He stayed for his children…

https://www.bitchute.com/video/egprcKSyMXo/

Here’s to American wimminz! Watch now as some meddling American cunt tries to kidnap the children of poor refugee family. She got the phony accent slapped right out of her.

Entertainer R. Kelly is now in the Cook County Jail, not for robbing, raping or killing, but merely because he couldn’t give his bitch ex-wife enough of his dough.

I thought we had a revolution over all this debtor’s prison nonsense. The question remains, what has his bitch done to deserve a hundred sixty large?

From CNN (no link, because they suck)

It must be nice to be a uterus-american, where one can get paid just for breathing.

Here’s another great story. Did you boys hear about this guy?

As we recently saw, Johnny Depp got hit with a false accusation of violent assault. For some reason, Shawn thought he wouldn’t get the same treatment. You boys really need to be smarter than this. Document all your interactions with skanks. Failure to be vigilant may result in the destruction of your life.

Oh, and in case you were gonna hit the cinema this week, you know which movie not to see…

And then there’s more warnings from those brothers who have gone before…

It might seem rough, but I have no sympathy for Steve. Unless you work at a nightclub, you shouldn’t be chatting up bitches on company time. Just don’t go there.

There are other things you shouldn’t do. Buying a bitch dinner is benevolent sexism. Spending money on a wimminz is the equivalent of raping that woman. Just ask your local bulldyke professor in the gender studies department. She’ll back my play on this.

Boys in this post code don’t feel sorry for that simp, either. He got what he deserved.

Remember, be the guy who eats for free. Don’t be the guy who buys the meal.

An 18th c. photo of John Jay, anonymous shitpoaster.

Down below, Derek writes that “Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity.” Is this true? I don’t think so, but honestly, I don’t know, since Derek continuously refuses to well-define the term ‘authority.’

We’ll set aside, for now, the implicit second claim in this conjunction, given that my position on leadership was established two years ago.

Authority is a word that has a wide lexical range. I’ll try and define some of its most popular senses here, and explain why Derek is wrong in his sweeping declaration.

Authority in its barest form simply means authorship. It seems obvious that ‘Nick Adams, of Wye Mills, Maryland, is capable of authoring articles. It’s equally clear that ‘Boxer’ is just as capable, given that he’s been doing exactly that, here on this blog, at least as far back as 2017 (see photo above).

Derek will, of course, claim that this isn’t the sense in which he’s using the word. That’s fine. We can get as specific as we like.

Normative authority implies that there are certain ideal norms which govern right conduct. Since I occasionally cite the New Testament and the U.S. Constitution, it’s fair to assume that these are two norms that I accept. It seems that I can cite such norms independent of divulging my identity to any third party, and it also seems that I can accept those two norms without knowing who the original authors might have been. In the case of the New Testament, this is obviously true. I mean, I think Saul of Tarsus might have had something to do with that book, but I really don’t know, and can’t ever know. The text is prehistoric, and the identity of the author is lost to us forever.

Theoretical authority is the ability I have to discuss the definition of ‘authority’. I have a degree that says I’m qualified to do this. Over the course of my career, I’ve taught propositional logic and foundations of advanced mathematics. Those are philosophy and mathematics courses (and, as a fun little bit of trivia, despite being in two disciplines, over half of the content of those courses is identical). I wouldn’t ever be pulled to teach a biology course, or an English course, or a class in law or medicine, because I have no authority to teach such stuff, and I make it a point never to pretend to speak on my own authority about legal matters on this blog. Though I often discuss the law, I do so as a novice, who shouts from the cheap seats. If you want serious advice about such stuff, you have to go find someone with a master’s or doctorate in those disciplines, and ask him.

This is the only sense in which Derek’s point might be valid, since this sort of authority comes down from other scholars (specifically, the people on your thesis defense committees) and it’s something like the notion of apostolic succession. I’ve never heard of a graduate scholar who gets a degree under a throwaway pseudonym. Even so, it doesn’t seem like Derek uses this sense of the word when he bandies it about.

