Tag Archive | sexism

Turn the Other Cheek? Fuck that!

I don’t know very much about Islam, but that’s okay, because I don’t claim to, and so I generally stay pretty quiet about Islam and what it teaches. I know enough about it to know that it’s very close in tone to the Old Testament of the Bible, and I know that, from the point of view of an atheist, it’s pretty much just a different flavor of Christianity. So I generally don’t have any conversations about sharia or what it is, because I don’t know (or particularly care) what it is, just as I don’t particularly care to know exactly what parameters food must meet in order to be considered kosher. All religious systems have codes, laws, and layers upon layers of teachings. It’s both ridiculous and unrealistic to expect someone who doesn’t believe in the religion to know every detail–or even many details–about the layered teachings. My knowledge of Christianity is a result of my upbringing in the south, and not out of any desire that I felt at any part of my life to explicitly find out what is in the Bible.

I want to quote the Bible for a moment, though, if you don’t mind; Mathew 5:38-40:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.  And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

Now let’s get to the point.

Recently, an anti-Muslim bigot was hospitalized, and libertarian vice presidential candidate and Muslim Will Coley started a campaign to raise funds for the guy, quoting various teachings of the Quran and actions of Mohammad to show that this sort of behavior (turning the other cheek) is perfectly in accord with Islam and should be encouraged. At first, this went exactly as one would like: people saw the wisdom in the teaching. After all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, or so goes the saying. It’s similar to things I’ve talked about before, regarding being transgender in the south–it was not whining and screaming about victimization and bigotry that caused my landlord to change his mind about evicting me; it was my willingness to shrug and acknowledge that he was perfectly within his rights to do so. There are a few other people I know of who hated transgender people and the very idea of transgenderism until they came face-to-face with me, a real person who is simply trying to exist in peace and is very much against the idea of forcing anyone to do or be anything.

Then came the SJWs. And, oh man, did they come.

Suddenly Will was their enemy, despite having the approval of many prominent Islamic figures, and the reason that Will was their enemy?

Because he’s white.

I’m not even kidding. That’s what it all boils down to. It’s often said explicitly.

You cannot defeat racism with racism.

You cannot defeat sexism with sexism.

You cannot defeat sexual orientationism with sexual orientationism.

This is the mistake the alt-right makes. They’ve attempted to meet the left’s increasing racism, sexism, and orientationism with racism, sexism, and orientationism. I’ve directed this message at leftists and rightists. I don’t care who is being the racist–it’s never going to end racism.

That’s where I went after three prominent alt-right youtubers: Atheism is Unstoppable, The Non-Believer, and Autopsy87.

Here’s where I went after the left doing the same thing:

Now, this post is more than just a way for me to collect together various applicable things I’ve made on the subject.

The bottom line is that Will held up a mirror for Christians and Muslims alike to look into, and very few of them could stomach what they saw reflected back. When faced with this situation, they had no recourse but to either self-reflect (something most people are simply unwilling to do, because so few people are willing to acknowledge their flaws and mistakes) or to attack the messenger. Enter the cries of racism and the strange remarks that Will has no business teaching anyone about Islamic teachings… because he’s white.

This is a refrain typical of leftists, sadly. In fact, it just cost them the presidential election. Did they learn anything from losing to the most reviled presidential candidates in modern American history (after all, their preferred candidate lost to Hillary, who then lost to Trump)? Of course they didn’t. If anything, the worst losers in the 2016 election (indisputably, the “progressives”) have only doubled down their hate speech and violence, the very thing that landed them in this mess in the first place.

We have to be better than this.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, and Mohammad would all be shaking their heads in sadness at what is going on, and I can only commend Will for staying on track. When I released my video about the Liberal Redneck, I faced similar criticism, though Will is obviously facing it on a larger scale (though, it’s worth mentioning, the scale of criticism that I faced for that absolutely dwarfed the attention that anything else I’ve created has received anyway), and I remember how difficult it was, when one comment after the next rolled in calling me an idiot, a traitor, a racist, a Biblethumper, and other similar things, to stay on point and not stoop to their level. In the end, I caved and pulled down the video. I really wish I hadn’t, but… c’est la vie.

I don’t think I’d cave today.

Maybe this is just meant to be a collection of other things I’ve said on the matter. Otherwise, I’d just be repeating myself. But it’s sad that podcasts that I released a year ago are equally applicable to things today because, if anything has changed at all, then it’s only been for the worse.

I recently wrote an article attacking the notion of LGBT Pride and Outright Libertarians. I’m going to repost it in the future, but not until the shit with Cantwell has died down. It’s rather similar to how I defended Gary Johnson with the “What is Aleppo?” thing. I’ll criticize someone “on my team” when no one else is, but if someone outside that team starts to criticize, I’ll have their back–assuming they’re right.

When they’re wrong, I’ll gladly tell them so. If they’re wrong and are rightly being attacked for being wrong, then I will at the very least hold off my attack until the attack from the outside is over (after all, you won’t find me defending Outright Libertarians from Cantwell and his people).

I find that I just can’t say much on this matter with Will. I’ve already said it all–and that, I think, is the sad thing, because I’m far from being the only person saying it. Jesus said it. Mohammad said it. Gandhi said it. MLK, Jr. said it. If people won’t listen to these esteemed leaders, why in the world would they listen to me or Will Coley? Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists alike have all had these wonderful ideas thrown at us from every corner for centuries and thousands of years. Yet we only pay them lipservice. Whether it’s Bill Hicks or Mohammad isn’t important.

And, yes, libertarians are guilty of it, too. When Fidel Castro died, many libertarians actively celebrated his death and digitally danced on his grave. Weird behavior from a group of people whose ideology is literally built on forgiveness and love.

We need less hatred in the world.

That starts with you.

 

More Subtle Sexism

Look, I’m not talking about how society is rigged against females or anything like that when I refer to sexism as being real. In fact, the only way in which I can verify that sexism is real is that women are repeatedly told that they are being emotional. Despite repeatedly putting forth factual and logical statements, I was just again told that I was being emotional–actually, I was told that I was on an “emotional rampage.” Wow, right? So what did I say that showcased this emotional rampage?

To start, I answered the question on Quora about whether America could ever become a direct democracy.

I answered:

It could, but there wouldn’t really be any benefit, while there would be terrific harm.

I’ve had a pain when breathing deeply for about two weeks. So what makes more sense?

A) For me to ask a doctor.

B) For me to establish a national poll providing a bunch of information, none of which is complete and all of which is complicated, and ask the entire nation to vote on what my treatment should be. Note that if they vote “Go see a doctor,” then they’re advocating representative democracy. No, I’m needing from them a diagnosis and treatment, and I’m going to do whatever they suggest.

It’s madness, isn’t it? Social matters aren’t simple ones. Most of these complex issues take years of study to understand. Democracy is turning the control of the ship over to the passengers, none of whom know anything about operating a ship and all of whom think “It’s just common sense” or that the gut feelings they have about this or that issue are enough to make an informed decision.

Economics is actually a pretty complex subject, but people tend to take their emotions and use those emotions to support their idea. Rather than learning about economics and how we might raise the standard of living, for example, masses of people who know nothing about economics instead vote to raise the minimum wage—a rash act based in economic ignorance that has severe consequences. It’s the Dunning-Kruger Effect Governmental System: people who know almost nothing about these complex, technical subjects instead think they know enough to dictate the course of the ship.

It’s certainly possible, and the Democrat Party seems to want it to happen (hence their party name), but it would be folly. The problems of democracy have been known and explored for thousands of years; there are very good reasons we’ve never tried it. Especially in the age of the Internet (if we could get a handle on our tech security), it wouldn’t even be that difficult from a logistic standpoint. But from a cultural and social one, it would (hopefully) be hard to sway people to give control of the ship to the passengers.

Replacing our government, whatever type it is, with one more suited to our liking is a right—the right of self-governance. If we decided we wanted a direct democracy, then by all rights our current government should step down. They wouldn’t, of course, and it would require revolution, and then the new government would be just as bad as the old one. Just different.

Every generation has the right to choose its own government. People who lived 200 years ago had no right to determine what type of government we must have, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. However, a republic government really is the best of a terrible situation. If we must have a state, a constitutional republic is the most pro-liberty and restrained.

So far, so good, right? Nothing emotional or irrational about that. Just a few facts and a few rational arguments. In came the comment:

Your answer relies upon a very narrow view of human nature and ignores extremely important principles of democracy. “Economics is a complex subject” is true and that is why there must be widespread and strongly independent news media along with journalists having investigative powers. In the US there used to be journalists who specialized in those issues and released their findings for all to consume. The “news” used to solve that problem for us but corporations have totally destroyed that part of America. [emphasis added]

Not overly polite, but okay. I decided to give Don Tracy the benefit of the doubt and replied:

I’ll be courteous and give you an opportunity to explain how my answer ignores fundamental aspects of democracy and is extremely narrow.

Obviously, I’m not too happy to be insulted–even if the insults are so dim and weak. Retaliation never gets us anywhere, though, and if Don was correct, I wanted to know it. Don replied:

You are narrow minded in forcing people into ignorant masses that can only think emotionally which is the whole premise of your answer. Without the metaphor of passengers passively going along for the ride what is your point? That is not democracy; it is not “mob rule” which immature philosophers of the ancient past claimed – they didn’t even know about the concept of a nation-state. Granted you say we have two thousand years of additional history but rather than claiming we haven’t learned in that time like you say the truth is exactly the opposite – mankind has learned a lot about government and politics over history. The “Democratic Party is folly” shows your biased agenda. Finally, you need to know that a republic is a type of democracy so your answer relies upon a weird personal definition of democracy that no one agrees with and is not accepted in general.

More viciousness. As it happens, I am correct, though, in my initial answer, so I defended my points:

See, and here I was being courtesy. *sigh*. That’s how it goes, though. Pro-democracy people really do love their insults.

You are exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I feel I should warn you. It is a statement of fact that areas of complexity and expertise are significantly misunderstood and woefully underestimated in their complexity by the masses. I’ll provide this so that you can read it over it: Dunning–Kruger effect – Wikipedia

Democracy most certainly is mob rule, and that you cite “immature philosophers” as saying this shows how wrapped in the Dunning-Kruger web you must be. Some of the greatest thinkers in human history—those “immature philosophers” you are referring to—rejected democracy on exactly the same grounds that I did. Here is further reading on the nature of democracy—two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner: Is democracy in reality just mob rule?

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule… is an excellent resource, as well. One of those “immature philosophers” you may be referring to happens to go by the name of Thomas Jefferson, and he wrote plenty about the failures and dangers of democracy. Here are those, as well: About this Collection – Thomas Jefferson Papers, 1606-1827

If you would suggest that you know better than these people who dedicated their lives to the study of governmental processes and society—those “immature philosophers” again—then you are, again, exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect in shocking ways.

