Tag Archive | Anarchist Shemale

LP Shenanigans & Live From Anarchist Shemale Fest Part 1 (Podcast)

As I mentioned previously, Will Coley (of Muslims 4 Liberty, www.lrn.fm, former Vice Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, and host of “Call to Freedom”) invited me with him to Somalia Fest and Porcfest this year. It took a bit of work, but I was able to wrangle up the funds to go and have the cushion for incidental problems, so expect articles to slow down through the next week.

However, I will be doing daily podcasts to pick up the slack, because I totally forgot to put together a laptop for the trip, writing articles from my phone is very slow, and I’m not entirely sure whether the laptop i grabbed at the last moment even works.

Those who know me probably know that I’m a bit anti-social, and if there was any reason I was going to back out (aside from being embarrassingly unable to afford what was basically a free vacation), it would have been that, or missing my cats. Oh, man, do I miss my cats.

Anyway, even barely knowing Will, I couldn’t pass up the chance to actually put in some work on the ground (especially since the MSLP, now that they’ve gotten money from me, has gone back to ignoring me), and it’s more or less exactly as I expected. This, of course, is Somalia Fest, considered the pre-Porcfest party, and is when most of the more audacious and anarchist types will arrive.

It does again make me wonder about the LP’s intention to, later this week, have an online meeting to discuss delegate rules and similar things, since many of the more audacious people are up here in the New Hampshire mountains, where, if you don’t have Verizon, then you don’t have service. Most people are officially off the grid.

The Audacious Caucus is actively working to stack the 2018 LNC, after all, and I’ve no doubt there are spies within the LPAC. It’s odd that, not long after we were discussing swarming the convention, the LP scheduled a meeting about delegate rules (and other things) at a time when many of the more radical and audacious types will be off the grid. I have no idea if that’s coincidental or not, but it’s highly suspicious.

There is a battle being fought for the heart of the party, with two distinct sides lining up for the fight: those who think the goal is to win elections, and those who think the goal is to use the enhanced coverage to spread the libertarian message, without much concern for actually winning or losing elections (I fall into this latter camp, obviously).

Only a few weeks ago, Larry Sharpe (who is probably fairly pissed at me presently, since I called him out for paying lip service to forgiveness, while acting more like a wife who “forgave” her husband for cheating, yet brings it up again every time there’s an argument–a claim he denied, but he failed to provide links to these discussions, and I provided links to support my assertion) insisted on “The Call to Freedom” that the purpose of the party is to win elections, and that it’s that simple.

Of course, much of this is due to the Dallas Accord and the Portland Massacre–in 2006, there were tremendous changes to the LP’s platform, and anarchists began leaving the party en masse because of the betrayal of the Dallas Accord. Even now, many moderates speak of trying to purge us from the party, or, at minimum, to change the rules of delegation selection to minimize our impact and voices.

This, of course, is how you end up with James Weeks doing a strip on stage on live television. There is much talk about purging or silencing anarchists and the audacious caucus; naturally, the harder they push, the more audacious we’ll become. I once did my work as I/E (Intellect over Emotion), and now I’m the Anarchist Shemale. And, as of about three weeks ago, have membership in the national and state parties. I’m a Libertarian. Know that, Republicans, before you swarm in and try to take over.

We’re not going to let another Bill Weld happen. I don’t think we’re going to let even another Gary Johnson happen.

That said, it’s hilarious that we are actively trying to build a compromise ticket of Sharpe/Coley, even though we don’t particularly care for Sharpe. He’s not bad; he’s alright. We can tolerate him. The question remains whether the centrists can meet us in the middle–they get Sharpe to head the ticket, and we get Coley to make sure that libertarian principles are represented.

“Compromise” is a word they love to use, but they tend to use it in its more modern liberal sense–“I get what I want, and you get to shut up and sit down, or go away if you don’t like it.” Yet, despite the ongoing hostility, we’re still willing and trying to forge a compromise.

It’s amusing, and it highlights the difference between Somalia Fest and Porcfest really well. Last night while trying to do an episode of “Call to Freedom” with Will, a fully naked chick wandered into the van from which we were doing the show. That’s Somalia Fest.

I also recorded the first of several podcasts, this one featuring Bill Paxton, Ian of Free Talk Live, Will Coley, and myself.

Rantings & Ravings Rebooted Ep 03 – “Gays & Justice”

Intro (0:00)

General conversation about stuff.

News 1 (2:33)

Gay couple in Norway attacked by Moroccans, and reflections on the Pulse Shooting, as well as the fact that we’re not able to fix a problem if we aren’t allowed to discuss it. Also the mess in Syria, why Trump thinks it’s okay to create more terrorists, and the clusterfuck state of American foreign policy.

Stupid Comment of the Week (10:06)

A “former AnCap” who left the ideology because… he couldn’t envision a way for the ideology to come to fruition…? It was really hard to make sense of his ramblings, and this is from someone who rambles a lot. So we discuss various ways in which the radical ideology of non-violence could be implemented, and mention again that beautiful event during World War 1.

