Why The Illegal NSA Data Collection Doesn't Actually Worry Me

I'm sure you've heard by now all about the illegal spying and data collection by the NSA.  A lot of people seem very concerned that their privacy has been violated and worried about being harassed, exposed, etc.

Here's why it's not a big concern of mine:

Yes, our information is being illegally mined, collected and stored somewhere for the NSA to access whenever they want.  Yes, as a matter of principal such illegal data mining should be halted and those responsible for breaking the law prosecuted.

However, with so much information to deal with how likely is it they're going to notice any specific one of us in the clutter?  Statistically, you probably have a better chance of randomly pointing to a spot in the picture and having your finger land on Waldo than the NSA actually taking enough interest in you to bother accessing any of their stored data about you specifically.  Personally, I'm not going to be losing sleep over my name being in some insurmountably massive NSA database where it's likely no human will ever lay eyes on it, even if it is an illegal invasion of my privacy.

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory.  Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias.  Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so.  Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to.  Women are superior to men.



If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true.  If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from)  So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime."  In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

Reporting a rape to the police is too traumatic for women.

You've probably seen this argument, right?

"The police don't take them seriously and end up re-victimizing them, so expecting them to be able to report the crime to the police is unrealistic!"

And that's why we need to expedite the process of punishing somebody accused of rape without having to go through that pesky "police report/evidence collection/trial" process, especially since women never just blow things out of proportion, right?






The answer to a system perceived to be dysfunctional isn't to make the system more dysfunctional by trying to remove the checks and balances which keep it from being abused, but to make it less dysfunctional by trying to get it to function more effectively with those checks and balances still in place.

Severe sexual violence and genital mutilation without consent is funny, Mkay?

I think it would be really funny to surprise a drunk sorority girl and chop off her genitals so I could fuck them later!  Haha!  Wouldn't that be hilarious!

No?

Well, before you grab the torches and pitchforks, consider this...





















I came across this image posted on a social networking site:

(image censored here due to Blogger's new content policy)

The caption:

I've heard of surprise sex, but I'm pretty sure that even the drunkest frat-boy isn't expecting THIS!!!

It's been up for almost 3 years, several people have "liked" it and not one negative comment has been left about it where it is posted.

However, there were a few supportive comments left under the picture, one of which is particularly interesting:

I think I'd want the male to feel fear and even relive the trauma every time he looked down when he peed. He'd then be afraid to pee. Well to pee is to live so eventually his shit will get backed up and his bladder will have to get cut open and everything would need to be rerouted, which would be yet another possible trauma. I'm really getting ideas here.
Goes to look for "volunteers"

Nobody else seemed to think that was especially offensive, either.

Still think that comment of mine at the beginning wasn't funny?  Yeah, me neither.  The difference is, the one about female genitals is generally recognized as "sexual violence" while the ones about male genitals are "just a joke."

All sex is rape!

So, there's this line, "women as a class are coerced into sex by society and institutional marginalization and blah, blah, blah."

And as we have heard over and over, apparently, "coercion is the same thing as rape."

Well, if "women" are "as a class" incapable of having sex without being raped, "because institutional marginalization = coercion" then wouldn't it follow that any other class of "marginalized" people are subject to the same rules? Homosexuals are "institutionally marginalized" and transgendered people are "institutionally marginalized" and black people are "institutionally marginalized" and Hispanics, Asians, Jews, even disabled and poor people are "institutionally marginalized" according to popular rhetoric, so none of them can be considered to have the proper agency to consent to sex, right?

Turns out, the only people who are actually capable of consenting to sex are rich, straight, white, cis-male, able-bodied people, but since there's nobody else to have sex with, their only option is to have sex with each other. But wait - that would be practicing homosexuality, which means they no longer fall within the narrow class of people who possess enough agency to consent to sex.

I guess if an entire class of people should be considered incapable of meaningfully consenting to sex based on some professional victim politics rhetoric, then it's inescapable that every instance of sex between any demographics should be considered rape and all people everywhere should be prohibited from participating in it.

Is it a coincidence?

On April 14, 2014 Laci Green tweeted:

is it a coincidence that the peace sign looks like a "V" and vagina starts with a "V"? i think not

I've seen/heard countless times, claims like "women are more cooperative than men" and "women are less violent than men" and "there would be no war if women ruled the world."

I have one thing to say in response to that:
About 5,800,000 results.

So, is it a coincidence that "violence" starts with a "V" and "vagina" starts with a "V"?

I happen to think it is, but if Laci Green thinks there's no coincidence between the first letter of "vagina" and the visual appearance of a peace sign, maybe I'm wrong and it's no coincidence those specific two words have the same first letter, either.