Americans continue to underestimate peer pressure, but I’m not sure that there is a manipulation force in the west that is more powerful than that of peer pressure. In fact, the dangers of peer pressure are ones that I constantly watch out for; as I’ve said countless times, it will only take one drunken idiot jokingly saying, “We should teach that fag a lesson” for it to grow out of control. We all know how it will play out next: his friends will agree, and the next thing you know they’re on their way to my house with chains and bats, and the first drunken idiot’s reservations about it are kept quiet.
I think it was in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone that Dumbledore remarked that standing up to one’s friends is among the most difficult things that a person can do, and this remains true today. Yet I’m seeing a lot of condemnation for the cops who stood around and did little, or nothing, to stop the arresting asshole from being an arresting asshole.
Absolutely, yes–that was wrong of those officers. But let’s not pretend like most of us would have done otherwise in that position. The overwhelming majority of us would have stood around silently, keeping our reservations quiet. The top-right officer, who you can see in the video putting his hand on the asshole and attempting to calm him, is the only one who did something to try to calm the situation, and I daresay that it was far more than what 99% of people would do.
We all like to think we’re immune to peer pressure. But we’re not. Because he says it infinitely better than I can, take a few minutes to watch this short video on conformity by therapist and psychologist TheraminTrees:
This is an observed phenomenon that affects the majority of people.
It’s easy to stand there and condemn the cops for doing nothing. Yet how many of us have stood and watched a fight play out, and one person be kicked in the head while they lie on the ground? You know what you see when you watch the video of the nurse being arrested, and everyone else standing around and watching?
Notice all the people standing around, watching, as “a few bad apples” engage in being bad apples. Those “good apples” in Antifa–they’re doing nothing to put a stop to this, to calm the situation, to de-escalate it. I’m not ripping on Antifa; the exact same thing is seen in the cop video, or in any video of a mob targeting a single person. The horrific murder of Kelly Thomas certainly applies. You’re watching animals–bloodthirsty predatory animals–who smell blood circle around and pounce on their target.
I remember being in high school, my ninth grade year, when a friend of ours wanted to put together “a gang.” I don’t remember what he called it, but it wasn’t “gang,” though it had the same effect. Naturally, we all agreed, and the rule was anyone who wanted out had to fight the guy who put it together. None of us took it seriously, of course. Then one guy said he wanted out. They fought in the locker room of the Fieldhouse. These two large dudes shoved each other through lockers while everyone else watched. No one moved to stop it. No one went to get the coaches. No one jumped in, because these two behemoths would have crushed most people purely by accident. But there were more than enough of us to rally together and break up the fight.
And none of us did.
On September 11, 2001, a number of planes were hijacked by a relatively small number of people. The passengers, despite being numerous enough to overwhelm the hijackers, consistently did nothing, in at least three out of four of the alleged hijackings*. Because it’s not just a simple matter of “Hey, everyone, we can take these guys! We can put a stop to this.” Anyone who thinks it’s that simple has never been in such a situation.
The reality is that, even if “everyone else” joins in, that first person who acts is as good as dead. Even if five other people would have jumped in and overpowered the hijacker and his box-cutter (or whatever), the first person who jumped for the hijacker was still dead. Of course, in the grand scheme, they were all dead, weren’t they? Surely we have to wonder why, once it became clear that they were all going to die, they did not take over the plane? It was not cowardice; they were not cowards. No, it’s too easy to call them cowards, but that doesn’t carry water. If you tell an animal they’re about to die, they’ll not passively submit.
The answer is more insidious and more dangerous: peer pressure.
Further, we have to ask ourselves what would have happened if one of the cops had moved forward to put a stop to it? Even though it’s pretty clear from the video that most of the cops present had quiet reservations (anyone familiar with body language can see this), only the one guy did anything about it. What if he had done more? He’d have been fired, or at the least reprimanded for questioning another officer’s authority during an arrest. You know how a mother occasionally says to the father, “How dare you challenge me in front of the kids?” or how the father says that to the mother? It’s the same thing here.
Good apples and bad apples is too simplistic of a view. It’s not that simple. There are good apples (yes, coming from me), and you can often see their reservations about how things are developing. It’s easy to criticize them for not stepping forward and putting a stop to the bad apples’ bullshit, but this criticism drastically underestimates the power of peer pressure–the same power that caused the Salem Witch Trials, the anti-clown hysteria of last year, the anti-Russian hysteria, the current Neo-Nazi hysteria. The same power that causes peaceful Antifa protestors to stand around and do nothing as their comrades pile on single individuals and beat them.
We can’t address this quickly or easily. We have to go to the source, and the source is peer pressure. It takes far more forms than the simple “Ah, you know you want to smoke this marijuana” indicated by afterschool specials. Watch the video I linked to get a more complete picture of what, exactly, peer pressure can do–what that innate desire to conform to others can do. It’s powerful.
It must be nice to have opinions that are so popular and so mainstream that you can cease enjoying people’s content if you disagree with them on something politically. In fact, it seems to me that this is the very essence of privilege, at least with opinions and politics. If I refused to watch videos from people with whom I disagree, or listen to music from musicians with whom I disagree, then I’d find myself very quickly in a droll, colorless, unfunny world, with a total number of musicians I can safely listen to being about two.
It occurred to me that the reason I have no difficulty enjoying the content of people who I disagree with is precisely that my positions are so unorthodox and rare. It’s necessary, if I am to get any enjoyment at all out of life, that I learn to love Stephen Hawking’s physics books, even though he makes me grind my teeth when he starts spouting off at the mouth about the necessity of a world government. In contrast, people whose opinions are extraordinarily common don’t have to make that adjustment. Why, if they don’t like Jon’s political views, they can easily do a search and find a half-dozen people who make funny gaming videos and who they don’t disagree with.