News 2 (23:52)

There actually isn’t a second news item this week. I had one, but deleted it to instead talk about the fact that we shouldn’t have this much shit to discuss in the first place, and how it’s an indication that something has gone awry. My anarchism doesn’t come out often (much of the time, I could be mistaken for a libertarian), but here it really shines through.

Are You Fucking Kidding Me? (36:37)

Skittles’ attempt to show solidarity with a rainbow-oriented group by… removing all colors from their candy…? What? I’m far from a Social Justice Warrior, but they have a point. Removing all color doesn’t show support; it shows antagonism, morons. “I’m going to show my support for the women’s march by waving my dick around!” What? No, it doesn’t make sense. A candy with the slogan of “taste the rainbow” removing all its colors to show “support” for a group whose emblem is the rainbow is, at the very least moronic, and that’s assuming it wasn’t meant as a snub of LGBTQ people in a society that wouldn’t tolerate it.

Darkside Philosophy (40:53)

Justice and AnCap principles–most people don’t mean “justice” when they say it. They mean “vengeance.” So I talk a bit about my murdered mother and how I might have justice over it. Spoiler Alert: the only way for me to have justice is to forgive the murderer. The conceit that it’s okay to inflict violence on someone because they used violence is called Eye For An Eye, and it’s not justice; it’s revenge.

Rantings & Ravings Reboot Ep 01

As I explained in the intro, now that the iron appears to be having an effect and my anemia is lessening, I plan to be more active–it also helps that I’ve just forced myself to proceed anyway, of course–and that means a return to podcasting. I’ve been planning to reboot Rantings & Ravings for a while, and this is episode 1: “Ryancare & Russians.”

Note: I’m certainly not doing anymore podcasts in this voice. I sound so angry. This is actually due to the fact that I edited out most of the pauses; you can tell from some of the less edited podcasts that, when recording, I tend to talk about like Obama, with a pause following every 3 or 4 words. That fits with the inflections better, but removing the silences makes it sound… like a continuous raving rant. That’s actually not intentional.

In this episode, we discuss the GOP’s attempts to modify the Affordable Care Act, and the effects we can expect that to have. Spoiler: it will really piss off the GOP’s voter base. They already have trust issues so severe that they rejected the establishment and elected Donald Trump. With him betraying them, as I predicted in this video:

… and with Paul Ryan–who already drew their ire by siding against Trump–working to further undermine their implicit desires, the 2018 midterm elections will be The Reckoning for Republicans. It will be a bloodbath that pours Democrats into office, a trend that will continue with a sure Democrat victory for the White House in 2020.

The Stupid Comment of the Week is quite possibly the most stupid thing that anyone has ever said to me, no joke. It’s seriously that stupid. The Anarchist Shemale will not be held responsible for drivers whose heads explode when they hear the stupidity and thereby have an accident. It is advised to not listen to this segment while driving.

Furthermore, Trump, Russians, and hysteria are discussed, since that’s always in the news, and we consider the implications of the Clown Sightings that people seem to have forgotten about, as well as what it might mean that the FBI isn’t looking into it. Schools were actually locked down because of alleged clown sightings, but the FBI hasn’t bothered to check it out? There’s something certainly odd about that, and the parallels between clowns and Russians are too much to ignore, so we speculate the possibility that–seriously–the entire clown sightings thing was a Psy-Ops campaign by intelligence agencies to study the effects and spread of hysteria.

We also discuss the absolutely absurd assertion that the Russians are competent enough to “hack the election” of the world’s foremost superpower and the most technologically advanced nation in human history, but are simultaneously too incompetent to click four things to change their Date & Time and keyboard settings.

Finally, there is an overview of Reductive Reasoning and how it applies to the boy/girl dichotomy, the nature of definitions, and abortion. Each week in this segment, I’ll be picking an issue and applying Reductive Reasoning to it. This week wasn’t meant to dive fully into gender or abortion, but sought to use them as examples to explain the concept.

Thanks for listening, and I hope you enjoy the reboot. 😀

No, I Will NOT Be Afraid

A lot of people are telling me that I should be afraid.

Actually, let me correct that. A lot of people say that people like me should be afraid, but–in a true victory for trolling–they say this without any awareness that I am one of the people they’re talking about. I have had countless people in the past two days tell me how terrified LGBT people are, and it always makes me grin to tell them, “Hey. I’m transgender. And I’m not afraid.”

It’s rather like watching their ideological train smash straight into a wall.

Actually, it’s exactly like that.

