence, you may as well flip a coin as to whether or not the accusation is bullshit, and whether or not the accused is actually a rapist. A coin flip doesn’t support destroying a man’s reputation.
And that’s what all this is about. By claiming that rape accusations are rarely falsified, the Leftist is implying this is itself a form of evidence. The Leftist is saying, without having to actually back up the claim, that the accusation means there is now a 98% chance of the accused being a rapist. It is a tacit method of getting around the presumption of innocence.
The whole thing is flimsy rhetoric. It’s a bald-faced fallacy. The accusation doesn’t change the actual odds. Either the rape happened, or it did not. Consider also that, even if the Leftists were right about a 2% lie rate, it doesn’t take into account that humans cannot be governed by anything like the Kinetic Theory of Gasses. Asimov was wont to speculate on the possibility that such analysis was possible, that a psychohistory could be made to work. It cannot. Think about it very carefully. If you’re a woman who hates a particular man, for whatever reason, and you know that people will say only 2% of rape accusations are lies, you can intentionally and cynically use this to make the man look guilty. People are willful, and can defy the statistics whenever they choose to do so. Statistics do not govern individual actions. And even Asimov said in Foundation that psychohistory could only work if people were unaware of its application, and so could not willfully sabotage it (that happened anyway in Foundation & Empire).
Using statistics on the accuracy of accusations to determine probability of individual guilt is thus a category error to begin with. I’ve been very confused with people treating it as if this had any meaning whatsoever. Guilt or innocence is independent of accusation. People aren’t molecules in a cloud of gas. Probability and statistics has some utility with large human groups as a whole, but psychohistory does not exist, and the accuracy of the generalization does not apply to the individual in any case. These things are not hard to understand, and yet everywhere I look, people are thinking about this thing backwards.
The Declination has long been a sort of philosophical dumping ground of sorts. Sure, I comment on current issues, but I’ve usually spun them around larger points surrounding the decline of the West, the culture wars, and otherwise. This has been good and well – and some of the concepts, such as Weaponized Empathy, have gained traction. They’ve helped at least some folks understand why the Left acts as it does, and how the manipulation really works.
But more is needed. So to my regular readers and commenters, I’m asking for volunteers. For what? Well, some of y’all write some pretty long and involved comments. Very well written material. You could post it on the front page instead of buried down a few levels in the comments.
Before anybody asks, no. There’s no money involved. I do NOT run ads on The Declination. I don’t receive one cent from anything here. I did this deliberately. Despite higher traffic to the site of late, I have a loathing for news and editorial sites that load up with dozens of browser-freezing ad banners for Chinese crap nobody wants. What you get if you volunteer, and I like you enough, is an editor account. You can write posts as frequently or infrequently as you like. You can leave whenever you wish.
No more, no less.
Obviously, I have to know you. So if you I know you in meatspace, or in one of the various forums I am a member of, that will suffice. Alternatively, long-time commenters may be accepted as well. So if you’re interested, either comment below, contact me with the form, or hit me up in meatspace or one of the forums/groups. Also, don’t be offended if I say no. It’s probably because I don’t know you well enough. Very few of my readers are idiots – and most of those are Leftists coming to troll me – for which I am profoundly grateful.
Also, the site design is going to be changed significantly, and may even be rebranded. One thing Rightists generally don’t do very well, much to our detriment, is marketing. Think about it, if Leftists can make Communism seem sexy, they can market just about anything. Beto is challenging Ted Cruz mostly due to marketing. His real name isn’t even Beto – that, too, is a calculated marketing ploy. Colin Kaepernick and Nike… marketing. The trumped up charges against Brett Kavanaugh? Marketing – no conviction would even be possible, even supposing any of it was true.
It’s all about image, marketing, brand identity – they did this with Obama, a relative unknown. Suddenly he’s at the forefront of everything. Ocasio-Cortez is likewise a constructed brand. A lie. She’s not working class, and in her photo ops, she’s wearing a $3500 outfit with only the best brands. Marketing, marketing.
