Tag Archive | millennials

The Morality of Penises

I’m not even trying to be funny with the title for this article–more is the pity, really, because it means this has to be discussed en sincera, which is a black stain on the intellectual rigor of our entire species. However, in the last week or so–since the Navy pilot drew a penis in the sky with the conntrails of his jet–the word “immoral” has been thrown around a lot. To be clear, the word “immoral” generally gets thrown around a lot anyway, usually at things that have nothing at all to do with morality (like homosexuality, transsexuality, etc.), but seeing it tossed with reckless abandon at someone having drawn a part of the human anatomy in the sky is among the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen, and seems most likely to be a remnant of a culture that once viewed sex as unclean.

#RiseOfTheMillennials, I like to say, because it’s true. That’s the kind of thing a millennial would do. The better question, at least for me, isn’t “Why is that immoral?” but “Why would someone do that?”

The answer should be obvious–to subversively attack the old school mentality that sex is unclean and that genitalia must be hidden at all costs. This is a mindset that millennials, for the most part, simply don’t have. Yet it is one shared by our grandparents and parents, usually. Without overly romanticizing what has happened (because there was indisputably an element of “Let’s troll people” involved), this was done primarily a gesture to say exactly that: “This is our world–or it will be soon.”

Honestly, there probably aren’t too many better symbols that represent the rise of the millennials than the penis. People thought the hippies were sexually liberated? The hippies wish they could be this sexually liberated. We’re talking about a generation for whom “gay” almost has no meaning–a generation that sees absolutely nothing gay about giving your friend a blowjob. This isn’t to say that every millennial would engage in that, but it is to say that even something like that would not make a person “gay” in the millennial paradigm. It’s hard to explain. “Gay” is just this word… Do you have relationships with men? Then you’re gay. Do you have sex, but not relationships, with men? You can still be straight. I’m neither condoning nor rejecting these definitions; I’m just pointing them out. These hard delineations of past generations are received by millennials with eye-rolling scoffs.

So what is the penis, in this context? Because it’s so much more than the male anatomy–but it is the male anatomy, too. The cartoon-ish, simplistic genital–the two circles attached to a rounded-end cylinder–caused people to flip out. Most millennials are not nudists–in this sense, future generations will be vastly more liberated than the average millennial, and make no mistake, widespread nudism is coming within a few generations–but also are not bothered in the least by depictions of penises. The millennial mindset is that having a penis is nothing to be ashamed of, and neither are penises things that must be hidden, whispered about, and mentioned only in quiet darkness. Say it with me now: Penis.

Our parents were notoriously uncomfortable talking about sex. My own “sex talk” with my father consisted of twelve seconds of conversation, with my father making the classic “index finger going into the other hand’s ring” gesture, and that was it. We’re a generation that was raised on porn and Cosmopolitan. Where our parents failed horrifically to provide any useful information about sex, the Internet and magazines picked up the slack, and, as a result, the average millennial probably knows more about sex than the preceding generations combined. Compare the porn of today to the porn of the 1960s, when our own parents would have been gleaning what information they could from porn because their own parents had taken them to watch cows have sex to give them “the talk.” To say the least, porn today is “liberated” compared to porn fifty years ago. You couldn’t find Japanese women doing bukkake fifty years ago. Today it’s just a 0.003 second search away. Past generations may have gotten a naked woman tastefully posed so as not to be too revealing.

Of course, porn should not be a primary source of sex education, but it has worked out that it is. I’d wager that, for 95% of people, their first encounter with sex was through pornography. It may even be 100%. I was in the fifth grade the first time I saw a woman spread eagle in a magazine. I didn’t know why it was so great, but I knew that I liked it. It wasn’t until the eighth grade that my father said a word to me about it–long after the stirrings of puberty had raised my interest in sex, and long after my initial exposures to sex. But porn is about masturbation–“Wam, Bam, Thank you, ma’am,” as they say. Porn is kinda contrary to the whole principle of sex education, because it’s not about showing boys and girls–and there’s no need to be coy, because let’s not pretend like it’s not 11 year olds and twelve year olds watching porn as their introductions to sex–how to properly have sex, how to seduce, how to be romantic, and, above all, how to give the female sexual pleasure. These are topics not typically covered in Lord of the G-Strings and Bang Brothers’ shorts.

Sex is not an uncomfortable subject for us. In fact, we rather like it. Many millennials have “fuck buddies,” not even of the opposite sex. It’s just natural to us. And one’s older sensibilities may say it is or isn’t natural (but I think we can reject such a claim as being unfounded and taking liberties with the definition of “natural” and “unnatural”), but most millennials just don’t see what the big deal is. People like fucking. In fact, people need to fuck. We’re biologically programmed to want to fuck. Fucking is critical to our existence. Look at your family tree. At every single one of those branches? There was fucking.

