Tag Archive | christians

Can Everyone Just Calm Down?

I’ve talkedquite a lotabout how Americans are increasingly drawn to the extreme ends of the spectrum, to the extent that I am convinced we Americans have begun to genuinely think in hyperbole.

When someone says, “I don’t think welfare benefits the poor,” we have come to expect a response something along the lines of:

Oh? So you just want to let the poor starve?

That libertarians are so often accused of “wanting poor people to starve” is, if nothing else, a shocking example of how pervasive this extremism has really become. It happens to anarchists, as well. “I don’t think the state does anything to benefit society.” Of course, then the response comes:

Oh? So you’re okay with being ruled by rape gangs?

It’s a mark of how sensationalized, hysterical, and extreme we have become that these two innocuous statements are met with such hostility; those making these replies appear to be legitimately unable to fathom that “the state” and “rule by rape gangs” (one might say that this is not just a false dichotomy but also a false choice, as “the state” and “rule by rape gangs” are exactly the same thing, but now is not the time for that…) are not the only possibilities.

A few weeks ago, frustrated with how Jill Stein was attacking Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, I commented one of her posts asking why she was becoming a shill, why she was wasting her energy targeting another third party candidate, when it served no one except the two dominating parties for the third parties to begin chiseling away at each other. I observed that she was acting like the youngest child petulantly attacking the middle child because the oldest child wouldn’t let her play with the toys. Thankfully, Jill Stein ceased her attacks on Gary Johnson.

Anyway, Rusty–we’ll call him “Rusty” because he’s a Steiner, and no one reading this will get that reference, and wouldn’t get it even if it wasn’t so tenuous–commented my comment to basically shriek, in all caps half the time, that it was stupid to expect Jill Stein of the Green Party to support Gary Johnson, when their policies, as I’d pointed out, were diametrically opposed.

On the surface, he had a good point. Why did I expect Stein to support Johnson?

Because I didn’t.

I asked Stein to stop attacking Gary Johnson. “Not attacking Johnson” and “supporting Johnson” aren’t even remotely the same thing. If I could not respect a candidate without supporting them, then my presence on Jill Stein’s page–which came about specifically because I respect her; I just disagree with her… on everything…–would have been impossible. Until Stein attacked Gary Johnson, I never attacked Stein, and I immediately stopped as soon as she stopped. I’m not attacking Stein now. I still don’t support her, because her platform is the anti-thesis of everything I stand for.

The idea that Jill Stein could just not say anything about Gary Johnson was something that Rusty couldn’t comprehend. In his extremist, ends-of-the-spectrum World of Either/Or, Jill Stein must attack Gary Johnson, because otherwise she supports Gary Johnson.

It’s easy to see how this came about, since we live in a society where the false dichotomy has thoroughly conquered the political landscape, and everything starts there and stems from it. If I post something negative about Trump, people take me as a Hillary supporter. If I post something negative about Hillary, people take me as a Trump supporter. My Quora page demonstrates this clearly.

I support neither one of those toxic devils, and it is my fondest wish that they both withdraw from the race. Trump is no better than Hillary, and Hillary is no better than Trump. They are both just absolutely awful, but for completely different reasons. It’s as close to a real-life example of “Pick your poison” as I’ve ever seen, and I am not going to do it. I will not eat a bowl of shit simply because the other bowl is diarrhea. I will leave the table.

But I doubt that the two party system is really the source of the problem; I suspect it’s a reflection of something that lies underneath, within the average human’s mind, and stems more from psychology than manipulation. This election just makes it more apparent. I know very few Trump supporters. Indeed, most of the Republican Party seems to be saying something along the lines of, “We don’t like Trump, but we really hate Hillary.”

Democrats point that out, too. I’ve seen Democrats suggest that the RNC was little more than a “We Hate Hillary” party. Fine. I’ll gladly grant that. However, they’re delusional if they think that the DNC was anything but a “We Hate Trump” party. The average liberal spends far more time trashing Trump than they do supporting Hillary.

It’s distressing how many people consider Hillary to be the apex of progressivism, though. That’s a scary amount of cognitive dissonance.

More than ever, we’re not voting to put someone in. We’re voting to keep someone else out. And all the while we bemoan the state of the nation and ask how it came to this. I don’t know why anyone should be surprised it came to this, or confused on how this came to be. It’s quite obvious. A country full of sensationalized masses who only think in the ends of the spectrum will obviously view their political enemy as “LITERALLY” Hitler and “literally” the devil. So it doesn’t matter how bad their candidate is–their candidate is opposed to “literally” Hitler and “literally” the devil, so their candidate is automatically preferable.

They’re too terrified of “literally” Hitler and “literally” the devil to even dream of voting third party, and they will absolutely hate you for doing it. Why?

I’m not sure why. It’s an ongoing examination.

I’ve noticed it elsewhere, too. You wouldn’t believe how hostile people have been because I tried reasoning with them over this clown shit and tried to point out to them that they’re being hysterical–textbook definitions of “hysterical” at that. Ad hominen is their bread and butter; they immediately launch into it, seizing anything and everything they can. One woman did this by attacking my grammar, though, if she’d actually bothered to read anything that I wrote, she’d have noticed that my grammar is borderline impeccable, and things like “but” being used to start sentences are intentional departures from formality. Another decided to inform me that she could see the feather’s end in my hair, and that it was tacky.

Basically, I was met by weak and petulant personal attacks, exactly as I was when I first joined Youtube with my video targeting the Liberal Redneck and criticizing him for assuming that this white family was racist simply because they were white. The response was so vicious that I ultimately pulled the video down, and it is what first clued me into the false dichotomy that the average American appears to be trapped in. The podcast I linked above is from that period, and the preceding and succeeding podcasts dive into the same issue.

It was clear. They hated Christians, so any attack on Christians was fair game, no matter what the attack was, regardless of how unfounded it was, and without respect to its applicability. That I, a transgender atheist, dared defend the Christian from an utterly baseless attack presented them with a cognitive dissonance too great for them to face. They saw me, and so they saw someone who refused to jump on their hateful bandwagon pulled by a horse named fear.

And they hated me for that.

I received more hate from those liberals calling themselves progressive and “Allies” than I’ve ever received from Christians for being transgender–if you don’t include my family. Meanwhile, as they spouted their vitriolic, hate-filled rants, they insisted that they were spreading love and tolerance. Is it a case of people believing that the ends justify the means? We should not be surprised that people think that they can use violence and hate to put an end to violence and hate–it’s the idea that allows the state’s existence to persist, after all. “We hate hate!” they proudly proclaimed. “So fuck those Christians, and fuck you for defending them, you boring, terrible, idiotic, treacherous piece of shit! Whose side are you on, anyway?”

“Whose side are you on, anyway?”

That was an actual comment, and it was such a transparent example of the Us and Them, False Dichotomy, World of Either/Or bullshit that I thought, “Surely no one can refute me now.” I had the evidence right there–I had proof right there, that I had called it from the start. People were overly sensationalized, trapped into thinking only in hyperbole and extremes, because they had locked their minds in a vicious Us Versus Them state where anything that didn’t fit with “Us” was, by definition, “Them,” and thus to be ridiculed and hated. And then there was this person who just straight-up asked me whose side I was on, implying that I could be on the Christians’ side or I could be on the liberals’ side, but that there were no other options.

We have to calm down, and we have to re-open our minds.

We have to stop thinking in terms of Us and Them.