Now I won’t lie, I won’t sell you bullshit – I don’t do that. We cannot, however, escape marketing. If anything, for us it should be easier – we actually believe what we say, and they generally do not. But Rightists just aren’t inclined to do this sort of thing, generally. Getting a bunch of individualists to cooperate on mass marketing is like herding cats.
Nonetheless, like a soldier slogging through mud, we have to do it, no matter how unpleasant. So many changes are coming. I’ve thought this for a long time, it’s time for me to get some skin in the game.
Going through my old posts this morning, I was reminded of this one, from a year and a half ago: RedFems, Cenobites, and the Lament Configuration. It was probably the darkest post I’ve ever penned on The Declination. But it remains quite poignant.
Go on social media, and you will see SJWs telling us that Nazis are everywhere, that they are evil, and foul, and legion. They are in the White House, they are on Youtube, they are on Twitter, they are in Video Games. Nazis, everywhere. And so they march out into the streets, the Black Bloc, Antifascists engaging in what Tom Kratman calls a bit of political theater (not unlike Fascists once did).
But at the end of a long week of fighting the cisnormative heteropatriarchy, they come to be beaten by men dressed as Nazis, to the gritty beats of loud Industrial music in the depths of an Industrial park.
And what’s more, RadFems have come to resemble these very same Cenobites, covered in piercings, dyes, and tattoos, such that the difference between Hellraiser’s Pinhead and the average denizen of Slut Walk is minimal at best.
Radical Feminism is a death cult, both figuratively and literally. In their man-hating quest, they are, in effect, arguing for the voluntary extinction of humanity. Oh, it never starts out that way. It’ll start out in an argument about equality. It’s a traditional example of the Motte and Bailey Doctrine.
Motte: “Feminism is about equality, it is about women having the same rights as men, it is about better relations between the sexes!”
Okay, that doesn’t sound so bad.
Bailey: “Now DIE cis male scum! #KillAllMen #YesAllMen Lol @ Male Tears. Men so fragile.”
Hmmm. Maybe I don’t like this Feminism thing.
One of my favorite tech outlets, Hard[OCP], had a quick commentary on Riot Game, and some of their employees vigorously defending an event at PAX West that excluded “cis men.”
League of Legends developer Riot Games has fired at least one longtime employee for defending a PAX West event exclusive to women and “non-binary” people: systems designer Daniel Klein, who revealed he was terminated for “violating social policy,” had evidently upset his employer by calling complainants on r/leagueoflegends “manbabies” and comparing the subreddit to a “toxic landfill.” Communications associate Mattias Lehman is also out for having similar views.
It’s fascinating to note that a white man is, in essence, defending his own exclusion in the name of inclusion and diversity. I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Diversity has become an idol to these people. A golden calf before which all good sense is sacrificed. It is heresy to even question the belief. No, it is worse. It is heretical to even be insufficiently enthusiastic about it.
In any event, if somebody created a male-only event, the Feminist shrieking would probably be heard even in the vacuum of space. That some individuals (probably not all of them men, either) would even critique this is considered worthy of collectively referring to them as a “toxic landfill” and as “manbabies”.
The Motte and Bailey Doctrine is a perennial favorite of the Left. A frequent detractor of mine who used to comment here on immigration matters would often explain that he wasn’t an open borders supporter. But then he argued for no restrictions on immigration, no refugee screening unless it was purely a formality, no border wall, and no deportation of illegals. It was a de facto open borders policy without having to suffer the social and political penalty of being truthful about his aims.
Motte: “We just want to be humane, and make sure these poor people are helped, and show empathy to fellows of different races and creeds.”
Okay, that doesn’t sound so bad.
Bailey: “If you support a border wall you’re a racist, whiteness so fragile, #YesAllWhitePeople. Fuck Whiteness. The future of America is brown, and you better get used to it!”
Hmmm. On second thought, no thanks.