Apparently, previous generations treated this like it was some great secret, and sometimes like it isn’t even true. But oh yeah. Nanna got the “old in-out, in-out.” If she hadn’t, ol’ dad wouldn’t be here. And if mom hadn’t laid on her back once or twice, I wouldn’t be here.

Does this seem crass? Crude?

Not to most millennials. It’s just a fact of life, dude.

And that’s why the penis was drawn in the sky. And, for the most part, on the pillows shown above, although it does have to be pointed out once again that there is also a heavy trolling element to it. But it’s not just trolling. Trolling for the sake of trolling is just being an asshole.

But the penis is a symbol of that liberation. So asking “Why would someone draw a penis in the sky or on pillows?” is kinda a stupid question. “Why would someone get upset about a penis?” is a more intelligent question. Your existence required a penis. The reader would literally not exist if not for the penis*. That is what people are getting worked up over, it’s worth mentioning–a natural part of the human body that nearly half the world’s population has.

But the Children!

No one has ever demonstrated how seeing a penis or a vagina harms anyone’s “innocence” or sensibilities. In fact, the problem here is the prohibition of nudity. If you take someone and start clothing them since before they’re even able to talk, and you constantly beat into their heads that nudity is wicked, wrong, sinful, and shameful, then of course they’re going to freak the hell out the first time they encounter nudity. If you told a child from the time they were born that chocolate is a deadly poison, then they’d freak the hell out the first time they saw someone eating a bar of Hershey’s Chocolate, too.

It’s not the nudity or the genitalia that is the problem there–in those instances, the person is creating the very circumstances to cause the child to be freaked out. And there is no telling what effects it really has on normal human behavior to be popped out of the womb and immediately put into clothing–clothing that is worn at all times, unless one is totally alone. Yeah, someone raised like that would probably freak out and “have their innocence ruined” by seeing someone without clothes–because, to them, clothes have become normal, and seeing someone without clothes is the least normal thing they’ll have encountered at that point in their lives. But what made clothing normal and nudity abnormal?

Clothing did. Nudity, in and of itself, isn’t normal or abnormal. We made it abnormal. And I’m not even a nudist, because I was conditioned through all of my formative years to believe that wearing clothing was normal and natural, and that one should never, ever be naked, unless one was about to bathe (or, later, have sex–hint, hint). I could get past that, if I really cared to, but I don’t particularly care to.

As a point of reference, ask yourself why men are so much more likely to be shirtless around the house than women. It’s the same answer: conditioning. We’ve been conditioned that men being shirtless is mostly okay, but it isn’t for women. This applies to all clothing–we’ve been conditioned to think that wearing clothing is okay, and not wearing clothing isn’t. So yeah, seeing the other sex’s genitals for the first time could freak someone the hell out, by violently coming into conflict with years and years of psychological programming. Stop programming human beings to be freaked out by nudity, and they’ll stop being freaked out by nudity.

If any part of this discussion deals with morality, then it would be at this juncture–the morality of programming human beings to believe things before they are able to think, speak, reason, or walk. I would contend that this is probably immoral, but not enough to actually care to defend that position. But if something has to be justified, that would be it: programming humans (because it is programming) and brainwashing humans into believing that nudity is in some way shameful or disgraceful, from practically the moment of their birth.

But the penis?

It hardly gets more natural and normal than that.

 

* Obviously, if penises hadn’t evolved, some other mechanism of procreation would have, but it would be facing the same absurd scrutiny.

A Literal Lesson on Literally

If there is any single word that is horrifically over-used and incorrectly used, especially among millennials, that word would be “literally.” In perhaps the best piece of evidence that the ironic hipster culture has gone way too far, it is probably literally the word most often used figuratively rather than literally.

And it makes me figuratively sick.

It makes me metaphorically disgusted.

It makes me feel like I’m allegorically surrounded by morons.

These people are analogously comparable to zombies.

I would say I’m fancifully part of an age group that literally doesn’t know what “literally” means. And I haven’t even broken out the thesaurus yet.

No, Trump is not LITERALLY Hitler.

No, you are not LITERALLY dying.

No, you are not LITERALLY sick of Trump.

No, you are not LITERALLY rolling in cash.

And, as a reply to the post that inspired this one, Limewire was not LITERALLY LIKE having unprotected sex on the Internet.

Let’s reflect for a moment on that phrase. The statement was that “[Limewire] was literally like having unprotected sex on the Internet.”

At a glance, we can see that this is not, in fact, a literal statement. It’s a simile. As we learned in the second grade, a simile is an analogy that uses “like” or “as,” for the most part (in reality, it’s slightly more complicated than that, but let’s keep it simple for these people who evidently literally don’t know what “literally” means). As a simile, it is an analogy, which means it isn’t literal. This is because “x is figuratively true” is directly contradictory to “x is literally true.”