But it’s true. A lot of people are telling me that I should be afraid, because they want to justify their power grab. These people are swept up in baseless hysteria–just as we saw during the clown bullshit–and they have become completely lost in their own delusional fever pitch of panic and frenzied insanity. I tried to be nice about this, but–holy shit–these people are batshit insane. They are completely detached from reality, having spent the past year in their echo chambers–they call them “safe spaces”–telling each other about how evil and horrible Trump was, just perpetuating to one another what they’d heard and working themselves into a frothing madness that no longer bears any resemblance to what you and I would call “the real world.”

They have gone… totally insane.

They invented safe spaces–these places where they could go and not hear things they didn’t want to hear. Considering that among those things they don’t want to hear are “dissenting opinions,” it’s no wonder that they’ve spent years now in echo chambers. When they hear something they don’t like, they shout, “Triggered!” and flee to the comfort of their safe space, where they interact only with other people who were triggered and fled to the safe space, and where they are assured that everyone with whom they discuss politics, reality, and society will, because they’re sharing a safe space, agree.

I mean holy shit. It’s no wonder, as they sat in echo chambers repeating to one another all of their fears, that they went insane. They purposely cut themselves off from everything they didn’t want to hear, and purposely surrounded themselves with people who would reiterate everything they already believed. Anyone who disagreed with them violated their safe space and was thrown out. So henceforth I will no longer use the phrase “safe space.” I will call it what it is: an echo chamber.

in-fucking-sanityJust imagine being a disabled person and taking in information only when it comes from people who side with you ideologically. We already know that this happens. And if you don’t agree with them ideologically, as soon as you speak, they’ll shriek that you’re disabled-phobic and flee to their echo chamber, where they will be surrounded only by people who tell them what they want to hear. It’s a recipe for insanity.

There’s no other word for it. The result is there for anyone who wants to see it. We currently have millions of Americans who truly believe that Donald Trump is either going to utterly destroy their rights or put them in death camps (Really, some think that). They* are insane. And they are saying some of the most hateful, vitriolic, and disgusting things that I’ve ever heard one person say about other human beings. What is the source of their scorn and disgust?

That some people have different values than they do.

Which, of course, obviously means those other people are LITERALLY Hitler.

They’ve relied on their echo chambers for all their information, even though Wikileaks revealed to us that their echo chamber is exactly that. But they didn’t care. “Lies!” they said. “Lies from the Russians!” they claimed, without a bit of evidence to support it, but that didn’t matter. A liberal told them the Russians were doing it, so it was true. And when a liberal told them the FBI investigation was bullshit and Hillary had done nothing criminal, they accepted it as true.

Actually, if we look at it realistically, this is what happened:

Sanders said Hillary was corrupt, may have called her a criminal; I’m not sure. Liberals believed Hillary was corrupt.

Sanders changed his mind and said Hillary was good. Liberals believed Hillary wasn’t corrupt.

Hillary lost, and suddenly Hillary was corrupt again.

If that doesn’t exemplify sheer insanity, then I’m honestly not sure what else can. It couldn’t be clearer unless they wore shirts that said, “We believe whatever we want to believe in any given moment, and you can’t challenge us because we’ll retreat to our Safe Space Echo Chambers where we don’t have to listen to you, you racist Nazi.”

Here’s another example.

Sanders supporters riot at the Nevada Democratic Convention? “It’s not Sanders’s fault.”

Hillary supporters riot after Hillary loses the election? “It’s not Hillary’s fault.”

Trump supporters attack a minority? “OMG TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER AND THIS IS HIS FAULT”

Of course, some racist piece of shit people are out there doing fucked up things. But you can’t criticize them for that if you’re being racist yourself. Laci Green, if you’re saying things like “fuck you, white America!” then you don’t really have any ground to stand on when you criticize people for being racist and chanting “White power!” What do you expect them to do when you say “fuck you” to them like that? You can only push people so far.

I condemn racism in all its forms. Don’t read the above paragraph through a partisan lens, or you’ll come to the conclusion that I’m condoning Neo-Nazis.

That’s the world liberals have made–the world of Us and Them. I can’t even tell liberals that they’re being insane without them accusing me of being a Trump supporter. Why is that? Because that’s what they think. If you’re not with them, you’re against them, and “against them” is “Trump supporter.” So if I don’t accede to every batshit crazy thing they say, they will conclude that I must be a Trump supporter.

I will say this. Liberals, it is primarily you that is pushing America to the edge of the cliff. Conservatives certainly are not helping, but surely you must see that you can’t constantly say things like “Middle America is racist” and “fuck you, white America” without them striking back. Surely you can see that things like “fuck you, white America” will piss them off? If you lump them into a group and then attack that group, you should not be surprised when that group hits back. Put it another way. After all the chants of “Black Power!” and “Black Lives Matter!” how can you possibly be surprised that some people would start shouting “White power”?

Yes, Laci. You guys didn’t just let this happen; you made this happen.

Of course I condemn this; it’s not the right way to solve the problem.

We have to turn back from the abyss now.

* I’m obviously not referring to every single liberal. I’m only applying these labels to people who exhibit this behavior. And while my words are harsher than they need to be, it’s rather hard to be kind to people who are being so vitriolic.

