Tag Archive | truth

Libertarian Developments

In a series of awesome developments, Austin Petersen defected (I wish him well but I’m glad he’s gone) from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party, as I and countless others predicted he would, while Vice Chair Arvin Vohra signed up for the Audacious Caucus and announced his own Senate campaign, and while the Audacious Caucus released its proposed platform.

Show them no mercy, my dude.

There unfortunately is little that I can do to help Arvin Vohra with his campaign, but I’ve signed up to do so as a general volunteer and offered my services as the owner of a tech consultant firm. My only regret is that he’s not running for my state, because I can think of no one better suited to be in the Senate than Arvin “Pull No Punches” Vohra.

Transphobia

I’ve seen many people accuse Arvin of being transphobic. This is abject nonsense stemming from the idea that anyone who doesn’t toe the social justice warrior line is some kind of phobic. Arvin is not and has never said anything that was remotely transphobic.

The primary point of contention is that Arvin dared point out the glaring conflict of interest that pharmaceutical companies have regarding transsexualism. This is an observation, not a judgment. Getting medical advice from pharmaceutical companies is like getting diet advice from Burger King. Pharmaceutical companies are trying to sell people stuff, and their advice is going to be biased toward selling people stuff.

It’s true that pharmaceutical companies would love the entire population to be lifelong purchases of cheap and easy-to-produce hormones. A transsexual person is a lifelong customer, and that’s going to remain the case until medical science advances to the point that we can use stem cells to grow a person their own replacement testicles or ovaries or whatever. In other words, it’s going to remain true for a very long time–decades, at the very least.

John McAfee once remarked that he spent an evening wining and dining a stunningly beautiful woman, whom he described as, “One of the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen.” And she turned out to be a drag queen. Although McAfee didn’t say, it was left implied that he walked away, and he remarked about it, “Once you’ve experienced that, you realize how mercurial perception really is,” or something to that effect. I’m sure some lunatics accused McAfee of being transphobic, but he clearly isn’t.

Earlier today I saw an article written by a trans woman about how straight men “should” be attracted to transsexual women, and that they’re homophobic if they aren’t. That’s the sort of SJWism that runs rampant, and anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their worldview becomes some kind of phobic. However, it’s bullshit. I’m not attracted to guys and find the notion of two guys kissing to be gross. It’s not because I’m homophobic; it’s because I’m not attracted to one guy, much less two. Meanwhile, there’s nothing more awesome to me than two women kissing.

I love chicks. I consider myself a lesbian. Technically, that makes me both sexist and homophobic. Although the reality is that everyone who isn’t omnisexual is sexist. If you’re a straight man or woman, then you’re sexist. If you’re a gay man or lesbian, then you’re sexist. The trans woman who wrote that article is sexist, because she didn’t point out that women should be interested in trans women. That sort of thinking is a rabbit hole of hypocrisy, because the truth is that everyone is sexist, and it doesn’t really matter. Why would she specify that men should be interested in trans women? Such a contention is automatically sexist itself, and an attempt to dictate her sexual preferences (noting her usage of that terrible word “should”) of heterosexuality (with her provision that trans women “should” simply be considered women) onto others. In effect, she was stating that men should be straight. So how dare she accuse anyone of homophobia while arguing such a blatantly homophobic thing.

And those are the kind of people who accuse Arvin of transphobia, so it’s best to take their accusations with a grain of salt.

Audacity

Arvin will fit in well with the Audacious Caucus. I’m up for Full Membership right now and expect to be voted in successfully, although I’m worried that my disagreements about identity politics with Outright Libertarians is going to hurt me. It shouldn’t, since the caucus exists to inspire audacity and not force 100% agreement among its members (if anything, one’s willingness to disagree should earn “Yea” votes, as long as the disagreement isn’t about the NAP), but one never knows.

The provisional platform is:

Platform of The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus

Preamble

The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus (LPAC) is an audacious group that puts principles first, setting personalities free. We assert the primacy of the Principle of Non-aggression enshrined in the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles. Our silence here pertaining to any particular subject should not be interpreted as indifference, but rather as an acknowledgement that our stance on the issue can be easily derived from our firm stance of non-aggression.

Instead, we choose to use this platform as a tool to set ourselves apart from other factions within the party. We choose to use this document to boldly proclaim what other Libertarians dare not whisper. The intent of the planks found here is to provoke and inspire those who fear a world set free in our lifetimes. Our goal is not to parrot those who have come before us, but to delineate what makes us unique.

We, the members of the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus, proudly adopt the following platform:

Statement of Principles

The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus holds firm to the Principle of Non-aggression. Around the globe, people live, work and die under the shackles of the state. We stand as not only a challenge to the cult of the omnipotent state, but a threat to it.

We hold one goal above all others, a world set free in our lifetimes. We will not limit ourselves to one tactic, instead, we set individuals free to choose their own paths, asking only that they hold firm to the Non-aggression Principle.

We wish to see the Non-aggression Principle as a valuable vehicle for reshaping society into one that respects the rights of individuals. We know that replicating the failed ways of the old parties that dominate political discourse is a recipe for stagnation, not growth.

All we ask is that you lose your chains, and join us in our fight to liberate mankind. Be audacious!

I. Rothbard’s Button

The Audacious Caucus accepts incrementalism only as a last resort. Recognizing that social change can occur gradually, or through massive upheaval, we favor the method of change that gets us to our goal as quickly as possible. If we are to achieve a world set free in our lifetimes, we cannot fear change, we must embrace it. While the abrupt elimination of the state may have a negative impact on many of those who depend upon it, we see this as an acceptable trade for eliminating it as an impediment to achieving liberty. We advocate maximum freedom, achieved as quickly as possible, by any means necessary. The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus considers temporary chaos to be an acceptable risk, if the reward is a chance at a world set free from the tyranny of the state.

II. Criminal Justice

We believe that the state is an invalid institution, and thus we believe all convictions and punishments meted out by a state sponsored criminal justice system are equally invalid. We call for the immediate release of all persons currently incarcerated by the state and federal government, regardless of the nature of the offense for which they were convicted. We also demand the immediate expungement of all criminal records created by state and federal courts.

III. Drugs

The LPAC supports an end to the war on drugs. Our support is not limited merely to legalization of marijuana, we support the full removal of all government intervention in any drug usage, production, sale or distribution. We encourage individuals to reject the war propaganda that surrounds drug use. We support the individual right to experiment with any substance consumed voluntarily.

IV. Unions

We support the right of the people to voluntarily associate in, or to establish, labor unions. We believe that an employer may recognize a union as the collective bargaining agent of some or all of its employees. We oppose governmental interference in bargaining, such as banning of closed shop contracts. We demand that so called “Right to Work” laws be repealed. We recognize voluntary contracts between employers and labor unions as being legally and morally binding on the parties to such contracts.

V. Immigration and Borders

The Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus is not for closing or opening national borders, it is for eliminating national borders. Borders exist only as the limit of the jurisdiction of gangs, competing over control of territory, resources and people. Until those gangs are tossed into the trash bin of history where they rightfully belong, we will tolerate them staying out of the movement of people across these arbitrary lines. We will fight against any attempt to enforce the tyrannical dictates that tear apart families and punish peaceful people for not asking permission to cross an imaginary line.

VI. War, Violence and Military

War, being state sanctioned mass murder, is steadfastly opposed by the LPAC. Its ramifications, economically and morally, are never justifiable. We do not accept the need for violence outside of defense, and disavow all those who voluntarily support the military, war or who participate in violence outside of defense.

VII. Policing

The police exist as the domestic enforcement arm of the gang known as the state. Without their constant aggression, the state would be powerless to enact the theft, coercion and degradation that is it’s modus operandi. There is no such thing as a “good cop” because by their very nature police are compelled to enforce edicts that even full blown statists would consider immoral. The LPAC rejects the Nuremberg Defense that “just following orders” is a valid excuse for immoral actions.

VIII. Children’s Rights

We believe that “children” are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any reference in this platform to the rights of human beings includes “children.” We believe that “children” have the moral authority to live their lives independent of externally imposed authority, and challenge the right of anyone to impose restrictions on them based solely upon their age.

IX. Reproductive Rights

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good faith views on all sides, we believe that the state should be kept out of the matter. The state must repeal all existing laws that restrict, regulate or impose civil or criminal penalties on providers and patients for the production, distribution, or use of contraceptives, abortifacients or abortion procedures. Additionally, the state must not require medical professionals to provide their patients with any controceptives, abortifacients or abortion procedures. Furthermore, we oppose public funding of any controceptive or abortion procedure for the same reason we oppose public funding of any medical procedure or service.