The last part of your reply shows exactly why democracy cannot be allowed: you have confused the question’s discussion of “direct democracy” with universal suffrage—that is, the right of the people to vote. In a republic, the people vote for representatives who enact policy. In a democracy, the people vote directly on the policies. No one has stated that universal suffrage is bad. I said that democracy is bad; e.g., the people voting directly on matters of policy is bad, for reasons outlined above.

You seem to think that universal suffrage and democracy are the same thing. They aren’t. A Democracy is a type of government where the people vote directly on the issues via referendums. It is not the right of the people to vote; that right is called universal suffrage. What, exactly, the people are voting for is what differentiates a democracy from a republic. If they are voting on matters of policy directly, it is “a democracy.” if they are voting for representatives who then vote on matters of policy, it is a republic.

“Democracy” has been twisted by the layperson into meaning “universal suffrage.” I agree with you on that, just as “theory” has been twisted to mean “educated guess” to the layperson. Use the layperson’s definition of “democracy” and “theory” if you would like; I will not. The only thing that differentiates the democracy from the republic is what the votes are for, not the existence of suffrage.

Regardless, the question deals with direct democracy—i.e., the people voting directly on the issues rather than going through representatives. The question is specifically whether the U.S. can/should remove the representatives from the process, not whether we should or shouldn’t have universal suffrage.

You’ve called me narrow-minded, limited, and biased. I’ve been nothing but polite to you. Learn the difference between universal suffrage, a republic, and a democracy, accept the wisdom of the people who came before you instead of calling them immature, and stop assuming that you know everything while you reject what people who have studied the matters have to say.

A lengthy rebuttal substantiating everything that I said. Cool. And Don’s reply?

Well, there you go again. I must say with all kindness that your ideas definitely are limited and biased but absolutely not you personally. I’m afraid you are on an emotional rampage but please understand that I am not a debater, not a professor, and not a lawyer. I have no idea what a Dunning-Krueger thing is but since you do then you must be pretty smart. So for a smart person, I don’t understand how you can have such stupid ideas. I checked the web page for “Democracy is mob rule” and have warn you it is obviously biased with an agenda to promote – you should not used it. Please re-read my comments above and give them some honest thought and consideration. Good luck my friend.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Now I’m having an emotional reaction, because now I’m pissed off. To present a valid, reasonable argument with citations and evidence, only to be insulted by some ignorant, sexist pig who can’t face the reality that he has no fucking idea what he’s talking about… It’s infuriating.

So I deleted his comments, but they’ll stay here as a testament. This happens quite a lot, and it never happened until Aria existed. Anyone who can read my rebuttal and take away “emotional rampage” is an unequivocal moron. It’s ridiculous that he doesn’t know what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is, since I gave him links to it. Rather than checking it out, he vomited out this spiel.

Look. If you reply to a girl who presents a rational argument with links and citations as she rebuts your insults and your unsubstantiated silliness with the accusation that she’s having an emotional rampage, then you’re a sexist piece of shit. Sorry, but you are. Because you know you wouldn’t say that to a guy.

Look deeper into what he said, too. “You must be pretty smart. So for a smart person, I don’t understand how you can have such stupid ideas.” I’ve talked about his before, this way that people tie their beliefs to their estimation of their own intelligence. It’s so… Dunning-Kruger-ish. “I’m right because I’m intelligent, so anyone who agrees with me must also be intelligent. If they are intelligent and don’t agree with me, then something is very, very wrong, because intelligent people agree with me! Maybe they aren’t intelligent after all.”

It’s so obviously circular.

The new deity with which they make their own ideas sacrosanct: intelligence.

It is such a dangerous thing, to tie “being right” with “believing what I believe” and with “being intelligent.”

Because no one thinks they’re wrong, and no one thinks they’re stupid.

Yet loads and loads of people are both wrong AND stupid. Yet no matter how wrong someone is, and no matter how stupid someone is, they will always–all caps, underline, bold–ALWAYS believe that they are both right and reasonably intelligent. You don’t see half the American population running around saying, “I’m wrong, but I believe it anyway!” and “I’m stupid! Hur hur hur!”

No. You see everyone saying that they’re right–self included–and everyone saying they’re intelligent–self-included. Why, it’s almost as though being right or wrong and being intelligent or stupid are completely and totally unrelated to a person’s ability to recognize whether they are right or wrong or intelligent or stupid!

If you gauge your intelligence by your own beliefs, such that people who agree with you are deemed “intelligent” while people who disagree with you are not, then you’re closing your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong about something. After all, “wrong = dumb” in that worldview, and we all value our egos too much to ever even allow the possibility that we might be stupid.

This is what I mean when I say that intelligence has become the new deity by which we make our beliefs sacrosanct. We all cradle our egos–right, wrong, intelligent, and stupid. So if you assess intelligence by whether or not people agree with you, you divide the world not into “people who think x” and “people who don’t think x,” but “smart people” and “dumb people.” This is an excuse to not listen to them–they become idiots, stupid–heathens, pagans, and apostates.

Being right or wrong have NOTHING to do with intelligence. They have to do with INFORMATION and a willingness–or unwillingness–to accept that information.

Liberals, This is Why You Lost

In the wake of a Trump victory that left virtually everyone except myself and Thomas Knapp totally surprised, I get to spend the next few months drinking the tears of liberals and, especially, Sanders supporters. Sanders supporters have such delicious tears. The only thing more exquisite than the tears of Sanders supporters right now are the tears of Johnson supporters who seem, for some odd reason, incapable of learning anything from the ass-whooping they got last night.

what

WHAT?!

I watched CNN bend over backward to avoid calling the state of Pennsylvania, even though Trump had a lead of 70,000 votes and 99% of precincts had reported in. After doing the math, it seemed that the remaining 1% would likely contribute around 20,000 votes to the totals, and that even if all of them went to Hillary Trump would still be ahead. They also neglected to call Michigan. When they finally called Minnesota, I went to bed. Something happened last night, though, that was tremendously fascinating.

Do not EVER forget that the media gave Hillary an 85% chance of winning yesterday.

Do not forget that, do not let it slide, and do not forget to factor it into your considerations moving forward.

From the start, from the moment Trump announced his campaign, the media has refused to take him seriously. First, there was “no way” he would be a serious contender. Then there was “no way” he could win the GOP Primary. Then there was “no way” he could beat Hillary. Over and over again, for a year and a half, all we’ve heard is that there is “no way” Trump can win.

Then he won.

In my tiny little circle, I blasted Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight for being on the wrong side of the data. It was disgraceful to watch. He began with virtual certainty that Trump wouldn’t win, and every single day he changed his number slightly. He didn’t see Trump winning until Cruz dropped out, and much of the media joined him. Virtually the entire media apparatus arrayed against Trump, twisting his words, taking him out of context, and lying outright about him. Trump saying that women let him do things has been routinely called “sexual assault,” to the point that a lot of liberals seem to no longer understand that if a woman lets a man do something, then it is not sexual assault.

This was how liberals reacted every time Trump opened his mouth:

This election was a thorough and complete repudiation of political correctness, censorship, thoughtcrime, safe spaces, emotions over free speech, and the astounding liberal arrogance that conservatives have been dealing with for decades. At each step of the way, liberals and the media only became more and more arrogant, until finally Trump’s supporters were “largely uneducated whites…” “largely uneducated whites…” “whites without college degrees…”

Well, I’ve got news for you, liberals.

There are not that many white people without college degrees to give Trump a victory.

But will you change your tune?

No. A CNN correspondent only doubled down last night, pulling the equivalent of this:

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Why Did Hillary Lose?

She didn’t. Trump won.

We need this to be very, very clear. It does not matter one bit how many people disliked Hillary. It did not matter at all how many scandals she had, or how overblown they were. Hillary did not lose these states because she lacked enough votes; Trump won these states because he had more votes. There is a subtle, but extremely important, difference. Trump won because people voted for him. Period. End of story, end of discussion. That is solely the reason that Trump won. Absolutely nothing else could have allowed Trump to win. Once more, Trump won because people voted for Trump.

Why Did People Vote For Trump?

That is the important question, and the answer is not going to be one that liberals like to hear.

People voted for Trump because they’re tired of having women call them misogynists if they don’t bow and lick the toes of women. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of being called homophobic because they are straight and choose not to associate with LGBT people. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of being called racist because they want to control immigration. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of being called Islamophobic because they noticed a not-hard-to-see correlation between Islam and terrorism. People voted for Trump because they’re tired of hearing about Black Lives Matter in a nation where more than 50% of people killed by police are white. On this last one, I will keep it brief and say only this.

95% of people killed by police are men. Does this mean that police are inherently sexist? Does this mean that we need a Female Lives Matter movement? Does this mean we need a Male Lives Matter movement, to change it so that only 50% of people killed by police are men? Because it’s true–95% of people killed by police are men, and men make up only 50% of the population. Yet we know without even thinking about it that a Male Lives Matter movement would be absurd, that it’s a matter of record that men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women.

We had a presidential candidate call 25% of the population “a basket of deplorables,” no doubt alluding to their being racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. Can you even imagine the fallout if Trump said that black people–who comprise about 13% of the population–are deplorable? Just think about that for a moment. What would happen if Trump said that? There is zero chance he would have won. And no, he didn’t “pretty much say that anyway.” Trump has never said anything that came close to being so overtly bigoted. Yet Hillary said it, and liberals mostly just shrugged. “Yeah, they are,” said the arrogant liberals, sneering down their noses at the conservatives who dared have different values.

They’re uneducated.

They don’t live in our big cities where they can be educated and properly indoctrinated.

They’re racist, even though most of them live in states where they co-exist alongside higher percentages of minority communities than most liberals even understand.

They’re homophobic because they’re icky Christians.

They think abortion is murder.

Ew.

They’re so backward.

They’re so ignorant.

Why?

Why would you consistently say this about such a large portion of the population? Why? There’s only one reason, as Trae Crowder said in his video:

This is our world now, and you’re not getting it back.

You didn’t listen.

You were sure. You were convinced that this is your world now, and that conservatives couldn’t take it back. You were convinced of your own righteousness. “We are on the side of justice! Of Equality! Of compassion! We are right, by God! We are objectively, certainly, absolutely right! They must be forced to go along with us! They cannot be allowed to believe what they want!”

Don’t believe me?

not aloneHere is a liberal proudly saying that he is totally okay with forcing conservatives to go along with liberal values, whether they like it or not. If you want to see my long history of combating this tyrannical mindset, then click the “faux progressivism” tag at the bottom.

These are the reasons I said that Trump would win, and I outlined them over the course of the last year.