The LGBT-Muslim Marriage in America

One of the most bizarre aspects of American liberalism is the alliance that exists between the LGBT community and Muslim communities, despite tremendous amounts of hostility that project from the Muslim community directly at LGBT people. This isn’t to say that Islam is the problem or that Muslims are the problem–we shouldn’t even be thinking in such limited terms–but one is a fool to reject the visible correlation between homophobia throughout the world and Islam, or between terrorism and Islam. Whether we want to admit it or not, these correlations exist, and they’re not going to change simply because we refuse to acknowledge them.

I realize that liberals have already called me “Islamophobic” and stopped reading, and may even have left a nasty comment about what a bigot I am. We have to let such people go. They are lost to us, and their minds are trapped in a duality from which they cannot escape. In the world, you must either love Islam or hate Islam, so there is no room for them to even understand someone who has no feelings toward Islam one way or another.

Earlier this year I watched in absolute dismay as a Muslim terrorist swore allegiance to a Muslim terrorist group while shouting the praises of his religion as he killed 49 people in a club in Orlando. It is what prompted me to do my first “on camera” video on Youtube, a personal plea to the LGBT community to stop denying the simple fact that Mateen’s act was an act of Islamic terrorism. Instead of accepting that it was both homophobia and terrorism, they denied that it could possibly have been terrorism, instead shifting the blame onto Christians of all people. I could not begin to guess how many “Christians are the ones who started homophobia!!!1!!11one!!” posts on Twitter and Facebook I saw.

That’s right. Following an attack where a Muslim terrorist shot and killed 49 people in an LGBT club, people were jumping up and down to blame Christians for it.

It was absolutely disgraceful, and my plea was simple: for the first time in my life, there was the opportunity for the gap between conservatives and LGBT people to be closed. “You may be gay, but you’re an American first, damnit!” conservatives and Christians were saying. “They didn’t attack you–they attacked Americans, and we’re going to stand together through this! It doesn’t matter that you’re LGBT, because you’re Americans first and foremost–you are one of us.”

And petulantly–yes, petulantly–the LGBT community shouted back, “No, it matters that we’re LGBT! You weren’t attacked! Americans weren’t attacked! We were attacked, not you! Because we’re LGBT, not because we’re Americans! So fuck you!”

And then… poof. The opportunity was gone. The greatest opportunity for reconciliation that I have ever seen, vanished in the blink of an eye as liberals and LGBT people bent over backwards to avoid saying what needed to be said:

Muslims have no love for LGBT people.

In fact, the numbers are rather clear that most Muslims support the idea of sharia law. This is less true of those that I’m going to call Westernized Muslims, and this is the heart of the matter and the thing that needs to be discussed openly and honestly. Most of the world’s Muslims support sharia law because most of the world’s Muslims don’t recognize the value of the separation of church and state. They aren’t Western.

They didn’t grow up in the west, where the separation of church and state is taken as a given. In their zeal to make excuses for the state of Islam throughout the world, liberals remind us that Christianity was once every bit as bad. Yes, once it was. This led to the foundation of the United States of America and the systemic peeling back of the church in European countries who, yes, learned from the American model.

We take the separation of church and state as a given and give no thought to it. In the Middle East, they take the marriage of church and state as a given and give no thought to it. There’s no separation of church and state in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, and the people of these countries reject the idea that there should be. To them, their religion is law and the law is their religion. Separation of church and state is more than just “the church can’t tell the government what laws to enact.” It is the foundational idea that the church and state are separate entities.

More than 62% of the world’s Muslim population resides in this region we call the Middle East.

These are the facts, sir and ma’am. You cannot simply call me Islamophobic or say that I’m fear-mongering, because these are the facts. They will not change because you refuse to look at them.

Separation of church and state simply does not exist in the Middle East.

Yet there are countless Muslims who do value the separation of church and state. The people that I buy gas from several times a week undoubtedly recognize the value of this separation, and would never support bringing Sharia Law to the United States. Why would they? Our entire system is built from that separation, and reuniting the two disparate entities would harm their own interests by placing them in a country that was then on the path to becoming a Christian theocracy, even if the minority of Muslims did somehow miraculously manage to impose Sharia Law for a while.

This is the crux of the matter, the one great truth that liberals dare not speak or even admit to themselves: there is a world of difference between a Westernized Muslim and a Middle Eastern one. This isn’t universal by any means. Surely, there are Middle Eastern Muslims who value the separation of church and state, who campaign for women’s rights and LGBT rights. So, too, are there surely Westernized Muslims who do want Islamic law to become state law. We are adults, though, and we don’t have to operate on the extreme ends of the spectrum, where everything is Either/Or, and where false dichotomies rule the mind.

Still, though, there is a consequential difference between the Westernized Muslim and the Middle Eastern Muslim, and it is largely a difference we would expect to find: for the most part, these westernized Muslims have assimilated our values, and chief among those values is a love for the separation of church and state. The average American couldn’t tell you why they love this separation, but they’ll tell you if you ask that they do love it. Even when their religion is the one with the majority, they value the separation, and still can’t tell you why.

To what we’re calling the Middle Eastern Muslim, all of this is heresy and anti-Islam. Surely we can understand this? There are many Christians here in the south who think that the separation of church and state, as expressed through having administrator-led prayers in schools banned, represents a direct assault on their Christian values. While few actually campaign to put such prayers back in school, they do harbor resent and do come from a place that views it as anti-Christian.

One of the great No-No’s of the Muslim faith is homosexuality. This shouldn’t surprise us, because it’s one of the great No-No’s of the Christian faith, too. And it is here that another example of liberal hypocrisy is shown for the world to see:

Liberals cheer that Canada has refused to allow members of the Westboro Baptist Church into their country because, based on the numbers, they are more than likely to be homophobic. Yet liberals react with anger vitriol when Trump proposes refusing to allow Muslims into our country because, based on the numbers, they are more than likely to support Sharia Law. As I’ve said before, I will support Canada’s decision when they show me even one example of a member of the Westboro Baptist Church killing 49 LGBT people.

So they’re okay with rejecting Christians because of their faith.

But here we have a group of people who come from a region where they are extremely unlikely to value the separation of church and state, are extremely likely to support Sharia Law, and are extremely likely to hate LGBT people, and liberals are totally fine with it. It’s madness.

Here is a man in Lebanon being sentenced to death because he wore drag.

There are, in fact, ten countries where being gay is punishable with death:

  • Yemen
  • Iran
  • Nigeria
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Afghanistan
  • Sudan
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Somalia
  • Mauritania
  • …and, apparently, Lebanon can be added to that list.

I’ll give you one guess what the majority religion is in every single one of these countries–even Nigeria, though Nigeria does have a higher Christian population and may be more even with the Muslim population these days.

But that’s a moot point, isn’t it?

The people in Nigeria will continue prescribing the death penalty for homosexuality even if the population is 99% Christian. They are, of course, still burning people for witchcraft in Nigeria, and that is almost certainly the fault of Christian missionaries. And this is precisely my point:

Islam isn’t the problem. It’s not Islamophobia that compels this.

The problem is that countries in the Middle East and some parts of Africa have allowed religion to run unbridled, and they never separated it from the state. This is most easily visible when we look at the percentage of Muslims throughout the world who support Sharia Law–religious law, as it were. Whatever we want to say about the matter, the truth is relatively simple:

The Middle East hasn’t gone through what the western world did. This isn’t to say we’re more evolved or more advanced; it’s simply a statement of fact. We went through a bunch of shit, our Crusades, our Inquisitions, our witch hunts, and we eventually put that shit aside (unless you’re a clown these days). We went through torture, murder, war, and widespread immorality before we separated church and state, and we’re still working on doing it.