Political authority seems to be what Derek is talking about, in that political authority is not only the ability to prescribe right conduct, but to compel compliance, even in the unwilling.

Derek is obviously wrong about authority when he uses the word in this sense. Do you know the man who wrote the tax laws in your state? I don’t either. Try to evade your taxes, and see how much it matters. Much of the political authority wielded, not only in our society, but in every society, is nameless, faceless, and anonymous.

Political groups like the IRA and Viet Cong were almost completely anonymous, and yet they compelled obedience in the territories they influenced. They did so with violence, same as the I.R.S. does today.

In “Hail Nereus!“, Boxer asked what difference giving up anonymity would make…

“Suppose I out myself tomorrow? What would the difference be?”

…to which I replied:

Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity. Formally stated, if A is “anonymous” and B is “has authority or is a leader”, then the following is true:

“A → ¬B”

However, the question above asks whether the inverse is true:

“¬A → B”

From the laws of logic, we know that the inverse is not a logical consequence of a proposition. For it to be true, the inverse’s contrapositive would also have to be true:

“¬B → A”

That is, “if you don’t have have authority and are not a leader, then you are anonymous.” This is plainly false, therefore ¬A → B is false, so expecting a difference outcome because you out yourself is not logically justified. Revealing your identity is only a prerequisite to leadership and authority.

If you are not a Christian (i.e. under additional obligations) and not seeking leadership/authority, then my argument does not preclude anonymity.

Boxer responded simply:

Since we are agreeing to cite this Wikipedia article for this casual formal argument, let’s consider the argument to see if it makes my argument logically unsound. The argument can be stated like this:

We can demonstrate historically (e.g. Federalist Papers) that anonymity is associated with authority and leadership, therefore they are not antithetical.

I have multiple responses to this claim. Let’s consider some selected quotes.

“At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution. Astute observers, however, correctly discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.”

First. The authors were not truly anonymous. They were at least understood to be the anonymous identities of a small group of known individuals. They were not random individuals. This association alone gave them implied authority through their implied group identity. Furthermore, some observers were even able to deduce who they were specifically, granting them explicit authority. Therefore, the Federalist Papers are not sufficient evidence to show that any authority wielded was derived from anonymous content rather than their presumed or deduced identities.

In anticipation of a counter-argument, consider the case where the real identity of the non-anonymous source wields leadership and authority (e.g. ghost written books by politicians; hoaxes; Texan family man persona). These have authority granted based off the strength of their perceived identity. That identity could be incorrect (or questioned), but it proves that identity is still required for authority. Mistaken identity is still identity. This is why authority is instantly lost if a hoax identity is revealed.

“The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable.”

Second. It is not established that the Federalist Papers were treated with the level of leadership and authority claimed. Indeed, it is likely that the anonymity is the reason why the success of the goal is questionable. In other words, anonymity impeded authority and leadership. Therefore, this is evidence in favor of my proposition, not evidence against it.

Third. I’ve noted a difference between pure anonymity and pseudonymity in our previous discussions. The Federalist Papers qualify as pure anonymity in that their content is divorced from personal anecdotes and appeals to personal authority. Compare this to someone, like Dalrock, with a carefully crafted personal persona that may or may not be real and is referenced in the content. The perceived identity is use to legitimize authority, but it’s necessarily shaky and thus ineffective. If there is a possible counter to my argument it is pure anonymity, but there are still significant hurdles against this view.

Fourth. Let’s ignore everything above and say that the Federalist Papers are a rare exception to the rule, aberrations of the norm. This changes the formal deductive argument into an inductive logic / probability argument. If you go back and assign probabilities to the propositions, perhaps you could make a claim like this:

”Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity 99.9% of the time.”

I’d be comfortable with this inductive inference. It adds some nuance to the argument, rather than being pure black and white, but it doesn’t really change the practical outcome much. Taking it into the probability realm favors my argument, as…

…the overwhelming historical standard for authority and leadership is identity.