That’s a luxury. It is… a privilege.
See, I can’t do that. If I am bothered by the political opinion expressed by a YouTube personality, I can’t just pop open YouTube and find a gamer who makes funny videos and shares my political opinions. And before anyone prattles on about popularity lending opinions credibility, I’ll just say… argumentum ad populum.
It’s similar to how I’m not offended by a lot of things people say about transgenderism and transsexualism. I don’t have the luxury of being offended over stupid, little things, just as I don’t have the luxury of turning against a content producer over a political opinion.
I want to start this off my commending Jon Jafari for having the courage to express his opinions in an environment that is increasingly hostile to any amount of dissent. With universities throughout the country playing host to vicious riots and attacks against people who were invited to speak, and with DDoS attacks regularly taking place against any popular person who dares voice a criticism of something else, it has become difficult to openly say what you think. This is, in fact, why the media missed the mark so much on the 2016 Election. Criticism around the clock from every corner of the web and media attacked Trump supporters, washing them all as racist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic, to the point that many people were reluctant to express their support for him. But then they were able to voice their opinion through the ballot, where there was no more judgment, no ostracizing, and no hostility.
I’ve had people criticize me for daring to criticize another transgender person. That’s how deep and pervasive the groupthink has become–the allegation was, seriously, that I was not allowed to express a negative statement about another transgender person, because I’m transgender, and that means my individuality, my thoughts, and my mind don’t belong to me–they belong to my tribe. I became a heretic simply for expressing my opinion.
The Internet is largely the domain of the same people who riot on college campuses. Partially due to observable biases that see right-wing figures blocked for hate speech while left-wing figures can rant all they want, social media increasingly leans to the left. This is exacerbated by the reality that anyone who expresses their opinion invites themselves to be ripped to shreds. Combined, we’ve ended up with a very loud leftist bent on the Internet and a meek, intimidated right that is only beginning to speak again.
Nowhere was this more apparent than with my since-deleted video criticizing the Liberal Redneck. One person after the next came and attacked me, simply because I dared criticized a leftist who was, purportedly, “speaking for me.” This hearkens back to the tribal mindset I mentioned earlier–I was being told to shut up and be silent, to let the tribe speak for me, and I was ostracized when I refused to allow my voice to be cut off and stolen by a group with whom I disagree. The attacks were so constant and so persistent that I did something I never thought I’d do: I deleted the video that caused the ruckus. The only things that remain of it are my follow-ups about tribalism and the Us and Them mentality that demands I sheepishly abide what the tribe says on my behalf, whether I agree with it or not.
For someone like me, even voicing an opinion at all can, much of the time, result in attacks. I once commented on a video of a woman overreacting that someone smacked her with a newspaper by saying, “This is how liberals acted every time Trump opened his mouth.” The first reply to that was from a Trump supporter who criticized me for being transgender. People on the right will relentlessly attack me for being transgender, regardless of how unrelated to the discussion it is. Meanwhile, people on the left will relentlessly attack me for not being a Democrat.
It’s easy to stand on video today and say, “I support gay rights.” It’s not only easy; it’s passe. It’s expected, especially in places notoriously dominated by millennials, like YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit. There’s no battle there, no controversy there. It’s little more than virtue signaling at this point. Remember the episode of South Park where Stan and Cartman drove a boat into the dam and broke it? At the end of the episode, Stan musters his courage and confesses that he broke the dam. Then the rest of the crowd decides that Stan means it in a metaphorical sense, and the assembled people begin stating one after the other, “I broke the dam.”
Finally, Cartman, laughing a bit, steps forward and confesses, “I broke the dam.”
That is what it is to be a modern progressive in a university, in a city, or on the Internet. It’s a safe, uncontested position, where on is bolstered on all sides by people who agree, because people who have the courage to disagree are either silenced and told to go along with the majority, or are condemned and, increasingly, outright attacked violently. It takes no courage to be a Mississippian high schooler standing up and saying that he believes in Jesus, either, because that’s the prevailing opinion.
Caitlyn Jenner made a huge stink last year about going to use the women’s restroom at Trump Tower, after Trump had stated that transgender people could use whatever restroom they wanted in his building. It took no courage to do that. She wanted to be like Rosa Parks, except Caitlyn would only ride the bus if she knew the bus driver would let her sit wherever she wanted. The courageous act would have been going to South Carolina or Mississippi and doing it there. It takes no courage or bravery to jump onto a bandwagon that everyone else has jumped on.
During the 2016 Election, I unfollowed a number of YouTube personalities for proclaiming quite inexplicably things like “I’m interested in politics, and I’m going to discuss it! If you don’t like it, unfollow me!” I unfollowed them because it was bullshit. There was nothing courageous about being yet another YouTube personality jumping on the Sanders bandwagon without being able to give a single, cogent reason that Sanders made a good candidate, and neither was there anything courageous about proclaiming “I’m with her!” once Hillary stole the nomination. And now that the election is over, all those people who were “interested in politics” have gone back to cosplaying or whatever they do, having fully confused their eagerness to jump on a bandwagon with genuine interest and awareness of a complex subject.