Oh, we’re far from perfect. Our anti-sodomy laws, which were 100% based on religion, are only a decade out from being repealed by supreme courts. We still love the notion of using the state to force our morality onto other people. We simply don’t use religion as the basis for doing that any more, and we have put some restrictions on what morality we can force onto other people.

Still, these are just the reasons for the current state of affairs. The current state of affairs is that there is a bizarre marriage between Muslims and the LGBT community, and it’s a relationship that the LGBT community needs to end. Christians are far more likely to become your ally than Muslims are, and Christians even attempted to do exactly that after the shooting in Orlando. You rejected them and blamed them for something that a Muslim did.

Most of the world’s Christians reside in the west, too, and most people in the west don’t give a shit about your sexual orientation. So if we’re going to go on averages and likelihoods, then it’s indisputable that Christians should be the ones you’re allying with, not Muslims. When was the last time a Christian stoned someone to death for homosexuality? Oh, sure, it’s in the Bible.

I’ve talked about this before–the LGBT community doesn’t seem to have any appreciation for how incredibly far Christians have come. Their holy book explicitly tells them to kill us, to punish us, and to stone us to death. They’re not doing that. Even the most extreme ones aren’t doing that! They’re protesting funerals and weddings, and we can discuss whether they are right to do that–though they obviously have the right to, this doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do. They’re not taking over the government and assigning the death penalty to anyone who is caught being gay! In fact, I doubt you’d find very many Christians who would support such a horrific idea.

It’s not Christians who I fear, as a transgender resident of Mississippi surrounded by fundamentalist southern baptists. Most of them will leave me the hell alone. It’s rednecks that I fear, most of whom do happen to be Christian. I fear them because I know how easy it is for people to get swept up into a frenzy that they don’t want to take part in–I’ve been watching people do it for years, against Christians, against Muslims, against clowns. And invariably they find that the ball is impossible to stop rolling once it has sufficient momentum. But that they’re Christians is largely coincidental.

Just as it’s largely coincidental that the Middle Eastern Muslims are Muslims.

One thing is certain, though. If you’re calling them your allies when 62% of their population would cheer and throw stones at you until you were murdered, then you are an absolute fool.

 

Well.

IMG_1469I did make the music video again–I’ve actually done several today, and I got one that was finally acceptable enough that I was willing to upload it. Then, as soon as I uploaded it and went to transcribe it for the lyrics, I deleted it. I’ve asked a friend to do something similar, but I simply can’t–my singing voice just sucks too bad. And I knew that when I uploaded the video, but I thought maybe it was alright. But no.

That’s frustrating, because I think something like that would be an effective way to get the word out.

Apparently, if I block someone for hate speech, it doesn’t delete their comments on my video. It just hides them from me. Well done, Youtube. That’s completely fucking broken. I only became aware of it because my first video about the GoFundMe campaign has like 15 comments. So I switched to a different profile, and there they were–the initial asshole’s comments, as well as someone who kindly took on the dipshit for me by pointing out that the rules of most places don’t really apply to Mississippi.

I’m really frustrated with my friends, but there’s no point in continuing to harp on that. But it’s really anger-inducing, because I can look over there, to the list of friends on the right and say:

  • I just sold you a $55 part for $15, taking a $40 loss to my company. I also gave you 45 minutes of labor and a $55 part for free, on top of the one I sold you.
  • I gave you a half-ounce of weed (years ago).
  • I borrowed a suboxone from my sister and gave it to you because you were withdrawing from heroin.
  • I gave you a ton of rides all over the place, and ecstasy (years ago, granted).
  • I’ve removed viruses for you and helped set up your controller for your PC.
  • I gave you money for you to start a company.
  • I shared your music for years, even though I don’t even like hip-hop.
  • You came in me.
  • I’ve been supporting your bid for state representative of Pennsylvania.
  • I share your podcast.

And yet none of them have liked, commented, or shared any of my statues. I posted this one early today, a warning to them all masked behind subtlety:

getting snippyIt’s certainly fair to say that I’m getting a bit snippy, but obviously it’s subtle enough that no one would feel like I’m taking shots at them. Unless they actually scrolled down my wall, in which case they’d see:

The answer to my question is "No."

The answer to my question is “No.”

Here I am, literally doing everything I can to try to improve my life forever, to get out of this hellhole, and put all this bullshit behind me, and I’ve resorted to running ads on Facebook and Twitter because I’m more likely to get likes, comments, shares, and donations from random strangers on the Internet than I am people that I’ve known for two decades. There are a few reasons for this:

1 – They’re Broke

I don’t expect any of them to donate money to me. Most of them are at least as broke as I am, and some of them are doing even worse. A few of them aren’t doing very badly, and I certainly am surprised that one in particular has not donated a fucking thing, but I’m not going to begrudge anyone for not donating money to me. Even though they’re the people who know best that I’ve spent my entire life trying and overcoming obstacles. What sort of message does that send people on the Internet, if my friends and family are unwilling to even pitch in a dollar? If the people who know me best and who, allegedly, care the most about me aren’t willing to throw in at least a few bucks, what does that tell people on the Internet? That’s why it pisses me off so much.

None of these people even bought my story on Amazon, despite the fact that nearly every friend I’ve ever had has told me, “Let me know when you have something published! I’ll definitely buy it!” Then none of them did. Well, one friend did, and then promised to leave a review. He never did, because he never actually read it. I don’t know how to feel about that. Thanks, I guess, for paying that whopping 99 cents to buy my story. Would’ve been nice if you’d taken the time to read all eleven pages of it and leave the review that you promised to leave, but I guess one can’t have everything. Other friends frequently post shit about how important it is to help friends get started. Seriously.

2 – They’re Self-Absorbed

bullshit

Yes, I had to call him on that, and there remain only two copies sold of my story. Out of all 7 billion people on the planet, two of them bought my story. Worse still, a few friends even have told me that they did purchase it. They assumed, presumably, that I had sold at least a few dozen copies, and that they could therefore hide in the numbers and say that they’d bought it when they didn’t. But only two people have bought it, and I can identify both of those people. But yes, I had to call this guy on his thing about how important it is to support local businesses and family and stuff, when he had never even shared any of the dozens of posts on my wall about my story. It’s ridiculous Feel Good bullshit. “I want to act like I believe this, but I don’t really want to do it. Help a friend? Fuck that.”

Take this, for example:

disgusting

This was so horrific I had to call the guy on it. “Are you attempting to sell something that you’re otherwise going to burn?” I added the “lol” because he was a friend, and for no other reason. To my horror, his response was “Yes. It’s garbage to me, but if anyone wants it, they have to pay for it.”

He literally tried to sell his garbage to people.

Literally. He literally tried selling his garbage to people.

Then the very same friend will post this, making fun of other people doing exactly the same thing:

garbage

Like “Dude. You literally tried selling your garbage to people. Something that was of no use to you whatsoever and that you were going to destroy, you attempted to sell to someone. And if someone had come to you to get it, and asked for it for free, you would have said, ‘No.’ You might have gone down to $3 or something, but that doesn’t change the fact that you literally tried to sell your garbage to people–and you knew it, and you admitted it. You value things not by how much value they have to you, but buy whether or not other people want them.”

The ultimate irony is that, yes, the same friend posted both things. The same friend that literally and knowingly tried selling his garbage to people made fun of people in Buy, Sell, Trade groups who do the same thing. I’ve rarely seen such a lack of self-awareness.

He has picked up on my agitation, though, because earlier today he shared one of my posts about my GoFundMe campaign, and he did it in exactly the way that I said he would: without text, without saying anything. Just an empty click of the share button, a gesture, a token–an obligation. I don’t want my friends to feel obligated to share my stuff, and I don’t want them to feel obligated to help. I want friends who want to help, and mine simply don’t.

obligationNothing like

This person has been my friend for 15 years and has overcome a lot of bullshit, and now needs a little help to get out of Mississippi and go somewhere that she’ll be safe and secure.