X. Sex Worker’s Rights

Sex workers are the unsung heroes of freedom in America, many of our social freedoms were pioneered by prostitutes, strippers and porn stars throughout our history and continue today as the sex industry moves to capitalize on modern innovations. As such the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus will take up the banner of sex work as a genuine and worthwhile profession that puts food on the table in thousands of American households. We oppose the regulation and banning of any area of this industry by moralizing busybodies. We support the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production or distribution of sexually explicit material. We reject the tying in of human trafficking with sex work and recognize that by pushing what could be a lucrative industry for millions of Americans into the shadows, it is those who oppose it that fuel human trafficking.

XI. Intellectual Property

Intellectual property exists as a form of government fiat over the ideas and property of all those under its jurisdiction. As technology advances through the innovative sharing of ideas and digital goods, it is up to those creating such goods to innovatively guarantee their own revenue stream, without reliance on government to protect their monopoly. We support an end to the war on file sharing and “piracy” which is both an immoral, and an ineffective, means of preventing the sharing of ideas.

It’s a thing of beauty, isn’t it?

I included links to show that my position on these issues predates my membership in / exposure to the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus, and to provide my reasoning to support those positions. Others may provide better reasons, but those are mine. I’ve intentionally not written about sex here, since I’m using the alias “Anarchist Shemale,” it’s important to me to maintain that distance, but I suppose I’ll have to now.

Anyway, so awesome stuff is happening! Join the Libertarian Party today. Our Vice Chair is about to rock the political arena.

Dancing in Hellfire

Last year, I wrote a book called Dancing in Hellfire. It is essentially my autobiography, except that I didn’t stop at simply relating events that had happened. Instead, I looked back on them and thought about what I learned from them, because the functional mind is always learning–any mind that refuses to learn is effectively dead. To be sure, I’ve had some really screwed up things happen in my past: both parents are/were drug addicts, my father killed a woman when I was 4, my mother was murdered when I was 12 (her body never found, so she’s still listed as a missing person), and other, generally awful things that you would rightly expect to happen in circumstances like that. Before we even factor in transgenderism, there is easily enough material to fill an 80,000 word autobiography (a bit on the heavy side for a memoir anyway), and I found myself chopping out entire recollections to make room for the transgender stuff.

Really, you’d think in today’s political environment that it would be an easy sell. That’s opportunistic of me, and I don’t deny that, but I also don’t see it as a problem. Identifying a niche in the market and targeting that niche isn’t a bad thing–in fact, it’s a smart thing to do. Only in the past six months, as my search for a literary agent has hit a dead end, has it dawned on me that I still made a mistake with the targeting. As I said, the book isn’t about “Oh, poor me, this happened and society didn’t do anything to prevent it!” Instead, it’s a book about “This happened, and this is what I learned from it.”

The critical difference is that the former marks me as a victim; the latter marks me as a beneficiary.

Without a doubt, I’d rather have my mother alive today, but there’s also no disputing that it has marked me in many ways that are very positive. Foremost among these is surely my awareness of justice as a function of forgiveness rather than vengeance. Those wounds are real, and they are painful–however, those very wounds have also made me ask the excruciating question, “How might I have closure on this?” The answer to that is not “…by seeing the murderer in prison!” The murderer has already been to prison for an unrelated murder, and it did nothing to make me feel any better. While it sucks beyond the capacity of weak words to convey how much it actually sucks to have my mother gone, absent without a trace, like an episode of Unsolved Mysteries, I can detach myself from that enough to recognize that having a mind that is more focused on forgiveness than vengeance is a positive result.

It wouldn’t be worth asking whether I’d rather have my mother alive, and to still consider vengeance and justice to be the same thing, or if I’d prefer the current state of affairs. Just because these things happened in a way that are causal doesn’t mean they’re mutually exclusive. Maybe my mother could still be alive and something else could have happened to lead me to that realization. There’s no way to know, and so the hypothetical is useless–built, as it is, on the assumption that I can’t have both simply because I don’t have both.

I’ve neglected to talk about it publicly before now, but we do live in a society that glorifies victimization, and this is no more evident than in the bizarre way that Glamour magazine named the Stanford rape victim their Woman of the Year. This perplexes me in countless ways. I’m not demeaning her fight within the system to see Brock punished for what he did, but “having been raped” doesn’t strike me as a particularly good reason to be named “Woman of the Year” any more than being trans was reason to name Caitlyn Jenner woman of the year. Why don’t we celebrate accomplishments rather than victimization? It is an absolute slap in the face to the female biochemists who lead breakthrough research, the females at CERN, and the leading female experts in countless industries, to be passed up as Woman of the Year because someone was a victim of rape and the case was very public. Again, this isn’t to say that the rape should be ignored, but it certainly shouldn’t be celebrated.

Bad Stuff Happens

… all the time.

Earlier this month, I attempted to drive ~150 miles to see A Perfect Circle live, for probably the last live tour they’re going to do, and it was an ordeal just to get tickets, much less to find someone who would go. To give you an idea of how much this meant to me, a few weeks beforehand, in an article about scalpers, I wrote:

I bought tickets to the A Perfect Circle concert next month for well over what they cost initially, and the reason was precisely because my demand exceeds other people’s. I can’t even convey with words what A Perfect Circle’s music means to me. Being able to see them again–probably for the last tour they’re ever going to do, since no one expected this one and it’s been 14 years since their last one–is one of those experiences that literally makes life worth living (no exaggeration). Because of scalpers, I was able to acquire a ticket, and I would say it’s far more important that I was able to get a ticket than Random Joe who kinda likes their music and has nothing else to do that evening. The seats aren’t even that good, and I don’t even care. It’s A Perfect Circle. It means more to me than it will anyone else in that audience.

And you know what happened? Shortly after I got onto i240, headed for i40 and the long eastward trip to Nashville, I saw that my temperature gauge was way higher than it should have been–like “about to overheat” high. I whipped over and got off the interstate, stopping on Airways. Not being an idiot, I’d left with more than an hour to spare, in the event that something weird happened. However, it took my car nearly 45 minutes to cool off enough to hold water, and we discovered that the upper radiator hose had come completely off, which is the rarest and most unlikely thing that could possibly happen with a working clamp (not to mention, of course, that the months of driving before that had no issue, so it happened at the worst possible moment). In doing so, it had brushed against the alternator belt, and had been cut open, so even after it was cool enough to travel again, it had a steady leak that meant the hose had to be replaced. This meant we had to go to an Auto Zone, buy a replacement hose, put it on, and then refill the thing with water (if you’ve ever driven a Chrysler, you know this isn’t as straightforward as with most vehicles). When we were finally heading back toward the interstate, the GPS called out, “Estimated time of arrival is 9:23 pm…” which was two hours after the concert started. That’s right. We lost nearly three hours due to that overheating.

This actually took me completely down for about ten days, as some people may have noticed, because I didn’t post anything. I didn’t have the strength. I was depressed; it’s really hard to convey how much it hurt to miss the concert over something so extraordinarily unlikely that no one would have taken the bet that it was likely to happen. Yet life goes on, I recovered, and got back to it–though I was down longer than I would have anticipated. Because I’m moving to Vegas and the state of Mississippi said “lol, fuck you” earlier this year, setting me back on that plan far more than I’d have liked, I don’t make plans to go and do things very often–spare money is better put toward moving to Vegas than going to see a concert, but this was no ordinary band–this is the band that has influenced my music more than any other. I didn’t really learn anything from that experience, because there was nothing to really learn. It was a freak accident at the worst possible time, and I’d checked my car that very morning. It’s true that I didn’t inspect the hoses, but, c’mon, no one does. That’s absurd. One might as well pull out and check each and every fuse. While I did inspect everything (on a different vehicle) before driving to Vegas in 2015, that was 1800 miles, not 180 miles.

I tend to think that I’m so anti-authoritarian because of the horrifically bad parenting of my mother and father, a point that I call attention to in Dancing in Hellfire. Through most people’s childhoods, and well into their adolescences, they have this idea that their parents are indestructible and supreme. I remember well being in the third grade and having Danny, a friend of mine, stand beside me in line at the cafeteria and put his fist to one of the cinderblocks in the wall and ask, “Do you think your dad could punch through this? My dad could!” Even then, at nine years old, it struck me as ridiculous. No, his dad could not punch through the cinderblock, but I didn’t challenge the idea with him. It did not occur to me then how odd it was that he would have this unrealistic idea of his dad, but it happened again much later, in the seventh grade, when a kid described his dad’s hand as “alligator skin,” proud of his dad being a Working Class Hero, and remarked that a puppy could chew on his fingers for hours and never draw blood.