I like Jon Jafari’s videos. That’s why I’m aware of his existence in the first place. The only video of his that I don’t like is the one about the Dungeons & Dragons movie, and that’s only because it hits so near to home for me, because my grandmother did think that shit, and was convinced of that shit by our pastor. Jon’s a hilarious guy, and he’s the only person I’ve ever watched who made me genuinely ask, “How does he come up with this shit?!” while laughing hysterically. I don’t particularly care about his politics, because he’s just a guy who makes stuff that I like. That doesn’t place his opinions in any place higher than my own opinions, just as I disagree with David Gilmour of Pink Floyd on several things, and even with John McAfee on a few.
I like Mark Dice’s videos–most of them, at least. There’s almost nothing that I agree with Mark Dice about.
I like Jim Sterling’s videos, and he is commonly called a SJW. I don’t think he’s one, because he is perfectly reasonable, and the mark of the SJW is that they are completely unreasonable. I disagree with him on a number of things, but that doesn’t stop me from liking him and enjoying his videos. Considering Jim intentionally encourages a Cult of Personality type of thing, that’s particularly humorous, but The Jimquisition is all in good fun. Even though he says “Thank god for me,” I think he’d probably be a little concerned and probably a lot disturbed to learn if there is a little kid out there who says each night before going to bed, “And thank you, God, for Jim Sterling” with sincerity.
What I’m saying is that we should all break this cult of personality thing, but it looks like it’s actually going to take off and become worse, with Oprah announcing her intention to run for office in 2020. All of his knowledge of physics in the world wouldn’t make Neil deGrasse Tyson a good administrator, and neither would it make him any more likely to hold sound policies. Being funny as hell shouldn’t give Jon’s opinions any more validity in anyone’s eyes–he’s still just some guy expressing an opinion.
But it does, and now condemnation pours in from all over the Internet on this funny guy who dared express his opinion because that opinion wasn’t the bandwagon, trendy opinion of the day.
I happen to think Jon is wrong. There’s no such thing as immigrant. There’s just an animal exercising their natural right to move from a place with fewer resources to a place with greater abundance. Just as the birds have the natural, innate, and unalienable right to fly south during the winter, so does a human have the natural, innate, and unalienable right to go any-damn-where they want, as long as they don’t trespass on another person’s property. But while people can own property and claim resources–a claim that stands prima facie and can be disputed formally, but, if not overturned formally and with civility, cannot be undermined without the initiation of force, violence, or coercion–a nation isn’t a real thing, either, and so a nation can’t claim resources.
Jon said that a nation is either sovereign or it isn’t. That’s an incorrect way of viewing the world, as it places tremendous value and weight in imaginary, artificial human constructs. Nations aren’t sovereign because nations aren’t real. They’re categorical constructs meant to simplify classification, and the tribal nature of our species had made them far more trouble then they’re worth, because instead of being just handy labels to convey characteristics quickly and easily, they become delineations that we’re willing to fight, torture, kill, and maim over. “How dare you hail from a different tribe? You are wicked!” becomes the norm, instead of, “Oh, you hail from Europe? So you’re more likely to have this, that, and the other characteristic. Neat.”
But I do commend Jon, even though I don’t agree with him, for having the courage to go against the grain. A lot of people would adamantly deny that the Internet, particularly, has a strong bias to the left, but that’s to be expected. People in the south insist that there’s no social pressure to be a Christian, too, but there most certainly is. I’ll leave once more with this video by TheraminTrees on conformity, and how the social pressure to conform and jump on the bandwagon compels us more than we think. At the very least, people should have the proper context for viewing Jon’s statements–he’s just another person–and should neither take him as a gift to the alt-right or an enemy of the left, and he definitely shouldn’t become Public Enemy Number One just because he dared speak his opinion.
A few days ago, I watched the American media and the two leading presidential candidates stumble in confusion over whether or not they were allowed to call an explosive device a “bomb.” I watched Trump be criticized for using “the b-word” and then I watched Hillary, mere seconds after criticizing Trump for it, call the thing a “bomb,” and I watched the media frantically dance around and try to paint one incident or the other in a better light.
This election, I’ve seen CNN edit videos so that a young girl who explicitly calls for violence and the burning down of white people’s homes instead sounds like she’s advocating peace; in other words, they flipped her message 180 degrees, quietly issued an apology through a nobody affiliate on Twitter, and then buried the truth. I’ve watched CBS edit interviews with Bill Clinton to cut out things that they didn’t like, and then, as CNN did, hide behind the same bullshit “We edited it for the time allotted… It’s just an unfortunate coincidence that we cut out something that would, by itself, have been newsworthy.”
I’ve watched the Washington Post, which rode the tail of the leak to win journalism awards, turn around and condemn Edward Snowden with an editorial that argued he shouldn’t be pardoned. I’ve watched a presidential candidate’s son comparing Syrian refugees to a bowl of Skittles where some of them are poisoned, only to have someone stupidly respond, “Are you suggesting that we eat refugees?”
And, most remarkably, after following the analogy of Trump’s son (which we could discuss, and whether or not it is fitting) with such a horrendously dumb-ass remark, the idiot didn’t go and bury himself for the crows to come and feast on his eyes.
What in the hell has happened?
I’m too young to remember a time when journalists gave a shit about the truth. As long as I’ve been an adult, journalists have had angles, and the closest I’ve ever come to believing in the fairness of a journalist was just before Anderson Cooper got his own show on CNN. Prior to that, I thought he was just a guy trying to do what he thought was decent.
The entire thing is a game, as the alt-right has made clear. These people like Milo Yiannopoulos–they don’t believe the racist shit they say. They are professional trolls, and they’re good at it. There is overwhelming evidence of this. They are playing a game, and they know that they are playing a game, and that’s okay, because they’re good at it. When I see national news networks editing interviews and videos to drastically alter the message, it seems inescapable that it’s not just the alt-right that is trolling.
It’s the entire media.
