Peter Coffin, his realdoll/fake girlfriend Kimi Kobayashi, and his estranged wife Ashleigh Coffin - Cis Male Cuck, Pretend Agender; Kicks Self in Balls, Sockpuppeted as Own GF, RAPE APOLOGIST, plus his ex-wife

[Water-T]

LOL. Look at Petey's transparent ploy to use Wreck It Ralph 2 as an excuse to shill for Lindsey "Drunk Tank" Ellis.

Give it up, Petey. Senpai will never notice you or suck on your bruised testicles.

 

[Pozzingmyfilthyneghole]

That "the system is an aggregate and have aggregated motives" sounds like a ripoff of Warhammer's Realm of Chaos .

Except Peter "put me in a" Coffin doesn't know how to spell "egregore."

 

[Brain Problems]

He wants to become the schlubby agender version of Willy so fucking badly it's cringe-inducing.

Peter, you are an absolute nobody that will never be known for anything aside from kicking yourself in the nuts on TV, fucking a real-doll, and guest-starring in an equally pathetic youtube sing-song video about being a beta. Your closest shot at fame came during GG when you tried to whiteknight your way into eStardom but here we are now. Your wife's unremarkable tits are on the web, no watches your boring fucking videos, and no one gives their NEET-bux to your emaciated patreon.

Just troon out already if you really want to achieve the temporary burst in attention you desperately need.

 

[Positron]

True, but when have you ever acted beyond your self-interest? Did you volunteer in a soup kitchen?

Like you? Oh forget that: you'll never be in the Cool Left Boys' Club of Contrapoints et al.

For the curious, the video is about Horseshoe Theory. It is 33 minutes long and starts with the history of the domestication of the horse. I'm not kidding.

Beyond terves, there are "hyperterves":

In English: Coffin says he don't like reality-show, "rando bares it all" type of video. Leave it to him to make a agreeable stance sound pretentious and obnoxious.

[Don't merge my posts; it's been five days.]
- mod edit: I don't care

Coffin gets called out on his "system" bullshit -- by Wesley the pedophile rapist of all people -- and he attempts to defend himself with more bullshit:

(Whole chain of reply archived)

Along these lines, what bugs me is that so many think we have to live in hell for socialism to happen. No, we have to want - and be able - to beat the power structure. To learn history is to grasp the power structure's motives. To listen to marginalized people's experience is to grasp its effects. For me, the will to end capitalism isn't driven by altruism or by self-interest. It is understanding that the system exists to obscure what is real.

What is real is interconnected. It is being.

What is fake is cut off. It is having.

To love is real, to hoard is fake.

These are not so quantifiable, and I think that's the nature of reality. The irony is the more "real" we make things through metrics and measurement, the more fake they become. To quantify is to make possession possible. No person can possess the meaning of real, though.

What is more real, 30lbs. of diamonds, worth $342,000,000, or human connection? What makes the rocks matter? If we went by Marx, it's labor. But society doesn't; the market is arbitrary, fluid, and made up. Marx had a calculation for money and how much it's worth, and it's probably the thing I break from him most with: Money is bullshit. Like so much of capitalist reality, we make that shit up. This system dictates that this system is valid. It doesn't account for our consent because it doesn't need it. Instead, it directs us away from connection, because in connection we corroborate and scrutinize.

Connection is reality, and that's why I'm against capitalism. Sounds abstract as fuck, I'm sure, but it's the closest thing to truth I think we're going to find. Personally, my morality lines up with this, but my morality isn't enough. Neither is yours. Connect.

"To love is real, to hoard is fake."
Even Barb's hoard of garbage is more real than your "love".

"The irony is the more "real" we make things through metrics and measurement, the more fake they become"
You measure your followers and your e-begging income. They are all fake. Why bother?
As the saying goes: you show me a communist older than 30 and I'll show you a hypocrite.

As you are probably familiar by Coffin's MO by now: not one bit of his reply has anything to do with the point Wesley raised. He simply peddles jejune commie assumptions and goes on sloganeering. Last time it was "organize"; this time it is "connect".

Whatever.

More highfalutin ruminations, this time on altruism and egoism:

Altruistic/self-interest is a bad binary by which to judge this by, just like self-interest is a bad principle alone I don't understand how a self-interested person continues work beyond what makes them comfortable and fulfilled. This is why I am not compatible with egoism. There is work beyond what is necessary for me to be comfortable to be done, and I will be there for it. Will the self-interested people of the world?