“X is literally true” means that x is true. It means the value of x is “true.” It means that whatever we’re describing as “x” is actually, seriously, and literally true.

“X is figuratively true” means that x is not true. It may be “true in spirit,” but not in actual fact. For example, the statement that “Trump is figuratively Hitler.” Quite obviously, this means that Trump is not Hitler. This is plain as day to anyone who knows that Hitler has been dead for 70 years (conspiracy theories aside). It is equally transparent to anyone who knows what it means for two distinctly different people to exist. So it is literally impossible for Trump to be LITERALLY Hitler–even if Hitler was still alive, the two are quite clearly different individuals, and it would require the warping of spacetime for them to be the same person.

Literal statements are observations–facts.

Figurative statements are assertions–opinions.

“Trump is literally Trump,” in addition to being a tautology, is an observation and a fact. Trump is Trump because “Trump” is the person we mean when we say “Trump.” The statement defines itself as true. This is the first of the Logical Absolutes–“x is x.” We don’t need to make an argument to show people that Trump is literally Trump. At most, we have to simply explain that Trump is the person we are referring to when we say “Trump.” “He is Trump,” we might say, pointing to him on the television. We don’t need to provide evidence (under normal circumstances*) that the person we are pointing to is Trump, because “Trump” is defined as the person we’re pointing to.

Contrast this to a statement like… “Taxation is literally theft.”

It is.

“Taking money or property from someone without their permission” is the definition of “theft.” That a government does it, instead of a random thief, changes nothing. Although doublethink and cognitive dissonance permeate American society, the fact remains that taxation is “literally” theft. The only escape from this is on an individual basis, with the individual who says, “No, because I gladly consent to taxes!” but even that isn’t the entire story, because they couldn’t deny consent if they wanted to, so they aren’t actually choosing to consent. “Taking money or property from someone without their permission” being the definition of “theft” isn’t an opinion; it’s what the word means.

Having now dealt with a statement that is not literally true and one that is literally true, let’s move on to a figurative one. As stated before, there is no fact here, so there is no “true” or “untrue” figurative statement. There’s a statement that one person believes or doesn’t believe. Let’s examine the statement that “Trump is figuratively Hitler.”

Is he?

It depends on what you think represents the essence of Hitler. I would say that extreme nationalism coupled with white supremacy, intense hatred of non-white people and GSM people, willingness to conquer, an unyielding desire to rebuild the “glory days” and take them further than ever before, and a remarkable ability to inspire passion in people (Hitler was probably the greatest orator of the 20th century, according to many people) is what really constituted “Hitler.” In literal terms, Hitler was a dude who lived in Germany from the late 19th century to around the mid 20th century, formed the National Socialist party of Deutschland, dissolved the Germany Parliament, took control of the government, successfully rebuild the German economy, started a bit of unpleasantness, and then killed himself. Seeing as Trump is none of those things, we can see, once again, that Trump is not LITERALLY Hitler.

Maybe what you mean by Hitler is “scary white leader who may or may not be racist and who sometimes says mean things.” If that’s what you think represents the essence of Hitler, hey, that’s your opinion. I would absolutely ask someone who made the statement with sincerity, however, that Trump is figuratively Hitler, to explain how they came to that conclusion, because I don’t see the connection. He could be somewhat analogous to Mussolini, but let’s be honest here… Millennials don’t know anything about Mussolini. To be clear, when people say that Trump is LITERALLY Hitler (and they mean that he is figuratively Hitler), I have a pretty good idea of what they mean: they mean that they think Trump is an extreme nationalist, white supremacist, anti-LGBT, warmongering, MAGA-spamming tyrant who is going to put everyone into the ovens.

Don’t believe me? They most certainly do think that. It has calmed down a lot, but I’ll never forget the day after the election talking to a Hispanic woman who confessed to be cowering in fear with her family in her home, crying. Teachers throughout the United States cried with their black students. No, this actually happened. Don’t forget that. One guy wrote an article with the headline “I’m disabled–imagine what Donald Trump will do to me!” They sincerely thought that the Holocaust was upon them, and they refused to listen to suggestions otherwise. They were fully hysterical, and firmly convinced that Trump was the second coming of Hitler. A year later, I would love nothing more than for these people to openly and publicly acknowledge how absurdly hysterical they were, to take it into consideration in the future, and to take measures to ensure that they are not so swept up in lunatic paranoid and political rhetoric again. Keep crying wolf, and when an American dictator actually rises, no one will take the claim seriously.

But this isn’t meant to be about Trump–figuratively or literally. Whether one believes Trump is figuratively Hitler or not isn’t the point here; the point here is that he is most LITERALLY not “LITERALLY Hitler.” Taxation is literally theft. You are not literally dying (except in the philosophical sense that everyone has an expiration date).