It says a lot that one of the Tweet responses that Trump’s song received and that was broadcasted at Raw Story is the one that stupidly asks, “Are you proposing we should eat refugees?”
Motherfucker, do you have a brain?
I would be ashamed to say something like that. And while this person (gods willing) doesn’t appear to have been a journalist, it’s hardly important, because this is the world journalists have created, by pulling shit exactly like that.
Social media could have helped, but we immediately turned to the algorithms to protect us and create our own echo chambers. Go to any Trump supporter’s Google News feed, and you’ll find it filled with pro-Trump articles. Go to any libertarian’s Facebook page, and you’ll find their feed conspicuously missing pro-Hillary people.
They attempted to address this by leaving their algorithms “context-neutral.” That is, the algorithm doesn’t care if you liked a video or disliked a video; the algorithm doesn’t care if you +1’d a post, Liked a post, or left a scathing comment. Did you interact with the post? If so, posts like that are added to the “stuff you’re interested in” pile and become more likely to be served to you. This doesn’t help the issue with people being exposed to contradicting information; it only ensures that we have two types of echo chambers: those filled with circle jerks, and those filled with angry yelling.
The only way to fix this is to consciously look for the things you don’t want to see. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Youtube all exist to help you find the things that you do want to see. This isn’t a problem–it’s what they exist to do, after all. But more and more these are important tools of communication, spreading the DNC Leaks even as the media attempted to ignore them, revealing the truth of the video edits even as major networks obviously tried to hide them, and giving us a way to communicate directly, in a p2p way, bypassing the server altogether.
Social media networks were not made to accommodate that, though, and so the onus falls to us to destroy our own echo chambers. This is all the more difficult because half of everyone is lying, and the other half is stupid. You can’t rely on Facebook because it will serve you memes that are demonstrably false, because no one is willing to take ten seconds out of their day to fact check the damned thing–If it’s on the Internet, it must be true.
I’ve written about this before, and how, in the long-run, the prospects for American society are extremely bleak. We are all racing to the desert to bury our heads in the sand, and we’re somehow totally unaware that we’re doing. We are just a few decades from people who will go their entire lives without ever hearing the words “presidential election.” Such a bizarre thing to imagine today, I know. But just apply what we’ve discussed here and look forward.
These algorithms aren’t going anywhere. In fact, they’ll only get better.
How can you express an interest in something that you don’t know even exists? That is the question that will bury our heads in the sand and leave us firmly under the grip of a ruling elite; it is precisely what will make us the disinterested proles of Orwell’s 1984. Furthermore, it is exactly what these algorithms will produce. It’s not simply journalism that is the problem; the problem with journalism is that it’s merely a reflection of American values.
And these are American values:
It’s actually worse than this. The first article is about the recent American bombings. The second article is about Trump’s response to it. The third, we finally get to the horrendous state of affairs in Syria–which deserves its own article, but I don’t have time for that right now. The fourth, an article about how George H. W. Bush is voting for Hillary. Fifth, an article about the wage gap that is probably 99% bullshit and 1% outright lies. I say this because the preview here cites the wage gap for women at around 19%, while research shows 1.9% would be much more accurate (but still too high in most industries).
This isn’t how humans were meant to live.
Isn’t it time we took back the world from these psychopaths and trolls?
That is the state. The other people were our parents and grandparents, who set up this world in the fucked state that it’s in, and we inherited it without questioning it. Just like they did, we started standing up when the bell rang. We didn’t ask “Why?” and we didn’t consider remaining seated. We just blindly followed them, doing what they did, even as the entire planet was engulfed in war. It’s so bad that I’ve heard people characterize this state of affairs as “world peace.”
No, really. I’ve been asked on Quora, “Isn’t Donald Trump a threat to world peace?”
A threat to–
A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!
What the hell part of the world is at peace? If this is what world peace looks like, then it is my deepest hope that someone will rise up and threaten it. But, like everyone else, he isn’t thinking, the person who asked that question. He’s just standing up when he hears the bell, just like his pappy and grand pappy did.
And we have the power to change it overnight, almost instantly, simply by wanting to. We just have to stop standing for the fucking bell.
It’s pointless, isn’t it? I just scrolled through my Facebook feed, and this is what I found:
I’m fucking stunned.
Americans spent the weekend dealing with the bombs of a Muslim terrorist.
The Cease Fire in Syria was Dead on Arrival.
Americans killed nearly a hundred Syrian “allies.”
Syrian “allies” killed dozens of UN humanitarian workers.
BUT ANGELINA AND BRAD ARE DIVORCING OMG OMG OMG OMG
Youtube has made changes to their policy–or, actually, they have made changes to their algorithm that has caused a higher number of “controversial” videos to be blocked from receiving ad revenue. Since I’ve spoken frequently about Youtube’s ad policy and the sickening way that Youtubers turn their viewers into commodities and sell them to advertisers, I’m going to give an anarcho-capitalist perspective on these changes.
Now, I shouldn’t have to say this (but evidently do–again), but no. If you are watching someone’s video and using an AdBlocker, you are NOT stealing from them. They do not have the right to sell you, and at no point while searching Youtube for videos will you ever be presented with a TOU that says “I agree to be sold as a commodity to advertisers.” Clicking play on a video does not mandate that you watch an ad, as many videos are ad-free (my own will always be ad free, of course), just as watching a show on TNT does not mean that you have to sit there and watch the commercial.