You didn’t listen.

You told me I was wrong.

You divided the country into Us and Them and then accused Them of being divisive.

https://www.quora.com/Will-there-be-a-civil-war-if-Trump-doesnt-become-president/answer/Aria-DiMezzo?srid=QLHv

https://www.quora.com/What-in-your-opinion-contributed-to-2016-candidates-assuming-you-and-Trump-running-having-highest-unfavorable-ratings-in-recent-history/answer/Aria-DiMezzo?srid=QLHv

You have been ridiculing, mocking, and deriding conservatives for the better part of two decades, calling whites, Christians, and men backward, racist, homophobic, hateful, spiteful, power-hungry, oppressive, xenophobic, sexist, misogynistic.

Because you thought you could get away with it.

You thought they couldn’t get the numbers together.

Everyone knows the demographics.

Everyone knows that white people won’t be a majority much longer. Everyone knows there are more women than men. Everyone knows Christianity is on its way out, at least as a factor in political policy. Everyone knows that LGBT acceptance is on the way. Everyone knows that a person of any color can do anything–literally become the President of the United States. Everyone knows that none of these trends are going to reverse.

You thought it was your world and that conservatives couldn’t take it back. You thought you could oppress them all you wanted and that they couldn’t fight back. You thought you had won. You looked at the numbers and celebrated:

With our coalition of women, black people, Hispanics, LGBT people, and Muslims, we far outnumber the straight, white, Christian men! They’ll never win another election! Mwa ha ha! We can do anything we want! Fuck them!

This is, of course, why it was so critical that you attempt to brow-beat everyone in one of those groups into voting for you. You need that coalition, because you know that none of those groups are enough alone. So you lied. You cheated. You spit on everyone. You demanded total obedience. You turned people into heretics if they dared not toe the party line. If anyone dared speak out, you destroyed them. I stopped being an individual; I was an LGBT person to you, and that meant I was a Democrat and would vote for Hillary. You need that, because if we dare identify as individuals instead of these miscellaneous characteristics that do not define us, your coalition of people based on those meaningless characteristics falls apart.

It’s why you need sexual orientation to matter. No matter how much you say that sexual orientation shouldn’t matter, you need it to matter. If it doesn’t matter whether or not someone is LGBT, then they won’t be part of this group that identifies as LGBT. And if they’re not part of that group, then you’re not going to be able to brow-beat them into giving you their vote. You need LGBT people to unite into a group, because you need to claim their votes, and for this you need sexual orientation to matter–if it doesn’t matter, then they would LGBT people untie into a group? They wouldn’t, just like there’s no Magic: The Gathering Fanclub voting bloc, because being a MTG fan isn’t a place where the lines have been drawn. So you need all of these lines. It’s why you say shit like the people above. You need the lines drawn, and you need to twist everyone’s arm until they bow to your demands.

Don’t believe me?14457545_322724114752962_5394598635458317730_n

How many posts have you seen that says anyone who doesn’t vote for Hillary is voting for white privilege? I’ve seen people say that voting 3rd party means you’re a privileged asshole.

Yes. I’m a broke transgender atheist living in Mississippi born to a family of murderers and drug addicts. Tell me more about how privileged I am.

These are the reasons you lost, liberals.

Your arrogance.

Your sheer, unbridled arrogance.

Surely you see how arrogant you are, and how arrogant the media is. If not, here’s this to help: https://anarchistshemale.com/2016/10/01/liberal-monoliths-manifest-destinyy-v2-0/

The media doesn’t get it.

Last night, CNN’s pundits said that Trump supporters adopted the moniker of “deplorable” and called themselves “proud deplorables” because of “how ridiculous” it was.

No, you arrogant fool.

They did it because of how arrogant it was.

It’s rather like when dumbass statists call me an idiot. Being called an idiot by someone who is stupid is, for me, a compliment of the highest order. I’d be more alarmed if such people thought I was smart. This is how the Trump supporters felt. They’d be more alarmed if Hillary and liberals didn’t think they were deplorable.

“They’re deplorable” makes a clear Us and Them divide. “They” are deplorable. Obviously, this is a divisive statement, then.

This put Trump supporters on one side and Hillary and her supporters on another. It’s like the Nazis saying that the United States is deplorable. Like, “Oh, really? Well, good! I want you to think I’m deplorable, because you’re a disgusting maggot. The last thing I want is for you to like me.”

And the media and liberals simply don’t get it.

They don’t seem to be able to understand that their shit really does stink.

They firebomb Republican offices, attack free speech, demand segregated housing, shut down interstates, attack Trump supporters physically, and mock them–sexists, misogynists, homophobes, islamophobes, racists… They attack, attack, attack.

And they’re so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they are incapable of seeing how fucked up they are being.

But they are being fucked up.

Liberals, you are being fucked up. And your arrogance, your conviction that you are on the side of righteousness and justice as you commit horrific acts, as you sneer condescendingly down your nose at all the “racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic misogynistic deplorables” is precisely the reason you lost.

This election, you lost the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Presidency.

And what have you done?

You have doubled down on your arrogance!

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Yes, this is PRECISELY why liberals lost.

Instead of saying “You know what? This is our fault for being arrogant, condescending, insulting, and vicious toward a YUUUUUGE section of the population. We need to stop being hateful, vicious, spiteful bigots because these people dare have different values than we do. We need to step down off our high horses, because we just got our asses handed to us across the board,” you instead crank the arrogant, condescending vitriol up a notch. Look at this terrible shit!

“Fuck you, white America. Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit.”

Jesus Christ!

You racist, sexist bitch.

You cannot end racism with racism.

You cannot end sexism with sexism.

You cannot end orientationism with orientationism.

You cannot end divisiveness with divisiveness.

Middle America has had enough of the arrogantly divisive bullshit. Clearly. They spoke loudly and clearly last night.

Liberals, last night America spoke.

It’s time for you to shut the fuck up and listen.

By the way, no, Laci. That is most certainly not “textbook Fascism.” Please learn what fascism is before you use the word.

Scan the QR Code

The Nihilism of Western Society

Western society is not decadent; it’s nihilistic.

Now, those familiar with me know that I consider myself a nihilist. I am also well aware that Nietzsche–the father of modern nihilism–would be appalled to learn that we call ourselves nihilists. We don’t mean it in the same sense that Nietzsche meant it, and I’m going to get into that momentarily. We mean it in the sense of ultimate objectivity, refusing to allow emotions a place in shaping our knowledge, and a strict separation of emotion from reason. This leads to a lack of attachment and loyalty to existing institutions. We don’t look at the educational institution and say, “Well, it’s bad and could be replaced, but we’ve had this one for so long…” Instead, we stop at “Does it accomplish what we want it to? If not, replace it.”

Nihilists do not advocate arbitrarily destroying socioeconomic institutions just because. We advocate destroying them if they don’t do what we want them to do. This requires objectively looking at them and their results. Nihilism is a constant battle between what we believe and what is, and not everyone is capable of accepting “what is.” Religion is a great example. I have a friend who agrees with me almost completely about religion, and even agrees that people use deities as projections of their own beliefs and opinions. Yet, he still believes that there is a god–in the deist sense. This is an example where he will not accept What Is because of What Ought.

It’s funny that nihilists recognize that every value that we assign to things is subjective, while also striving to be as objective as possible–objective, in this context, meaning “not allowing emotions to alter the value we ascribe.” Nietzsche would absolutely be an anarcho-capitalist if he lived today: Austrian economics is the application of this subjectivity to market values. Nietzsche spoke primarily of assigning moral values, but the principle is the same for market values, too, and he has long been recognized as an enemy of the state. It was Nietzsche, after all, who said:

Everything the state says is a lie, and everything it has, it has stolen.

If there’s anything that you should take away from this preamble, it’s that I understand Nietzsche and I understand what we call Nihilism. I am a nihilist. For the rest of the article, though, I don’t mean “nihilist” in that sense. I mean it in its Nietzschean sense: advocating ideas and opinions that are ultimately self-destructive. This is what Nietzsche meant when he characterized Christianity as nihilistic. From The Antichrist:

What is more harmful than any vice?–Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak–Christianity…

We Americans, too, are increasingly nihilistic, yet it has nothing to do with religion. It does have to do with the same thing that Nietzsche criticized, but I think Nietzsche was wrong here. I don’t think compassion is a problem; in fact, I encourage compassion. I think that we tend to come up with extremely short-sighted, non-functional solutions, propose them, and then tie our compassion to them, so much so that anyone who then disputes our proposed solution is written off as lacking compassion. That’s a bit long-winded and technical, so let me give an example.

I am against welfare. I am adamantly against stealing from one person to give their money to someone else, and this is what constitutes “welfare” in western society. Whether you think it’s just or not is irrelevant; that’s simply what happens. When I tell people that I am against welfare, I am universally met with the response of, “You just want poor people to starve to death?”

Published alongside me in V2: The Voluntary Voice was Matthew Weber, who told a story about his voluntaryist-oriented band played a show, and at one point said some anarchistic stuff. Someone threw a bottle at the drummer and shouted, “Without the state, where would I find housing?”

Without even being conscious of it, they have formed a false dichotomy where the choices are “the state” or “people starve and go homeless.”

Nietzsche wrote from a perspective that was, really, Beyond Good and Evil. He was not concerned with what he called Middle Class Morality–a profound realization in its own right, that the rich don’t abide morality because they don’t have to, and the poor don’t abide it because they don’t have the luxury. Nietzsche realized that morality is a luxury, and it is from here that we proceed, because compassion is also a luxury. The child starving to death surely has no compassion for the robbery of Kim Kardashian. The woman dying of cancer surely has no compassion for a stranger’s flu.

When people begin starving, morality is the first thing to be thrown away, as morality was the force responsible for creating the vacuum in which they went hungry. The man starving to death has no moral difficulty with stealing a loaf of bread. The family going hungry has no moral difficulty using the state to give to others for their own benefit. So, too, is my critique of this theft as immoral a luxury of the middle class–and my morality does not apply to them, because they have discarded it. When thrown with others into a survival trap like in the movie Saw, we would have no moral difficulty in poisoning the doctor to ensure our own survival.

Certainly, I would argue that it is good that we have our Middle Class Morality, and I argue that both the poor and the rich should have to abide it. Many Americans argue that the rich should have to, but leave the poor out of this requirement. We criticize Wells Fargo for stealing, basically, from its customers, yet we give a thumbs up to the poor who use the state to steal. My entire position as an anarchist is that everyone must follow this Middle Class Morality that forbids the use of force, violence, and coercion, and that this mandate must include the rulers–who so often are given a free pass to violate the tenets of our morality.