7 Reasons To Vote For Gary Johnson

Seeing as this is the Internet and the vast majority of people have lost the ability to recognize and process sarcasm, I should point out, for the sake of my own sanity, that this video is facetious. These are the arguments I’ve had Gary Johnson supporters put forward in favor of Gary Johnson.

It’s… truly sad to see the Libertarian Party reduced to this.

Logical fallacies, absurd statements, thoroughly debunked reasoning, false equivalencies, scapegoats, ad hominem, and slippery slopes.

How Does Liberty Handle the Syrian Refugee Crisis?

Two people are dragging a large, heavy box by chains. One person wants to go northeast; the other wants to go northwest. They each agree to just do their own thing, to not impede the other, and to walk the direction they each have chosen. So the first person walks northeast, the second walks northwest, and the box is dragged northward.

That is the essence of liberty.

Did either person get to drag the box in the direction they wanted to go?

No, but each person was allowed to walk in the direction they wanted, and that is what matters. They do not have the right to drag the box the direction they wanted to go, because the box did not belong to one person alone.

That is a follow-up to my video about Gary Johnson:

Anarcho-Capitalism: More Videos & Podcasts

More effectively summarizing the week in Anarcho-Capitalism discussions…

It began with a video from TylerPreston20, who refuted claims made by people who appeared to be anarcho-capitalists. It’s worth mentioning that these were not anarcho-capitalist arguments, and that they were arguments from anarcho-capitalists. They were also poor, misinformed “arguments,” and this is what inspired me to make my initial video reply. For the most part, I took no issue with what Tyler said, but I did want to clear the air on anarcho-capitalism. If we have people going around claiming to be anarcho-capitalists while saying that anarcho-capitalism influenced the foundation of the United States and that “governments are evil,” then it’s a problem for anarcho-capitalism.

I replied:

Even now, I’m not particularly happy with my reply, and I’m still thankful that Tyler ignored the antagonistic and belligerent tone that I adopted, and instead focused on what I said. I did not intend to be hostile and onerous, and it was a critical lesson about being more careful with my tone. Then again, I also had not been awake long, so my voice was still scratchy and deep.

In a stunning display of intellectual honesty, Tyler recanted his initial video, admitted that I had a point, and released this:

I am still stunned to have encountered someone who display such intellectual integrity. That’s so fucking rare. While he has not subscribed to anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist ideology at this point, he has accepted the foundations of it. I understand this entirely. Taking the leap from “You have a point, and I guess you’re right…” to “There shouldn’t be a state, then” is a big one, very similar to the step from “agnosticism” to atheism. And even if he is not interested in taking that step or exploring that direction, I think it’s safe to say that he’s been pulled closer to libertarianism than classical liberalism, though that is entirely conjectural on my part.

In answering his question and responding to the criticisms my video reply received, I released a three-part series.

I also did two podcasts on the subject. The first is about how the state presents us with the problem of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” because the state reigns supreme. Who will protect us if the state tries to take us as slaves?

Of course, no one will, because no one can. That’s what it means that the state is supreme. We rely entirely on the state’s benevolence. This person asked what I would do in an anarcho-capitalist society if he tried to take me as his slave, and the answer is obvious: I’d shoot him. He replied that he would have better guns. Great, so that raises the question: what does he plan to do when the state comes to take him as a slave?

That one deals with the absurdity that believing our current moral understanding is absolutely right, and that it’s therefore okay to legislate it and force everyone to abide it. I was asked what my thoughts were about someone sleeping with a 12 year old girl, if the girl consented, and that’s an asinine question. We could ask the very same question today, with a state. I’m not going to be drawn into such a discussion about what is and isn’t morally wrong, but I will point out that just because most of us would agree that it’s wrong to have sex with a 12 year old girl even if she consents, the reality is that we could ask the same question about any moral claim. We’d quickly find that what the person believes is that their moral values are the correct ones, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. They are fine pushing their moral values onto everyone else, but reject the idea that someone should push their own moral values onto them.

There is very little to say that I did not say in those videos, but I also want to call attention to a Transactional Analysis game that I was inadvertently caught in yesterday on Twitter. After I had been discussing anarcho-capitalism and the state with two or three other people, a new person entered the fray and raised an objection–one that I had already addressed. I handled the objection with a link to one of my answers on Quora that pointed out that: Yes, the state does, in fact, keep the poor poor, and that we do have a caste system. His objection was that people naturally form hierarchies, and the answer on Quora was the best way of addressing his remark: Twitter’s 160 character limit is poor to address the question of whether a hierarchy is even a real thing, or whether we are merely dealing with groups of people who self-segregate into groups, with only a perceived elevation to some of those groups.