This was a battle that was fought when the DVR started making its rounds in home entertainment systems, and courts universally decided that consumers are not required to watch commercials, and that software that allows ads to be bypassed is acceptable, because no part of watching the content requires one to watch ads unrelated to the content. You do not enter into any kind of agreement by clicking Play on a video, except the agreement you have with yourself that you will watch the video for as long as you feel like watching it. Under no circumstances did you agree to let the channel owner sell you like a commodity to marketers.
Youtube is a free platform. We are not talking about you finding a way to watch videos on Netflix without paying. We are talking a platform that is 100% free. You CANNOT steal stuff that is given to you for FREE. That is the bottom line, and I dealt with that previously, when I first mentioned AdBlock Plus. There, a writer at a website was arguing that if you browsed his website with an Adblocker, you were literally stealing from them, and this little gem came just a few paragraphs after he explicitly said that his website had been serving free content for years.
It’s amazing how quickly people lose perspective when money becomes involved, and this is why I just do what I do, and have avenues there for people who want to give me money. I will be beholden to no one but myself, and I will not allow anyone to owe me anything. My work is, and will always be, 100% free (excluding novels, because a girl’s got to make a living, you know?). However, I would love nothing more than to be able to earn $3,000-$5,000 just through Anarchist Shemale, and would, at $5,000 a month, release all novels for free.
I will never sell you as a commodity, because you will never be a commodity. You will be a colleague, a comrade. You will never be a sheep who unwittingly signed their soul away to be sold to advertisers generally without your knowledge about what is happening, and I will never support someone who does this. If you are on Youtube and you want to make money, then Patreon is the only noble way for you to do it. Otherwise, you are treating your viewers like a commodity, and you are a disgusting toad.
Seeing as I’ve been running AdBlock Plus for so long, I couldn’t tell you what Youtubers run ads and what Youtubers don’t. But do not submit to their attempts to sell you, and do not let them browbeat you into selling yourself because they gave you something for free. Never forget that. They chose to create their video and upload it to a platform where it cost nothing for anyone to watch it. You owe them nothing for watching that video. They don’t owe you (unless they’re on Patreon and you’re a supporter, in which case they owe you content as they’ve described on their page), and you don’t owe them.
One last time: you cannot steal anything that is FREE.
You can’t steal intellectual property anyway.
Rights of Individuals –> Rights of Businesses
Now, I’ve extensively talked about how there is no such thing as a business or corporation, and how there are only people. This is true, but it is also true that sometimes people come together in groups and choose to act as a single entity, with one or a few people with the authority to make very large decisions that affect the whole group. Seeing as no one enters into such a group involuntarily, there’s nothing wrong with this, and it doesn’t mean the “entity” is real, or that the entity has rights. It doesn’t.
The people who are in charge of making such decisions, however, do have rights. The executives of Marking Firm A have entered into an arrangement with 170 other people, and the 160 people who aren’t executives have agreed to abide the decisions of the executives, and to enact the decisions of the executives. This creates the illusion of a single entity, but obviously the entity isn’t a real thing.
So these ten executives decide that the products their firm provides advertising for would be unhappy to learn that they are appearing on videos made by Killax_the_Raging_Racist, The Amazing Atheist, ThereIsNoGod666, and The Anarchist Shemale. Quite rightly, in fact, because I can’t imagine that Kleenex would be too happy to appear on one of my videos. So for Marking Firm A to keep its customers happy (Kleenex, Kelloggs, Quaker Oats, Downy Fabric Softener, and Apple, Inc.) happy, they decide that it’s best to contact Youtube and ensure that their ads don’t appear on controversial videos.
All well and good, right? Nothing untoward has happened. No one has done anything wrong. No one has committed an act of force, violence, or aggression. Individuals simply made a decision.
But Entitled Youtube Babies Got Whiny
Evidently, changes to Youtube’s algorithm as it searches for videos that are controversial has gotten better recently, and the result is that videos that once had ads… no longer do. The people who now do not have ads on their videos are screaming and crying about how it is censorship, how they are being told they have to change their content if they want ad money, and how it is blatant extortion and coercion. That sounds really fucked up, for sure.
It’s just too bad none of it is true.
No one who ever uploaded a video to Youtube was entitled to have ads appear on it. Whether ads appear on your video is, and has always been, solely up to Youtube’s discretion. Sometimes ads won’t appear for one reason or another and you can do nothing about it, and sometimes ads will appear for one reason or another, and you can’t do anything about it. This is because you voluntarily agreed to use Youtube’s platform, and in so doing you clicked through a number of EULAs and TOUs and you clicked “Accept” to all of them.
You agreed to Youtube’s terms of service.
This is an enormously different thing from consenting to state authority. For one, the state does use force, violence, and coercion. Youtube does not. Youtube has never forced someone to create content, coerced someone into using them, or inflicted violence on someone for not complying with their rules. As I began to point out to TylerPreston20 in a video that I never uploaded, Youtube is 100% voluntary. Absolutely nothing forces anyone to use Youtube. If you don’t want to submit to Youtube’s authority, you don’t have to. You can turn and walk away at any time.
“But we have employees! We’re a legit business now!”
You may be a business with employees now, but I hardly think you qualify as a legit business if you have all of your eggs in one single fucking basket like a retard. At no point in the past few years, did you stop to think, “Wait a minute… We have a lot on the line here, and we are totally at Youtube’s mercy… We should be doing something to try to establish some independence away from Youtube, so that we aren’t totally at their mercy”? If you didn’t, then you’re a fool.
Jim Sterling himself is a wonderful example of this. He went independent and is supported entirely by Patreon, and he makes more than $10,000 monthly doing it. Youtube can fuck right off and it won’t hurt his bottom line. Jim Sterling does not need Youtube. Jim Sterling is not at Youtube’s mercy. Jim Sterling is not a fool.