Many people can be comfortable and happy without socialism of any kind. Social democracy would make me extremely comfortable, most likely. I'm interested beyond myself and my family/friends. I think most people who want socialism are, and not because they are altruistic.

Altruism is such a limited motive for totally changing the entire world. Yes, I am certainly of the mind it would be good to help people and want that, but my motives are rooted in the impact of humanity on each other and the universe. That's not altruistic or self-interested. Like, are there elements of both in my worldview? Sure! But it's not what motivates me. I dislike the idea these have to be our motives. One or the other, not "our impact as beings on each other and elsewhere." I see too much interconnectivity to think it's good to see the self as some kind of motive, authority, or a focus point. It just doesn't work for me.

Also, I'm genuinely annoyed with arguing for socialism purely on the idea it's "good" or "right" - the altruistic characterization eschews all of the theoretical work, all of the economic analysis, etc. "I don't think people are altruistic," who cares. I don't think all people are the same. I think people have different motives and that's why some people like some things that I don't.

This pretense that it has to be one of these two things and not "because this fucking system concentrates power with a few and they fuck everything up, including the ground we are standing on and the air we breathe" It has fucking nothing to do with you! It has to do with the interconnected universe we are a part of.

It has to do with us as individuals in as much as we are a part of the universe. THAT is why I'm pissed off with self-interest as a motive. It's declaring one's intention to stop at some point.

Coffin might think he is willing to work beyond self-interest (although I'm sure this is just his delusion), but not everybody does. And it only takes a handful of selfish pricks to ruin the whole society if there is no legal or governmental supervision. "Not everyone is altruistic, who cares?" You have to care if your ideal social system is predicated on voluntary cooperation.

Coffin might think his motives are "rooted in the impact of humanity on each other and the universe". But he doesn't even want to give up plastic straws even he knows full well they are bad for the environment! What a bullshit artist.

And you have to marvel at the protean ways of him saying "it is not the individual's responsibility". Want another example? Here he is, bending a conversation about Star Wars video games into "it is not our fault! We are controlled by the System!"

That is just the preamble; this is the meat:

I love Star Wars, and currently the video games of it that are made all contain some form of exploitation. SWBFII at launch, for instance, was transparently an elaborate slot machine. The environment around both Star Wars and video games contains direction - a path I have been exposed to my entire life. Here and there, we have little nudges to do things that benefit the medium or franchise, all while being called a thing. We are, in many abstract ways, asked to identify as a Star Wars fan and (more transparently) as a "gamer." That gets associated with the self through marketing, through life, through natural things like enjoyment and friendship.

Star Wars and/or video games (or really whatever) become(s) two things:
- our identity
- a place we belong

This is deliberate; it may not have always been, but for a number of years/decades, entertainment companies have understood and therefore encouraged this dynamic. The issue is less "we are brainwashed," than a lot of people might take this as. But rather, the issue is "the environment in which fandom develops is one that is created and controlled." It is in no way you or me. We have not done this; this is often what critics don't understand. They place blame on the individual. But does the individual create the societal environment and all the messages placed within it? No. Of course not.

Nor is it you or me being tricked. Are we tricked into breathing polluted air? No, the air we breathe is simply the air. We exist in this environment/system and our hobbies and consumption are like breathing - we're going to do it whether we know it's poison or not. That doesn't make *air* bad (nor does it make the breather bad); it makes *pollution* bad. However, we are intrinsically affected by the pollution. In this metaphor, we are given improper context that:
- keeps us from acknowledging pollution
- makes us believe that air is under attack when it is, in fact, pollution that is

No one is keeping you from acknowledging pollution; and saying "the air is bad" does not in any way negate "air pollution is bad". But what's the point of acknowledging pollution when, as Coffin always says, it is all the System's fault?

He is not over yet:

A lot of people will defend air (rightfully so) and get scared. People are misinformed and live in a coercive/duplicitous environment. The anti-feminism we see in gaming, for instance, is an example of defending the air when it's really the pollution under attack. On the flip side, indulging feminist talking points on a surface level (usually what game companies real effect is, never really changing systemic issues) is what companies do to protect the pollution they need to profit from the air. It's easy to see that is disingenuous - it's because it is. And it's held up as progress because it is *something*. In the meantime, everyone has been redirected to an argument about air.

We have several groups who have formed identity and community around air - in an environment directed by polluters. All of these people have a stake in the argument, and none of them are engaging at a systemic level. They also view each other as enemies rather than polluters.