However, I am not concerned with what the middle class says is right or wrong. Here, as Nietzsche did, we focus our efforts higher than that, and go beyond that; we look instead at survival and the species. There is no one as nihilistic as millennials, and this is a problem that we must address.

Millennials despise people being rewarded for their effort.

Such a sweeping statement! And, obviously, it will not be true of all millennials–I am a millennial. However, it is true of the majority of them.

They embrace an economic system that deliberately does not reward people for their effort. It doesn’t matter how we dress it up. If a person believes that a doctor, an attorney, an engineer, a physicist, a Wal-Mart cashier, and a burger flipper deserve equal wages, then they ipso facto reject the notion that people should be rewarded for their effort.

As I wrote for Cubed3 regarding Star Fox Zero, this extends to most areas of life: millennials simply want to be given stuff, and they legitimately don’t understand why effort should be rewarded. We’re told that we’re entitled if we want the physicist to be rewarded for their years of training and education with a higher wage. We’re told that we’re entitled if we want the doctor to be rewarded for their years of training and education with a higher wage. And, yes, we’re told we’re entitled if we want the effort we put into beating a video game rewarded.

This mentality–that rewarding effort is bad–is the same one that gave us participation trophies, and it becomes nihilistic when we know that the primary reason that people do stuff… is for a reward. Psychology has made this abundantly clear. You don’t punish bad behavior; you reward good behavior. We all want to be rewarded; this is fundamental to being a human being, or a cat or a dog. We are dealing with primal forces that we cannot control here, and we cannot predict the longterm consequences of making sure that Billy, who sat in the grass eating bugs, gets exactly the same trophy as Michael, who hit fourteen homeruns. How hard will Michael work the next year, if he knows his effort won’t be rewarded or even acknowledged?

Donald Trump has been assaulted recently for making more lewd remarks about women, and for remarking on the fact that, when you’re a rich star, women tend to let you do whatever you want. Yes, they clearly do tend to:

This is the world we live in.Notice the words “tend to” here, and remember that we’re not speaking in absolutes. We’re never speaking in absolutes.

If Trump grabbed women who didn’t want to be grabbed, that’s an issue, and we can discuss that, but we can’t pretend like Trump is a monster because he uses his riches and fame to sleep with beautiful women. We hate Trump because he reminded us of what animals we are. He breaks that self-delusion that we are better than that, that we are greater than that, that we are more than animals.

But no. We’re not.

Donald Trump is a wolf who has filled his cave with dead prey, and is standing in front of the cave whistling at lady wolves, “Hey, baby! Look at all the prey that I got! Yeah, I did that. Don’t you want to let me fuck you?”

The greatest amusement to me are the guys who say, “No! I would never use my power and wealth to attempt to sleep with women.”

Yeah, well. Okay.

And that’s why you don’t have power and wealth.

Do you know why every human being does like 99% of the things they do? I’ll give you a hint.

SEX.

It’s not just men; it’s women, too. It’s humans, period. We are sexual creatures. The desire to reproduce is ubiquitous through us–even though we all deal with it in different ways–and it made us all very, very horny. It’s our Middle Class Morality that keeps us from fucking as the cats and dogs do, but it’s a constant battle against ourselves. Regardless of the question, “To get laid” is almost always the answer. Not always, but most of the time. It is an underlying motive for practically everything that humans do.

So why do some men seek riches and fame? To sleep with beautiful women.

This isn’t wrong. It can’t be wrong, because there are plenty of beautiful women who want to sleep with men who are rich and famous. I would guess that the lottery winner there lost his virginity to that woman and that no one slept with him when he wasn’t rich and famous. Suddenly he was, and suddenly found the love of his life.

Imagine that.

There’s a difference, obviously–there’s a large, unidentifiable difference between a woman who would be willing to sleep with a dude because he is rich, and a woman who would be disgusted by the idea. Donald Trump knows damned well that his female campaign manager would never sleep with him, regardless of how much money he has. I’m not defending Trump. I’m pointing out that there are things we have to accept and things we have to discuss, because trying to undo it is nihilistic.

If you take away the financial rewards of effort, then you take away the motivation of people to become rich so that they can have sex with supermodels. Can you imagine the wondrous innovations and technologies we have today because someone wanted to get laid?

Millennials hate the rich because the rich represent that: reward for effort. The rich are evil because they want their effort rewarded, and it’s selfish and entitled to want effort rewarded–but like totes 4 real not selfish and entitled to want to be rewarded without effort.

Millennials hate themselves, and because of this they are inclined to subconsciously adopt ideologies that are nihilistic and that would destroy us.

Millennials hate individual responsibility for the same reason. It’s all tied together. They hate themselves; they hate their own humanity. So they attempt to destroy it by denying that individual responsibility is a good thing, by denying that autonomy is a good thing, by denying that a person wants their effort rewarded, by denying that a person is motivated to put in effort by the rewards it offers. Yet all of these things are reasons our species survives to this day, and reasons that western society has thrived.

Hating these things is a luxury provided to them by the very things they hate.

Liberal Monoliths & Manifest Destiny v2.0

It strikes me as very distressing that we can treat blacks, hispanics, LGBT people, and women as unified, monolithic voting blocs who speak, act, and move with a single voice, rather than as individuals with their own beliefs, hopes, and desires. It’s even more alarming because Republicans are frequently criticized of being intolerant of all of these groups, while all of these groups scream that these characteristics shouldn’t matter, and while liberals are clearly the ones treating everyone who categorizes one way or another as though they are a resource to be tallied on the page.

Behold this:

14457545_322724114752962_5394598635458317730_nI sit in shock every single time I read it. Yesterday morning while scrolling through my News Feed, I found a friend of a friend asking whether transgenderism and homosexuality were mental illnesses. Indeed, he repeated the question today. Each time, the answers were filled with almost supreme stupidity–a stupidity matched only by Shit Kyle Wagner Says. Yet, none of the comments or posts on the linked page are dumb enough to warrant their own article. None come anywhere close to being as supremely insultingly and offensive to such a raw degree as the inane spiel I linked above and that I’ll type out here for those who can’t load images:

It’s fascinating to me that the vast majority people [sic] I see advocating voting for a third party, rather than Hillary, are straight, white, and predominantly men. There’s a reason why women, racial minorities, and members of the LGBT community are overwhelmingly in support of Hillary. Voting for her is the only way to ensure our own liberty, and in some cases our lives.

You do NOT get to call yourself an Ally to the LGBT community if you don’t vote for her.

You do NOT get to call yourself an Ally to the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities if you don’t vote for her.

You do NOT get to call yourself a Feminist if you don’t vote for her.

Voting 3rd party for the General Presidential Election is literally throwing your vote away. Your “protest” vote does nothing to help any 3rd party, because that’s not how the Electoral College works. Vote Green Party or Libertarian at the local and state levels, where the change you’re looking for can actually take root [bold emphasis added].

Voting 3rd party in this election is saying that your personal outrage at her “scandals” or your anger at Bernie losing, is more important than the rights and lives of women, LGBT people, and the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities.

Voting 3rd party is an insult to me, and everyone else who will have to fear a Supreme Court that Trump chooses. The radically conservative Supreme Court he’s promising to deliver could undo decades of social progress, and could last for decades to come. If he delivers on his campaign promises, LGBT rights, women’s rights, the safety and security of the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities, is all at stake.

Trump WILL win if the liberal base gets divided. And it will be YOUR fault.

But I get it. You “can’t stand” Hillary. That’s totally more important than all of the people you’re putting in danger.

Good god, it’s so supremely arrogant, entitled, and offensive. I’m genuinely not sure where to start.

Notice, though, that the post specifically precludes the possibility that any black person, Hispanic person, Muslim, or LGBT person could somehow not support Hillary. You can’t call yourself an Ally, but can I still call myself Transsexual, if I don’t vote for Hillary? Can black people still call themselves black if they don’t vote for Hillary? Can Muslims still call themselves Muslims?

Oh. No. We can’t still call ourselves these things we might be: http://www.infowars.com/wow-african-american-reporter-called-race-traitor-by-hillary-supporter-presidential-debate-coverage/

You’re a “race traitor” if you’re black and don’t support Hillary. I imagine that I’m an insult to the LGBT community for not supporting Hillary. I’ve been told that before, specifically because I wouldn’t march in lockstep with the rest of the LGBT community screaming about the evil, offensive Christians while licking the feet of the Muslims who hate you far more than Christians do.

Heil! Heil!

heilYes.

You are a totalitarian, authoritarian piece of shit demanding absolute obedience and compliance with what you want, and calling people traitors and enemies if they break the stride of your Liberal Supremacy March.

I have no love for Trump. In fact, I can’t stand Trump. But you people are constantly screaming about how much like Hitler he is while you undergo the exact same bullshit that Hitler did.

I cannot stand you. You are the worst kind of human being, so thoroughly convinced of your own self-righteousness and moral supremacy that you cannot see the moral atrocities you commit in the name of that self-righteousness and arrogance. I recently remarked that you and the liberals like you are doing nothing more than continuing the Manifest Destiny as set out by Andrew Jackson–and, don’t worry, I’m going to explain this remark. Your arrogance is supreme and knows no bounds. Everyone must bow to your compassion, your wisdom, your rightness. And if they don’t–

Well, there’s always the Bastille.

Recently the entire nation of Canada purportedly banned members of the Westboro Baptist Church from entering. I’ve got friends on Facebook celebrating this and remarking how much they love Canada. I’m sure you would totally agree, in fact. But I’ve got some bad news for you, sunshine–this is not what you’d expect to see… If you are cheering for how Canada is refusing to allow members of the WBC to enter their country while condemning Trump for saying the exact same thing about Muslims, then you are a vile and disgusting hypocrite. Just because one is your pet religion and the other is not–when the reality is that, on average, Muslims are far more hostile toward LGBT people than even the Westboro Baptist Church.

It’s been a long time since a member of the Westboro Baptist Church shot up a club and killed 49 people in Orlando, you piece of shit.

https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-last-presidential-candidate-prior-to-Donald-Trump-who-incited-riots-of-equal-or-greater-magnitude/answer/Aria-DiMezzo?srid=QLHv

Manifest Destiny 2.0

One of the funniest thing about a Trump presidency is the people who say that he hates India and China because he wants to work out deals that are in the best interests of the United States, and that he’s not going to put Indian or Chinese interests first in his negotiations. People act like he’s basically declaring war on them. We have this idea that it’s bad–it’s awful–if we put American interests first. Why?

Are you seriously naive enough to believe that India doesn’t put India’s interests first? That China doesn’t put China’s interests first?