He replied that he was not going to read what I wrote, and that instead he was just going to use the definition of the state. He went on to define “state” as “a large group of people,” basically, which is absurd in the highest degree. So the people at Disney World are a state? Monsanto and its employees are a state? Clearly, his criteria was flawed. He also added that I was wrong, and that we do not have a caste system here in the United States. I replied, “You’re wrong. See? I can arbitrarily assert things without evidence, too.”

Like most people, he had fallen into the trap of thinking “You’re wrong” constitutes an argument. That is a very different thing from saying “You haven’t convinced me.” Of course, he couldn’t be convinced, could he, if he wasn’t going to read my answers and articles? I fell into his game, however, and he retweeted something to the effect of “I just wanted to have a discussion with an Ancap. Why can’t they ever stick to the argument?”

Ridiculous in the extreme, as I was trying to make him stick to the argument by pointing out that he cannot just assert that I am wrong. He can say “You haven’t convinced me,” at which point it would probably fall to me to provide more evidence and reason, unless he was simply being stubborn–there is a fine line between skepticism and incredulity. I wouldn’t attempt to definitively say what that line is or where it’s located, but at that point I would have conceded that I hadn’t fully made my case. However, he did not say that he was unconvinced; he stated that I was wrong. This, of course, is an assertion–a claim–and requires evidence of its own.

Technically speaking, “I don’t believe you” and “I remain unconvinced” are also claims, but there is no reason to demand evidence that he doesn’t believe me. Such a demand would not merely cross but would leap the divide between justified skepticism and naked incredulity. If he says he is unconvinced, then there is no justification for me to assume that he is really convinced.

Anyway, I said, “If you wanted further evidence, then all you had to do was ask.” Naturally. If he wanted more evidence, then all he had to say was that he was not convinced. Someone who would say “You’re wrong” when what they actually mean is “I’m not convinced” is probably someone whose mind is closed, though, and I should have washed my hands of him when he retweeted that. Instead, I provided him with a link to my website and the article Berning the Economy to the Ground, at which point he immediately rejected it as “some stupid blog.” Well, no, actually–first of all, learn the difference between a blog and a website. Secondly, a website is only as valuable as the credentials of the person who writes it. Yet, in converse, a website is as valuable as the credentials of the person who writes it, and I have credentials to discuss economics and anarcho-capitalism. However, he was not interested in hearing them.

Once more, I fell into his trap, and directed him to buy the book V2: The Voluntary Voice, which, of course, I was published in. He immediately refused, said he wasn’t buying trash, that he might pirate it, that he wasn’t going to give me any money, and that he didn’t buy stupid books. Well, what was he demanding, as far as evidence and credentials go? He rejected my free content–my videos, podcasts, and articles here–as saying there was no peer review and thus the content hadn’t been vetted. While he’s not strictly wrong, he’s also not right; the credentials of those items depend entirely on my credentials. However, he also rejected my credentials from peers. He waved away Quora, its community-driven content, and its inherently peer-reviewed nature, as being “another stupid blog,” showing that he didn’t even bother to look into the credentials that I was offering. The fact is that I’m recognized on Quora as an expert in the subjects of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. There is no education program in universties, no peer-reviewed journal of anarcho-capitalist ideas. Being published in the field and being approved by peers is seriously the best that a person can acquire in this subject. But the game was up the moment that he rejected the book.

It wouldn’t have mattered if Ludwig Von Mises rose from the dead and endorsed me. No credential that I cited would have mattered to him; he was not interested in a discussion. He was interested in using me to confirm his narrow-mindedness. He wanted me to keep throwing credentials at him that he could keep rejecting, so that he could then say, “See? No one knows what they’re talking about!” and use that to substantiate his own rejection of the ideas we were discussing.

We were locked in a Transactional Analysis game, where he threw out the hook that he wanted information and discussion from someone who was qualified to discuss it. He then went on to play “Why Don’t You, Yes But” in a way, but was more hostile in his mannerisms. Instead of asking for suggestions that he could shoot down one after the other, seeking validity of his position by having an anarcho-capitalist inadvertently acknowledge that no one could meet his “stringent” demands of credentials, he wanted credentials offered. And I, thinking he was sincere, offered him up credentials. If he’s looking for someone with a doctorate in anarchist theory, then he’s never going to be satisfied.

He didn’t want discussion. He’d already rejected anarcho-capitalism, and what he wanted was to back an anarcho-capitalist into a corner and force them to say that they couldn’t substantiate their argument in a way that would satisfy him, which would allow him to declare–both to the world and to himself–that his beliefs about anarcho-capitalism had been vindicated by an actual anarcho-capitalist. He did not want discussion. He wanted to justify his own closed-mindedness, and he wanted to manipulate me into doing that for him. It should have been obvious the moment that he retweeted me, but I’d been discussing things with people all day who were not simply playing games (though this isn’t to say that there was any chance I was going to sway them); it became inescapable when he rejected the book, even after I informed him that I get 0% from sales of V2: The Voluntary Voice.