Radical Feminism is an example of the Motte and Bailey Doctrine writ large. They want to exclude men, they want to replace men, they want to hold down men, and at its most extreme adherents want to imprison or exterminate them. They want revenge for perceived injustices to women. But even most women would find this abhorrent, and so they fortify themselves in the Motte when stating their views publicly. The Bailey is for social media and friendly media. But still, it is not difficult to find.
Go back to my first piece, though. You will find something very interesting – an observation that has stuck with me over the years. Red pill sites often refer to a concept known as “shit-testing”. A woman may periodically test a potential (or existing) mate for fitness. She might cop an attitude or be bitchy, even if you don’t really deserve it. What she really wants is confirmation that you’re not a total wuss, can stand up for yourself, and thus are worthy company for her.
This is neither good or bad. It simply is. This exists outside of manosphere context, too, in the phrase ‘testy’. Regardless, it happens, and most women I know will admit that they do this from time-to-time. It’s about as normal as men being generally boorish and staring too long at a nice pair of boobs.
What happens, though, when you fail a shit test? No, when all of society fails thousands of shit tests? What happens when women don’t just suspect, but know that most men are wusses, worthless, and completely unable to stand up to them in any way whatsoever?
I’d suspect it would look something like what we see today. Feminists running roughshod over men who aren’t even sure if they are men any longer. Wil Wheaton is their role model, instead of Conan the Barbarian.
Women on the Right generally don’t act this way, but I suspect this is because men on the Right generally aren’t sniveling wusses who, like Daniel Klein, gleefully extol the virtues of their own exclusion and abject submission. In other words, Rightist men are probably more likely to pass a shit test.
The key, then, is to recognize the Motte & Bailey when it occurs, and to tear down the Bailey, and pay very close attention to the Motte, in case it spawns another Bailey in its place or retakes its previous position. It also means being unafraid to challenge the protestations of women, or other various “oppressed” groups, even if you pay a social penalty for the same.
Leftist politics in general is all about the Motte and Bailey, these days. Using oppressed/minority status as a way to deflect criticism away from the Bailey and toward the stronger Motte is a tactic that has paid dividends for them, despite its fundamentally dishonest nature. It’s also a shit test, and if the West doesn’t pass the shit test… more barbaric societies will.
Put another way, deprived of positive masculinity, women will seek out the negative, barbaric variety over sniveling wusses and ‘my gender is an Oscar Mayer hot dog’ folks. And we can’t blame them for this. After all, what would men do if the only options were ugly hags who hated men, and hot – but dangerous – uncivilized barbarian women? The result would be much the same, I think. It should be noted that Feminism may eventually accomplish that, too. It certainly has multiplied the number of man-hating ugly hags, in any event.
When it comes to principles, I can really only speak for myself, but I suspect what I’m about to discuss is something that holds true for most people. We naturally hold having principles to be higher, that is to say morally superior, to not having principles, or to violating them arbitrarily. However, this can lead to absurdities such as guilt-ridden, suicidal cultures (see: most of the West right now).
Most people, I imagine, would agree that non-aggression is generally a good principle. Indeed, Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists have this enshrined as a core principle. Violence can only be used on someone who, in turn, has violated the non-aggression principle. This sounds well and good on the surface, but is subject to complexities. Imagine for a moment that you are sure – absolutely sure – that someone is about to commit murder. But he has not made his intentions to do so clear to others, nor has he actually done it yet. By the non-aggression principle, are you allowed to preemptively deal with him accordingly? Or must you wait until the violence has been committed?
Must, for example, a society of Libertarians allow hordes of Communists into their borders? Communists, I might add, who express a desire to kill them and take their property for redistribution, should they obtain sufficient numbers. Taken to its logical endpoint, strict adherence to the principle may well result in the extinction, both of the society in question, and adherence to the principle itself.
It goes much deeper. Pacifists would appear to favor peace as a principle. However, many of them take the principle to absurd lengths, such as not even fighting back when said murderer starts killing people. Without restraint on murderers, without defensive action against them, soon there are many such murderers. Violence increases when pacifism is used, for the violent are no longer restrained by fear that they may suffer consequences for their actions.