There are very few cases where anonymous works were granted permanent authority based solely on their content.

“Go home, bitch!”

Watch it at World*Star Hip Hop

Despite having been banned from countless blogs and forums, ya boy Boxer has never scored the coveted thousand year ban. That honor goes to the worthy troll we know as Nereus, and was bestowed upon him by the closet queers over at Warhorn Media, who couldn’t handle the bantz.

The reason for this prize? Nereus refused to give his name and contact information to the hosts.

It begins to occur to me that nearly everyone who wants to spread the meme of anonymity as bad happen to be wimminz or their male feminist allies. Have you ever seen an anonymous female blogging online? Yeah, me neither. Wimminz must put their names and photos on everything.

Suppose I out myself tomorrow? Suppose I just start using my real name. Would the work of Nick Adams, who works at Chesapeake College for his day job, and who blogs on his off hours, be somehow more worthy than the work of Boxer, a ghost who pretends to write critical theory at the Frankfurt School? Would the metrosexual cruxtoid priests over at Warhorn Media suddenly give me more respect? What would the difference be?

Nereus is correct to withhold his real name and place of employment from these pretend friends of Jesus, and so is Dalrock. Their supposed respect means nothing when they prove themselves too lazy to even address the real issues, up for debate.

Back in January, Gillette released a statement against “toxic masculinity” via a very stupid commercial advertisement. Apparently the corporate bigwigs thought they would make a profit by bashing all the men who buy their products.

Mass discussion about these corporate scum (and their motivations) crashed their stocks.

The execs initially doubled down…

Immediately after this initial statement, they shut the fuck up.

Just four weeks later, Gillette has buckled under.

On 28 February, Gillette released a commercial advertisement depicting a normal man, heading up his intact, heterosexual, monogamous, traditional family.

https://youtu.be/KM8JIJsutXU

From Carlos Slim’s disreputable blog (no link, because we hate them):

If I were to speculate, I’d guess that most S&P 500 firms were following the same pattern, their wage discrimination simply doesn’t make the news. I might also suspect that many jobs (HR, PR and the like) were partly or wholly unnecessary, created in response to regulation or legislation, merely to give career grrlz a place to work.

The Cruxtoid fags from Warhorn Media have released yet another (too-)long podcast, whining about someone they describe as just an anonymous internet nobody. Despite Dalrock’s supposed irrelevance, they just can’t stop talking about him. The first half hour seems to directly answer my own criticisms (welcome Ben, Jake and Nathan to our post code, boys!) They also backpedal up the bullshit river, just as rapidly as they can.

Skip to 30:30 to get to the beginning of the actual podcast.

Dalrock lied about some pastor named Wilson? Big deal. Yes, Dalrock is a liar. He lied about me. He lied about Necro. He hosts a lackwit bottom feeder (Cane Caldo) who has spent years spreading falsehoods about numerous men.

Dalrock is dishonest. As like attracts like, his comment section is filled with similar scumbags. So what? He publishes anonymously, so according to you guys he doesn’t matter.

Incidentally, you Christian fags are just as dishonest as Dalrock. You’re also just as lazy. Where does Dalrock promote BDSM and wife beating? Where does he link to the Texas Dominatrix? I read Dalrock’s blog on the regular, for something like four years, and never once saw him promote anything like that. Do any of you trashy Christian pastors have a link?

With all the lies Dalrock has actually told, you’d think that the Cruxtoid fags from Warhorn Media would discuss them. They’d rather indulge in that fine Christian sacrament of making shit up rather than deconstructing their opponent’s actual arguments. There are also more nonsensical straw-man skits, and there’s more humblebragging about their leadership positions in their scroungy Christian church, and there’s lots of grandiose talk about how “holy” they are, even as they try to make connections that don’t exist, and bear false witness about people they claim don’t matter.

Did you listen to this latest sanctimonious pretend-friend of Jesus podcast? What did you think?