* Presuming some idiot is not making the argument that Trump is an imposter reptilian overlord wearing a Trump Suit.

 

 

Western Nihilism 3: Biology Versus Social Justice Warriors

Be warned: if you haven’t read Western Nihilism Part 1 and Western Nihilism Part 2, some of this may seem unsupported or even nonsensical. So the links are provided there, since we’re building off that framework with a more specific example.

See, I just read a 1400 word whine from a partner of Vice about how she’s totally judged because of her height, how her height makes her life difficult, and how she often intimidates people. The article ended with a link to a partner article about how standards of age are a form of bias. We’ve really reached this point, then? We’ve genuinely forgotten that we’re animals to the extent that we can’t recognize the real, primal, and largely uncontrollable reasons that we sometimes find tall people intimidating and short people adorable.

Little Things Are Cute

We’re programmed to think that little things are cute. This is part of the human operating system–it’s not a third party program that some people installed. We find kittens adorable, puppies adorable, and babies adorable, for the same reason we find one-inch figurines cute. Those things are immediately read as helpless, and that’s what we’re drawn toward (in the absence of imminent danger).

People finding you adorable because you’re short is a simple byproduct of how genes programmed us to protect our offspring. Because let’s be real a moment: what defense does a pooping, peeing, and crying baby have? None. It survives by two biological processes–the first I’ve already mentioned. Being cute is the baby’s first line of defense against the innate tendency humans have to discard things that cry and poop everywhere. The second is the parental bond, of course, but the parental bond can’t explain it all, because just about any human would do anything in their power to protect a baby.

Helplessness is generally what humans find cute–helplessness makes the thing precious to us, like kittens and babies. We recognize on deep, primal levels that these things cannot fend for themselves, and that this marvelous living creature needs our protection and love. This triggers endorphins to release in the brain and triggers, “Oh, my god, he’s so precious!” to come out of the mouth.

Just think about anything you’d call “precious.” Now think about anything you’d call “adorable.” There is a 1:1 correlation between those things: whatever you find precious, you’ll find adorable, and whatever you find adorable, you’ll find precious. This is just the way humans work.

Demanding that we cast off all of that biological programming and cease letting ourselves think short people are adorable is nihilistic. It’s an attempt to undermine, consciously ignore, destroy, or mitigate the very biological processes that cause people to like babies. So you having people say “You’re super cute!” isn’t really that big a deal, is it? Not when stacked against the evolution of our species and, hopefully, the continued evolution that happens when people find little things cute and when the perception of helplessness (being a kitten, being short, whatever) is what triggers the endorphin release that makes them gush over infants.

So get over yourself.

“I’m tall, so I intimidate people.”

Bull.

“I’m tall, and I intimidate people,” is what one should say. Being tall–within ordinary human limits, not talking about people like Shaq–is not inherently intimidating. If you’re intimidating people, it’s going to be because of:

  • Being very tall and very large (fat or muscular)
  • Body language.

It’s almost certainly going to be the latter. Most people don’t pay any attention to their body language, but doing so would fix these issues people are having. I learned in my last year of college that i intimidated the crap out of people. Muscular, wearing A-shirts (“wifebeaters”), wearing eyeliner, shaved head, intelligent, a bit over six feet tall… But it was my demeanor that intimidated people, not my height, intelligence, or any of the other excuses I could list to wriggle out from under the fact that my demeanor was intimidating people.

Of course I had a litany of viable excuses ready to go. Perhaps it was the chains on my Tripp pants? Maybe the eyeliner. Maybe the shaved head. None of those things were “on me,” and that’s the difference. “I’m just being myself, and I can’t help that, so if people are intimidated then it’s their problem, not mine.”

It wasn’t any one thing; it was the whole package that was “my presentation,” and it intimidated people. The biggest part of that was certainly my body language.

Height isn’t really an issue.

I couldn’t guess how many people I’ve met in my life, and I can only think of one person who truly intimidated me. His name was Joe, and he was the manager at a client’s office. He was enormous, possibly seven feet tall, and stocky. He had a deep voice and a No Nonsense attitude. Square jaw and square chin–looking at him was like looking at a cinder block that decided one day to grow a body. I avoided him whenever possible.

His height had little to do with that. It was the whole package (his demeanor) that was intimidating.

My ex-wife is now married to some old dude who is even taller than I am. We knew him for years (and no, there was nothing going on there–it seems she just latched onto the first guy she found after me), and I have never in the least intimidated by him. The drummer in my band then was almost the same height (I’d guess about 6’5″), and he was never intimidating, either.

Because it’s not about height. It’s about demeanor. It’s about the whole package you’re presenting, not one aspect of it.