I cannot be swayed by your lack of thinking, planning, and foresight. You didn’t just put all your eggs in one basket; you put all your eggs in a basket that you didn’t even own.
Censorship, Coercion, and Extortion
It is only extortion if they have something of yours and are demanding something before they’ll give it back. Advertisers have nothing that belongs to you. As we cleared up earlier, advertisers have every right to determine what type of videos their ads will appear on, and they have sole discretion to determine that. The limit of your power here is to either make videos that comply with their criteria, or to not make videos that comply with their criteria.
If I tell you that I will only let you have sex with me if you learn to play the guitar, I am not extorting you, because you have no rightful claim to me in the first place. Even if I did let you have sex with me in the past, this implies nor suggests that I thereafter become your property, and that you continue to have the right to have sex with me. And that is what you are arguing here–that you have the right to continue running their ads, because you used to be able to run their ads. Fine. I used to be able to have sex with my ex-wife. Does that mean that I can still have sex with her–even if she says “No,” as the advertisers are now telling you?
Nor are you being censored. Goddamn, people are quick to scream and bitch about censorship. Honeybun, no one is censoring you. If they were editing your videos to make them compliant with their ad policies, then they would be censoring you. If they were lowering your search ranking because they don’t agree with you, then they would be censoring you. If they were deleting your videos unjustly because they don’t agree with you, then they would be censoring you. Please, cupcake… Please learn what censorship is.
I left coercion for last, because, in a way, yes, they are coercing you. But not really, because they aren’t punishing you for not complying. They are offering to reward you if you do comply. That’s a huge difference. If I said “I will only kiss you if you brush your teeth,” I wouldn’t be punishing you for not brushing your teeth; I would be offering you a reward if you did brush your teeth. This is an enormous difference, and far more significant than splitting hairs. Immense research has gone into what is more effective: offering rewards or threatening punishment. The basis of it is this, though: are you entitled to kiss me? If you are so entitled, then yes, withholding a kiss would be punishing you for not complying. If you are not entitled to kiss me, then I am offering you a reward for complying.
All three of these criticisms are dependent upon the idea that the youtuber is entitled to ad revenue.
You’re not entitled to commoditize your viewers and sell them to marketers.
You aren’t entitled to have videos on Youtube.
You aren’t entitled to monetize your videos by turning your viewers into assets and selling them to advertisers.
You aren’t entitled to be paid for content that you give away for free.
You aren’t entitled to force other people to do things they don’t want to do.
And that’s what it boils down to, really. You want to force them to continue running ads on your channel, even though they don’t want to and even though there are countless good reasons that they wouldn’t want to. Those 10 individuals who made the decision to not run ads on controversial videos? They have the right to make that decision. They have the right to not run ads on videos that they don’t want to run ads on. You unequivocally do NOT have the right to force them to run ads that they don’t want to run. They are not your property, and you are not entitled to them or their money.
Check yourself, sunshine. You’re an arrogant, entitled brat.
It occurred to me earlier today that if we’d never (stupidly) allowed Congress to begin taxing us without apportioning the funds (debatable anyway), then we wouldn’t have to deal with the silly “But muh roads!” arguments that we see so very, very often. I mean, it’s the Go To response for statists (a word that means “non-libertarian, non-anarchist”). I’ve seen a few statists recently be offended by being called that, but… it’s simply true. If you’re not a libertarian or anarchist, then you ipso facto favor the state, in which case… you’re a statist.
It’s just what the word means.
Granted, some anarchists may call you a statist as an insult, but to equate it to “infidel” isn’t accurate. It’s more like “fag,” honestly, but even then it’s not always used with negative connotations. When I call Gary Johnson a statist, I mean it condescendingly. But I only mean it condescendingly for people who claim to be libertarians or anarchists and… aren’t. It’s definitely a word that I do try to avoid, though, because I tend to reject dichotomies and, to my recollection, the only person I’ve ever called a statist is that pig Gary Johnson.
There’s no religion or belief going on here. Anarcho-capitalism is built on science, human nature, and an abhorrence of violence. The scientific case can and has been made for anarcho-capitalism; the rest of the world simply has not caught up. Sorry, but that’s simply true. Anarcho-capitalism is only a belief in the same sense that “People should be free” is a belief.
Anyway, my recent video goes into direct apportionment and how it helps us to avoid ridiculous situations like this. Most damningly, if a billionaire has to pay $5m on his $100m yearly income, then we can readily assume that a person’s “tax liability to society” (terms that statists adore throwing around) must be $5m. If a person’s tax liability to society is not $5m, then we have forced the billionaire to overpay and have robbed him.
So we must proceed under the assumption that the highest dollar figure anyone in the United States pays is the tax liability that a citizen owes. If the dollar figure is lower, then we are stealing money from the people who overpay, right? Since no one is going to admit to doing that, it follows that I’m correct: the highest dollar figure that anyone pays is the citizen’s tax liability…
And this means that we all have underpaid and owe the government a ton of money.
Another addition to the series was Part 5, where I explained why the previous three videos were of lower quality than my usual work, and how that whole thing came about. It was primarily a response to one person in particular, to whom I said, “Fine. My shoes may suck, but the emperor is still naked.”
I’m also pretty sure that Part 4 hadn’t been uploaded when I posted the last update about the series, and in it I addressed a question that Tyler had actually asked before. This was tremendously bothersome, and he never explained why he did it, except that he might have been reading someone else’s question the second time (unclarified presently). Simply put, on 8/7/16 or around then, Tyler and I had a brief back-and-forth through videos where he ended up asking if there could be such a thing as voluntary taxes. In my reply, I specifically answered the question and its more general cousin: “What if it doesn’t rely on force, violence, and coercion?”