I didn’t have any of that. When I was six years old, the state showed up with its footsoldiers to kidnap my sister and me, and our mother was powerless to do anything about it. All she could do was cry. I learned that day that my mother–who I’d been with since I was born–was ultimately not the one responsible for me, and that these other people called “the police” had usurped her authority. A brutal lesson for a six year old to learn, but one that has served me well since. My dad wasn’t ultimately the one in charge of me–my mother had trumped him by taking me in the first place, so clearly he was ranked below her in the hierarchy. My mother was also not ultimately the one in charge of me, because her impudence in the face of the state and its footsoldiers left no room to believe that.

And what of my father? Well, you lose the image of your father as the Glorious Personification of Everything Great around the time you see him faceplant into the dirt at a baseball field after eating too many Xanax and drinking too many beers. And if that doesn’t do it, then watching those very same police officers arrest him after a vehicle wreck and place him, powerless, in their police car will shatter that image. There’s absolutely no doubt: some of my earliest and most jarring experiences involved the state exerting its authority. I have very little doubt that this is what left me inclined to view the state as what it is: the slavemaster.

Would I be an anarchist now, if none of this had happened? Another useless hypothetical.

Every experience is not just an opportunity to learn; it is also a choice. No matter what happens, we never lose the power to choose how we react. We are not* mindless machines who operate on extremely complex if-then programming that dictates our responses; we are not powerless. We are not at the mercy of our reactions; our reactions are at our mercy, and nothing changes this. Just because some people choose to let their responses unfold emotionally, with no tempering or self-control, doesn’t mean that they have no choice in the matter, and we shouldn’t allow them to so easily escape the fact that their reactions to things are their reactions. We are not wild beasts braying in the field. We are human beings, and it’s time we acted like it.

If someone says “Fuck you, you’re an idiot” to me, it’s true that I have very little control at this time over my initial emotional reaction of anger and desire to retaliate. Evidence suggests, however, that extensive meditation and self-reflection can, in fact, put us in control of even that lightning-fast emotional reaction. And that’s the key: “lightning-fast.” Emotions are instantaneous. That anger lasts only a flash of a second. If left to its own devices, it would immediately die out, but more often than not we embrace it and purposely keep it going, stoking the fires. Larry Sharpe Sunday night (and today at 2pm Central at www.lrn.fm) is a clear example. After saying that he’d accepted Arvin’s apology and forgiven him, and that they were “good,” the indignation and anger in Larry’s voice were still audible–he was clearly still clinging to those emotions. I actually initially attempted to call attention that, but couldn’t formulate my thoughts quickly enough in a way that weren’t antagonistic, so I instead let it go immediately. While saying that he had let the matter go, he kept bringing it up, even after we tried to move on to other matters, and his voice was absolutely dripping with emotion. Regardless of what he said, it is clear that Larry is keeping those emotions alive rather than releasing them.

Still, that I would immediately react with anger and a desire to retaliate is still on me. It’s still my emotional reaction, and my failure to control my emotions to that degree is my failure. It’s not this person’s fault. They didn’t “make” me angry. I made me angry. They were merely the catalyst–they merely presented me with the choice of how to react, and I chose to react in anger. However, I would typically choose within a second or two to let it go and to release the anger, rather than dwelling on it. Unlike Larry Sharpe, if I forgive what I perceive as a transgression, then I’m not going to bring it up again, because forgiving someone is an internal thing–it has nothing to do with the transgressor, which the Vegas Chick made me realize when I pondered whether she could do anything that would “cause” me to forgive her–the answer was that whether I forgave her had almost nothing to do with her. Demanding contrition or restitution isn’t forgiveness, even if that restitution comes in the form of a simple apology.

Through my own failure, I have no control over the initial emotional reaction. Through much work, I have largely (though certainly not perfectly) taken control of the following moments. My own failures lead me to make the wrong choice in the first place, by reacting with anger, but the choice that immediately follows is whether to release that anger or to embrace it. Both of these are choices.

* At least, we don’t appear to be.

Why the English Language is Broken Fundamentally

It was years ago that I sat down to evaluate and rebut Matt Slick’s modified Cosmological Argument for the existence of a deity–a common Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, although modified slightly so that Slick took the “existence” of the Logical Absolutes, and the alleged characteristic of “transcendence,” and attempted to hold them up as proof that a deity exists. In that paper, I pointed out that Slick’s primary mistake was in misunderstanding the nature of the Logical Absolutes, because they are not things with existence; they are events, or, to be more specific, they are extrapolations of events into generalized form.

The easiest way to explain this is to take the first of the three Logical Absolutes–that something is what it is, and is not what it is not–and to say that “A tree is a tree.” It may seem a silly statement to the uninitiated, but the tautological nature of this statement forms the very basis of all possible knowledge; it is neither trivial nor silly. Before we can “know” anything, we must establish the parameters by which we can know things, and this is the purpose of the Logical Absolutes.

Anyway, “tautologies are true” is essentially the first of the three, which itself is a tautology and presumed to be truth only if it is already true. If tautologies were not true, then our tautology that “Tautologies are true” could not be true, and we end up with a logical paradox. We’ll come back to this.

It’s not because of any transcendent property of nature or reality that we would say that “A tree is a tree,” and it’s not an existent thing that allows us to make that assessment. It is an observation of an event–the verbiage should be instant giveaways. “Is,” after all, is a verb, and it means that something is presently engaged in being or doing something. The statement “A tree is a tree” is shorthand for saying “A tree is presently engaged in the act of being a tree.” We could ask, if we wanted, whether it was possible for the tree to be engaged in the act of being anything else, and that is where the Logical Absolutes come into play, but prior to that it’s nothing but the observation of a subjective being.

Whether the tree is actually engaged in the act of being a tree cannot be ascertained. To make this a statement of “truth,” we would need to modify it further, such that we’d say, “It appears that the tree is presently engaged in the act of being a tree.”

However, such a statement contains its own ellipsis, just as the initial one did. “It appears to me that the tree is presently engaged in the act of being a tree,” is what the sentence actually says, once we remove those banes of non-native English speakers that make grasping the language so difficult. This is because English often assumes one perspective or another, and hides the assumption in an ellipsis that the average native English speaker isn’t even aware of. Quite literally, they are unaware of the assumptions they are making, because the language of expression provides the means by which they can hide their own assumptions away from themselves and instead claim to be Heralds of the One True Value System.

And yet, what did we say? What were the words we initially used to express this sentiment?

“A tree is a tree.”

The English language is so full of self-deceit. The only way to begin to think freely and without this self-deception is to think in concepts rather than the words we use to (allegedly) represent those concepts. Language is infinitely valuable for communication, when it is built on the basis of the Logical Absolutes, which thereby allows us to agree that when we say “tree” we are both referring to the same thing, which is itself. But the language is only useful if the word “tree” actually calls up in your mind the essence of a tree. If you instead picture a flying fish, then communication is impossible, and one or the both of us is engaged in considerable self-deceit or a butchering of the shared medium of communication.

As always, it’s important to remember that we did not move from “A tree is a tree” to “It appears to me that the tree is presently engaged in the act of being a tree” accidentally or arbitrarily; we got to here by dissecting the statement and pointing out possibly errant assumptions.

First, how do I know that you aren’t lying? How am I to know how a thing appears to you? The English language allows us to make this statement of subjective experience as though it’s objective fact, but I cannot tell you whether or not “a tree is a tree,” because I can only tell you whether the tree appears to me to be presently engaged in the act of being a tree. Perhaps you’re wrong, or perhaps I’m wrong–we’d have no way of knowing.

If our senses are reliable, then they would report to us that they are reliable. We would not commonly see things that turned out to not be there upon closer inspection. Except… this does happen, doesn’t it? And quite regularly. Just last week I experienced an extended period of sleep paralysis where I not only saw a scythe-wielding reaper standing before me, but actually saw and felt a woman lift up my leg and stab me in the foot with a knife. These ghosts appeared entirely real–and, in my condition, I thought that they were–but closer inspection revealed that my ocular information had to be discarded as pareidolia, and the pain of having my foot stabbed was entirely imaginary. There are also mirages, aural and ocular hallucinations, feeling bugs crawling on the skin–why, just by suggesting it to you, I can make you feel like there is a spider crawling very slowly on the back of your neck.

More to the point, it’s a logical paradox that reliable senses could report that they are unreliable in the first place, because this would be a falsehood, and reporting falsehood to the perceiver would make the “reliable” senses unreliable. Reliable senses can only ever report that they are reliable.