No

I’ve known this person for 15 years, and if there’s anyone who has tried hard to move forward, it’s her. Now she needs a little help.

Just an empty share.

I said two days ago that this is exactly what I didn’t want:

called it

I want friends who act like fucking friends. Is that so much to ask?

I’ve always been there any time these people needed. With this particular friend, let me tell you a little story.

His wife had a skirt that she couldn’t wear because she’d bought a Youth 24 instead of some other 24, so the skirt was more like my size than hers. He asked if I wanted it. After looking it over, I told him that: While I did like the skirt, it was simply too short, and I wouldn’t be able to wear it in public. Therefore, I couldn’t purchase it. I have enough clothes that are too short/tight for me to wear anywhere but home, and I’m not going to pay to add to that. He told me to hang on to it anyway, because he had no use for it.

A few weeks later, I decided that I liked it after all, and he asked if I was going to pay for it.

Process that for a minute.

If I didn’t want the skirt, then I could have it for free. But if I did want the skirt, then I had to pay for it.

I don’t typically keep cash on me, and he dropped by my house like three times unexpectedly and out of the blue, asking for money for that goddamned skirt. It got to the point where I was considering just telling him to take the damned thing back, because it was horrifically offensive (Yes, offensive) that he had given me this skirt until I decided that I liked it, at which point he wanted $15 for it. Rather than telling me at any of these points that he stopped by unexpectedly and I had no cash on me, despite my telling him that he had to give me advance notice before he came by because I don’t keep cash, “You know what? Don’t worry about it. I told you to just keep it, so just keep it. I gave it to you as a gift because I had no need or use for it, so it wouldn’t be right for me to take your money for it now…” he just kept asking for money for it. I was in a video session with John McAfee the last time that he stopped by, and I was just so goddamned tired of dealing with it and happened to have cash on me that I put a $20 bill under my windshield wiper and ignored him the rest of the night. How dare he take that money?

Only when I was writing this post did I realize that he sold me his garbage.

I would unfriend all of these people right now if I knew how long it would take to garner the money I need to go to Vegas and escape this living nightmare, but it’s not like he’s a bad guy. He’s not. He’s just… very greedy when it comes to money, clearly–and I don’t like saying that about my friends, especially since there is the possibility that he might read this, but the dude sold me his garbage. I don’t know how else to characterize that. He’s a great guy in other respects. Hey, I’ve got lots of flaws, too. I’m extremely argumentative, and I’m sure that’s pissed my friends off on several occasions. I’m very thankful that they’ve dealt with that and generally just ignore it.

But one thing that I can’t simply forget is that I’ve always been willing to help my friends, and I don’t think I’ve ever refused to help a friend. When this same friend called me while I was at work, and his wife’s car was messed up in a nearby city with a dead battery, I was willing to contact someone I knew in the area and ask them to go jump off her battery. Because I’m willing to help friends. Maybe my mistake is expecting that people value me as much as I value them.

3 – Fear

Almost none of the selfies I post ever get Likes, and the few likes that I do get always come from female friends. None of my male friends will go anywhere near that Like button on one of my selfies, and we all know why. In the back of their mind, they don’t know what it will mean if they Like the picture. “Does that mean I think she is hot? Will everyone else think that I think she’s hot? Will she think that I think she’s hot? Does that just mean that I like the picture? What if I just like the picture because it’s a good pic, but everyone else thinks I liked it because I think she’s pretty in that picture? She’s got a penis, so I can’t think she’s pretty without being gay, and I’m not gay…”

Some of my pics are pretty damned good, if I do say so myself:

I gotta tell ya... I'd lick the hell out of that belly.

I gotta tell ya… I’d lick the hell out of that belly.

IMG_1466As I’ve said before, I’m not in the least attracted to guys, and I never have been. To be totally honest, I find the idea of two guys kissing to be repulsive, but it’s not because I think it’s wrong for two guys to kiss–it’s because I don’t think guys are attractive, so how could two guys making out be anything less than unattractive? I find the idea of kissing a guy to be gross. I like girls–it’s a major part of me being transgender, after all.

The point of all that is to say that the pic on the left is one of the few pics I’ve taken where I can honestly say that I’d totally make out with that person. And I’d really enjoy it. I happen to think I look pretty hot in that pic. Not incredible, gorgeous, or anything like that, but… fairly hot. And when I went outside to tan yesterday afternoon and removed my shorts, I realized… “Holy shit. I look like a bronze goddess.”

I’m not saying that I expect you or anyone else to agree with those statements; in fact, it’s irrelevant to me whether or not you do. I want to look at myself and think that I’m hot. It means absolutely nothing to me whether anyone else thinks I’m hot. Obviously, for the sake of having a relationship, it would be good for another girl to find me attractive, and I think I’ll be able to find such girls without much issue in Vegas, which I’m really looking forward to. I can’t wait to go out on the city, and be safe, hit some LGBT clubs, and meet some fellow lesbians.

For similar reasons they won’t like my pictures, my friends won’t share my statues about the GoFundMe campaign. Though they may not have a problem with transgender people, what about their family? How would this friend’s mom react if she found out that he was supporting a transgender friend? How would that friend’s church group react if they saw the post? How would that friend’s coworkers react? The answer to these questions, since we are talking about people in Mississippi, is “Badly, Badly, and Badly.”

“Oh, I didn’t know you were into that sort of thing!” would be the mildest of the messages such a friend would get from other friends and family–joking jabs meant half in jest and half in sincerity, to get the person to explain. For the most part, though, they’d get comments and messages saying things like “Instead of donating, we need to be praying for this poor soul, for the devil to release his hold on him.” For the most part, it would be largely ineffective for them to share my campaign.

But it wouldn’t be totally ineffective.

Most of my friends have other friends who live in Washington, Canada, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and other places where people are far more tolerant and open.

I need $3,865 more. If I could reach 3,865 and all of them give just $1, then I could forever be free of this nightmare, could move to an economically stable city, and live in peace and security. If I could just reach 1933 people, and all of them give just $2, then I could put the despair of Mississippi and the American south in the past and relocate to a city where I will not have to sleep with a loaded gun on my headboard out of fear for my life, where I can’t even go to the nearest LGBT bar because people are routinely attacked as they leave them–the news stories for which have been buried by the Orlando attack. When I first looked into going, however, that’s what caused me not to: the LGBT bars in Memphis are often in the news because patrons are attacked, beaten, and hospitalized after leaving the club.

But as I said: I shall endeavor on. And I will continue donating everything I can to the campaign in the hopes that it sends the right message to people, in the hopes that the word spreads, and in the hopes that people outside of Mississippi are as good, kind, and compassionate as I know them to be.

To me, friendship is reciprocity of care. I don’t think I’m yet jaded enough to say that people only have friends based on what those “friends” can do for them, but there’s certainly a case to be made for that. Even myself, I would argue–I have friends because I don’t like loneliness. But this cold statement hides the real emotions that underscore a friendship: the care and the concern. If these things are not reciprocated (which is clearly shown in a person’s actions), then there is hardly a friendship there. There is only a parasite and a host.

A Study on Mob Behavior

The week has been interesting.

For those unaware, I posted a video heavily criticizing the Liberal Redneck Trae Crowder for being a disrespectful bigot and racist. Before you click Play, I’m gonna go ahead and warn you: if you’re okay with insulting Christians, or you’re okay with being racist against white people, then you’re not going to like what I have to say, and trust me when I tell you that you’ll be happier if you just don’t watch the video.