The answer, of course, is that then it’s a free market solution and not a state at all. It wasn’t until after I uploaded Part 4 that I realized Tyler had asked that question before, driving home for me the idea that he and the others might have been just playing games. In such a scenario, people intend only to keep asking the same questions repeatedly until we start giving short answers and start telling them to go educate themselves. At this point, they intend to declare victory with asinine statements like, “I guess you can’t put forth arguments then! lol!”
It’s a common tactic, covered excellently in TheraminTrees’ videos on Transactional Analysis:
It’s possible to see that in Tyler’s actions.
By asking questions, he is appearing to be a genuinely curious Adult (per TA terms). “I want to know the answer to these questions, and I am being skeptical. So here are my questions.” Naturally, people like me (who cannot resist) then answer the questions. Then something weird happens–often, time passes. Then subtle variations on those initial questions are asked again. Instead of “What if taxes were voluntary?” it is “Does everything the state does end in force, violence, or coercion?” which, yes, is the same question–just phrased differently.
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not accusing Tyler or anyone else of playing games. I’m saying that this is how it appears/feels in this case. It is not an allegation or statement of anyone’s intent or motives, because miscommunication and need for clarification are common the Internet, and especially Twitter’s 160-character limit. Any number of miscommunications, oversights, or poor phrasings could jam communication without anyone being playing games. Even with this clarification the language is still harsher than I intended it to be. I am sorry. I write a lot of fiction, and it trains you to use strong language.
Then, upon answering the question, the players repeat back “criticisms” of the answers that we have already addressed, a vicious cycle, in fact.
“Follow-up question” / “Criticism”
“Answer” / “Clarification”
Then, the next thing you know, the entire process repeats anew. Once we become too frustrated and block them, victory is declared:
He didn’t block you over anarcho-capitalism.
He blocked you because he doesn’t think you are listening, and probably because of statements like:
I’d love for you to demonstrate how that has anything to do with me. Maybe be more careful with your use of “all.” I’d love for someone to try to justify calling me selfish.
Anyway, I’m referring more specifically to this:
C’mon, man. You’re being downright insulting here.
The claim that statists have “blind faith” is stupid, yes. It’s not blind at all. You can see the state and its actions. You may close your eyes to its horrors, but you’re still not blind to them. However, you’re blatantly wrong to say there are no examples of anarchy, and you know that I gave you two of them. You know that, because I told you that, and you acknowledged that. I specifically told him I provided two examples dealing with the modern New York Diamond Traders and the Maghribi traders of the 11th century. He said he hadn’t watched the video, but that he would. Fair enough, I said, because the video did suck.
To say “there are no examples of anarchy” after choosing to ignore my video (on whatever grounds, considering at this time he knew that it had information that proved his statement incorrect) that presented them is horrific intellectual dishonesty, and yes, I’m surprised to see that from Tyler, because I’ve seen him correct himself in the past. It also shows, as I pointed out on Twitter, that anarcho-capitalism has been routinely demonstrated, through all of human history, and that he is revealing that he is not aware of what anarcho-capitalism is.
Anarcho-capitalism is simply allowing people to solve problems without a state. That’s all it is. Seriously, that’s it. That’s 100% of it, the entire ideology in a single sentence. The only rules are no violence, no force, no coercion, and no stealing. Do you see, then, how we have billions of examples? Any example of people solving problems without a state–without force, violence, coercion, or stealing–is, ipso facto, an example of anarchism, and if they do it in search of benefit, then it is an example of anarcho-capitalism. Such a sweeping statement, but also entirely true.
I needed to go to the store earlier. So I went to the store. It didn’t involve the state. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.
Apple invented the iPhone. Android came into existence, with BlackBerry and Microsoft expanding as well. The state was never involved. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.
The Maghribi traders working out trust relationships across thousands of miles in the 11th century just by talking and working together. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.
Because that’s all anarcho-capitalism is. It’s the idea that people can solve problems without violence. That’s not me putting some weird spin on it–that’s literally what it is. The only question to be asked regarding anarcho-capitalism is this:
“Can we solve x problem without the state?”
Just think about it for a moment. What does the state do? It exists to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ostensibly).
Can we protect life without the state? Absolutely.
Any and all examples of people solving problems without the state are examples of anarcho-capitalism.
Can we protect liberty without the state? For fuck’s sake, the state is constitutionally incapable of protecting liberty.
Can we protect the right to pursue happiness without the state? Absolutely, as only force, violence, and coercion can eliminate a person’s right to pursue happiness.
The question is, and has always been, “How do we solve this problem?”
Because let’s face it–there will always be problems. We’re humans, and we fuck up. In addition to our fuck ups, the universe isn’t exactly kind to us, and neither is the planet. There is always shit to be done, and on top of that we’re an ambitious species. We don’t just want what we have. We want to turn what we have into something better. We didn’t land on the moon and go, “Cool. That’s probably far enough. Seen one lifeless rock, seen ’em all, right?”
There’s never just one way to solve a problem. A few decades ago, humanity gave itself the problem of needing handheld computers capable of mobile internet and phone usage. The smartphone was the answer we came up with, but it was not the only answer, was it? No, we also came up with the pager, didn’t we? And the tablet. We conceived multiple solutions, some of them better than others, and the winners lasted. Tablets are deprecated and fading out, and pagers are… Well, who do you know who has a pager?