Unreliable senses, however, have the freedom to report anything they like–they can report that they are reliable, as long as their consistency is unreliable. If this was the case*, we would find ourselves perceiving things and regularly having to evaluate them further, to determine whether or not the initial perception was accurate. Sometimes it would be, and sometimes it wouldn’t be, and there would be no immediate way of knowing when we perceived something whether it was one of those reliable pieces of input or an unreliable one. They could not regularly report that they were unreliable, as this would make them reliable, which is another logical paradox.

Alarmingly, this is precisely what we have found. It appeared that the Earth was flat and orbited by the sun, for example. I’ve no doubt that we all have experiences that we can point to where something appeared to be one way, yet turned out to be entirely different. Whether our correction of the situation and recognition of it as “something different” to what we initially thought is any more “correct” than the initial one of appearance is immaterial, because the truth of the matter is simpler: “Initially, we perceived one thing; upon closer inspection, we perceived something else.” The truth or falsehood of the perception has no bearing on how the subjective being experienced it, and neither does it matter that our unreliable senses are the metrics that we used to separate what we came to think of as “falsehood” (the initial perception) from “truth” (the modified perception).

Of course, this isn’t to say that we should stand in the street and question whether the oncoming car is actually there, or whether our unreliable senses are relaying inaccurately to us that we should probably move out of the way of the vehicle. For whatever reason, it appears to me that we must make assumptions as we go about our lives, and there couldn’t possibly be anything inherently wrong with that–neither does being an assumption make it any more or less likely to be true–but I do think it’s important that we not lose sight of the fact that we are making assumptions.

One such assumption was my critique of Slick’s work, wherein I didn’t dispute the notion that the Logical Absolutes are transcendent. First, what does “transcendent” even mean? “Above or beyond the range of human experience,” according to Google, which is fair enough as a definition but needs expansion. For something to be transcendent, it must not be dependent upon any particular perspective and must be universally true without regard to perception.

“Possibly, but probably not,” then, is the answer. They can appear to be transcendent, but whether they are or aren’t cannot be determined by subjects who rely upon perception to experience the world–perceptions that are dependent upon perspective in the first place. I cannot say whether the Logical Absolutes are transcendent any more than I can say that the tree is a tree; I can only say how they appear to me–or, in the case of the Logical Absolutes, how my fallible and weak human mind can imagine them to be.

Once more, we are not dealing with reasonable certainty here, but claims of absolute certainty. One can be reasonably certain or not that a car is coming down the highway, but one can never be absolutely certain of it. What is “reasonable” to one person isn’t necessarily reasonable to another, either.

TheraminTrees did a wonderful video on this subject, where he posed the hypothetical that you were having a party. A friend is known to be clumsy, and gets drunk, exacerbating his clumsiness. He breaks your lamp and apologizes. Most people would agree it’s reasonable to accept the apology. Then he breaks your television. At this point, if you were to fly into a yelling rage at the friend and demanding that he pay for the damages, many people would decry you as responding unreasonably to the situation. But surely if your friend is prone to clumsiness, he has incorporated that into his life such that he takes responsibility for it? Is it not unreasonable to allow someone to come into your home, get drunk, and break your things?

Where you or I disagree on what is reasonable is also irrelevant; the point is just that there is no universally agreed criteria where something qualifies as “reasonable” or “unreasonable,” and too often it’s nothing more than a matter of perspective. From the limited and narrow sense that shouting at a friend and demanding they pay for something is unreasonable, our hypothetical partier is unreasonable. From a greater perspective (I would probably argue)–one that takes in a wider view of the situation–it is, in fact, unreasonable of the friend to ignore their own mistakes and shortcomings, particularly when damage is caused to their friends.

So I can say that “I’m reasonably certain that the tree appears to me to be presently engaged in the act of being a tree, per my understanding of what it means to be and per my definition of what a ‘tree’ is,” and this is a statement filled with quite a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity. Not everyone seems equipped to handle that level of uncertainty, and thus–the English language, which provides them with the means to hide from all that uncertainty by presenting a tenuous and unfalsifiable statement of subjective experience as an absolute truth.

* As part of my attempts to dissect the English language, this is intentional. “This” is singular, and there is no good reason that it should be treated as though it is plural.

The Politicization and Exaggeration of Reality

I’ve seen President Trump talk about the terrible things that happened in Sweden on Friday night. I’ve seen a video from… Sweden…? Some Swedish government agency…? that reiterated that nothing of much import happened in Sweden. I’ve seen people sharing articles about riots that took place in Rinkeby. And I’ve got to be honest.

I don’t who to believe.

In fact, I believe none of them. I refuse to form any sort of understanding on what may or may not be happening in Sweden, because everyone involved has a vested interest in lying to me. I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember reading from a reputable source that police agencies in <some European country> were told to downplay crimes committed by refugees. I also know that Trump and his ilk have a really, really bad habit of blowing everything out of proportion, inflating numbers, and telling outright lies. Everyone is telling a bit of truth, and everyone is burying the truth. So it’s impossible to figure out what is actually true.

It’s not a subject I talk about much because there’s no need to get involved in the controversy, but the Holocaust suffers from the same problem: what actually happened is now forever lost to history. We do know that much of what we were told during the 30s and 40s about Nazi Germany was exaggerated by, yes, Jewish-owned media outlets who were using propaganda to incite the American People into entering the war. See? I can hardly even make that statement without risking being called anti-Semitic. But that Jews controlled most of the media then is a matter of record. While he was certainly no bastion of reliability himself, the problem was notable enough that Charles Lindbergh stood in Congress and spoke about how the media was using propaganda to stir us into entering the war.

Whatever did happen was indisputably terrible and unforgivable, but we do know that much of what we were told was greatly exaggerated, and much of it was blatantly false. For example, claims of the Nazi soldiers incinerating bodies by the dozen in mere minutes are obviously false, yet these provably false statements were admitted as evidence and have entered the official zeitgeist of what happened during the Holocaust. Even though it takes modern crematoria more than two hours to incinerate a single body, and even though this involves crushing the bones–which was never mentioned in any of the testimony–the overwhelming majority of people today simply accept it as fact that the Nazis incinerated bodies by the hundreds.

I’m not making any case for or against anything. I’m just pointing out that the tendency of people to exaggerate to further their political ends has resulted in a situation where all sides are filled with liars and con artists, and the long-run result of that is that whatever “truth” might once have existed is now simply a matter of which side of the argument you fall on. I’ve no doubt that anyone who would instantly reject any talk of Holocaust Denial–which I’m not doing–will probably have stopped reading during the preceding paragraph, called me anti-Semitic, and completely ignored the point. This is because they have fallen on that side of the issue, and it has no tolerance for the arguments of the other side.

It refuses to hear, and so it can’t listen.

Does Sweden have some kind of issue with immigration? I have no idea. It would seem that they do have some sort of problem–everything isn’t great, at least. Is Trump pulling more “alternative facts” out of his ass? I have no idea. Based on his history, I would say “Probably.” Is there an element of truth in both statements? Yes, without doubt. Will one side acknowledge the element of truth in the other side’s statements?

Not before Hell freezes over.

Global Warming faces the same politicization. We know for a fact–thanks to hacked and leaked emails that appeared around 2007*–that the leading scientists who were arguing that man-made global warming was real doctored evidence, concealed evidence, and cherry-picked their data so that their report was colored by their political message. We also know that no amount of 114 degree temperatures in August will cause Climate Change Deniers to say there might be something to it, not as long as one random day throughout the year is unusually cool.

If a person begins from a neutral position and simply follows the evidence to determine what is up with the Holocaust, the Trump/Sweden thing, and global warming, they will end up running in circles and ultimately declaring, “I don’t know. It’s impossible to know. Everyone is lying, and everyone is manipulating the truth to say what they want it to say.”

Over the weekend, some altercation happened at the Students For Liberty Conference when an alt-right dude Something Spencer showed up and set up a booth pretending to be part of the conference. What happened next? Well, Spencer says that he was threatened and forced to leave. Libertarians say that Spencer requested that security escort him out, and that he left of his own accord. Jeffrey Tucker may or may not have been drunk and may or may not have shouted at Spencer. I wasn’t there, and only about 300 people were, so I can’t say what happened.

People who I generally find reliable, like Will Coley, insist that Spencer left of his own accord. However, his posts about it contain comments from people who dispute that account, and who say that Spencer was forced to leave because the crowd was turning violent. Others have said that everyone ultimately had to leave, including Students For Liberty.

Recently, some Conservative group uninvited Milo Yuanwhateverus from speaking at their event. They say that it’s because Milo made comments that condoned pedophilia**. Not being a Milo fan, I only know his reply secondhand, but it was basically something like “No, that’s not at all what I said. They edited the videos to make it appear that way.” Then someone posted the full video unedited. Did Milo condone teen-adult relationships? I don’t know or really care; this is just another example of how truth gets shoved through the meat grinder because everyone is just trying to push an agenda, and will pick and choose parts of the truth that further it while denying or burying the parts that don’t.