Of course you’re not. You know that India puts India first. This is why your position is one of such arrogant. You have the position that the Indians are incapable of looking out for their own best interests against our glorious awesomeness, that the Chinese are incapable of looking out for their own best interests against our marvelous and benevolent might. We have to look out for their best interests, rather than our own, because they’re too stupid to refuse a deal that isn’t in their own best interests. We have to put Iran’s interests first in our nuclear agreement with them because they’re too dumb to say “No” to a deal that isn’t in their best interests, thereby demanding that we draft a better one.

You let India worry about India. India doesn’t need you, Glorious Whitey, looking out for it.

You are showcasing White Man’s Burden through and through. It has morphed, somewhat. It is now more like White Person’s Burden, but it’s the same thing. All these poor brown people–whatever would they do without us protecting them and putting their interests first? They would never survive, the silly barbarians. Because we’re just so great, so powerful, so unstoppable that if we dared put our own best interests first–even for a second–we would steamroll them right out of existence without a whimper from them.

How can we not see this in the spiel I posted above?

It’s specifically targeting allies of these various groups. It lays out the stakes: “Their very lives will be in danger! The lives of women, blacks, hispanics, LGBT people, and Muslims! TRUMP WILL DESTROY THEM ALL and the women, blacks, hispanics, LGBT people, and Muslims couldn’t possibly stand against Mighty Whitey!”

Fuck you, you racist, arrogant piece of shit.

You are not superior to me.

You are not superior to any black person. Black people do not need Mighty Whitey as a goddamned savior.

Muslims don’t need you to be their goddamned savior.

Hispanics don’t need you to be their goddamned savior.

LGBT people have gone so far past equality and into oppression of religious people that I’m not even going to address that, you narcissistic idiot. I am a resident of the state of Mississippi, and I am transgender. I have lived a life of such horror, discrimination, and grotesque abuse that I’ve literally written a book about–look for it to be in stores pretty soon. And I can tell you this: Hillary is not going to do one tiny fucking thing to help people in that situation, and neither will Trump, and you know what else?

They shouldn’t.

You want to know what will help transgender kids who grew up in the circumstances I grew up in? Not legislation. Not oppression. Not laws. A simple book telling them how to survive, telling them that they can survive. Not you in all your sanctimonious brow-beating to support your candidate who quite clearly wants war with Russia.

What a fantastic idea, of course. We love everyone else so much that we want a war with Russia!

I would rather die than vote for Hillary. I would. If you put a gun to my head and told me that you would pull the trigger if I didn’t support Hillary, I would not hesitate to tell you to pull the trigger. And I can prove it–I do live where my life is in danger. It’s a reality that entitled maggots like you cannot understand, comprehend, or even fathom. I sleep with a loaded shotgun on the headboard of my bed because I know–I know–that the next time someone pulls into my driveway in a drunken rampage at 3 in the morning, no amount of laws will protect me.

Click that link if you want to know why laws, voting, legislation, and police have almost no bearing to my life, and will never change that need to sleep with a loaded gun within arm’s reach. You are insane if you think that any law will protect me.

I haven’t said nearly everything that I want to say. I assure you that I’ll be revisiting this later today, or tomorrow, so stay tuned for that. I’ll give it a separate post, though. The fallacious position this person spouts cannot be allowed to stand by any reasonable person, and I will not allow it to.

I’ll summarize this: The crap we’re discussing can easily be summarized this way:

If you don’t march in lockstep with me, then you are a heretic.

Yes, Sexism Exists

Remind me to never, ever argue with theists about whether morality is subjective again. My contention is pretty simple:

Morality is subjective because humans are subjects who assign values to things.

It’s a tautology, and it is self-evident. It is as self-evident as a statement can get. It needs no argument, no substantiation, and no more evidence than direct experience. We are humans, and we assign values to things. As we are subjective beings and our experiences and existences are subjective, it follows that the values we assign are subjective.

Then theists come along and say, “No! The values we assign are objective!”

Why are we even discussing this? The burden of proof is so obviously and completely on the people arguing for objective morality that no more of my time should be wasted trying to explain a tautology. If you want to argue that the values you assign are objective, then you have to demonstrate the source of those objective values. Until you can do that, the entire conversation is moot.

So I spent a little while arguing on Facebook–banging my head against the wall would be more accurate–and in the course of the conversation I said two things that really pissed people off:

That is utter nonsense.

You can’t possibly be that thick.

These were taken as personal attacks. I’ll grant that the second one comes pretty close to being a personal attack, but the first one is obviously not. “That is utter nonsense” clearly refers to a statement, and not a person. Ergo, the statement has been attacked. What statement did I attack?

I’m not going back to the thread right now because they’ve kept going and I’ve washed my hands of it, but basically I pointed out that the very fact that we have disagreements about what is moral and what is immoral is strong evidence that morality is subjective. He replied something to the effect of, “So if one person thinks that something is more morally wrong than someone else does, obviously he’s measuring that with some objective criteria.”

No, it doesn’t make sense. Yes, it’s obviously utter nonsense. It’s such utter nonsense that it’s honestly not even wrong, and I wouldn’t begin to know how to explain what is wrong with it. So that two people use internal criteria to assign different subjective values to things is somehow a demonstrate of some external, objective criteria? What? When the guy threw this statement back at me as a “personal insult,” I gladly stood by it. What he said was nonsense. “The sky is blue because the sky is blue, so clearly the sky is red.”

And no. No one can possibly be thick enough to believe such a ridiculous statement. These two insults were tied to the same comment, I should point out; I said them both in reply to this utter nonsense. I stand by that, as well. No one can be thick enough to really believe something so horrifically nonsensical.

But it’s not my goal here to reiterate the argument. They are responding too quickly and Facebook’s medium too limited for it to take place effectively. Moreover, they are repeating themselves and denying that the burden of proof is on them, even though my contention, from the start, has been that morality is subjective because we are subjective individuals and we assign values to things.

Tell me: how shall I convince you that a circle is round?

For more than a decade, I have been arguing with people on the Internet and discussing things with people. I have engaged in undoubtedly thousands of online arguments, started probably a fourth of those. And in my career of arguing with people online, I have never been called “emotional” or “overly emotional.”

Until last year, when I officially switched from being a male to being Aria.

In the past year, I have been called “overly emotional” at least ten times in various online arguments. I am not exaggerating when I say that this never happened when I presented myself as a guy. It never happened, and no one who knows me could agree that I’m prone to becoming emotional in discussions. If I was, I wouldn’t have evolved from pro-life Republican and die-hard Christian to dyed-in-the-wool socialist liberal to pro-choice anarcho-capitalist. My loyalty is to reason, not to emotion, and I’ve written a goddamned book on Nihilism, which is an utter rejection of emotional thinking. It’s not finished, though it’s about 200 pages in.

It wasn’t even that long ago that Thomas Knapp corrected my position on libertarians and abortion, by making me see that I was wrong, and that pro-life people weren’t automatically un-libertarian. Yes, I’m so emotional I reversed my old position because it couldn’t be rationally supported. Totally ruled by my emotions. It totally explains why I’m still saying that Austin Petersen isn’t a libertarian because he’s pro-life.

Except… Oh, wait. I did change my position. I did ease up on Austin Petersen. I still don’t think he’s a libertarian, but it’s because he rejects the NAP, not because of his abortion stance. Recently I wrote specifically about abortion and that libertarianism isn’t automatically pro-life or pro-abortion. This is where a bit of a fracture comes in, as you can see in the comments there. I’m also not a big fan of abortion. I’m really not. I don’t think it’s right, because there are so many ways to prevent pregnancy in the first place. I’m 29, and I’ve only once gotten a girl pregnant. She aborted, but that was beyond my control, and it was only last year that it happened.

I’m certainly not pro-abortion, though. I’m pro-choice. Part of the problem is that most people do take “pro-choice” to mean “pro-abortion,” and it doesn’t really mean that. It means pro-choice. It means being in favor of people having the choice to get an abortion if they so choose, not being happy about them getting an abortion. A pro-choice person can still choose to reject abortion and condemn it, after all.

Recently, a girl on Twitter challenged me to demonstrate sexism in the United States. No, I honestly can’t do that. I could, if I cared to spend the time doing it. I could run two simultaneous online presences for the next year, carefully tabulating the results that I get. It would take too much effort, though, and it’s not worth it to me. I know what I’ve experienced.

And what I’ve experienced is that no one ever accused me of being overly emotional until they knew I was a female. Yes, the anarcho-capitalist who recently made a video called “What is Capitalism?” that said “being poor is a state of mind” is “overly emotional.” For pointing out that an argument is absurd and undermines its own point, and for saying that the person who made the argument couldn’t possibly be “thick” enough to believe it–which some could take as a compliment, honestly–I’m “overly emotional.”

And no one ever said that to me when I wasn’t wearing lipstick, you know?

As a cool little bonus, because this came out shorter and filled with more digression than I wanted, here is a chapter from Shattering the American Illusion that I’ve been writing.

Chapter 6: Morality

Warning: We are about to ask a LOT of “What if…?” questions.

Many arguments are presented by theists in an attempt to give their god something to do, and one of the most common among these is something along the lines of, “Oh, yeah? If there’s no God, then how do you explain morality? Western Law is built on the Ten Commandments!” Before we proceed much further, let’s stop and bask in the unabashed glory of this argument—and the one that says “America was built on Christianity!”

A precursory glance at the latter claim will reveal why Science and Christianity have stood at odds for so long: a little bit of reading is a very dangerous thing, especially to the theistic reasoning. Written in 1796, under the leadership of George Washington and John Adams (two of the people directly responsible for the creation of “America”), the Treaty of Tripoli is as follows:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Muslims][1]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan[2] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Dawkins “God” 40).

Let no more be said (ever, preferably) of the idea that the United States was founded on the religion of Christianity. At best, what can be said is that our ancestors fled to these shores to escape religious persecution and then embraced the notion of religious freedom, which requires a secular state by any measure. Not only did our forebears reject the notion of any state-sanctioned religion, they would be scandalized to see the state of American politics today, when a man or woman’s religious beliefs is listed as the second or third most important attribute of them (generally followed only by their name and political association—Democrat or Republican) (Dawkins “God” 40). This is a deplorable state. Using a person’s religious beliefs as a motivation for voting for or against them sets us on the path toward abolishing the separation of church and state.

Moving on to our main discussion, there is the question of morality and why humans have a notion of it if there is no god. Many ideas have been put forth to explain morality, but before we get into that, we must ask: “What is morality? What is moral behavior? What is immoral behavior?” These questions, whether you “feel” the answers intuitively in the form of examples you can easily imagine, are not really so simple to answer as “doing good” and “doing bad.” In fact, it’s very difficult to explain moral and immoral behavior without using words like “good” and “bad.”