Welcome, sir, to the Age of the Internet. I’ve talked before about how intellectuals go to the knowledge. In the past, this meant that intellectuals went to universities and colleges, because the universities and colleges were where the information was. This is no longer the case, though. The internet is where the information is these days. The true intellectuals of today are not wasting their time in colleges and universities; they are devouring as much of the Internet as they can, on an almost constant basis. Your mentality that intellectual rigor and knowledge can only come from someone who has been through a university program in a given field is laughably outdated. It is why we should not be worrying about higher education and how people are to pay for it.

Instead, we should be focused on finding ways to accredit people as experts outside of the intelligentsia apparatus, because the universities are no longer the exclusive holders of the information and knowledge. If you so desired, you could become an expert in Quantum Mechanics to rival Stephen Hawking without ever attending a college or university. I know this to be true, because I tested my self-education through the Internet against the education apparatus of college. I took Macroeconomics in college and never even purchased my textbook for the class. Instead, I relied solely on knowledge that I had gained via reading and the Internet, and I passed the class with an A. The education apparatus then went on to accredit me in the field of economics, and it was earned entirely through information I had gained outside of academia.

Places like Quora are at the forefront of the new world of endorsement and accreditation. Get with the times, man. The world has changed; the Internet has forever changed humanity. Adjust to its existence, and adjust to the fact that anyone out there can become an expert on any topic, and it won’t cost them a dime. Then learn about community-driven content, and realize how it works as a method of peer-review. Then factor in things like books being published, and you’ll have someone who has not only been peer-reviewed, but is actually at the forefront of the peer review.

Or keep waiting on someone to acquire a Ph.D. in anarcho-capitalism, continue demanding it and using its non-existence as justification for the closed-mindedness.

Either way.

I’m Annoying

Predictably, I’ve been told that I’m annoying. This is from people who evidently expect that to bother me.

While it does to a degree, it doesn’t bother me for the reasons they expect it to.

The biggest criticism is that my voice is annoying. Hey, I totally agree. I’m also doing everything that a person can do on that front, so taking the time out of your day to tell me that I still have a long way to go does nothing but show your own ignorance, bigotry, and hostility toward transgender people. I’ll never understand why people think it’s easy to acquire a female voice.

That said, my voice is a lot less annoying than it could be. I don’t talk in falsetto, after all. If you really want to be annoyed by someone, find a transgender person who talks in a falsetto. That will annoy you.

Or maybe cut transgender people some slack as they work on things like this?

Nah, just keep on being a narrow-minded dipshit.

It was funny, though, to have the person say that I was too annoying for them to watch for 15 minutes, but that they would totally hear the discussion if it was in written form. Well… ask and you shall receive! I promptly provided a link here, to www.anarchistshemale.com, and never heard anything else from them. Of course, they didn’t really find me annoying. They didn’t want to hear the argument, and that gave them a convenient excuse. They might have found me annoying, but it’s not because I’m inherently annoying–it’s because they didn’t want to hear what I had to say, so they were predisposed to dislike me, which would justify their refusal to watch the video. It’s revealing that they never replied to the written content.

Video: Transgender Life in Mississippi

Hey, if you like the video, be sure to actually go to it on Youtube and like, share, comment, and subscribe. There’s a lot of that, where my shares will get Likes and +1s, but that doesn’t really help the video any, since the post and not the video is what gets the attention from that.

Anyway, this is a general overview of life being transgender in Mississippi, how I came to accept it, how I dealt with it, how my fundamentalist drug addict parents fucked me up, and just conversation in general about what life is like in Mississippi–for transgender and non-transgender people.

I know that it’s pretty long, but that was kinda necessary, because there’s a lot of ground to cover.

I’m working on the audio quality issues, but there aren’t many ways that I can solve it in my current situation beyond using my microphone. I mean, I can’t just go out and buy a high quality audio recorder; I have to work with what I have. I mean, I can’t even just go out and buy the correct foundation, as I mentioned in the video (which is why my face is a different color than my body… I know.). I just have to work with what I have, in pretty much every part of my life.

Here is the GoFundMe page I mentioned…

Rantings & Ravings Ep 28 – The Internet is Making Us Stupid

I’m not sure if the Internet is really “making us stupid,” or if it’s just making our stupidity more available and more obvious, but it’s distressing that this crowning achievement of human kind, this stunning technology that has placed the wealth of human knowledge literally in the palms of our hands and at our fingertips, is being used by people who basically want you to watch them masturbate.

But enough about Stickam.

For those of you who are new, I do biweekly podcast shows called Rantings & Ravings located at http://ariadimezzo.podbean.com, though now that I’m independently hosted, I’m going to use this website as the nexus of the things that I create. The easiest way, then, to stay up-to-date on the things I create (YouTube videos, music, podcasts, articles, game reviews, and everything else) would be to subscribe here. Or support me on Patreon! That would be even better, because then you’d definitely have an easy place to follow me, if you don’t want to follow me on Twitter or Facebook or Google Plus.