Escaping Personal Responsibility

Seeing as they view personal responsibility as some deprecated, gross thing that should be rejected because “It’s everyone else with the problem, not me. I’m perfect!” it’s not surprising that we see here another way to lift blame from the one responsible (The one presenting the demeanor) and shifting it onto people who aren’t responsible (The ones witnessing the presentation).

If you made a PowerPoint presentation using terrible font choices and horrific colors, would you blame the viewers if they said your presentation sucked? “You’re just biased against people like me who love these fonts and colors!”

Sure, that’s true, in a limited, narrow, and asinine sense. There are biological reasons that we prefer complementary colors, largely due to how our eyes evolved first seeing only light and dark, then red and green (if I recall correctly), and then the other colors incrementally until we had the vision we have today. At the heart of it are more biological processes that we don’t have any control over. We like clear, readable fonts in vibrant, contrasting colors. Dark blue script fonts on a black background won’t be appealing to many people. And that’s not our problem.

It’s yours, because it’s your presentation.

We Are Animals

And we have forgotten that. We are compelled by genes and biological processes that we’re only beginning to understand, but the shocking revelation has been that it’s not really the survival of the individual that our subconscious minds care about; it’s the survival of our genes, which led to the term Gene Machines.

If you spit on everything that helped ensure the survival of those genes, then yes, you’re certainly being nihilistic. In and of itself, that isn’t a bad thing, but this nihilistic tendency is really starting to dominate western society. After all, we’ve legitimately reached a point where someone writes an article about being stereotyped because if one aspect of their demeanor, and how everyone else is at fault, and the writer isn’t laughed off the internet for being ridiculous.

R&R Ep 30 – The Millennial Zombie Apocalypse

zombiesAs it turns out, there actually was a Zombie Apocalypse. We just didn’t notice, because instead of eating our brains, the zombies just eat their own brains.

Extensive research suggests that the Zombification Virus is spread via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and, especially, BuzzFeed. Symptoms include: all the typical symptoms of a zombie, except their brains are devoured from the inside. Researches at MIT have learned that brains do, in fact, require nutrients to survive, and the best nutrient to aid in a brain’s survival is information. Without information to ingest, human brains have been shown by researchers at University of California: Berkeley to begin devouring themselves, much as the human body will eat away its own fat and muscle tissue if food is not ingested.

The result is the Millennial Zombie Apocalypse.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Here are the comments that I read in the podcast. You can read them here: http://www.thejimquisition.com/augs-lives-matter/

I am not including comments that were not made at the time of recording the podcast, because I don’t need to get pissed off again, and it’s extremely hard to stay on topic and focused when dealing with such rank ignorance and obvious doublethink. There may yet be more comments since I recorded the podcast, but I can’t even read them right now. You can click the user’s name to go to their Disqus profile.

Max Whitely

What makes this game any different from the X-men franchise?

X-men is regarded highly yet this gets slapped down. Just Because the marketing department did their jobs correctly and got people talking about it.

As for BLM, from what I read and hear on the news the American sect have a point, it sounds like too many black men are being unlawful killed.

But after the stunt BLM have been pulling today in the uk, they just need to fuck off. Mark Duggan was shot 5 years ago and guess what…..it was lawful. FEEL BAD FOR THE KNOWN VIOLENT DRUG DEALER WHO WAS WANTED ON FIRE ARMS OFFENCES! Also witnesses say he threw a fire arm away from the car. Now answer me this question, would a fire arms team be called out to a drug dealer who has never been known to carry/use fire arms? The answer is no. And the fact that he was holding and trying to discard the fire arm put the nail in his coffin for me, the police made the right call as a loaded fire arm was in fact present during the attempted arrest.

Protests in that mans name have no meaning.

Aria DiMezzo

Honestly, the more you look into the actual numbers and facts, the more you’ll find this is also the case in the United States. Very few stop to think about how easy it is to manufacture indignation in the age of social media, or how easy it is for the media manipulate the truth. The Zimmerman case is the prime example: almost everything reported in the first week about it was quickly revealed to be utter fabrication, but by then the emotions were already created, the damage already done, and people’s minds made up. It doesn’t matter if we find that this person actually did have a gun, that person actually was a felon, whatever, a week after the media has already drummed up a frenzy. By that point, the narrative is woven, and it’s an act of futility trying to convince people otherwise.

Once the hype dies down surrounding any of the stories, or those that Jim mentioned, looking into a summary of the facts will often leave people stunned at just how wrong the media and Twitter were. Worse in the case of social media, with people basically sharing blatantly incorrect posts without thinking or looking into it. Let’s keep in mind that the reason so many of these stories are well-known is the same reason we see stories about how NASA totally confirmed the Earth stopped spinning for twelve hours thousands of years ago, “just like the Bible says!!!11!one!” And that the moon totally is going to disappear for one month in 2017, or whatever. There are entire websites dedicated to unraveling myths like these, but they won’t touch BLM stories for reasons I’ll outline below (even going in that direction results in someone being called racist–many would call yours or my comments racist). So instead we get stories of how Obama didn’t actually go over Niagara Falls in a canoe.