In the simplest terms, moral behavior can probably be defined as “doing to others as one would have done to themselves,” and immoral behavior can be defined as “doing to others as one would not like to have done to themselves.” You’ll notice the teaching of Christ buried in this philosophy; that is not accidental or coincidental. I doubt you’ll ever find an atheist who claims that Christ had nothing useful to say (though what he said was certainly not original). At any rate, these definitions don’t really help us very much, because what one person would like might be different from what another person may like. One person may dislike what another person would like. One person may like what another person may be indifferent to. One person may be indifferent to what another person likes.

We have no “universal person” who we can use to make these assertions that any given act “would be liked” or “would be disliked.” So we haven’t really come any further with these definitions than if we simply had attributed them as “good” and “bad” behaviors. Henry Hazlitt, in The Foundations of Morality, likens moral behavior to attempts to “make an is from an ought,” and this is difficult to get into without explaining the context around which he says this (5). We’ll still show, after explaining what he means, that he’s wholly incorrect because “is” and “ought” are just as subjective as anything else we’ve tried so far.

“The world ought to have peace” would be an exemplar statement, but the problem here is obvious: the conditions we’ve created with the word “ought” are an illusory world that is most certainly not the one in which we live. In order to make such an “ought” statement, we must be capable of comparing the “world as it is” to a hypothetical “perfect” world wherein “what ought, is.” Making such a comparison, of course, requires being able to compare any two states of existence (regardless of the disparity between them), and this therefore goes quite a long way in explaining why dogs and cats don’t have such a system: they lack the cognitive processes to imagine this “world of oughts.”

“Women ought to have equal wages” would be another example, and it has the same problem; in the world currently, there is not peace and women, even in the United States (bastion of “freedom” though it is) women do not earn wages equal to men. In fact, one of the presidential debates of 2012 established that women earn 76% of what their male counterparts make.

Moral behavior, then, is a vehicle with which we travel from “what is” to “what ought be.” The actions we take toward establishing peace in the world (as ought be) would be considered moral actions, just as the actions we take toward giving women what they actually deserve would be considered moral behavior (as this is what ought be). Moral behavior is any action that decisively transitions “what is” toward “what ought be.” But this is a minefield of problems, because it automatically presumes that “the greater good” is better than “a local good,” and we can’t justify that.

For example, what if the only possible way, after every other avenue has been explored, to achieve world peace is to nuke the Middle East and turn the entire region into a deadened tundra of snow and ash? Do the many (the rest of the world) outweigh the needs of the few (the Middle East inhabitants)? Would we be justified in killing hundreds of millions of people if we were to spare some countless number of theoretical future victims from dying in needless wars?

I can’t answer this question for you; it is one you must ask and answer for yourself. But I presume that you, like me, would say, “Absolutely not.” I say this because the people in the Middle East are real—we can see them, touch them, love them. They feel as I feel, they think as I think, and they know as I know. The theoretical future people that may be spared from needless wars are not quite so real, even if they are potentially of infinite number. I cannot condone the sacrifice of real people to protect the lives of imagined people—and I sincerely hope that you cannot, either. My sense of empathy forbids it.

What about a simpler, less illusory example? What if you could go back in time to 1940 and kill Hitler? What if you knew that killing Hitler would (somehow) immediately end World War 2 and would cause all the imprisoned Jews to be released from the concentration camps? What if you knew (thanks to your coming from the future) that Hitler would go on to be responsible for all those deaths[3] if he lived and you knew that a great many of those deaths would be prevented by the death of Hitler? You can kill him, press a button on your wristwatch, and return the present, with no negative repercussions on the world as a result of your tampering with the past. What if the only outcome of going back in time to kill Hitler was that there would have been deaths prevented and those people went on to live normal, productive lives? Would you kill him?

I tend to think the average reader would. If my intuitions are in touch with the average reader’s, then I am correct, because I know that I would kill Hitler in the above circumstances. That’s right: I would take the life of another human being. And I wouldn’t even feel slightly bad about it, and I doubt that you would, either. Why is this? Why is it that we can murder a human being and not feel, at the very least, immoral, much less can feel that it was the most moral thing we could have done? Why is it that you could approach a random person in the street and murder them, and this act would then be judged immoral, but you can murder Hitler and (I imagine most people would agree) the act would be judged moral?

In either case, you’re performing exactly the same act: killing another person. You might hold up a gun, take aim, and pull the trigger, ending the life of the victim—in both examples. But in one, you are moral (or, at the very least, morally neutral) and in one you are immoral.

This fundamental truth (that statements of moral value are subjective, rather than objective) is universally true, even for such contemptable acts as murder and rape. Though we would be hard-pressed to imagine up any scenario in which rape would be considered acceptable, we can do so, no matter how far-fetched that scenario might be. It follows, then, that rape cannot objectively be immoral, as it depends upon other factors and circumstances. Even though such circumstances would be so rare that they are unrealistic, any proclamations that we make that rape is immoral are still dependent upon circumstances that are almost always true.

The problem with moral claims is that they cannot be demonstrated, for the most part, as moral or immoral, because we lack omniscience and can never identify all of the effects of a given cause.

[1] The exact wording is “Musselmen,” which is antiquated term that means “Muslims.”

[2] “Mohammadan,” perhaps?

[3] We are so not going there.

Libertarian Abortion: The Murkiest of Murky Murkiness

Has anyone else noticed a tendency among pro-life libertarians to be smug and self-righteous in their assertions that the libertarian platform is unequivocally pro-life? I don’t mind people being confident in their positions, but there’s an inherent smugness in saying something like this:

libertarian-abortion

It’s funny because he’s wrong.

I always look dubiously at people who say things like “This group…” and follows it with a statement that they consider universally true, unless that statement can be demonstrated. For example, I’ve said that libertarians are against the use of force and violence to achieve political goals, and that’s a general statement about a ton of people. Yet I’m okay with it, because “being against the use of force and violence to achieve political goals” is quintessentially what “libertarian” means, so I basically just gave the definition of a libertarian by saying that.

It’s a matter of semantics to phrase the first statement so poorly, so let’s go ahead and rephrase that to add clarity to his statement.

Libertarians believe in abortion being illegal.

Except… they don’t.

The official party platform is explicitly pro-choice, as found here:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Seeing as the state is the only institution capable of making something illegal, if the government is to be kept out of it then it is, ipso facto, a pro-choice position. The libertarian position is “You may not like abortion, but you can’t stop anyone from getting one, though you can refuse to get one and refuse to perform one.” In this way, people who are against abortions are not un-libertarian–they are merely exercising their right to act in accord with their own conscience.

The problem is that you certainly can make the case that the fetus is a person due the same rights as anyone else, and so it is wrong to initiate violence against the fetus by killing it. That’s not a position I have any desire to argue with, for the most part, except it forces us to ask a few questions that pro-life people can’t answer.

  1. What is the difference between a fetus and a tumor?
  2. If potentiality equals actuality, then people who fantasize about killing someone are criminals.
  3. If the difference between a fetus and a tumor is that the former is a living human, what is a human?
  4. If a human is life, what is life? How do you distinguish life from non-life?
  5. If you presume it’s okay to force a woman to donate her womb space to an unborn fetus, then you must presume it’s okay to force her to donate a kidney if that child later becomes sick, since both are ipso facto consequences of her decision to have a child.

These, honestly, are questions that can be asked period, except for the first two and last one, and that’s my point. We have no idea what life itself is, and we have no valid metric of distinguishing life from non-life. I would argue that this is because “living matter” is an illusion, and that there is no difference between life and non-life, that there is only matter and energy and one of the remarkable elements of matter is how it can interact with itself. But until you can show me how fire isn’t alive but people are, I have no reason to take you seriously if you claim that a fetus is a living person.

The biggest point of contention, though, is #5, because pro-life people assume that the fetus has the right to be inside the woman’s womb. It is well-established that a womb is part of a woman’s body. As pro-life people love saying, the fetus is a separate life, and therefore not part of the womb.

Think about a kangaroo and its pouch. Pro-Life people are arguing that the baby kangaroo has the right to be inside the mother’s pouch, and that the mother’s pouch is so much the baby kangaroo’s right that the mother can be forced to have the baby in her pouch whether she likes it or not. So you would force the woman to let the kangaroo into her pouch, because the kangaroo will die if it isn’t allowed to be in her pouch. In order to prevent an act of violence, you commit an act of violence.

Pro-Choice is no better, don’t get me wrong. In fact, that’s why I’m writing this, because there isn’t an easy answer, and there is no “objectively right” or “logic dictates” answer. The issue is the murkiest of murky murkiness. Pro-Choice chooses to allow violence to be done to what could be argued is a human being, in order to prevent someone from having their body forcibly used by another person against their will. That’s not a particularly great position to be in, either.

I am pro-choice. Worse–because this is almost certainly going to make you angry–because I don’t think that anyone with a penis has any right whatsoever to weigh in on the subject of abortion*. I’ve caught a lot of heat for saying this, but c’mon, let’s be realistic here. Pregnancy is the one fucking thing that women can do that men absolutely cannot, but men still can’t resist trying to dominate the subject and saying what can and can’t be done about it. When I said this two years ago, no one really minded. Most people didn’t agree, but I didn’t catch heat for it. Now, people act like I cut off their goddamned balls my saying it, and then they say “There’s no such thing as sexism in America.”

How remarkable.

You’d think such people would gladly listen to what a transgender person who has lived as both genders has to say about sexism in the country. There is no one more qualified to discuss sexism than a transgender person. I’ve had girls tell me there’s no such thing as sexism, and call me a stupid cunt for suggesting there is. To me, this is like a black person saying there’s no racism just because they haven’t noticed it. There’s plenty of sexism, but my position on it is that it’s not automatically a bad thing.

But yes, one of the ways that the sexism manifests is in men believing they should have a say-so in abortion.

Guys, if you get a girl pregnant, it is one hundred percent up to her whether she wants to take your feelings into account. If she wants an abortion but you want her to keep the baby, if she wants to ignore your wishes, then she can, and she will. I’ve been there. I got the Vegas Chick pregnant, in fact. Unsurprisingly, she totally ignored my wishes on the matter; there was nothing I could do about it, and it never occurred to me that I should be able to force her to carry the baby.

Is that what you want, men? To be able to force your girlfriend or wife to see the pregnancy through? And you don’t see how that reeks of sexism? Sticking your dick in that girl didn’t give you any ownership claim of her. Her womb is still hers, and that’s the bottom line. Her womb isn’t your property, and if she doesn’t want something in that womb, then…

“Tough titty said the kitty.”

If you get a girl pregnant and she ignores your wishes, then tough shit. Find a better girl, one that will take your feelings into consideration. This holds true in the other direction, as well. If she wants to carry the child and you want her to get an abortion, it’s tough shit again for you. However, I’m obviously against the state forcing you to give her money to raise that child, too–or forcing you to pay for the abortion, either. If she wants to raise that child on her own, never even telling that child who the father is, then…

“Tough titty,” said the kitty.