However, if your mind is truly open and not chained to one ideology or another, then you’ll probably like the video, because… well, everything I said is irrefutable. The only point of contention is that I was disrespectful of Trae, and that’s a valid point except for one consideration: Trae and like-minded people (liberals and “progressives”) have power and authority. I don’t, and neither do American conservatives. A member of a majority openly disrespecting and being bigoted of a minority is a very different thing from a member of a powerless minority being disrespectful and bigoted, and a very different thing from someone who is a minority of one being disrespectful. The balance of power is a supremely important consideration, and there is no doubt that the coalition of blacks, hispanics, LGBT, millennials, etc. that is the Democratic Party/Liberal union is tremendously more powerful than conservative Christians. Trae himself acknowledges it: “This is our world now, and you’re not getting it back.”

He’s not wrong. It is “our” world now, and conservatives are not going to get it back. And that’s my problem with his disrespect and bigotry against them. This is our world; i.e., we are the ones in power. It is absolutely, unequivocally, and indisputably our responsibility to protect the rights of the minority, no matter how much we disagree with them. No matter how disrespectful they are, we are the people in power, and thus the onus is upon us to respect them, because they lack the means to fight for respect.

It is well recognized throughout human history and Western Society that is the responsibility of a majority to care for and protect the rights of a minority. This is the year 2016–I should not have to explain this. I don’t care how disrespectful the minority is. They are a minority. They are outnumbered. They lack power. If we fail to respect them, then they are oppressed–by definition, because that’s what oppression is. What we are seeing is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and it is being done solely on the basis that these people have different beliefs.

I can’t believe I’m having to point out that this is wrong. It was wrong when they were the majority, and it’s wrong now that you are the majority. Oppression is always wrong. And if the majority group, if the group in power, is not respecting the rights of the minority, is not acknowledging the relevance of the minority’s dissenting opinions and beliefs, then the minority is, by the very definition, being oppressed, marginalized, and discriminated against. That this has to be said… is horrifying. Everyone should know this. It should be a given.

Have people simply not realized that conservative Christians are the new minority? The other night someone commented about how marginalized LGBT people are in the United States. What? Are you kidding me? Marginalized? Our issues take center stage. We get whatever we want, and conservatives get nothing. No one is allowed to stand against us. No one is allowed to stand against us. We, this group that represents only FOUR PERCENT OF THE POPULATION according to the latest data, have almost unfettered power to push our agenda. We have far, far more power than conservatives. We are Mike Tyson, and they are infants.

We have this power because we allied with women. This immediately severed their majority, which was once based on race. There’s no doubt about it–it once was based on race; it was a white majority. That died with the Feminist Movement, and women fled the Republican Party en masse to the Democrat Party. Black people vote with the Democrat Party somewhere between 80 and 95% of the time. That’s an extraordinary majority. Consider that at best 50% of white men are conservative, and it shouldn’t be hard for you to do the math.

There’s a reason no one is talking about it. And it’s because it shatters the idea that you’re oppressed, and the liberal agenda needs that. They did this shit consciously, and Republicans pointed it out decades ago. They pandered. They didn’t offer equality. They offered benefits. To all of us. And benefits are tempting, and we were tempted. We were systematically recruited and used by the liberal authoritarian agenda that is best represented by Bernie Sanders–let there be no doubt. His sudden appearance as a Democrat is not coincidence.

If even 50% of white men are conservatives, they are still vastly outnumbered by the women to whom Democrats promised benefits, disguising them as “equality.” The reason this distinction matters is because benefits don’t promote equality–they continue divisiveness, but shift the balance of power. One example: LGBT people wanted equality. Now you can receive a government grant to go to college just for being LGBT. This, by definition, means that being straight disqualifies you for that scholarship. It is inherently divisive. It continues the group-based division of benefits, and brings us no nearer to equality. It only shifts the balance of power. It only changes who benefits from the imbalance. The imbalance remains. The bigotry remains. The only thing that changes… is who is the victim.

Open your eyes.

The problem is that we divide the world into terms of Us and Them. As I wrote in the last article, “Them” isn’t really the problem. Identifying too strongly with Us is the problem, because it starts to demand our loyalty, our obedience, and our conformity. We can no longer think of individuals and break away from the group; we have to think like the group, go along with the group, and do as the group does. If we don’t…

Well, just see the comments I received on that video.

Belonging to that group shackles your mind. It forces you to conform at all cost, no matter how fucked up the group’s behavior is. You’re not allowed to think differently. And if you do think differently, you better keep it to yourself, because the mob will turn on you instantly, and if we have learned anything in these 7000 years of society, it is that the mob is vicious.

Please watch that video. “Conformity” by TheraminTrees. It is exceptional, and it is the reason that I see what I see now. And there can be very little doubt that what I see… is what is.

As I titled the post, I have been vindicated. I am speaking largely about this podcast:

http://ariadimezzo.podbean.com/e/fft-ep-08-square-peg-round-hole/

…wherein I discussed the mob mentality, and the motivations behind the comments that I was receiving. I discussed how they viewed the entire world as consisting of triangles and circles, and how they literally couldn’t understand that I’m neither a triangle nor a circle–I’m a square. Their minds are so shackled by the mob mentality, by the Us And Them bullshit, by the false dichotomies… that they are incapable of understanding the obvious fact that I am neither a circle nor a triangle.

Whose side are you on?

That’s the most recent comment to my video. It is an absolute vindication of everything that I have said. It is a thorough vindication of the video itself, and it is an absolute vindication of my assessment of the comments, the mob mentality, and their infantile, limited, and narrow worldview that shoved everyone into one of two groups: us… and them…, and fell into a group that demanded such loyalty, conformity, and obedience that they have become incapable of entertaining any idea that goes against the group.

They must break their minds free of those chains. They simply must.

Do not conform.

Think for yourself.

Question authority.

It’s Time For Cruz, Kasich, and the Establishment To Surrender

Another soundtrack for your reading pleasure. 😉

You might also be interested in checking out last night’s episode of Rantings & Ravings, where I discuss the absurdity that sexual orientation is defined just as much by the gender of the person “who is attracted” as the gender that is the recipient of the attraction.

Anyway. Yesterday’s results for the Republican Primary made two things exceptionally clear. First, the Democratic nomination process is over. Second, the Republican nomination process is over. As I predicted back in November (though that link is from December), the general election is going to come down to Trump versus Hillary, and Trump will win. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or bad thing, but it is what’s going to happen. The only way to prevent that is for wider America to turn away from the established parties to a third party. And, realistically, the only third party with any chance whatsoever of upsetting the balance of power is the Libertarian Party. By the way, have you seen John McAfee’s new ad?

But enough of all that.

The current Republican Primary results are:

Candidate Delegate Count
Donald Trump 954
Ted Cruz 562
John Kasich 153

1,237 delegates are needed to secure the party nomination before the national convention. If that number is reached, then the person who reaches that number is automatically made the nominee. If that number is not reached, then some debating and argument ensues, the delegates cast their votes again, and the process repeats until someone hits the magic number.

187 delegates will immediately be up for grabs after the first wave of delegate voting (think of delegates as elected representatives) because the people they were elected to support have dropped out of the race. This includes Marco Rubio, who holds more delegates than John Kasich, who is still in the running.

There are 502 delegates remaining that are up for grabs, meaning that both Cruz and Kasich have been mathematically eliminated from earning the Republican nomination. Even if things radically change and Cruz wins 100% of the remaining delegates, he will only reach 1069, which is only barely more than Donald Trump’s current 954. Giving Cruz the nomination when Donald Trump has been the clear frontrunner for months and consistently earned a larger share of the votes from all across the country through a large time period would result in absolute chaos in the GOP. Whether people like it or not, it is time to accept that the nomination must go to Donald Trump.