So the damage is done, and then confirmation bias handles the rest, not to mention that the media’s goal is to garner attention, not be honest (after all, if the media cared and was interested in more than clicks and views, they wouldn’t have basically given the nomination to Trump with constant free advertising), so they’re not talking about the 50% of Americans each year who are killed by police who are white, or the 25% who are Hispanic. Nor is any news agency held responsible for releasing a narrative that proves to be completely false and that contributes to an inaccurate representation of reality that feeds directly into manufactured social unrest. A week after any of these stories hits, it is absolutely impossible to convince people that the first few days reported incorrect information, even if the media itself has corrected the initial claims.

And people just ignore things. Jim not long ago said a gastly (pun intended, not a typo by Jim) number of black people have been killed. No doubt, and I speak out constantly against police brutality. I doubt someone has argued more against it than I have. However, if that’s the case, then an even gastlier number of white people have been killed (an indisputable fact). Yet it’s considered racist for me to even say that. Even pointing out a documented fact can be considered racist now. Yet the truth stands: we have a problem with police brutality, period, and it’s an issue that clearly crosses skin color. It’s quite obviously racist (By definition) to take a problem that applies to everyone, and pretend like it only applies to one race. Yet this doesn’t fit into their narrative, so they simply ignore it. Confirmation bias and willful ignorance in action. If anything, BLM is a striking case study in how easily we are manipulated.

What’s most interesting to me is that, for many people, even learning the actual facts won’t change their worldview. It’s all well and good to show them what actually happened and how police freaking kill everyone indiscriminately, but none of it will change what they already believe. It’s exactly like trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian that evolution does NOT suggest a Boeing could be created by a tornado in a junkyard. Their minds are made up. And, once made, it’s often impossible to change that, even when the “facts” that led to that worldview are revealed to have been wholly wrong. Find any “SJW” and show them the news story of the pervert who claimed to be transgender and then spent weeks taking pictures of underage girls in the women’s bathroom, and it won’t change their understanding. They won’t accommodate the new information into their worldview. They’ll acknowledge it, excuse it, and then ignore it. Goodness knows I’ve been guilty of this, but made the conscious decision to stop, once I became aware of it, and ended up a nihilist anarchist. Cognitive dissonance is dangerous, and on full display when people are confronted with the knowledge that their facts are wrong. When their loyalty to their belief is stronger than their loyalty to truth, it’s well-documented what people will do: they’ll ignore the new information.

diamond (Please note: if you click this guy’s profile, you’ll find he is a FULL-ON Regressive)

Zimmerman is a fucking racist piece of dogshit, that is a fucking fact. This year he retweeted a picture of Trayvon Martin’s body and also illegally uploaded nude pictures of his girlfriend onto the internet without her consent. So yeah he can go and die in a fire for all I care.

You sound unbelievably fucking ignorant, fact is black americans are disproportionately targeted by police all the fucking time.

Black people are only 10% of the U.S. population, that’s what you seem to forget, so more white people then black people being killed everywhere means absolutely fucking nothing.

Sounds like you’re the one that’s easily manipulated into this nonsense “BLM are EEEEEVIL” bullshit.

Aria Dimezzo

All you do is lie (no, black people are not “only 10%” of the population–bring facts or gtfo) and call people racists. Your lack of intellectualism is embarrassing. Please stop and go play at the kiddie table.

Men make up more than 90% of all people killed by police each year, but don’t come anywhere close to making up 90% of the population. Should there be a Male Lives Matter movement?

Max Whitely

Yes I agree with you. I can’t comment on America any further than what I read in the news but in England it’s very different. Police brutality isn’t a thing over here, they don’t carry guns. So if you have a couple of police officers beating you down you probably deserve it. As some one who has been on the reviving end, I can honestly say they wouldn’t randomly start beating you, black or white.

Every single British PC has a go pro on their jacket and they have to film every arrest they make. So every thing is caught on tape so brutalising people isn’t an option.

Reading the comments given from one of today’s protest organisers just makes me think that they just wanted to cause trouble.
She gave the quote
“Black people are three times less likely to be hired for a job.”
I don’t understand where they pulled that “fact” from but I have no way of checking it so I will give them the benifit of the doubt. But you have to keep in mind that in the last 10-15 years there has been a very large influx of polish workers who (illegally) work for well under our minimum wage, so finding a job is a very difficult.

So I’m guessing black life’s matter are lumping Polish people and British people in the same category because we are both white….. Thats kind of racist if you ask me.