Trump said while talking to a reporter that women “let” him do whatever he wants because he’s rich and famous. People took this and ran with it, coming up with the certifiably insane idea that Trump was bragging about sexual assault. I’ve tried, and I can attest: absolutely nothing that you can say to these people will convince them otherwise. Pointing out what the meaning of the word “let” is? It’s a No Sale. They have that in their heads, and that’s just what they’re going to believe. Use an example about how “letting” your nephew play with your pet cat isn’t forcing your nephew to play with your pet cat? They genuinely don’t understand what relevance that has.

But it’s not just the left, obviously–I’ve criticized the right just as much here.

It’s fucking maddening.

Everything gets exaggerated to reductio ad absurdum degrees, but the people exaggerating absolutely refuse to admit that they’re blowing things way out of proportion and are engaging in hyperbole. “Scientific fact” has become both meaningless and a holy grail, thanks to one segment of the population that unwisely believes anything a scientist says is absolutely reliable, and the other segment of the population that simply cherry-picks. The first segment, of course, hides from the science they don’t like–like the measurable differences in athleticism and education between races and genders–and refuse to admit that such scientific facts even exist. The second segment will print out and piss on a paper about climate change but will decide scientists are great if a report comes out that they like.

I just… I really wish people would stop exaggerating and stop lying.

I can already hear the mainstream responses to that.

Conservatives: “Damn straight! Tell them damned liberals to stop exaggerating and lying!”

Liberals: “Yes, please! All conservatives do is exaggerate and lie!”

Because of this, truth just gets eviscerated and swept under the rug, forever lost and with no way to ever recover it. It is impossible now to determine what actually happened during the Holocaust, whether Hitler actually intended to exterminate or move the Jews, whether the Jewish murders were planned or incidental, or anything else. We are doing a great disservice to posterity, who will one day look back on our mess and shrug before saying, “I don’t know. They’re all liars and exaggerators.”

* “The gist” of all this stuff gets logged in my memory, though the details rarely do.

** Widespread acceptance of hyperbole is another serious issue. What Milo is accused of condoning are relationships between teens and adults, not kids and adults. As far as I’m aware, there isn’t a -philia label for this, but there actually is a pretty major difference between being attracted to a pre-puberty kid and a post-puberty teenager. I’m condoning neither, but don’t pretend like they’re the same thing.

There’s No Such Thing As the Popular Vote

It certainly hasn’t been a smooth ride, but it looks like the people–specifically, Democrats–are going to have to move out of the Bargaining Stage, since there are no bargains left to be made. I want to also credit them for mostly skipping over denial, because there weren’t very many people who really took the #NotMyPresident crap earnestly. I suspect that Denial is always the shortest stage of grief, at least when it comes to politics and elections, because people woke up on November 9th and there wasn’t really any way to live in denial. Denial requires people to enable it, and no one was willing to do that. Of course, we could make the argument–and I would make the argument–that anger and bargaining are both encapsulated by “Denial,” so the Denial Stage is actually three parts: abject denial, anger, bargaining. I would also contend that “depression” is part of the acceptance phase, but none of that is really important; it just occurred to me that anger and bargaining are part of denial–last ditch efforts to escape the consequences, to deny the outcome.

So the Electoral College voted and, to the surprise of no one with a brain and experience in politics and the ability to look at the issue rationally, Trump has been named the next President of the United States. That’s pretty much it for the denial, though, isn’t it? There are no tricks left up the denier’s sleeve, no cards left to be played, and no more opportunities to overturn the results of the fifty state elections. Jill Stein’s recounts were a total bust, only verifying the outcome in the one state that actually had a recount, and all of the anti-Russian propaganda has amounted to nothing.

It’s fascinating that so much attention was paid not just on the Electoral College but on the people themselves. One day Democrats argue that the Electoral College should be abolished, that it isn’t democratic, and that it’s not right. Then the next they’re lining up and begging the Electoral College to curtail the will of the people they represent. All of this confusion comes from the misunderstanding Democrats have, not realizing that we are fifty individual republics and there is no national popular vote; there are fifty elections on Election Day–one in each state–and the outcome of those elections determine who those states give their votes to. The people of Mississippi didn’t vote for the President. The State of Mississippi did, and the People of Mississippi simply told the state who to give its votes to.

Not as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics has so much focus been put on the Electoral College, not even in 2000. Both articles I’ve seen on the subject tonight express a sort of disappointment, saying things like “Trump clears the final hurdle…” and “Trump completes the final lap…” as though there was ever any doubt. The election is over, and it has been over since 2:00 AM on November 9th. Everything that has happened since in the mainstream media–all of the anti-Trump stuff anyway–has been a form of denial, up to and including the absolutely preposterous notion that there was ever any chance at all that the Electoral College might fail to install Trump.

This is the first time in my life that I’ve even bothered to look at what the Electors’ results were; even though I fully expected them to be what they were–though I didn’t expect any Republicans to defect*–but that really speaks to how sensationalized and extravagant the media and Democrats have been, that even though I knew beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the electors would elect Trump, I still went to see the results. I can only imagine how people less grounded in reality–like the Democrats who have accepted the swill that Trump is a tool of Putin–feel right now, their hopes again dashed on the rocks.

But none of this is really what I want to talk about. I want to talk about this fully insane article from the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-electoral-college-is-poised-to-pick-trump-despite-push-to-dump-him/2016/12/19/75265c16-c58f-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.aa42daef7342

Donald Trump clinched the presidency Monday as members of the electoral college cast ballots declaring him the victor, a perfunctory conclusion to the most stunning presidential contest in modern history.

Trump became the winner Monday afternoon after electors from Texas cast ballots and put him over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Results will be officially announced Jan. 6 in a special joint session of Congress.

While Democrat Hillary Clinton amassed a nearly 3 million-vote lead in the popular vote, Trump won the state-by-state electoral map, making him president-elect. That political dichotomy sparked special scrutiny and intense lobbying of electors by Trump’s opponents in recent weeks, including mass protests. It also drew outsize attention to the usually overlooked, constitutionally obligated gatherings of 538 electors in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Sorry, but I do have to call you out on this. See, Washington Post, I went to your article from the Electoral College votes in 2012, and… Oh. You don’t have such an article. You didn’t write an article when the electors voted in 2008 or 2012, because the process is pretty automatic, isn’t it? It’s a formality.

Anyway, the reason I bolded that part is that it’s kinda sore-loser-ish, isn’t it? First of all, stop saying “the popular vote.” There is not, and never has been, any such thing as “the popular vote.” When you speak of this, you are cultivating and spreading a myth and a lie. Hillary Clinton absolutely does not “lead in the popular vote” because there is no “the popular vote.” There were fifty popular votes. By a large margin, Donald Trump won most of the popular votes. Popular votes. As in–plural. Because there is no “the.”

The mostly symbolic calls for an electoral college rejection of Trump grew after revelations of a CIA assessment that Russian hacking could have boosted his campaign, which in the view of many Trump critics raised doubts about his legitimacy.

You just can’t help it, can you? I compared this to your article from where Obama defeated Romney in 2012. For it to be fair, you would have had to have mentioned the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya, because I’ve figured it out, Washington Post and Democrats. This whole “Trump is a Russian puppet!” thing–it’s just your Birther Movement. Don’t pretend like it’s more than that, or that it’s more dignified than that. This is you demanding to see Trump’s long-form birth certificate. However, you didn’t mention the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya in your article celebrating Obama’s victory.

And why did you say Obama won? Well, obviously, for very positive reasons. Let’s take a look at your language:

  • “reassembling the political coalition that boosted…”
  • “remaking himself from a hopeful uniter into a fighter…”
  • “scored a decisive victory…”
  • “capped a night of gains…”
  • “run as a symbol of limitless hope…”
  • “Obama’s promises had won…”
  • “had promised to fight the hardest…”

Wow! One might say you had your lips to his ass so fully that you were tonguing his large intestine.

For curiosity’s sake, let’s compare that to your language about Trump’s victory on November 9.