Because Cruz won’t secure the remaining 502 delegates. Already, the tendency of people to vote for the person they think likeliest to win is taking effect, and Trump will continue to gain 50% or more of the vote in the remaining states. If Trump doesn’t hit the magic number, it’s an irrelevant point, because he’ll be so close to it–within a few dozen, according to most scenarios–that doing anything else would be viewed as outright robbery and political shenanigans.

The reality is that, according to the rules, having 1,236 delegates going into the convention won’t guarantee that person will become the nominee. This is because, in a two person race, there would be two candidates with 1,236 delegates, so neither of them can be assured victory. That isn’t the case here, though–this is a 3 person race, the totals are nowhere near even, and there is a huge gap between the other two candidates and the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. In a two person race, it absolutely would be unfair to guarantee one of the people with 1,236 the nomination. In a three person race that used to be a 12 person race, however, it’s much less unfair. In a very real way, these goons that dropped out early in the race have screwed up the entire system, and I think that should be one of the GOP’s rules going forward: you can’t drop out of the nomination process.

Just think of all the people who voted for Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Carly Fiorina. All of those people have been disenfranchised by the people they supported. When Rubio, Paul, Fiorina, Christie, and all the others announced their campaigns and then proceeded to campaign, they made a promise to the people that they would try to secure the nomination. And then they dropped out, breaking their promises to the people who supported them. How would Rand Paul be performing in this narrowed field? How would Fiorina be doing?

Yet, at the same time, I think it’s time for Cruz and Kasich to admit defeat. I’m not saying that they should drop out of the race by any means–for the same reason the others shouldn’t have been allowed to drop out; it’s weak, disingenuous, and a betrayal to their supporters who now effectively wasted their votes on people who are no longer candidates. How many people would have supported Trump as their second choice, if Rand had not basically caused the votes he received to disappear into a blackhole of political shenanigans? How many people would have supported Cruz or Kasich if Rubio had never run at all? All of these people–their votes have been reduced to nothing, and might as well never have been cast at all.

Many Americans think their vote is wasted if their candidate doesn’t win, and this is what drives people to vote for the candidate they think is likeliest to win. If people had known that Paul, Fiorina, Christie, and all the others weren’t going to see it through, and therefore would never win, they would never have voted for those people at all. And now these people who voted in their primaries for these candidates who dropped out have their voices completely and totally nullified in the delegate process. The people who voted for the delegates going to the convention in the name of Rubio, Paul, Christie, et al. no longer have a voice. Behind-the-scenes “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” political brokering has taken over, allowing candidates to influence delegates. That delegate going to the convention in Rubio’s name–he’s a Cruz supporter. That person who voted for Rubio who may absolutely hate Cruz has effectively become the reason that Cruz will win one more delegate in the second round*. Maybe that person would have selected Kasich if they’d known that Rubio wasn’t going to have the courage and spine to hang around; it doesn’t matter, their voice is nullified. That person who voted for Jeb Bush may hate Kasich and may have preferred Cruz as their second choice. But in the second round, that delegate who is a Trump supporter will vote for Trump.

It is inescapable that this process has marginalized tons of voters. One might ask, “So? If Trump hits 1,237, then all the people who supported Cruz similarly have their voices erased.” But no, that’s not the case. Losing an election (and primaries are elections) does not erase the votes for the loser–that’s the widespread belief I referred to earlier that a vote is wasted if the candidate doesn’t win. However, “Trying to the very end and losing” is not at all the same thing as basically telling people you’re going to try to the very end, and then absconding with a ton of votes.

If I told investors I need $10b to do some complicated thing that would make us all trillionaires, and then I took that money, gave up on the project, and left them standing there wondering what happened, that would be an enormously different thing from doing what I said I would do and simply failing at it. The consequences appear to be about the same, but the circumstances and details couldn’t be more unlike.

So what am I arguing, then, if not that Cruz, Kasich, and Sanders should give up and drop out of their races? I’m saying they should stop campaigning. They should remain candidates so that the voters can continue to speak, but the reality is that, contested convention or no, neither of them have a viable path to the nomination. Trump isn’t speaking in bravado when he says he thinks people will riot if he doesn’t get the nomination. People may or may not riot, but one thing is certain: they will never switch their support to the candidate who took the nomination more or less from Trump. And it doesn’t matter that “the rules say this” and “the rules say that.” The rules don’t matter, not really.

What matters is what the voters think and feel, not the rules that the Establishment has in place to go against what the voters think and feel.

They can hide behind the rules all day long and say, “No, see? We were totally allowed to ignore the fact that Trump needed only 9 more delegates and instead let Kasich have the nomination.” But their delusion has reached new levels if they think that “Well, the rules allow it” is going to appease anyone; if anything, such an explanation will only rile them further. The primary is done; it’s over. There is no way for Cruz or Kasich (or anyone else for that matter) to get the nomination without shattering the Republican Party. And no–the Trump supporters will never switch their support to a candidate who they believe unfairly took the nomination from Trump, and they do think that would be unfair.

As do I, for that matter, but I’m not a Trump supporter. I understand the rule, and I understand the process, but “Because it’s the rule” and “Because it’s fair” aren’t even related, much less the same thing.

Cruz and Kasich, however, should stop campaigning and should start attempting to bridge the animosity between themselves and Donald Trump. Yes, it’s their responsibility now to bridge those gaps–they are the losers, and they are the ones who must now accommodate Trump and his positions. Trump is the clear winner, and that will continue going forward. It is time for them to put aside their differences, accept that Trump is going to get the nomination, and begin making inroads so that their supporters, when Trump secures the nomination, will support the selected GOP candidate. Continuing to drive wedges into the Republican Party will not help matters. It’s time for them to start tweeting, “You know, guys and girls, Trump isn’t really THAT bad…”

Actually, to be totally clear, it’s time for them to start focusing on Hillary and going after her. That is how they continue to be candidates while ceasing to drive wedges into the party. When Trump (who is childish) insults them, they must ignore it and counter with an insult of Hillary. There is no excuse for continuing to fracture the Republican Party all the way up to the convention, especially not since it is inescapably clear that Trump must be the nominee–because, as I’ve said, the rules are irrelevant.

Rule 40B

Briefly, the RNC is likely to repeal their changes to Rule 40B, which requires any prospective candidate to win the majority of delegates in at least 8 states. By widespread admission of the Establishment, this rule was changed in 2012 specifically to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination. It prompted the majority of Ron Paul supporters to walk out in disgust, and it represents the most brazen official interference of the Establishment that we’ve ever seen. Ron Paul had the 2012 nomination stolen from him in a number of ways–the media refusing to report his victories was yet another, and it was so common and blatant that even Jon Stewart called out the media on it.

I’m not a Trump supporter. Obviously–I support John McAfee, through and through. But I did support Ron Paul in 2012 when the GOP retired him and didn’t even invite him to the retirement party (seriously–that actually happened), when the Establishment passed 40B specifically to shut down Ron Paul’s chances. They should not even be allowed to repeal that rule now. Oh, by the way, there is also evidence that Rule 40B was rejected by the delegates, and there is proof that the Establishment was going to pass 40B whether people liked it or not–there were some teleprompter issues that revealed a lot more than the establishment intended.