Hopefully that makes my perspective on this make sense, otherwise I'm happy to talk further.

No. Your "perspective" on anything never makes sense.

What seems to be the problem?

When it comes to gene therapy, whether parents treat their kids as property is irrelevant. I may sound cruel but the fact is your children are your liability: you are going to pay for their ongoing health expenses. That's why parents are usually positive about editing out disease-causing gene alleles.

Likewise we don't need a troon's permission or consent to use his old name or refer to him by his real sex.
That's kind of... how life is.

Video games taught him to be what he is now:

Crypto-tinfoil hat:

Rat crossover with a PhD in International Military Law.

I have a feeling Jonathan "Slingblade" Holiday learned about Coffin through reading Kiwi Farms.

 

[Kosher Dill]

I wonder if Coffin raises his kids with the ideology he publicly promotes. "Nothing is anyone's fault but bitching endlessly about it is A-OK". Can you imagine?

 

[Sissy Galvez]

Yes, you are shit. Glad you finally have an ounce of self awareness.

 

[AnOminous]

Every time I see his avatar face I want to fucking punch him. Is that wrong?

 

[Pozzingmyfilthyneghole]

Every time I see his avatar face I want to fucking punch him. Is that wrong?

If one were to prank Peter Coffin, the best way to prank him would be with a tire iron to the face.
So you are not wrong.

 

[Brain Problems]

If one were to prank Peter Coffin, the best way to prank him would be with a tire iron to the face.
So you are not wrong.

How do you prank a man whose whole life is a joke? Remember the story of Job and how the old testament God gets into a slapfight with the devil and decides to totally ruin one man's life in order to prove that this man would still cling to God no matter what? You couldn't take anything away from Peter and expect him not fold faster than Superman on laundry day. The man is a sack of goo propped up by a stick and an eMarxist's "fresh from wikipedia" take on inane shit like Star Wars or the latest indie computer game.

Give Peter 250k USD a year in hipster-welfare bux and take bets on whether practices what he preaches.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Give Peter 250k USD a year in hipster-welfare bux and take bets on whether practices what he preaches.

What he preaches is "Be a Marxist with your words and an unabashed Basic Becky consumerist with your wallet", so I think he would indeed continue to practice it.

 

[Positron]

You know what just occurred to me? Coffin isn't even Marxist. Have you ever heard Marx talk about love? No, because such rosy idealism is the precinct of proto-anarchists like Ludwig Feuerbach, whom Marx and Engels held in disdain. Marx and Engels called their method "dialectic materialism" precisely because they have no patience on intangible things like love and altruism. Marx also created a lot of metrics and potential measurements, such as concepts like "surplus labor" and "force of production". So if Coffin were consistent he has to concede that Marx made things fake.

Indeed Coffin weren't even consistent in his puerile idealism: love is real but who cares if people aren't always altruistic. Riddle me this.

 

[Brain Problems]

You know what just occurred to me? Coffin isn't even Marxist. Have you ever heard Marx talk about love? No, because such rosy idealism is the precinct of proto-anarchists like Ludwig Feuerbach, whom Marx and Engels held in disdain. Marx and Engels called their method "dialectic materialism" precisely because they have no patience on intangible things like love and altruism. Marx also created a lot of metrics and potential measurements, such as concepts like "surplus labor" and "force of production". So if Coffin were consistent he has to concede that Marx made things fake.

Indeed Coffin weren't even consistent in his puerile idealism: love is real but who cares if people aren't always altruistic. Riddle me this.

You've already put more thought into this than Peter ever has/will. He's a broke sadbrain failure living with a real-doll/Canadian import that spends his days online writing paragraphs of word-salad via Twitter and trying to lick the bits of scum off the bit of the rock that Contrapoints and Riley Dennis were too proud to stoop to. Get a fucking job, Peter.

 

[sperginity]

Mentioned in an article in The Stranger about how nonbinary genders are not helpful for women

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/20...future-is-nonbinary-its-a-bleak-one-for-women

http://archive.is/XXvTP

Writer Peter Coffin, for instance—a bearded father of two who is married to a feminine-presenting woman—came out earlier this year as “agender,” a subsidiary of the nonbinary identity. Why? Because, in his own words, he “disliked [his] place in the gender dynamic.” So, instead of working to dismantle a hierarchy that places men at the top and women at the bottom, he simply stopped identifying as a man, while, of course, still receiving all the privileges of people who look like them. I suppose that’s one way to deal with structural sexism.