  • “Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first female president…” [C’mon. Seriously?]
  • “Trump, a 70-year-old celebrity businessman who had never before run for office, is poised to become the oldest president ever elected to a first term. ” [Just had to take that whole sentence.] [Age Discrimination–you liberals aren’t fans of that, right?]
  • “After running a divisive campaign…”
  • “With Trump’s ascension to the White House, the nationalist wave that has swept capitals around the world — including in Britain, which voted to break from the European Union this year — came crashing onto U.S. shores.” [Again, just… wow.] [“Came crashing” is obviously heavily loaded language]

In fact, I’m going to stop here a moment to reflect on the horrifically biased language, because word choice is exceedingly important–it’s what gives away the bias. Hillary, you see, was on a quest. Quick, what do you think of when you hear the word “quest?” Unless you’re a World of Warcraft player, you think of an honorable, just mission undertaken to do something good and righteous. Trump is a “celebrity businessman.” Quite a contrast to Hillary’s quest.

Obama “capped a night of gains.” Powerful, positive language. Trump “came crashing onto U.S. shores.”

The primary reason I care isn’t that I like Trump. I don’t. I care because lots and lots of people don’t see the bias, and generally believe the Washington Post is neutral. You can’t claim neutrality while using language like “run as a symbol of limitless hope” for a Democrat, language like “quest to become the first female President” for a democrat, and stacking it against “built his campaign around the single contention…” [Romney] and “came crashing onto U.S. shores.” [Trump]

Moving on.

Trump has dismissed the intelligence community’s analysis of Russia’s role in the election and has boasted, including on Monday, of a “historic” electoral landslide. But his 305-to-232 win over Clinton ranks just 46th out of 58 electoral college margins.

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. The intelligence community’s analysis? There has been no such analysis.

You mean this one?

I realize you guys are the experts at this, but isn’t this, you know… bullshit?

His detractors called on electors to buck the president-elect in favor of Clinton — or Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, or another Republican such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Yes, and you denialists enabled that delusion by pandering to those detractors and giving the false hope that there was ever any chance in hell that this was a possibility. I don’t mean to say that it was a “one in a million” chance or that it was “really long odds.” There was no chance; there were no odds. It was an impossibility, and you guys knew it. You knew most of these states have laws in place preventing it, and that most of the electors would be replaced if they wouldn’t vote for the person they were supposed to.

But not even once did any mainstream media outlet mention that little detail. I read the news everyday, and a lot of those are liberal outlets, and I never once saw any of these liberal sites mention the fact that most of these electors have alternates standing by and ready to go if the first elector doesn’t vote for the person they’re supposed to vote for. That’s a pretty big detail, but I never saw it mentioned. If it was mentioned, it certainly wasn’t stated nearly enough, and why not? Because that little fact nips the whole delusion in the bud and renders it absolutely impossible.

Across the country, critics of the president-elect braved cold temperatures and rallied outside state capitol buildings in hopes that electors might act as an emergency brake on Trump.

More examples in shockingly biased language. “Braved cold temperatures… rallied outside… hopes that electors… act as an emergency brake…”

And how does it convey the message about Republicans immediately after that sentence?

In Pennsylvania, which voted for a Republican president for the first time since 1988, a few hundred shell-shocked Democrats protested in Harrisburg while all 20 electors backed Trump. In Utah, protesters booed and shouted “Shame on you” as the state’s six electors cast votes for Trump in a capitol building conference room in Salt Lake City.

  • “shell-shocked Democrats…”
  • “booed and shouted…”
  • “‘Shame on you'”

I know what you’re thinking. “They’re just reporting what happened!” Yes, and that’s the problem–the language with which they are reporting it is extremely biased. Allow me to rewrite this <sigh> two sentence “paragraph” without all the loaded language:

In Pennsylvania, which voted for a Republican president for the first time since 1988, Democrat detractors continued protesting while all 20 electors backed Trump. In Utah, protestors jeered as the state’s electors cast their votes from Trump.

See? That is just reporting what happened. I’m not a big fan of “jeered,” to be honest, and if I was a journalist I would spend the time to look for a more neutral word, as “jeered” sounds negative to me. Why is that? The use of “jeered” paints the protestors as snarling, grimacing, unhappy people–which, by all accounts, is exactly right. “…booed” and “shouted” have the same effect, of course, unless you agree with those people, in which case it doesn’t sound so negative.

Ooh! I especially love this:

In Florida, a crucial swing state where Trump defeated Clinton by about a percentage point, Trump won all 29 electoral votes.

I’ll fill that out for you. I’ll fill you in on what the Washington Post actually meant.

In Florida, Trump defeated Clinton by one measly percentage point. One freaking point. But even though he won by only a single point, Trump gets all 29 electoral votes, which is bullshit and unfair. At the very least, Clinton should have gotten 14 of them. Fuck you, white America, you racist, misogynistic pieces of sh–

Okay, maybe not that last part.

What’s the point of even bringing up this info about Trump’s victory in Florida, the margin of his victory, and the distribution of electoral votes? Specifically to make you think what I said. Really, I mean that–they said that, and they put it the way they put it, precisely to make you think what I just said. It’s called manipulation, and there is a reason they spend billions upon billions of dollars each year learning the best ways to manipulate public opinion. Look how subtle it is!

They don’t have to state it. They just have to tell you the facts in the right way.

Again, I can hear you. “But that’s all they did! They just stated the facts!”

But they didn’t. Here. I’ll state the facts.

Due to his narrow victory in Florida, Trump claims its 29 electoral votes.

See? That is what the facts look like. The other stuff–that’s called “slant.”

And they are good at it. Man, are they good at it. It’s all about context, phrasing, and word choice–calling attention to the right facts at the right time and using the right words to convey it.

Some held signs, including one that read, “Resist Putin’s Puppet.”

Pictured: signs with EXACTLY as much truth, credibility, and decency as the sign that called Trump Putin’s puppet.

I mean, if you’re going to hold up a stupid sign, you might as well go all the way, and hold up the most stupid sign you can find, right? “Resist Putin’s Puppet,” are you freaking kidding me? It’s no surprise this idiot was out protesting the electors and evidently believing that there was even a remote chance that the electors wouldn’t elect Trump: clearly, this person is woefully out of touch with reality.

It’s probably because he gets his news from the Washington Post.

* On that note, congratulations Ron Paul, on securing an electoral college vote!

Western Nihilism 3: Biology Versus Social Justice Warriors

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

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

Little Things Are Cute

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

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

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

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

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

So get over yourself.

“I’m tall, so I intimidate people.”

Bull.

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

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

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

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

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

Height isn’t really an issue.

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

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

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

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

Escaping Personal Responsibility

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

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

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

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

We Are Animals

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

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

Why Julian Assange is a Clown

I used to have great admiration for Assange and the valuable service that Wikileaks provides to the world. I first became aware of it when Chelsea Manning provided us with the diplomacy cables, and have followed it since. Much like the people at The Pirate Bay, Assange has made himself an enemy of the system by standing up for what he believes in–for standing against tyranny and corruption. I’m having a hard time remembering it, but it really seems like there was someone else who was swept up in Wikileaks around the time who also had sexual assault charges brought against him. Maybe it’s just Assange. It doesn’t matter.

Like I said, I used to have great admiration for Assange.

I don’t now. Why not?

Quite simply, because I’ve been looking at this for months:

assange-the-clownAssange has been tossing out this line for months. Every few weeks, you can find Assange saying, “I’m about to release some more documents that will totally finish off Hillary!”

I’m not criticizing him because he hopes to “finish off” Hillary and consistently fails to. In fact, that’s something worth admiring: he has set his goal as taking down this titan of American politics. His failure to achieve that goal isn’t a mark against him.

What is a mark against him is that he… just… keeps… fucking… saying it.

Every few weeks, it’s all over Facebook, Assange promising that his “next batch” will finish off Hillary for good. Again, it’s not that he fails to do this that bothers me.

It’s that he’s not releasing the documents that will “finish off Hillary.”

If you had documents that could sink Hillary Clinton’s presidency chances, what would you do? Would it ever occur to you to tell the whole world that you had the documents and were going to release them “some time next week” or “in a few days”? Of course not! You’d simply release them. You wouldn’t talk about releasing them; you would release them.

However, Assange has had these documents for months.

So let’s say, for a moment, that he is right, and that he releases the documents and Hillary drops to zero percent in polls. What should we do? Should we pat him on the back? No! We should ask him why he held them for three months instead of releasing them. We should ask him why he knowingly and intentionally withheld documents of such staggering consequence that they would sink a presidential candidate while repeatedly throwing out bait? For months he has been promising that his “next batch” will finish off Hillary.

So what if he finally succeeds?

Then it will mean the he withheld these documents for months while feeding us largely inconsequential bullshit.

“But maybe he was saving the best for last!” people might say.

Perhaps, but, if that’s the case, then who the fuck does he think he is, to decide what the American People should and shouldn’t know, and when they should know it? Assange has fallen prey to what Nietzsche warned of–he has become exactly what he set out to fight. Now we need someone to hack the documents away from Assange and establish a Wikileaks Wikileakds for all the documents that Assange has decided not to share with us.