They made this bed when they passed 40B illegally (Illegally according to their own rules, not illegally according to the state’s laws), and they should now be forced to lie in that bed. This eliminates Cruz and Kasich, and good riddance. All three of the GOP options are just bloody awful, and it’s a terrible fact that Trump sucks the least out of them. But Cruz is a constitutionalist and, despite what most people think, the Constitutionalist Party is not built solely from the Constitution; it is a Christian political party, through and through, and its own platform rejects the notion of separation of church and state.

We also need separation of state and economy. There has never been anything more critical to our freedom than to forever separate these two things. But that’s another matter. The point is that Cruz and Kasich don’t have a valid pathway to the nomination, even if it can be done without violating rules, and it’s time for them to accept that and start trying to heal the damage that their campaigns caused in their attempts to win.

On a side note, one of the reviews of V2: The Voluntary Voice read my essay “The Power Gap” and reached the conclusion that, because I talked about the Second Amendment, I must be a Constitutionalist. What an idiot. This is something I’ve always wanted to address, but have never bothered to. He also blatantly asserted that he disagrees because “he felt otherwise,” which is just more of that crap where people think their feelings are good enough to outweigh facts and reason. But anyway–the notion that I, an anarchistic atheist, am a Constitutionalist is absurd, and nothing about the essay indicates that I’m a Constitutionalist. I would urge people who think that my reverence to the U.S. Constitution and insistence that, at the very least, the state should abide its own Constitution, makes me a Constitutionalist to actually look into what a Constitutionalist is.

 

* This is speaking hypothetically, of course, and assumes that Trump won’t hit 1,237. If he doesn’t, then this absolutely will be more or less how it plays out.

Long Time Coming: You’re Wrong, Conservatives

I’ve spent the better part of the past two weeks arguing on behalf of conservatives in the United States, because it’s evident that conservatives are the victims of open and blatant discrimination, to the extent that many people on the left openly admit to marginalizing conservatives and self-righteously claim that this marginalization is a good thing. Seeing this, it’s difficult not to argue on behalf of those who are being systematically oppressed.

The reality is that no U.S. state should ever have needed to pass a law guaranteeing its people the right to religious freedom, but they did have to–and I’ve argued in favor of that law. I argued in favor of that law because a compromise is possible. We can reach an agreement. It won’t make everyone happy, but it will be one that everyone can tolerate. The first step in reaching that compromise is allowing conservatives the right to do as they think is best, to isolate themselves from this community and that community if they so desire, and to basically bubble themselves off from the rest of the world. If that is what they want to do, then that is their right, and I wholly support that.

pllIt’s been my contention that we can persuade the left that there’s nothing about that position that violates anyone’s rights. Just yesterday I attempted to break down the idea of rights so as to make that case and demonstrate that, as long as there is no force, violence, or coercion there is no violation of rights. If we can get the liberals to accept that, and to accept that people have the right to be as racist, homophobic, and transphobic as they want, then we can reach an agreement where we leave them the hell alone and they leave us the hell alone.

Not only is that endeavor destined to fail because no one on the left is capable of pushing through their self-righteous bullshit belief that they are on the side of truth and justice and therefore have the right to force their beliefs onto others, but the reality is that the right isn’t willing to compromise, either. I’ve primarily targeted the left recently and the ways that it attacks and oppresses the right, because the left is currently the group with the power in the United States.

Make no mistake about it: the left has won the war. We’ll soon see legalization of marijuana across the country, gay marriage is already legalized across the country, and it’s just a matter of time before the Federal Government rules on the transgender bathroom issue and undoes the North Carolina and Mississippi laws. We are more than likely heading straight toward Civil War Part 2. LGBT issues are this generation’s slavery, and the right has made its position and unwillingness to compromise clear. Unfortunately, they are laughably outnumbered, and the idea that they can somehow come out of this and still have their worldview intact is delusional. The future is clear. Homosexuality and transgenderism will never again be illegal. Sexual and gender openness are the future, and I hold that’s a good thing, but the good/bad judgment on that is irrelevant; it’s simply the future, and nothing is going to change that. In the future, everyone will be bisexual and transgenderism will be so common and so irrelevant that we probably won’t stop to ask people what gender they are. These things will become non-issues. It is inevitable.

I’ve made the argument on behalf of conservatives (which I gladly admit was arrogant of me) that they truly do simply care about protecting their kids, and that they don’t take issue with actual transgender people. I was being facetious and giving them the huge benefit of the doubt, and I knew it at the time. So did everyone who heard the podcast. We all know it. Conservatives are simply using “omg we have to protect the children” as a front to mask their transphobia and intolerant behavior, in the same way that they use “Obama is a muslim!” to mask their racism. I know it, you know it, and they know it. But it would have been fine–it wouldn’t have mattered that I was being facetious and they were being underhanded–if they had been willing to compromise. If they were willing to actually meet the left in the middle and hold the position that I attributed to them–that they simply wanted to prevent pedophiles and sex offenders from gaining access to the restrooms, and that they simply wanted some kind of screening process in place to prevent that–then everything would have been okay.

But they weren’t, and they aren’t. They are not willing to compromise. They don’t give a flying, duck-squatting shit about Liberty. All we ever hear from conservatives is “small government this, small government that,” and I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt in the interest of healing our fractured nation. Because it is my estimation that we are brazenly marching directly toward Civil War Part 2, and it is my belief that this can only be avoided if we agree to Live and Let Live. Neither the left nor right is willing to do that, however, and North Carolina’s law requiring that people use the bathroom of the gender checked on their birth certificate is proof of that.

I’ve already made the argument that these are private restrooms. And they are. With very few exceptions (schools, courthouses, etc.) these are private restrooms. It is up to Kroger, Target, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and all these other places to set the usage policies on their restrooms. If they want to allow people to use the restroom of their choice, then that is their right as the people who own the restrooms. However, North Carolina’s law proudly spits on this idea of limited government by granting the state the power to dictate the policy on privately owned restrooms in a way that corresponds with the morality of conservatives. This, again, reinforces the notion that conservatives only want small government when the policy is liberal; when the policy to be imposed is conservative, they don’t care how much regulation is necessary.

Conservatives need to realize that they lost this war. That restroom law simply won’t be allowed to stand, and neither will Mississippi’s. It doesn’t matter what my position is on these laws, and I’m not making a judgment call on whether it’s good or bad that these laws will be forcefully repealed by the Federal Government and other 49 states (thus violating the very basic principle of self-governance). It’s simply going to happen.

not alone

That guy isn’t alone in his idea that his way is the only right way, and thus it’s okay to force his way onto everyone else. In fact, that’s the mentality of 85% of the world’s population, if estimates are to be believed. It’s at least the position of about 90% of the U.S. population*. Conservatives, realistically, hold that same position–they consider homosexuality behavior to be abhorrent, and the only reason they’re not banning it today is because they know that they wouldn’t be able to get away with it. The Federal Government, which has decreed that outlawing homosexual behavior is itself abhorrent, would drop the hammer on them instantly.

Now, everything the state does is done with force, violence, and/or coercion. Everything. No exceptions. The state is force, violence, and coercion. It is the entity in our society that we have bestowed with the authority to use force, violence, and coercion in the manner we have prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This is why I’m an anarchist and not a Libertarian, strictly speaking. So I’m obviously against outlawing homosexuality, because that is an act of force, violence, and coercion.

But if the conservatives could, they absolutely would ban homosexuality. They did in the past, and they would certainly do it again. They refuse to take the high road of compromise; they refuse to say, “You do what you want and let me do what I want.” The left isn’t willing to do that, either; the left’s behavior is simply more obvious in modern America, because the left has already won the war, leaving the right unable to ban the things they want.

