Response to a commenter

New commenter Mitchell has some concerns with my project, which I will attempt to address in this post.

This is an odd little blog. You seem to be getting people's positions wrong, many times over. 
For example, you class Dima Sokol as a "misanthropic antinatalist", someone who says the world is wonderful and people make it bad. When has he ever said that the world is wonderful?!

As I have said before, this blog works according to The Principle of Charity. If I find that a position is simply nonsensical or non-tenable or laughably inconsistent, I will simply reconstruct it to make some kind of sense. The only explanation for Dima Sokol's nonsensical assertions that he both hates humanity and wants the best for them is that he is simply lying about what "the best" is and directing humanity towards the worst.

Or your category of "reactionary antinatalists", who you seem to define as people who long for a past of patriarchal rule by the white race, or something, but who so despair of it ever happening that they would prefer extinction instead. Presumably there are people who match that description, but I can't say it applies to any of the people you name. You list "metamorphhh" aka "Jim" as one of these. He was married to a black woman, and liked her enough to have two daughters with her.

Well, I for one can name multiple racists who have married outside of their own racial group. If Jim actually did respect all black people as human beings, he would not publish on a white power press like Nine Banded Books, nor would he be simply one degree of blogroll separation away from numerous white power sites like Vox Day or Unqualified Reservations.

And Sister Y is undoubtedly a philanthropic antinatalist. It seems that because she has come to entertain "reactionary" ideas, or simply skepticism about many "liberal" platitudes, that you are filing her in the wrong category. 

And the post where you try to deal with "philanthropic antinatalism" is in a way the most perplexing of all. Suffering doesn't exist, because you can't point to it in an fMRI machine? And you even seem to be hinting that people as such don't exist, perhaps because of some quasi-Buddhist deconstruction of the notion of identity? The convergence of views between Buddhists who analytically decompose the subject, and modern neuro-materialists who think there is only atoms, is an interesting cultural phenomenon. But if it is to be used as a way to deny the existence of suffering, then it has simply become evil - though hopefully an ineffectual evil. I call it evil because it tries to wish away something that is there. 

I am not denying the existence of pain! This is readily identified by neuroscience and a neurology interested friend notifies me that there exists special receptors known as nociceptors that exist to receive painful stimuli. I will simply give no credence to this mysterious metaphysical notion called "suffering" which is either a great pain or something intrinsic to being itself, if one listens to antinatalists. Do rocks feel suffering? What about computers?

Maybe you're just in denial about how evil life can be? Maybe out of your own sensitivity, plus a dose of wishful thinking, you're trying to find reasons to deny that the badness is there? Because if you won't confront it, you can never even begin to form an opinion on these matters. 
Life encompasses all the worst things that have ever happened to anyone - people tortured to death, buried alive in earthquakes, swept to sea by tsunamis, and dying by inches in terror and confusion thanks to modern medical care - just to mention a few things. Benatar's logic-chopping aside, if you would just care to notice the sort of things that happen in the world, then it should be obvious that antinatalists have a good case; because if no-one has children, at least things like all that can't happen to anyone. Call this "precautionary antinatalism" if you need a name for it. I'd like to see you tackle that version.

 Indeed! There is a great deal of pain in the world. HOWEVER. Antinatalists disregard all feelings or opinions or drives of sentient beings EXCEPT pain, arbitrarily. Second, antinatalists are simply awful at identifying current pains. Rather than speak of particular pains or troubles, antinatalists will ramble endlessly about boredom and futility. As if boredom and futility have anything to do with the problems of thousands of people who are going through REAL extreme pain every day! There seems to be almost a taboo amongst antinatalists of mentioning no-trivial current affairs that relate to antinatalism as if the plight of third world diamond miners or the rise of fascism or persecution of Muslims is simply beneath them. Call me when antinatalists can talk about the world and humanity as it is, rather than in abstract.

For extra credit, identify what historical event this song is referring to, AND what current event I am repurposing it to refer to WITHOUT using wikipedia!