At this point, Assange is keeping us on a “Need To Know” basis. What if that last batch of documents had defeated Hillary? Would he indefinitely withhold the ones he is set to release? If he moved forward with his plan to release them, wouldn’t people accuse him of being a misogynist and kicking a dead* whore horse?

So let’s assume that Assange has 100 documents. He’s got more than that, but we’re keeping it simple. He says “I’m about to release documents that will sink Hillary!” and then he releases ten of those documents.

Hillary may or may not be damaged, but she certainly isn’t sunk. He says, “The next batch will totally take her down!” and releases ten more.

Hillary may or may not be damaged, but she certainly isn’t sunk. He says, “The next batch will totally take her down!” and releases ten more.

Finally, he succeeds in taking Hillary down. Why did he withhold these evidently critically significant documents for so long? Because of him, and solely him, in this scenario Hillary’s campaign continued on for some time because he withheld information from us. Countless millions of dollars squandered, months of people’s lives wasted. Is he intentionally drawing it the leaks so that Democrats don’t have a prayer of finding and fielding a replacement candidate before Election Day? If so, what in the fuck does he think gives him the right to manipulate American politics to that degree?

If he has information that could actually sink Hillary’s candidacy, then the only moral thing to do is release it immediately. But he didn’t. He has drawn the process out unnecessarily, rationing out our information to us while making false promises and knowingly withholding what he promises is critical information. Does this not sound exactly like the candidate he is trying to take down?

Of course it does. And that is the problem with Assange.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Assange is trying to take down a candidate who repeatedly lies and withholds information… by repeatedly lying and withholding information.

“But maybe he was hoping the previous stuff would take her down, and that he wouldn’t have go this far!” someone could argue.

Yes. That’s called information control. The very idea is appalling, that Assange and Wikileaks would withhold the Really Bad Stuff because they hoped that the Pretty Bad Stuff would take her down.

I don’t know what Assange’s motives are, or if he’s trying to keep the Extremely Bad Stuff secret because he hopes the Really Bad Stuff will eliminate her from the election, just as he hoped the Pretty Bad Stuff would. But more than anything, it looks like Assange is simply an attention whore.

He says he does it because he doesn’t want critical information to get lost in information overload. I ask again–what gives him the right? Regardless, it is unacceptable that he might withhold for any amount of time information that could actually sink Hillary’s campaign. The only moral thing to do would be to release that information.

“Well, he has to go through the info and determine what is what,” others would suggest.

Why?

It’s not Assange’s job to screen and filter information. It’s Assange’s job to share information. Assange is not the fucking Gatekeeper of critical information that is relevant to who will be the President of the United States. He simply set himself up as that gatekeeper. Why? For the power? For the attention? We can only speculate about his motives.

But regarding a responsibility to not release information that could be damaging to U.S. national security? Fuck that, and fuck that entire mentality. It would be damaging to the security of Texas State Penitentiary to release to the inmates the information that they’re being fed rat meat and drugged and raped in their sleep. Does that mean the inmates shouldn’t be told? That idea, that national security is a justifiable reason to withhold pertinent and critical information, suggests that we do need a gatekeeper of the information, because we’re too stupid or reckless to handle it. I wholly reject that supposition, as should anyone.

“You can’t handle the truth!”

Oh, well. Share the truth anyway.

Because the truth doesn’t change. In plain sight or concealed, the truth is what it is. My sister can’t handle the truth that there is no god–she’ll openly admit that the only reason she believes is that she is terribly afraid of the idea of non-existence. But hiding from it and pretending it isn’t the case doesn’t change it. And then you end up with shit like this because someone somewhere along the way decided that people couldn’t handle the truth, and so they had to be lied to:

Pictured: People who were lied to.

Pictured: People who were lied to.

If the government is doing something that would damage our national security if it got out that our government is doing it, then our national security needs to be damaged because our government shouldn’t be doing whatever it is in the first place. Give people the information and let freedom take its course.

Assange just wants to stay in the spotlight, and wants to stay relevant. It’s not about preventing information overload, not if he is withholding information that could actually sink Hillary’s candidacy. It’s about attention and his desire to have everyone train their eyes on him. “My next batch will sink her! I mean it this time! Like totes 4 real!”

“Please pay attention to me.”

* In the interest of not committing suicide by shooting myself three times in the back of the head, this is figurative, obviously. No one should inflict violence upon anyone else.

How To Stand Corrected

In the course of my life, I have been wrong about plenty of things. This should be obvious, since I started life as a typical Christian conservative who believed I was possessed by demons because I was transgender and ultimately became an atheistic anarchist, passing through socialism and full-blown communism in the process. So not only have I been wrong in the past, I have been absurdly wrong.

stand-correctedWhen one undertakes the quest to find the truth, it’s never about finding out what is true. It’s about ruling out what isn’t. You have to try an idea out like a pair of glasses, walk around with them on for a little while, and only then can you determine whether they feel right. You have to keep an open mind, always willing to put on a new pair of glasses, no matter how silly you might think they initially look.

I used to make a little show of correcting myself, in fact. When I argued with Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience over the Great Pyramid and his assertion that its “size” is analogous to the Luxor in Vegas because he was intentionally excluding mass from counting, when the reality is that the fact that it’s made out of 70 ton stone blocks is precisely what makes the Great Pyramid so damned remarkable, just so that he could write-off what some conspiracy loon was saying about ancient aliens, there was one point where I had to backpedal.

While it did seem to me that the best way to backpedal, since the discussion was relatively public, was to publicly acknowledge that I was backpedaling, that I had been mistaken on one area or another, the entire thing was irrelevant. Matt then, in the way most people do, took my clarification of something as admission that I was wrong, declared himself the victor, and walked away. Austin Petersen attempted something similar, when I foolishly allowed for the possibility that I was mistaken in my understanding of his positions, seizing the opportunity–as Matt did and as any troll would–to say something like, “If your facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?” even though it had no bearing on what I said.

Even among people who ordinarily function as intellectuals, debates devolve into a bitter war between two sides who refuse to appear weak. Since any hint of weakness will be touted by the spectating masses as losing the argument, no backpedaling is allowed–and, if you must backpedal, you must do it quietly, without anyone noticing. But, realistically, the best thing you can do–in the eyes of the masses–is to dig that hole deeper. Anything but admit you’re wrong and need to re-evaluate your position.

Gary Johnson did this in the Stossel Debate, when asked whether a Jewish bakery should have been forced to bake a cake for Nazis. Everything about the question screamed two things. First, Johnson had to find a way to deny the validity of the analogy. People do this a lot–in fact, Americans are great at it. It doesn’t matter how obvious and clear the parallels are; they will deny its validity. Johnson was intellectually honest enough to not attempt this route, though. The second response would have been to stop and re-evaluate his position, to backpedal, and to admit that he may be wrong and needs to consider it further. Instead, Johnson dug deeper, saying there before all the people watching that, in his opinion, yes, a Jewish bakery should have been forced to bake a cake for Nazis.

Unsurprisingly, Johnson went on to quietly rectify this remark–somewhat–and quietly tried to smooth over how he called religious freedom a black hole. It’s revealing that Johnson didn’t do this in the debate with everyone watching; he chose to do it later, rather than appear weak.

I’ve long since stopped bothering to admit that I’m wrong about something, but it’s not because I refuse to appear weak. I don’t have enough of an audience for that to matter.

It’s because those public admissions that I was wrong were never anything more than showcases of ego. “Look at me! Look how intellectually honest and humble I am! I’m so humble and so great that I’ll write a 2,000 word article admitting that I’m wrong!” Honestly, I’m disgusted that I ever did it, but human existence is a constant battle against one’s own ego–I don’t mean “ego” in the Freudian sense, but in the sense of “the image of self.”

As a transsexual person who often finds herself explaining to people that there is no meaningful difference between me today and me of two years ago, the image of self is something I spend a lot of time thinking about. You undoubtedly have some image of me, just as I probably have some image of you. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Your image of me probably doesn’t look anything like me, and my image of you probably doesn’t look anything like you. You might have the advantage and may be closer to “me” if you’ve watched my more personal videos on Youtube, but even then you’re only getting an incomplete picture.

This is intentional, though… Putting up a complete picture has bitten me in the ass at least twice. But even if I wasn’t intentionally separating things today–another reason I took down Shemale Diary and renamed it elsewhere, to write about my personal affairs–you still wouldn’t get a full picture of me. This is neither here nor there, though.