I also have a GoFundMe campaign that is directed at helping me get the hell out of the state of Mississippi, and move somewhere that I can live in peace, comfort, and safety. If you could check out my campaign and share it, it would mean the world to me. I really do need to get out of here.

Transgenderism: Who Needs To Know?

It wasn’t terribly long ago that I unfriended this transgender girl on Facebook, and I did so for a number of reasons. First among those was that she was extremely derivative of myself, essentially following in my footsteps with her online presence, but was exploiting her sex appeal and the fact that she performed shows and gained a fanbase that way. I found that to be cheap and tawdry, but that wasn’t the reason that I removed her.

No, the reason that I removed her is because of this long “Oh, poor me” post about how hard it is being transgender, and how she had once been beaten and raped by this guy when he found out that she had a penis. Her excuse was that it never occurred to her to point out that she was transgender, non-op, and that she didn’t think it was her responsibility to go around telling people that she had a penis. And while I agree in many ways, there’s certainly a grey area there, and the point at which she should have told the guy that she had a penis was long before he was taking her pants off.

People like that who think it’s everyone else’s responsibility to cater to them piss me off, because it’s that ultra-liberal, anti-progressive bullshit, and it’s much simpler than that. So let me just say for the record: Yes, if you don’t have the sexual organs that the person who you’re sexually involved with expects you to have, then it is your responsibility to inform them. I know we’ve seen shemale porn where the guy pulls off the girl’s pants and is delighted to find a penis staring up at him, but this isn’t porn; this is the real world, and you’re an entitled moron to put yourself in that position.

I’m not justifying that the guy attacked her and raped her–two pieces of information that don’t quite fit if you remember that the reason he became angry was that he did not want to have sex with what he felt was a guy. And she can argue that with him all she wants, but it’s not going to change how he feels about it. That conversation should have happened long before that point when they were getting naked. People like what they like, don’t like what they don’t like, and aren’t interested in what they aren’t interested in. There is very little someone could do to persuade me to put my dick in a dude’s ass. And while I would absolutely have sex with a shemale, I don’t consider shemales to be men–hence myself. But there’s also a wide range of people there, and it would depend more on the individual than any simple, universally applicable statement.

However, if I was removing a girl’s clothes in between drunken kisses and suddenly felt a hard dick, it would absolutely give me pause, and it might even be an enormous turn-off. It certainly wouldn’t go down like in porn; I wouldn’t grin and moan and bend down to slob on it. I don’t know if this is what the girl I’m talking about expected, or if she just expected that the guy would ignore her penis, but one thing is certain:

He wasn’t expecting to find a penis there.

A lot of men out there simply aren’t willing to have sex with another guy. This does NOT make them homophobic. Being unwilling to have sex with a non-op transgender woman, or a pre-op transgender woman, also does not make a person homophobic. People like what they like, and they have their own inhibitions. I wouldn’t want to have sex with a guy–does that make me homophobic? If I removed a girl’s clothes only to find a penis, only to find out that she wasn’t even transgender but was just a cross-dresser, I would feel both betrayed and unaroused. I have very little control over that–I’m not attracted to the male form. I like curves. I’m not going to apologize for that. And removing a girl’s clothes to find out that the curves weren’t real would ruin her sex appeal for me. This does not make me homophobic; it is simply my preferences.

If you think it’s unreasonable for a guy who is removing a girl’s clothes to expect to find a vagina there, then you should probably re-evaluate what you think is reasonable and unreasonable. People have expectations, and one of those expectations is that women have vaginas. If you knowingly go against that expectation that is shared by pretty much everyone on the planet, then it is your responsibility to let someone know that before you become sexually involved.

Does it have to be the very first thing you say? Do you have to tell every random person you see that you have a penis? Absolutely not.

My dream is to be able to just live as myself, to have a job as myself, and to just be able to exist as myself. To everyone who saw me, I’d just be a woman, and they’d know nothing more than that. My co-workers, employees, colleagues, friends, whoever–would see only a woman, and that is all they would know. They would never need to know more than that. However, the girl that I was dating? Yes, she deserves to know, and it is my responsibility to tell her. Letting her pull off my clothes and find a penis there when she expects a vagina would be betraying her entirely reasonable expectation.

I unfriended her when I saw her attempt to gain sympathy about how hard it is to be transgender, because she can get attacked and beaten “just for being transgender.” This wasn’t even remotely what happened. She was attacked and beaten for betraying someone. Whether she intended to or not, she knew that the average guy–even 99.9999% of guys–expect that removing a girl’s clothes will reveal a vagina. She knew that she was going against that expectation, and she knew that the guy expected her to not have a dick.

Her defense that “Being transgender is just normal for me, I never think anything about it” is utter bullshit. If you “never think anything about it” to the extent that you’d let someone have sex with you without telling them that you don’t have the organs that they expect you to have, then you are being wholly irresponsible, reckless, and ridiculous.