Men have no perspective on the issue of pregnancy and abortion because, until very recently, men were utterly unable to be pregnant. This is something that only women can do, guys. This is the only area in human life that belongs 100% to females**. You are at their mercy here. If your girl wants to be a bitch and abort the baby, tough shit. If she wants to be a bitch and have the baby but keep you out of the life, tough shit. I know this bothers you. I know it angers you. And I know that having someone tell you this directly angers you even more.

Because men are used to being in control. You’re not used to being at anyone’s mercy. You’re accustomed to having the authority to tell people what to do, no matter the topic, and it drives you fucking crazy to have this one area where you rightly have no authority or say-so at all unless the woman wishes to allow it. Think about the long history of humanity and the countless areas where women have had no authority or say-so at all unless the man wishes to allow it.

You gotta let girls have this one, dudes. The issue doesn’t affect you.

And that’s why I’m pro-choice. I’m not “pro-choice” as much as I am “I don’t have a womb, so this issue can’t possibly apply to me, and thus I have no right to dictate one way or another.”

If your girlfriend or wife wants an abortion and doesn’t care that you don’t, suck it up.

If your girlfriend or wife doesn’t want an abortion but you do, suck it up.

You have no rightful claim to anyone’s womb, whether you want something to be in there or not.

* Said, of course, as someone with a penis. However, it’s impossible to point out that men shouldn’t have a say-so on the matter of abortion without being involved in the subject of abortion, and genitalia is irrelevant to that. I’m not arguing pro-choice or pro-life, really–I’m arguing that it’s not our damned place to say, because the issue, by definition, cannot affect us in any direct sense. If you want to argue that your feelings will be hurt, then you are also making an argument against outlawing hate speech and anything else that hurts feelings, so that’s a slippery slope we shouldn’t jump down. “Hurting your feelings” is not an injury.

** Actually, there is also breast-feeding, but breast-feeding reeks of its own sexist displays, doesn’t it? Rest assured that breast-feeding would not be illegal if men could do it. Why do I say that? Because this picture is totally acceptable:

1780

But this one is not:

My boobs are still small, but that's not the point.

My boobs are still small, but that’s not the point.

The Death of White Conservatism

Not long after I posted a new podcast about this very subject, Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay conservative editor with Breitbart, was permanently banned from Twitter for hate speech. Milo is well-known as a “troll,” apparently, and I can’t weigh in on that, because I don’t pay any attention to him. He was also a Trump supporter, though I wonder if that’s changed now that Trump selected Pence as his VP, and now that the GOP has made a horrifically anti-LGBT party platform. They enshrined conversion therapy, for fuck’s sake. No one with any sense of human decency should be able to stand with them as they try to promote such an immoral thing. How any LGBT person can maintain any loyalty to the Republican Party after they write Pray the Gay Away into their fucking party platform is beyond me.

http://ariadimezzo.podbean.com/e/rr-ep-27-how-to-fight-regressives-2-incorrect-strategy-number-one/

That podcast specifically addresses three prominent Youtubers who, like Milo, are heading straight toward bans on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. I spoke of how they need to choose their words more carefully, mind their Ps and Qs, and make damned sure that they don’t say anything that can possibly be construed as racist, and I’m not going to run over the same old ground. I am, however, going to focus more on why these three are receiving channel strikes, what they’re doing wrong, and why they will all be crushed by these social networks if they don’t drastically alter their methods.

The fact is that wearing a shirt that says “White Male” is racist and sexist.

They are doing this and similar things as a response to Black Pride, Female Pride, Gay Pride, and so on, and they are trying to call attention to the fact that racism exists against white straight men, because one isn’t allowed to have White Pride, Gay Pride, or Straight Pride. They are correct, and I have been talking about that for years. I found TNB not long ago, through comments on an atheism video, and didn’t even realize he had a channel until a few months ago. I’ve only ever seen one of Autopsy87’s videos, and that was when I was hoping to call in some backup on my Liberal Redneck video, and I’ve never seen one of Atheism is Unstoppable’s videos. It may be presumptuous, then, to say what they’re doing wrong, but… trust me, it isn’t. I do see them through Twitter, as TNB shares various things.

These are all great guys, and I’m not talking bad about them. But their methods are entirely incorrect.

You cannot defeat racism with racism. You cannot defeat sexism with sexism. You cannot defeat… sexual orientationism… with sexual orientationism…

Let’s take a moment and operate under the assumption that Black Lives Matter is racist. We can make this assumption because… it is racist. It takes a thing that exists independently of the adjective (lives) and carves out a subset from the whole, and then assigns a value to that subset (that they matter) when the distinguishing factor between that subset and the whole is race (black). That is quite obviously racist.

Furthermore, let’s take a moment and add another assumption to that. Let’s assume that it’s not acceptable to have White Pride, Straight Pride, or Male Pride. We can also make this assumption because it’s not acceptable.

White-Pride--480x480This image on the left makes it indisputably clear that one is not allowed to have White Pride. If one attempts to take pride in being white, then one is called a racist, Neo-Nazi White Supremacist. Why? Having Black Pride doesn’t make someone a Black Supremacist, does it? Does Gay Pride mean that LGBT people hate or want to kill straight people? Of course not. Why, then, do we act as though Straight Pride means they hate gay people or want to kill them? These are obvious double standards, and what is the distinguishing factor between who gets one standard and who gets the other? Why, the distinguishing characteristic is race and sexual orientation. So quite obviously, that black people can have pride but white people can’t is racist; that LGBT people can have pride but straight people can’t is heterophobic*.

So now that we’ve a clearer understanding of the state of affairs in the United States, and we know that racism, sexism, and sexual orientationism** are acceptable in some cases, but whether they are acceptable for you itself depends on your race, sex, and orientation. We also know that it is not in any sense acceptable in society to be racist, sexist, and sexual orientationist (sigh) if you’re a straight white male.

So what do are they expecting to happen when they try to be racist, sexual, and sexual orientation as straight white men? Do they expect people in this environment to go, “Yeah, no, you’re right. If black people can have pride, white people should be allowed to have pride, too”? It’s way too late for that; that straight white male ship set sail two decades ago. They were too silent for too long for that to have any chance of working, for anyone to be reached with such ideas. That battle has been over for too long, and the consequences have been in place for too long; it is too late to start trying to curb them now. That’s done, and over.

Ignoring that reality, standing up, and proclaiming, “I’m a straight white male, and I am proud of that!” in the modern world will only get a person banned. We simply don’t live in a society where that’s acceptable, and “doing it anyway” isn’t going to make it acceptable. It will only see that you face consequences like being banned and having your channels deleted.

Nor can I say sincerely that “It would be great if you could stand up and say that you’re a proud straight white male,” because I don’t think that. As we’ve established, proclaiming that is sexual orientationist, sexist, and racist. It is sexual orientationist, racist, and sexist, just like someone standing up and saying “I am a proud black gay woman!” That someone is saying the latter, and thereby sectioning themselves off into various groups based on race, sexual orientation, and gender, does not justify a response that does the same.

At that point, you simply have two groups: one of “Proud White People” who proclaim that Proud Black People are racist, and one of “Proud Black People” who proclaim that Proud White People are racist. Since we’ve established that the former aren’t allowed to do this anyway, the latter will point this out, saying, “You’re not allowed to do that!”

The white people will respond, “Well, you’re doing it! We should be able to do it, too!”

To think that this is going to end well is, to be frank, delusional. It would ultimately end in a race war, and one that white people couldn’t possibly win, because there are too many white people who agree that black people should be allowed to have pride, but white people shouldn’t be allowed to. But it doesn’t matter who would win the race war anyway; we should not be trying to fight racism with racism.

Fighting fire with fire does not extinguish fire. It only sweeps the world in immolation.

Nor does racism end racism. It only extends it.

Yes, Black Lives Matter is racist. So is a t-shirt that says “White Male.” If you are arguing against BLM on the grounds that it is racist while wearing such a shirt, then you simply do not have any moral highground, and you are–I must use the appropriate word here–a hypocrite. I don’t like saying that because I respect these people and what they are trying to do in fighting against the regressive mindset that has glorified racism, sexism, and sexual orientationism for decades. However, as I said before: I will call it hypocrisy wherever I find it.

The reality is that Black Lives Matter isn’t the problem. Divisiveness is the problem. People being sectioned off into various groups, where this group can do this and that but the other group can’t, is the problem. Racism is merely one manifestation of that divisiveness problem. Sexism is another, and sexual orientationism is another. Black Lives Matter is, itself, merely one manifestation of the racist manifestation of the divisiveness that liberals have been encouraging and causing for decades.

In other words, Black Lives Matter is a symptom, but it is not the disease.

If you want to fight regressives, then you have to address the disease, not just its symptoms. Yes, the symptoms should be addressed as well, but we must not lose sight of the disease itself. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is racism… with racism. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is sexism… with sexism. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is sexual orientationism… with sexual orientationism.

If you want to fight regressives, then I would suspect that you want to hang around long enough to do so, right? Well, then it’s time to face reality. If you continue on as you are doing, then you will be removed from the battle as a racist, sexist, and/or sexual orientationist. How many people will you be able to reach, to spread your message, if your Youtube channels are deleted?

I must ask: How do you hope to solve the problem of people being separated into various groups based on irrelevant and inconsequential characteristics by separating people into various groups based on irrelevant and inconsequential characteristics?

* To borrow the left’s habit of taking every fucking thing and slapping -phobic at the end of it.

** I did this initially as a joke, but I don’t know how else to characterize it.

Women in Video Games

A sister post with https://dimezzogaming.wordpress.com.

I love video games, and I always have. I’ve been playing video games since before I could walk. I hate saying it now because the film Grandma’s Boy so pervaded the public consciousness that people think I’m ripping it off, but I did beat The Legend of Zelda at an early age–not before I could walk, but I had beaten it before kindergarten. I’ve been playing video games my entire life, and the last thing that I want is to promote something that would damage the hobby.

Hell, I even make a partial career out of reviewing video games for the aggregated website Cubed3. Everything I say about video games, I say because I want them to improve.

However, white men in the United States have an unusual amount of fear toward… pretty much everything that isn’t a straight white man. I don’t know whether this is typical in other parts of the world, but I do know that the average American white man is absolutely terrified that “everyone else” is trying to take his toys, freedom, and power away. Speaking historically, I understand where they’re coming from. White men have a long, thousands-of-years-long, history of enjoying power over and oppressing everyone else. Women, blacks, Asians, natives, homosexuals–the list is really all inclusive. I say this as a former white man, and with a family full of people with that exact mentality. I’m not trying to rip on white men for what they’ve done; these are just facts.