The reality is that you have some image of me in your head, but you know what else? I have some image of me in my head, as well.

And you have some image of you in your head, as well.

The reality is that these images very rarely coincide with us in reality. I’ve always been fascinated by the topic of wondering how other people perceive me, but it’s a question that can never be answered. Where does their image of me differ from my image of me? Where does my image of me differ from me? Who is “me?” Is “me” the image that other people have, the image that I have, or none of the above?

This is the crux of ego: that self-image, and conflicts between that self-image and the actual self. This is why transgenderism ends up claiming so many lives: people don’t just have a self-image, and people don’t just see disparity between that and who they are, but they also have an idealized image. I realize this sounds similar to Freud’s Id, Ego, and Superego. That’s probably coincidental. Anyway, conflicts between these things cause substantial internal conflict. The person who looks in the mirror and sees a man while looking in the mind’s eye and seeing a woman has their work cut out for them in resolving the disparities. We all have these conflicts, whether it always includes gender and sex or not.

I feel like I’m rambling, but also that it’s important rambling.

The point is that my self-image through all of those public acknowledgements that I’m wrong was this ultra-intellectual person who was so humble that they drew pride from their humility. That’s the problem of ego, of course. Attempting to abolish the ego is, by definition, an act of ego. I could put up the pretense of humility, and many people would accept it at face value: “Look at this person so humble that they can admit when they’re wrong! Awesome!” Yet the reality was far more insidious than that. There was nothing humble about it, because it was “Look at me, I’m so humble that I can admit when I’m wrong! Admire that!”

I don’t mean to suggest that I ever consciously did this. Of course not, and I haven’t been clear if that seems to be what I’m saying. An act of ego is so rarely aware that it is an act of ego. I didn’t see the underlying sense of pride in what I was doing, but there it was, nonetheless, hidden beneath the mask of humility.

In the past six months or so, I’ve altered my worldview in several ways, and I will continue to do so as new facts are brought to my attention and as I am exposed to new perspectives. I am more correct today than I have ever been, because that is the search for truth and I have left thousands of ideas lying in the wreckage behind me, but it’s not about never being wrong.

It’s about being less wrong today than you were yesterday.

R&R Ep 30 – The Millennial Zombie Apocalypse

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

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

The result is the Millennial Zombie Apocalypse.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

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

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

Max Whitely

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

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

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

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

Protests in that mans name have no meaning.

Aria DiMezzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aria Dimezzo

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

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

Max Whitely

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

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

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

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

Aria DiMezzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Max Whitely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diamond (to Max Whiteley)

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

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

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

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

diamond (to me)

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

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

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

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

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

And a lot of this:

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

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

Aria DiMezzo

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

Is “White Lives Matter” racist?

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

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

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

Bloodycrow

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

Aria DiMezzo

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

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

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

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

Both are equally racist.

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

Bloodycrow

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

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

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

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

Aria DiMezzo

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

And you have still not answered the simple question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proof

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

Mississippi’s New “Religious Freedom” Anti-Gay Bill

As an atheistic transgender lesbian and resident of the state of Mississippi, no one could conceivably be more affected by the new law than I. For those who aren’t aware, the Mississippi Congress recently passed a law allowing business owners to refuse to serve customers on religious grounds, and it’s no secret that this is intended to allow Christians to refuse to serve homosexuals. Now, before we continue, I want to reiterate that I am an atheistic shemale lesbian in Mississippi, and that literally no one could possibly be more impacted by this bill than I will be.

And yet… I stand 100% in support of the legislation.

The fact is that Liberty means that people must be allowed to do things that we don’t like, as long as those things don’t involve force, violence, and coercion. This means that religious people must tolerate homosexuals, and not force homosexuals to be straight, not attack homosexuals, and not attempt to coerce. On the whole, religious people are tolerant of homosexuals.

Americans go wrong–especially on the Left–because they no longer know that there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance, but they are very different things. The LGBT community, and left in general, demands acceptance, but they are not entitled to acceptance, and they do not have the right to be accepted. To tolerate something is to grit your teeth, to hate every moment of it, and to do everything you can to put a stop to it while stopping short of using force, violence, and coercion. Once you use force, violence, or coercion to put a stop to it, you cross the line and become intolerant.

What people need to remember is that the religious business owners in question… are people, and people have rights. Among those rights is the right to religious freedom, the right to express religious beliefs, and the right to act in accordance with religious beliefs, but always stopping short of violence, force, and coercion, because no one has the right to use force, violence, and coercion. As long as they are not using force, violence, and coercion, though, they are not hindering anyone else’s rights and therefore must be tolerated.

It is the left and the LGBT community that is being intolerant here, attempting to use force to get their way, attempting to use the force that is the government to force religious people to act against their religious beliefs. And this is wrong. It is wrong to put a gun to people’s heads and say, “No. You will violate your religious beliefs.” I shouldn’t have to point out that it’s wrong to do that.

It’s a person on the other end of that business, and you do not have the right to force that person to do what you want them to do. You don’t have the right to force someone to be friends with you, if you’re gay, and if they don’t like gay people. They have the right to not associate with gay people, and I don’t think anyone would question that. The lines don’t get muddier when that person in question happens to own a business. They still have the same rights, and they still have the right to not associate with gay people. And you have the right to take your business elsewhere.

Why would you want to do business with someone who hates you anyway? That’s insane. So you want to have the government put a gun to these people’s heads and sell you a cake even though they hate you? I hope they spit in that cake, because you’re violating their rights by doing so.

Liberty is a very simple thing, but it’s the left and LGBT community being intolerant here, and refusing to tolerate the religious behavior of people on the right. Just as you do not have the right to force someone to be your friend, neither do you have the right to force that someone to do business with you. That person is still a person, after all. If you want to force businesses to do business with you against their religious beliefs, then you are the one in the wrong. And I say this as someone who is imminently affected by this legislation.

We must have liberty, and liberty is a two-way street. I’ll acknowledge their right to run their lives as they want, if they acknowledge my right to run my life as I want. And, realistically, religious people have, on the whole, agreed to allow us to live our lives as we want. It’s time to stop making demands of them. It’s time to stop demanding them to give everything; it’s time to meet them in the middle. Live and let live, after all.

The bottom line is that these conservatives don’t want to do business with us. These people don’t want to be our friends, and they don’t want to do business with us. Suck it up, kiddy–not everyone in the world is going to like you and want to be your friend. Put your Big Girl Panties on, shrug, and walk away. We’re not going to win them over by putting guns to their heads and forcing them to violate their beliefs.

Trying will only make them angrier, will only make them more resentful, and will only push them closer to people like Trump. We are making them resentful by doing this, by using the government as the tool of oppression against them, violating their rights and beliefs, and proclaiming, as we put guns to their heads and say “I don’t care what you want, you’re going to do what I want!” that we are the side of justice and truth. You cannot be on the side of justice, truth, and compassion while putting guns to people’s heads and saying, “You can’t do what you want to do. If you do what you want to do, if you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will throw you in prison for the rest of your life and leave you to rot.”

Pushing them with these mechanisms of force and violence, calling them bigots and hateful when they’re merely religious, and refusing to tolerate their dislike of us, will only succeed in making them angrier, and more convinced that we are the spawn of the devil. If they believe that we are spawn of the devil sent to Earth to corrupt, what do you think they will believe after we put guns to their heads and force them to violate their religious beliefs? We only reinforce their resentment, and they are resentful. They are certainly resentful at this point–the white conservative male is horrendously under assault in the country, and is not allowed to say it without being called a bigot in at least three ways. But the left’s brand of oppression has not won. Liberty and reason can prevail.

You just have to see sense. So what these people don’t like us? So what they don’t want to be our friends? So what they don’t want to sell us cakes? Plenty of people do like us. Plenty of people want to be our friends. Plenty of people will sell us cakes. We have to be the bigger person here and say, “I don’t agree, obviously, but I respect your right to do as you think as best. I still love you.”

“You homophobic monster! You’re just enshrining your hate in legislation, you bigots!” is not the appropriate response. “You must serve us! Uncle Sam! Uncle Sam! The mean conservative doesn’t want to be my friend! Get your gun! Make them be my friend! Make them sell me things! Because they should have to respect everyone, even when they disagree!”

This is why I say that the left is rife with hypocrisy.

Turn your volume down.

Again, this really does affect me. I’m a resident of Mississippi, and I’m an unemployed transgender lesbian who can’t find a legitimate job because the state discriminates against transgender people. My life is unnecessarily difficult because of the fact that I’m transgender, and a lot of places here won’t hire me because of that. If you like my writings and podcasts, please consider supporting me on Patreon, where any amount of support earns you some goodies. 😀