Aria DiMezzo

There’s definitely still racism in the United States, but, like gender, it is not really a binary thing. My gargantuan video on the subject (it weighed in at 28 minutes) evaluated things and concluded that BLM is as racist as anything else, and it’s impossible to end the problem of racism with racism. There’s a reason MLK wasn’t arguing that black people should be treated better and instead argued that skin color shouldn’t be a factor; yet now we have Black Lives Matter that basically argues the opposite: regardless of her character, Ms. Gaines’ skin color should protect her from the police.

Yet many of the people fighting this are just as guilty, with their “Proud White Male” shirts and stickers while they criticize BLM for being racist. Just like BLM, people like Atheism is Unstoppable attempt to solve the problem of racism with more racism, even as they acknowledge that two wrongs don’t make a right.

As long as we let skin color, orientation, gender, etc. be factors, then racism, orientationism, and sexism will exist. More than ever, we need to be fighting for people to be treated as individuals, not as one of thousands of adjectives they could describe them.

But that message isn’t “any fun.” It’s fun to take part in these mob-like groups. Humans feel immense satisfaction from uniting together, and these are low hanging fruits.

I live about twenty minutes from Memphis, Tennessee in the United States, where BLM protesters shut down the interstate and primary bridge across the Mississippi river. I followed the event intensely, and it became increasingly clear that everyone was posturing, and no one’s hearts were in it. This immediately made me realise that it was absurd to the highest degree that BLM was protesting in a predominantly black city with a predominantly black police force, a predominantly black city council, and a long history of black mayors. Was the contention that black lives don’t matter to black police and black leaders? If so, that’s hardly a problem of “racism.”

Their protests in cities like Memphis revealed their hands: they will manufacture outrage wherever they can. Meanwhile, police chief Rollings (don’t remember now how his name was spelled), a black man, delivered some of the most beautiful and profound answers I’ve ever heard. But the point remains: Why is BLM taking their grievances to a black police chief who oversees a mostly black police force in a city that is mostly black and that has mostly black leaders? Something about this entire thing is wrong.

[It should go without saying, but before people are up in arms, let me clarify that “they” refers to BLM advocates, not people of any particular race. In fact, you’ll find it impossible to accuse me of being racist, because, unlike the SJWs who insist they don’t see color while they support BLACK Lives Matter, I actually apply that philosophy]

Max Whitely

Yes I agree, I think people who support groups like this just want to feel like they are a part of something.

I’m glad you have given a good example for me to read up on so I’m more clued up on the American side of this.

The whole BLM movement is such a first world thing, it’s cringe inducing watching today’s protests. A bunch of over privileged people getting enraged by things that are, at best, a non issue and at worst, non existent.

I would like to live in a world where racism doesn’t exist, and if I see racist behaviour I will point it out and stand firm. But let’s be honest here we’re never going to stop racism. It’s literally impossible. And telling non racist people that they are racist is only going to make the accused turn racist or completely submissive to the accuser, neither are good outcomes.

To others who might be reading this, look, oppression still exists on this planet. But it’s not where your protesting.
Look what happened to that Chinese lawyer… Jailed for subversion, THATS OPPRESSION!
Look how many rights a females in Saudi Arabia have that’s oppression.

Black lives matter forget that black men and women are needlessly dying every second in places like Ethiopia, but of course “those” black lives don’t matter, there not American are they. I feel like I’ve done more to help black men and women in third world countries than BLM has.

Please note here that Max and I are having a civil discussion about police brutality and racism in the west. Both of us acknowledge the existence of racism and have clear ideas on how the problem of racism might be solved. We have been entirely civil, entirely calm, and entirely careful with our words. Neither of us has said anything remotely racist or offensive, but it doesn’t matter. Not to regressives like “diamond.” Seriously, click his profile. It’s almost nothing but him insulting people and calling them stupid. He’s an absolute waste of a human brain. He is an Ur Zombie.

diamond (to Max Whiteley)

BLM is so not first world you fucking moron, if you lived in the U.S. you would get that.

BLM does not “forget” anything, it’s just focused on black people dying in the U.S.

Saying that because other countries have it worse then us means racism is not an issue in the U.S. is incredibly disingenuous.

I’m going to try to keep the analysis low, because I covered it all in the podcast, but wow! What’s that they say about glass houses, dude? If the first sentence in your reply is “you fucking moron,” then you have no right to call anyone disingenuous, as it hardly gets more disingenuous than ad hominem attacks.

diamond (to me)

BLM are not racist you dumb fuck. They are not “manufacturing outrage”(that’s the stupidest fucking thing i’ve ever heard).

Also anyone who uses stupid fucking terms like SJW unironically is a fucking idiot.

You sound like someone is racist but does not want to admit it.

Again, just… wow. “You’re wrong, you dumb fuck. You’re wrong, that’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. You’re a fucking idiot. You’re racist.”