Pacifists are moral cowards. If their principles incline them toward peace they, seemingly-paradoxically, must be willing to fight for that peace.
Libertarians, I suspect, are not this bad. I think many of them have merely failed to understand how virulent Marxists really are, how easily they infiltrate and subvert whole societies. They haven’t articulated a principle that will satisfy their disdain for unjust violence, that can simultaneously protect them from the unjust violence of those who are willing to game the system for their benefit. Some say that if you eliminate the welfare state, the impetus for Marxists to come will end. That is true on an individual level, but it fails on a meta level. Conquest, you see, is a motivation all on its own.
Yet nonetheless, principles still carry with them greater moral weight, and a lack of principles – being completely arbitrary, in other words – results in the very same tyranny we seek to avoid. Marxists are quite arbitrary in the application of their own beliefs. A rapist may be excused if his politics are correct. A murderer may be pardoned if he is useful to the Party. Their only real principle is a constant striving for power. Power is good, with them. Nothing else really matters.
When one group adheres to principles – or at least tries to – and another does not, the one that does not is often granted political advantage. This is something we have seen with the Left (though sometimes on the Right, too) for many years. It has created a House advantage, so to speak, for the Left. Consider how every close election that resulted in a recount almost invariably resulted in mysterious piles of Democrat ballots being discovered. Or how Hillary won every coin toss against Bernie Sanders.
The principle for them is power. No more or less than that.
I don’t argue for us to abandon principles, however, for then we become like our enemy. The challenge, rather, is to articulate them – to ensure that they do not become a noose around our necks. For like pacifists leading to more violence, so too will poorly articulated principles ensure the extinction of our own principles.
One current example is when Rightists come out and champion the censorship campaigns of Facebook, Twitter, et al. The usual principle given as justification for this view is that private companies may censor speech on their property as much as they like. Having discovered that Rightists will often adhere to this principle even against their own obvious interests, Leftists have concentrated much of their recent efforts on subverting the Right from within businesses. Every day, more businesses declare open support for the Left, and disdain for the Right. Indeed, Nike’s use of Colin Kaepernick’s face in their advertisements has been boiling over the airwaves today. Papa Johns recently declared their affiliation with Social Justice. And the position of Starbucks on guns is known well enough. Most companies have a decidedly Leftist bent, these days. Exceptions exist, but not that many – at least not at the large company level.
Leftists realized that the Right would fight to the death if the government was openly used to suppress the Right (see the IRS scandal), but the Right would stand by passively if the same was done through businesses, due to strict adherence to the principles of private property. This is being used as a weapon against us.
I don’t have a specific fix for this problem in mind, though some ideas have come to mind (one may or may not involve helicopters – I plead the Fifth on that). In actuality, I would ask my readers how they would solve the principle problem here. This cannot be permitted to continue, or else we become moral cowards – and soon, not even that much, for the weapon will be bludgeoned over our heads until we are broken.
And let’s not kid ourselves. If this weapon is defeated, the Left will find another. They have no moral restrictions on what they may use against us, for their only principle is power. All else falls before that.
This post just kind of popped into my head this afternoon after some rather hefty reading. There is an absolutely immense misunderstanding of the concept of equality, and it infects every level of our society down to the educational cartoons for preschoolers, or reaching as high as the summit of world political power.
Equality in humans categorically and completely does not exist. Nor can it ever exist. It is an utter impossibility short of every single human being being an identical clone of every other, with identical experiences and memories. In short, impossible.
Humans are not equally tall, or equally beautiful, equally good or equally evil. They do not possess the same intelligence, the same ambitions, the same passions or the same desires. They do not have the same wants, the same memories, or the same experiences.
This has created two concepts that should be mutually exclusive. The “special snowflake” syndrome, and the myth that equality is not only possible, but desirable too. The SJW will spout some boilerplate about diversity and everyone being special, and then relate it to absolute equality. Consider a catchphrase in the “body positive” movement. “All bodies are beautiful.”