Might equals right has become the mantra of our society. Whoever has the majority has the power. When the majority of people were Christian conservatives, homosexuality was illegal. Times changed. Now that the majority of people are liberals, being anti-homosexual is fast becoming illegal. We are not a society of liberty and rights. We are a society of might, authoritarianism, brutality, force, and violence. We are ruled by the majority, and those who dare speak out and say otherwise, no matter how sound their position is, are ridiculed and cast off as bigots. We have fallen prey to the flaw of democracy that was known thousands of years ago: If rights are not properly valued, then it becomes a tyranny of the majority over the minority.

I couldn’t begin to tell you how many times in the past month I’ve been called transphobic, homophobic, hateful, and bigoted. That’s the Go To response for the left any time anyone dares speak against the oppression of conservatives that we see across the country. If I’m speaking against the marginalization, then I must be hateful and bigoted–without knowing anything, they immediately apply the very same labels to me. This, more than anything, should highlight that they aren’t thinking anything through, that they are merely reacting with the bullshit they’ve been taught to react with, and that they aren’t arguing for anything except the use of force against people who disagree with them. They’ve called a transgender person transphobic, for crying out loud, because I dared speak up against the way the conservatives are being oppressed.

I did a podcast last night (but didn’t publish because of weird mic issues) explaining that I could not and would not continue arguing on behalf of conservatives as long as they continue to insult and disrespect me. Calling transgender people “mentally ill” and “delusional,” never guessing that they were fixing those labels to someone who was honestly fighting their rights–at pretty extreme impact to myself. Realistically, yes, if I jumped on the bandwagon, it would be all too easy… A friend of mine told me this morning that I should make a new Go Fund Me campaign with the title “I’m Transgender! Please Help Me Escape Mississippi!” because that campaign would immediately go viral and would hit its goal in just days. Not only are there esoteric costs such as that, but there are demonstrable costs–I’m a Mississippi resident. The businesses around here now have the unquestionably legal ability to not sell me food, gasoline, or anything else I might need. It is only my rapport with the workers and owners that would spare me that, and not everyone is so lucky–and the vast majority of these businesses don’t even know that I’m transgender. Will they continue to do business with me once they know? I don’t know. I live at very real risk–I’m putting myself at a very real risk by arguing for these people’s rights. In the process, I’m seriously pissing off the liberals who would otherwise have my back, and seriously antagonizing the rest of the LGBT community that just wants to walk all over conservatives’ rights. I stand to gain nothing by fighting for their rights, and stand to lose a great deal of (immorally gained, admittedly) benefits.

I have put myself in No Woman’s Land arguing for these fuckers’ rights. The left rejects me because I argue for the conservative’s rights to be bigots, and the conservatives reject me because they’re bigots. And I’m not going to do it any longer. They’ve shown no willingness to compromise. They’ve shown no sign that they are willing to live and let live. They’ve shown no sign that they are even capable of recognizing me as transgender. They had the easiest possible way with the transgender restroom issue–all they had to do was back down a little bit, and there would have been a compromise that everyone could have accepted. Instead, they revealed that they are merely using children as a front to hide their desire to impose their morals onto others, all the while saying things like “Now our children have to be at risk because we have to accept these people’s delusions?”

My position hasn’t changed. I still think conservatives should have the right to do as they think is best–as long as they don’t use force, violence, and coercion. But they’re clearly not willing to forego the use of force, violence, and coercion. North Carolina’s law makes that all too clear. The cries that we’re delusional make it as plain as day. I will fight for their right to do as they think is best, but not when “what they think is best” involves using force, violence, and coercion to push their morals onto me and onto others, and not when all they have to say to me are insults.

The United States is heading toward Civil War because no one is willing to compromise. The left isn’t going to compromise, and the right isn’t going to compromise. Both sides are gearing up to use force to impose their way of life, moral values, and beliefs onto others. We are destined to fight another civil war, and the signs and issues now are identical to what they were in the mid 19th century. The only difference is that today the issue is LGBT stuff. The south wasn’t fighting on the side of justice and liberty then, either, and that is why they lost. No one who fought a war in the name of justice and liberty ever lost. But the previous civil war wasn’t about justice and liberty; it wasn’t about states’ rights. States’ rights were just the front that they used to mask the fact that they wanted to keep slaves. Today, it’s protecting their children that is the mask to hide they’re unrespectable positions

And in due time there will be another civil war, and we’ll just become the nation that tears itself apart every 150 years. We have no choice. Conservatives are never going to die out, and liberals are never going to die out. Whatever willingness to compromise there is, the tendency  to negotiate and reach an agreement that satisfies everyone, giving no one 100% but everyone something, steadily decreases over time. Compromise becomes taboo, untenable, and unacceptable. Oppression begins, marginalization begins, and resentment begins. It builds and builds, and eventually battle lines are drawn. We can see battle lines being drawn today.

You cannot win this war, conservatives. The best you can achieve is the right to carve out your own little existences. The best you can do is to earn the right to be left the hell alone. But you’re not content with that, are you? No, and you never have been. If you sought that, instead of seeking to push your way onto others, then the left might be willing to compromise with you. But as long as you’re unwilling to, they won’t be, either. And I’m not going to lament the destruction of your tyrannical mindsets. Embrace liberty, or watch your way of life be dismantled before your very eyes. I won’t be the one who does it, but I’m not going to continue arguing against it. You don’t deserve it.

This is the kind of person for whose rights I was arguing:

tranny thing

It should be noted that I replied to this one, saying: “I’m an atheistic transgender lesbian and resident of Mississippi. If you really think you can say anything to me that I haven’t heard before, then you’re crazier than you think I am.” This, of course, prompted him to go to my page and comment about a half-dozen unrelated Tweets, at which point I decided to simply ignore him. He almost immediately moved on and targeted someone else.

mentally ill

That is his reply to the auto-posted Tweet for my article “I Am Not An Adjective.” That’s right. While I wrote a lengthy article explaining that we are people, and not adjectives, his solution was to attach an adjective to the adjective that he thinks I am. I am not a person in his eyes; I am not a person who is gay and/or transgender. I’m a mentally ill gay. I’m a gay. I’m an adjective to him. What a narrow-minded fool.

nice one freak

He also added that I’m creepy, to which I replied “Says the guy with an honest to god dick pic on his profile. Mmkay.” I won’t share the image here, but I took a screenshot of it in case he wanted to continue things, and I took a screenshot of his self-written description. Behold:

I'm the creep

Now, I’m not really going to make fun of the dude for naming himself after the slang for “hard dog dick.” I’m gonna be classier than that and point out that anyone who prefers paying for sex is full of shit. No one who ever got consensual sex for free thought “Man, I’d rather just pay for this.” Or, at least, no one who can get consensual sex for free thought that. And this is substantiated by his admittance that he loves porn. That’s okay–I love porn, too. But… “loving porn” isn’t really a key characteristic of who I am. When I think “Give 10 sentences that describe yourself,” then “loving porn” isn’t on that list, and neither is paying for sex. But here we have a conservative who loves porn and paying for sex named after slang for dog dick and who had an actual dick pic that he personally uploaded.

And I’m the creepy one…

And, remarkably, this one is one of the leftists! “This guy”. This guy.

this guy

Eventually I just reached that point where I had to ask myself “Why am I pissing everyone off? What do I have to gain from it? Clearly, these people are never going to respect me and recognize my right to live as I choose. So screw them.”

* This is derived from the fact that Libertarians comprise about 10% of the U.S. population, since Libertarians are the only ones who don’t want to force other people to do things.Except, perhaps, to leave other people alone, but using force to stop the application of force is allowed under the NAP. I’m not a fan of it, but it’s at least not a contradiction.