I mean, it is just exactly this, isn’t it? And it’s a bit of this, too. And definitely some of this:

And a lot of this:

I mean, I have fully described and explained this guy’s behavior long before he ever wrote his comments. Listen to those podcasts. Read those Quora links. It’s indisputable: I’ve completely identified people like him, and I call them faux progressivists. Others call them regressives, but I don’t think that’s true, technically speaking. They’re not regressive, because there hasn’t been any progress that can be regressed, as I pointed out in this video:

It is incontestable that I have analyzed this person’s worldview and ripped it to pieces as being shallow, pedantic, and based entirely on manufactured emotions. I have defeated him. The problem is–there are so many of them, and they still have all the influence. So their defeated worldview continues ruling the western stage. It’s no wonder things are in such disrepair. Anyway, getting back to the comments.

Aria DiMezzo

Answer this, then, since my reply is being moderated and I don’t know if Jim will approve it since it contains an external URL–to a relevant substantiating remark, of course, but still an external site.

Is “White Lives Matter” racist?

The answer, of course, is a resounding “Yes.”

But you would give different rules to Black Lives Matter? That you would give different rules to one race than you would another race, yes, that’s the definition of racism.

So unless you’re going to stand there and say that “White Lives Matter” isn’t racist, we’ve actually revealed that you, sir or madam or other, are the racist.

Bloodycrow

What a stupid question. Acknowledging the phrase and the movement behind Black Lives Matter does not mean any other race or standing of people is diminished.
However, changing BLM to “____ Lives Matter” does diminish the meaning and intent of the movement.

Aria DiMezzo

im, have you noticed that all of the lack of civility in this thread has come NOT from people like me, but from BLM advocates? All of the insults, ad hominem, and obfuscation has straight up come from BLM advocates. I think that should be a pretty strong indicator of what’s happening here.

That you, Bloodycrow and diamond, cannot have a discussion without immediately resorting to personal attacks and obfuscation, which does nothing but reveal the feeble weakness of your position.

I already addressed that racism is not tied to diminishing a race, but is defined as sectioning off one race from other humans and prescribing a different value to that race. Even if you say “Black people have big dicks,” you are STILL being racist.

“Black people have big dicks.” (Positive remark)
“Black people have little dicks.” (Negative remark)

Both are equally racist.

Whether the racist remark is positive or negative has NOTHING to do with whether it is racist, and I already made this point above. Of course, you ignored that (which I pointed out in my very first comment here), but it’s still obviously true.

Bloodycrow

I see you’ve edited the comment I responded to, well done. I’ll keep my comment as I stand by it.

Please don’t lump Jim in with myself or diamond, I think I can speak for all of us when I say we don’t speak for each other. 😉

When I said your question was stupid, as it was presented before your edit, it wasn’t meant as a personal attack. It was a stupid question, not to say that you are stupid. I feel like I shouldn’t have to point that out, and having to do so is stupid.

This is an abject lie. The question is, and has always been: “Is White Lives Matter racist?”

Aria DiMezzo

I have not edited that comment at all, you liar. If I edited it at all (I’m 95% certain that I did not, though I did edit this one, to add this), then it was to add the last paragraph, which changed no part of the question. The question was, and has been since I initially posted: “Is White Lives Matter racist?”

And you have still not answered the simple question.

============

Furthermore, he didn’t “acknowledge” the phrase or the meaning. He explicitly said that it is NOT racist.

Answer the simple question. Stop obfuscating. Answer the question.

It is not at all a stupid question. It shows your willingness to turn a blind eye to racism if a certain race does it.

If there was a White Lives Matter movement arguing against the 50% of police murders each year who are white, it would be called racist. We both know that to be true.

But when Black Lives Matter happens, people come out of the woodwork to doublethink their way into saying it’s not racist. I addressed your chronic need to ignore what people say already. Kindly actually answer the question.

So I was unable to avoid responding to two comments, primarily because Bloodycrow lied and stated that I edited a comment that I absolutely did not edit.

And here is the best proof I can provide: the Disqus page, though Disqus doesn’t show edits, this one links directly to the comment that had been replied to, which was mine. The way Disqus works, if you click a link to a specific comment, it will not load newer comments. It stands to reason that it will also not load edits that were made to comments.

proof

I’m not trying to reach any of these people, to be honest. I know that diamond’s mind is closed. Jim’s, however… is not. I do believe he can be reached with well thought-out positions and eloquent arguments. It is, however, extremely frustrating, dealing with people like this. It’s very hard to stick to the high road and stay on-point when dealing with a constant stream of ad hominem attacks, but that is what must be done. Any rational person reading that comment chain will go, “Okay, here are two people having deep, provocative, and intellectual conversations… and there are two ass-hats who think ‘you’re fucking stupid’ is an argument…”

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.