efilism | Strongest Efilist Content @efilism | Uploaded February 2023 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
K-ll-ng everyone isn’t a bad thing… Everybody being dead isn’t a bad thing… I would f—ing shoot that b-tch in the head who’s pregnant… These are the kind of statements Amanda Sukenick categorizes as “some of the strongest efilist content”.
In another video (youtu.be/Ts3CAf_RlL4?t=875) Efil Blaise laughs along in agreement with someone saying: "I don't see murder as that much of a bad thing”. But if murder isn’t that much of a bad thing why does he use ‘murderer’ as a pejorative against pregnant women to justify shooting them?
The efilist response typically boils down to declaring that an efilist committing an atrocity is a righteous act because efilists have unadulterated insight into objective truth. But how would efilists fare if they came up against people who believed their unadulterated insight into objective truth shows humanity’s destiny is to propagate and prevail? Do they not have the right, according to efilist values, to preemptively annihilate efilists who want to annihilate them? This being the case, for as long as efilists assert efilism as objective truth, efilist success relies on might is right (violence) rather than persuasion by argument (This plays out online in the form of weaponizing harassment and abuse to fight a war of attrition). It also proves that the efilist claim of being uniquely capable of insight into objective truth is voided by others who claim the same but who have different values (Just like competing religious faiths).
NB: None of this is advocating for anyone to be harmed. The purpose is demonstrating how efilists talk in circles and fail to comprehend the consequences of being subjected to what they believe they’re entitled to inflict on others.
Full Context Sources
youtu.be/PU8OsJpyArI?t=47
youtu.be/KmMoNpFmipY?t=219
youtu.be/NKWOlAElR6s?t=450
#shorts
efilism inmendham childfree oldphan Amanda Sukenick exploringantinatalism antinatalisminternational stophavingkids antinatalism
K-ll-ng everyone isn’t a bad thing… Everybody being dead isn’t a bad thing… I would f—ing shoot that b-tch in the head who’s pregnant… These are the kind of statements Amanda Sukenick categorizes as “some of the strongest efilist content”.
In another video (youtu.be/Ts3CAf_RlL4?t=875) Efil Blaise laughs along in agreement with someone saying: "I don't see murder as that much of a bad thing”. But if murder isn’t that much of a bad thing why does he use ‘murderer’ as a pejorative against pregnant women to justify shooting them?
The efilist response typically boils down to declaring that an efilist committing an atrocity is a righteous act because efilists have unadulterated insight into objective truth. But how would efilists fare if they came up against people who believed their unadulterated insight into objective truth shows humanity’s destiny is to propagate and prevail? Do they not have the right, according to efilist values, to preemptively annihilate efilists who want to annihilate them? This being the case, for as long as efilists assert efilism as objective truth, efilist success relies on might is right (violence) rather than persuasion by argument (This plays out online in the form of weaponizing harassment and abuse to fight a war of attrition). It also proves that the efilist claim of being uniquely capable of insight into objective truth is voided by others who claim the same but who have different values (Just like competing religious faiths).
NB: None of this is advocating for anyone to be harmed. The purpose is demonstrating how efilists talk in circles and fail to comprehend the consequences of being subjected to what they believe they’re entitled to inflict on others.
Full Context Sources
youtu.be/PU8OsJpyArI?t=47
youtu.be/KmMoNpFmipY?t=219
youtu.be/NKWOlAElR6s?t=450
#shorts
efilism inmendham childfree oldphan Amanda Sukenick exploringantinatalism antinatalisminternational stophavingkids antinatalism