Things are no different for me. Just because it would be a girl undressing me and finding a penis doesn’t mean I have no responsibility to inform them–there are plenty of lesbians out there who wouldn’t be interested. But it’s humorous for me to note that it has only become easier for me to find interested chicks, when I imagine that the opposite would be true for a non-op transgender man who was into men. God, this terminology is so sloppy. You have to stop and think too much about what “non-op transgender man” means–what sexual organ does that person have? A vagina. This terminology is far too clunky.

That’s why I love the term “shemale” and will continue using it no matter how many transgender women tell me that it is somehow an insult to them that I use this word to characterize myself. It’s even better when they try to tell me the connotations of “shemale” like I don’t already know that it’s tied to porn–in fact, it’s rather important to me that I break that connotation, and it was an important milestone for me to see that “anarchist shemale” has me as the #1 result on Google search, beating out a fair bit of porn to get there. Breaking how “shemale” is tied to porn is a major part of the reason I use it. But do people ever ask about that? Nope. They just assume that I don’t know that shemale is tied to porn, and that I’m not aware of how I’m offending them by calling myself a shemale.

Just think about the absurdity of that, and how it so obviously requires group-think. I can’t even call myself something without it somehow being applied to all non-op transgender women. What kind of madness is that? I didn’t say you are a shemale, lady. I said that I am a shemale. If your ego and narcissism are so out of control that I can’t call myself something without you somehow making it about you, then you need a serious reality check and a firm reminder that you and I are different people. I would suggest such people remember that, first and foremost, they are individuals; they are not the characteristics they happen to have.

What do they want me to do, call myself “The Anarchist Non-Op Transgender Woman”? God, that’s so catchy! Of course! Why didn’t I think about it before? It’s so obvious! I was originally going with “The Libertarian Shemale,” of course, but swapped it out for Anarchist. I did this for two reasons. First, because I am an anarchist, and not a libertarian. Second, “Anarchist Shemale” sounds a whole lot more memorable and awesome than “Libertarian Shemale.”

facebook

You don’t own me. I can call myself any goddamned thing I want, and it has nothing to do with anyone else. I hate to belabor the point, but it’s an important one, and it has happened multiple time. I’ve been chastised several times for calling myself a shemale, told how “offensive and insulting” it is to other people, and lectured on how the word is tied to porn. I’m well-aware of the last bit, and anyone who spends any time listening to the things I say will conclude that I’m obviously well aware of that. But the notion that it can do injury to other people (because to offend them is to commit some offense upon them, to make them a victim and injure them in some way) by calling myself something is patently absurd.

Well, I got completely off track. I apologize for that.

Hey, but if you like what I have to say, you might enjoy my latest video:

Or if you’re more interested in things that pertain to transgenderism:

You could also check out my podcasts at www.ariadimezzo.podbean.com–there are 37 or 38 episodes there, most of them are Rantings & Ravings, about 1/4 of them are Food For Thought, and another 1/8 of them are Transgender Frustrations, which are mostly just me bitching about things here in the real world, not creating my own problems and then bitching because I landed myself in a horrible situation and faced disproportionate consequences.

Transgender people face real problems in the United States, and especially here in the south. I went into Wal-Mart today to buy a new microphone (I have no shame shopping at Wal-Mart), and while there I walked by the flip-flop aisle and saw a few pairs that would actually fit me. Since I wear a size 12.5W/11M, it can be hard to find flip-flops that fit. And these were adorable! But it was mid-afternoon in Wal-Mart. I couldn’t just buy a pair of women’s flip-flops. So I whipped out my phone, took a few pictures of the aisle, and sent them to a friend on Facebook, pretending that I was picking them up for someone else.

That’s the kind of real issue that a transgender person faces in Wal-Mart. I’m thrilled that this transgender chick in freaking Michigan has no problem going to Wal-Mart, and that no one will follower her home and burn her house to the ground. That’s fantastic. But what does she do with that wonderful ability? She creates her own fucking problems, and then screams and cries about them like her self-created problems are even remotely on par with actual transgender problems that people have to face all over America. I would sell my soul to be able to just walk into Wal-Mart and shop for clothes, but I can’t. I wouldn’t make it home, and I probably wouldn’t make it out of the parking lot. In fact, I would probably have the police called on me.

Oh, yeah. For sure. Some old Christian woman with her young daughter would be “creeped out” and would notify the manager. Without doubt–I mean, really. That would happen. If there was anyone else shopping in that area, that would happen. And the manager would immediately think “Pedophile” not “Transgender” and would call the police. Then, after extensive searches of me and my phone to verify that I wasn’t taking pictures of little girls in the changing room and repeatedly demanding to know why I was in the girls’ clothing area in the first place, I’d probably just be banned from the store.

That’s my reality.

So I’m not going to cut some stupid bitch slack when she creates her own problems.