No. They aren’t. The implication is that if a woman is skinny, obese, tall, short, curvy or otherwise, she is equally attractive as every other woman. Reduced to a logical construct, they are saying “difference = same.” It is nonsense. Word salad. It means absolutely nothing, save for an intense desire for people to feel equal when they are not equal, and for politeness to be determined by how much you go along with their delusions.
SJWs are obsessed with this contradiction. It infects every level of their thinking. Yes, they may acknowledge indirectly, people are different. But if you say this out loud you are a racist/sexist/whatever. Or if you imply that the differences are anything but superficial, you are rude. Impolite. Politically incorrect.
It is ridiculous, and it stems from a misinterpretation (probably deliberate on the part of outright Marxists) of two concepts that are fundamental to Western civilization: equality before the law and equality before God. Yes, like it or not, Social Justice is like a Christian heresy, stripped of God, stripped of the divine, and shaped into an ugly, evil parody.
Let’s look at the Declaration of Independence for a moment:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Did the founders mean that all men are the same? That “all bodies are beautiful”, metaphorically speaking? No. The context of this was within an implied legal framework of basic rights. All men have equal rights granted by God, and a government is unjust if it seeks to deprive a man of these God-given rights. Among these rights are life (I’m not allowed to murder you), liberty (I’m not allowed to compel you by force to do my bidding), and the pursuit of happiness (you can try to find it – whether or not you get it is up to you).
This level of equality is both the basis for a legal framework limiting the power of government, and a reference to the fact that we all have souls; that God may judge them. God, being omniscient, can be an absolute neutral arbiter of justice, having all the facts, and thus may treat us with absolute equality. No man could ever do this, though justice is often better served by man at least making a passing attempt at neutrality (hence the concept of justice being blind).
This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not people are equally beautiful, smart, tall, short, talented, good, evil, or anything else. Equality of those types is not only impossible, any attempt to force them into being (still impossible to achieve) will, in turn, violate the God-given rights referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
Yet for some reason even admitting that you notice differences in people beyond the superficial (and even that, sometimes) is considered beyond the taboo, the most rude and evil a man can possibly be. “What, you don’t think I’m equally hot as the woman voted sexiest woman of the world? YOU SEXIST! ALL BODIES ARE BEAUTIFUL!”
This extends to wordplay all the time. Use of the word “retarded” has been banned by polite society even when used as a biological description. Indeed, the manuals themselves have been altered to remove the word. Instead we use a variety of stealth codewords for the same thing. He is “special” or “touched”. Yet those, too, have now absorbed the meaning of “retarded”. Shall we ban them, too? Or, perhaps, can we stop with this nonsense? We don’t have to pretend a retarded person is equally intelligent as a non-retarded person. It simply isn’t so.
None of this, and I reiterate in bold letters, none of this, has any implication whatsoever on your value before God, the value of your soul, the worth of your being. No man is fit to judge these things. Only God may do so. A retarded man is no more or less valuable before God than I am. This is because God knows all, God can judge us accordingly.
But beyond that, there is no equality. You, dear reader, may be smarter than I, or not. You may be better looking, or less attractive. You may be taller, shorter, more emotional or more rational. You may be stronger or weaker, faster or slower. We are not equal, and there isn’t a damn thing wrong with that. That is as it should be. That is how we were meant to be.
Pretending otherwise changes nothing about who we are, and the notion that we must pretend in order to be polite, and that impoliteness is worthy of political purging from society is pure evil. It is so evil that, so far as I know, widespread adoption of this behavior almost always results in heaps of dead bodies. Whenever people are not only encouraged to lie, both to themselves and to the world, but made to lie by force, it categorically must result in mass graves.
For how shall you compel the honest man to lie, if not through threat of death? And how is he supposed to believe you are sincere about dealing death if you have not dealt it before? After all, you have already demonstrated that you are a liar.
Beyond all this, SJWs expect you to finish the Orwellian conclusion that 2+2=5. That smart is stupid, that tall is short, and that all bodies are equally beautiful. Their whole heretical religion is based on the premise of seemingly-polite, nonsensical lies.