While there's been no comprehensive census of people calling themselves nonbinary (much less agender), gray-bearded fathers like Peter Coffin, are, from my observation, the minority

 

[AnOminous]

It's giving excessive dignity to Peter Coffin to call him a "writer" or for that matter anything other than an absolute and utter loser.

 

[Positron]

Coffin is not happy about The Stranger pointing out he has beard privilege:

Now who is the passive-aggressive one?

The only thing that disqualifies you from being non-binary is: being an eukaryotic organism.

I don't suppose the greek prefix a- means "being uncomfortable in"?

"I don't talk about being agender", proceeds to write a long spiel about the supposed political significance of being 'agender':

Huh? What exactly are you getting at?

You don't have an argument against Capitalism deeper than "System bad!"

You don't recommend books because you've read few and understood fewer.

If you want you know why I don't recommend books is because I'm not your leader or your parent and I don't want to be. I don't want to create Peter Coffin-Approved Materials. I do things to avoid creating dependence on me. This is one of those things. I mention books in passing when it seems natural to (or when relevant). I know this might sound like a criticism of people who recommend a bunch of books and if I'm honest it kind of is. But I get why people do it, it's because these things aren't pushed elsewhere.

The issue is: I'm a YouTube name with a "brand" and all of that shit too. I could become a lifestyle brand for leftists (it's so embedded in the environment it could be done without intending to) and I do not want to be anything close to that. So I put out what I have to say, and we do our little chats. I try to direct people away from dependence on me and towards being critical. Hell, I wrote a book that I could have answered that cc question with.

So you wrote a book to prevent people getting "dependent" on you?

The point is I'm trying extremely hard not to be what YouTube encourages personalities to be (both environmentally and more directly). I don't want to like the smell of my own shit. It might seem like a weird thing to draw a line there, but if you notice pretty much anything I benefit from is extremely extremely extremely optional. I see reading lists as a potential means to exercise social capital I have that I didn't two years ago.

It is environmental control. I can pick books that create context with each other that ultimately influences what you think. Possibly moreso than my little book or videos. To put this another way, I've read things people tell me to read, and what I find is what they want me to think. Now imagine someone with the clout of a somewhat well-liked entertainment personality doing the same thing. It's not a discussion on the books, because I can not spend all of my time in discussions with whoever wants to start one with me anymore. That's just flat out not possible at even the level I am at, which is not even that "big."

I do not deserve the ability to tell you to do something and have you do it.

I shouldn't have the ability to shape you in the moments where you are alone, without me. Marx, Debord, Kropotkin, Lenin... whoever - these people become a conduit my voice if I tell you to read them and that's why you do it.

No. You become the conduit of their voice, which is likely better than being the conduit of random noise coming from your empty head.
And if you don't want to encourage the cult of personality on youtube, why don't you wear a mask?

I don't like that. But it is the flow of power at play in a capitialist "personality" dynamic. So, to flesh out what I mean by "I do not want to be ideological," that's it. I wish to minimize the reproduction of the dynamic that gives entertainers power over their audiences. I know it's not possible to fully avoid, but where I have that choice please just let me make it.

A self-styled "communist" doesn't want to be ideological.

Pulling a Contrapoint?

You are just making a crony joke, not an obscure reference.
(I think this is the video he is referring to. I only watch 28 seconds out of the whole 28 minute so don't quote me on this. His cronies mention Ayn Rand so watch it if she is your waifu.)

Mah trannies:

So you actively indoctrinate impressionable people (including potential troons) to socialism and communism, thus preventing the emergence of a "trans buying demographic" and blocking their way to social acceptance.

Well played Peter.

Aliens are indeed better options than Coffin.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Even Coffin can't seriously be dumb enough to think "monied interests" are after him.

 

[Sissy Galvez]

“Trans buying demographic”, they’re less than a half a percent Peter.

It’s not changing.

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

Both Peter and that article's author are sincerely concerned about what his gender identity means in the context of feminism, but at the end of the day, does anyone actually believe this bearded dude is anything other than a bearded dude?

 

[GreenJacket]

Why do people think being asexual is special?

"I don't want to have sex."
okay

 

[Kosher Dill]

Why do people think being asexual is special?

"I don't want to have sex."
okay

Well, he claims to be "agender" (which means precisely nothing) rather than asexual. Claiming to be asexual while being married to a vapid woman who makes herself up like a sex doll (and whose library of sexting photos with him has been leaked), and having children with that woman, might be a bridge too far even for empty-headed wokies.