So on the one hand, if women, blacks, gays, and Muslims gain more rights, then white men do lose some of their power–of necessity. If we think of a society’s power as a percentage, then it becomes clear that one can only have power at the expense of rights. In fact, this is an idea I advocate and is one of the reasons that I am an anarchist: power comes only at the expense of others, because the universe is built around scarcity and because nothing exists in infinite supply. But I don’t intend to get into all of that right now.

By the same token, though, I believe white men are deeply afraid that these groups they’ve disenfranchised and oppressed, often for literally thousands of years, will abuse their power in the same way that the white men did. In my experience, this was the main issue that people had with President Obama: they were terrified that white people were going to be treated the way that white people had treated black people for decades, if not centuries. These fears came to nothing, but that has done little to mitigate the long-running, overarching fear the straight white Christian man has for everyone who isn’t a straight white Christian man. From one boogeyman to another the white man turns, all the while lamenting how society is falling, moral standards no longer exist, and homogenization for the sake of Social Justice Warriors will destroy everything they hold dear.

This is the typical reply when gamers ask for more inclusiveness in their video games: for some bizarre reason, it is alleged that this will harm creativity. I fail to see how being able to play as a gay Inquisitor in Dragon Age: Inquisition harmed creativity. If anything, it gave us something new and something that has not been explored much in the gaming world; this is anything but stifling creativity. Saints Row allows players to play as male, female, or trans characters, and, again, this has done nothing to hinder the creativity of the people behind the Saints Row games. Yes, this game where you can beat people to death with an oversized dildo is more tolerant, open, and inclusive than Grand Theft Auto V, a game that gave us not one, not two, but three white men to play as.

The ubiquity of straight white men in video games is not to be understated, but you’ll have a hard time getting a straight white male gamer to admit this. When they do admit it, they turn around and, in the same breath, say that it’s not a bad thing, that it’s “just the way it is,” and that it’s perfectly acceptable that if you grab a random game off a game shelf, you can safely bet that the protagonist is a straight white male. In many ways, it reminds me of the people at Fox News who made the argument that there is no racism in America because “At almost any company, there are private emails between employees that are racist in tone…” Jon Stewart called them out on this ridiculous failure to think–that because something is so common it is ubiquitous and therefore stops existing or stops being a problem is the height of stupidity.

Sexism exists in video games. It does. Accept it, come to terms with it, I don’t care, but do not deny it. If you are fine with the sexism that exists, that is one thing. I can even respect that. I don’t like it, and I think you’re wrong, but I can respect that you at least acknowledge its existence. But denying the existence of sexism in video games is aggressively absurd, fully equivalent to how many Americans deny that there is racism in America.

In a 2005 study, it was revealed that more than 80% of women in video games were sexualized. And before anyone dares reply “Games sexualize men, too,” I want to remind you of a few things. First, predominantly men make video games, and if they want to sexualize themselves, then that is their prerogative. There are female developers as well, but as we’ve frequently learned in the past few years, it’s not just video games as a product that are sexist but the gaming industry as a whole, with LoL coaches demanding to see players’ breasts, workplace discrimination being commonplace, and the like.

Nor is sexism unique to video games. There is sexualization of women everywhere, but Hollywood at least must be given the credit it deserves. For one, Hollywood predominantly uses actual actors. If a female character is beautiful and sexy, then it’s because the actress is beautiful and sexy. Video games do not have this luxury. If a woman is beautiful and sexy in a video game, it is because she was specifically designed to be, not because the actress is beautiful and sexy. There is certainly a tendency of Hollywood to prefer the beautiful over the less-beautiful, but Hollywood does have room for the unattractive, and Hollywood sexualizes both men and women. Women do receive it worse, often with vicious rape scenes serving to act as softcore porn and gratuitous nudity that, for whatever reason, isn’t turned onto men–such as Saw 2 and the Hostel films.

It would be much like if Grand Theft Auto had one black guy on their team who “okayed” the constant use of “nigga” in their games. How would we react to that? How would the gaming public react to learning that Rockstar hires only one black guy, and then said that it’s okay for them to say “nigga” constantly because they hire a black guy and because they use “cracker” too? We wouldn’t react very well to that. Indeed, that’s part of the reason that the Assassin’s Creed series has its own disclaimer before the game begins.

Whether we like it or not, it’s simply true that if you want to do something offensive toward someone, you need to do something offensive toward yourself, and you need to let them in on the joke. This is the part where sexism diverges from the use of racial slurs in Grand Theft Auto. Because black Americans generally speaking are in on the joke of Grand Theft Auto. Grand Theft Auto is taking shots at everyone, and the majority of its criminals are white men; it would be a different matter altogether if Grand Theft Auto was focused on the Crips and Bloods, rioting and inflicting self-destructive violence onto their communities, as a game made almost entirely by white people.

On the subject of sexism, women generally aren’t in on the joke, because there’s no joke to be in on. It’s just a case of men liking asses, boobs, and revealing outfits on hot chicks. Rather than being inclusive, that’s outright insulting to women who don’t have nice asses, boobs, and revealing outfits. It’s no surprise that Zero Suit Samus is the 4th most played character in Super Smash Bros. 4, while her unrevealing, clothed form is number 31. This isn’t a great example because there are some major differences between Samus and Zero Suit Samus, but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that not only are the revealing outfits a large part of it, but the most chosen outfits for ZSS are the blue or orange booty shorts and halter top.

And don’t get me started on Other M, the Metroid game that reduced the heroine to a bumbling, weak, emotional crybaby with daddy issues–a legendary bounty hunter with unrequited love for her father-figure so wrapped around his finger that she’d let herself die rather than disobeying him. Don’t get me started on how the prudish, haughty Yuna was reduced to a JPop fanservice singer by Final Fantasy X-2, either. Even Venetica, which at first bucked so many trends by giving us a charming, likable female protagonist who was out to avenge the death of her boyfriend, ended up ultimately being a game about collecting a certain dress.

I gave Mortal Kombat 9 a glowing recommendation, it’s worth mentioning at this point. And I said “It’s a game about beautiful, scantily-clad women cutting people’s heads off.” And it is. But it also has plenty of fanservice and objectification of men, and that’s always been my argument in favor of the Mortal Kombat series. Is Kitana fighting in what amounts to a bathing suit? Sure, but so is Johnny Cage. I’ve no interest in counting them up to see if the Mortal Kombat series objectifies women more than it does men, or men more than it does women, because the very fact that it does it to both indicates that it’s not really objectifying anyone. And I applaud it for that. The Mortal Kombat series knows exactly what it is.

Jim Sterling made a video a few years ago where he basically asked for a character who met these conditions:

  1. was female. Obviously.
  2. was not conventionally attractive.
  3. was not sexualized.
  4. was not the primary villain.
  5. was strong and determined, but did not have to endure a load of bullshit to become strong and determined.
  6. was not a player-made character.

The only character he found who met all the criteria was a dinosaur from the Primal Rage games. And, as he said, the very fact that it sounds like he’s joking shows us how bad the gaming industry really is in its treatment of women. This has not changed since the video was made. And while the criteria may seem quite arbitrary, just think about it for a moment. How many male protagonists meet the requirements? How many battle-hardened, ugly-as-sin soldiers in 3rd person shooters are there?

And rest assured that number 5 is important. Because it seems the only way developers know how to create a strong female character is to inflict ridiculous degrees of pain and suffering onto her. Just play Tomb Raider 2013 if you want to see what I mean. The idea that a female could be strong without some traumatizing shit making her strong is a totally foreign one to game developers. You want to talk about stifling creativity, how about that? How about the fact that they always jump to the same things to present a strong female character?

It’s better than television, movies, and that horrible mess called Game of Thrones, because these always jump to freaking rape as the hardship the woman must endure in order to become strong, but being better able to say “At least we only beat the shit out of women, instead of raping them” isn’t really a good thing. And not to derail too much, but fuck Game of Thrones and fuck that lazy hack named George R. R. Martin. I’ve seen some pretty tasteless writers in my day, but Martin trumps them all. Evidently the only way Martin knows to give a woman hardship is to have her be raped.

And we wonder why Cosmopolitan even has to write articles about how many women claim to be raped when they never were… That’s the biggest problem with this frequent use of rape in fiction. It creates the impression that a woman is strongest when she recovers from sexual abuse. So, for some women, if they want to make you believe they’re strong, they will say they’ve been raped. My ex-wife did exactly that, claiming that she had been molested when she was a teenager. As she continued telling me the story, it became clearer and clearer that at best the sexual advances were unwanted, but first the only thing that occurred was a bit of fondling and second she never told the guy to stop and third she didn’t try to extricate herself from the situation. And that whole conversation began with her saying that she’d once been raped. I’m not saying every woman who claims to have been raped is lying, but it does happen, and I blame the tendency of fiction to use rape as a vehicle for “giving” women strength.

Of course, Tomb Raider 2013 played with this on purpose, intentionally using a scene that looked an awful lot like it was about to get rapey, when it didn’t. Don’t bullshit us, Crystal Dynamics. You know goddamned well you did that shit on purpose, that you had the actress panting and moaning like that on purpose so that you could then stand back and say, “No, it’s not our fault! We didn’t make rape so common in fiction–you jumped to that conclusion, not us!”

Bullshit, Crystal Dynamics. You staged it to look like that intentionally. And considering you spent the first 25% of the game beating the ever-loving hell out of Lara Croft, you don’t get to claim the high road here anyway, because you still fell into that same exact mindset–you just didn’t sink as low as George Martin. *Golfclap* You didn’t sink as low as the lowest fiction writer alive. Bravo. *Golfclap*

There is the real possibility that the sexualization of women in video games, and the overall sexist bent of that, is simply so common that people can’t see it. I’ve dealt with that before. I’m an atheist–do you have any idea how pervasive theism really is in American society? It’s literally everywhere. Just spend one week listening, really listening, to how many times people mention a god, an afterlife, or souls. It’s everywhere. It’s so common, so ubiquitous, and so pervasive that the average American has no idea it’s even there. The same is true for racism in the United States: it’s so common and so ubiquitous that many Americans have no idea that it’s there, even as they openly admit that it’s there. Sexism in video games is the same way.

I want to stress that I have nothing against straight white Christian men, or any other white man of any description. I generally don’t even think in such terms. And the gaming industry itself needs sexism eliminated from it; once that is done, it will go a long way toward eliminating sexism from the games. Because, yes, if more women designed games then the games would, ipso facto, become more inclusive of women. The sexism we see in games is largely a byproduct of the people making the games, not the byproduct of the players. But it’s something that needs to be taken care of, because it’s pretty pathetic that the best example we can do if a strong female character is a fucking dinosaur. We’re better than that.