We once were presented with the problem of needing to figure out how to make electronic devices talk to one another. Ethernet is common today, but did you know that it wasn’t the only option? There was also Token Ring, and a few others that I don’t remember because they had basically vanished even before I reached college. Then we had the problem of how to do it wirelessly, and the 802.11 IEEE–a completely voluntary body of experts who set standards of protocols for technologies. Linksys’s routers are 802.11b/g/n compatible because this ensures they will be compatible with all other devices that are 802.11b/g/n compatible, and no state was ever needed to enforce a standard for everyone to use. Just give people the chance to solve their own problems.
This is all anarchy in action. It’s just… people doing stuff.
In fact, there’s probably no better example of anarchy in action than IEEE. Virtually every electronic device manufactured in the past 30 years is compatible according to standards set by IEEE, but there is no law on the books forcing Linksys to make routers that are 802.11b/g/n compatible, and no law on the books forcing Apple to ensure that your iPhone can connect to 802.11b/g/n technologies.
Just think about that for a moment!
Think about the logistics! Think about what a monumental task that is!
“We want any phone made by any manufacturer running any operating system on any carrier to be able to connect to any wireless device made by any manufacturer.”
Can you even imagine a more monumental task?
Rest assured, we had at least two ways of handling this.
And IEEE handled it flawlessly, beautifully, and masterfully, without one single fucking law ever being passed. The system is completely voluntary. Apple uses it because no one would buy an iPhone if it couldn’t talk to everyone else’s devices. Linksys uses it because no one would buy a WRT54GL if no one could connect 90% of phones to it. Samsung uses it because no one would buy an S7 if you couldn’t connect it to most wireless networks. It’s in everyone’s best interests to use the standard, but there’s no law, no requirement, no prison, no fines for not complying.
Possibly the most monumental task humanity has ever been faced with! And we succeeded brilliantly.
Anarchy succeeded brilliantly.
Rest assured, the state would have fucked it up.
You’re looking at the state as the creator and maintainer of society, and that simply isn’t true. The state is just some thing that exists over there to the side. All we have are people doing stuff. That’s all that exists in the entire world–humans doing stuff. Countries don’t exist, businesses don’t exist, nations don’t exist, and even states don’t really exist. There are only people doing stuff. I think you’re still viewing “anarchy” at least partially as the chaotic bullshit that occurs when a state fractures into smaller states. But as I pointed out here, what people commonly call “anarchy” is actually just several smaller states at war with one another.
Because we are social animals and recognize that our interests are best served through cooperation rather than antagonism, we sometimes come together and form groups, deciding to pool our resources and work together toward a common aim. When two people do this with romantic intent, we call it “marriage” (we are discussing formal agreements here). When two people do this with business intent, we call it “partnership.” When several people do this with business intent, we call it “corporation.” These people set the terms of their agreement, the goals of their agreement, and how they will work together to achieve those goals.
No new entity is created when two people enter into a marriage. There’s not really any such thing as a “family.” That’s just a collective idea we came up with to describe their agreement, to describe their relationship, to make it easier to communicate. Instead of saying “This woman and I pool our finances, live together, go out on dates, sleep together, have sex with each other, and do not do these things with other people,” then I simply say, “This is my wife” / “We are married.”
Businesses and corporations function under exactly the same principles, but their relationship goals and parameters are different. Just as I need other members of my marriage’s permission before dropping $8,000 on a vehicle, so does someone in a corporation need other member’s permission before dropping $8,000 on something. I realistically need my wife’s permission before I quit my job and take up a different career path, and a member of a corporation needs other members’ permission before they start working on a new invention. But the marriage isn’t a thing, the business isn’t a thing, and the corporation isn’t a thing.
It’s just people doing stuff, and finding that they can pool their resources to do better stuff. I may be great, but having a loving, awesome wife makes me greater, yes? Two heads are better than one, and all that? The same holds true for businesses and corporations.
The state is just another one of those businesses. In fact, you’ll find that the state is nothing more than a corporation that has the “authority” to use force, violence, and coercion to achieve its ends, relying on parasitism rather than productivity to acquire resources, and utilizing forced monopolies instead of competition to ensure it has consumers. This is why we aren’t on the same page here–you’re not seeing the state for what it is. It’s just a group of people who do stuff, but who are allowed to use force, violence, and coercion, while no one else is allowed to.
The only relevant questions for anarcho-capitalists involve things that the state is supposed to do:
Can anarchy provide a way to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
All other questions are irrelevant, because we do know that “people doing stuff” can solve limitless problems, and that force, violence, and coercion are never necessary for solving those problems. Roads, schools, technology protocols, whatever–force, violence, and coercion are not necessary. These all come back to that simple question: if we can solve the problem without using violence, then isn’t it worth every possible effort to solve it without violence? So we can erase all the questions about roads, schools, NASA, etc.
Whether anarchy can protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can certainly be discussed, and we can also find real world examples of anarchy doing it. However, it isn’t necessary, because there has never been a greater threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than the state, for reasons that I mentioned here: https://anarchistshemale.com/2016/04/22/a-crash-course-on-rights/
Any act that threatens life or liberty is, by definition, a state act, at the very least an attempt by one individual to become an authoritarian tyrant over another. It is irrelevant whether this tyrant rules over only one person or one hundred million; a state is a state. It becomes impossible, and is obviously so, to use force, violence, and coercion to prevent force, violence, and coercion. The only thing that can protect life is not killing people. The only thing that can protect liberty is not restricting people’s rights. If violence is universally rejected (as it would be, though, as I’ve pointed out, it’s ridiculous to demand 100% compliance, and neither anarchy nor the state can deliver that) and punished accordingly, and there is no mechanism in place to achieve goals with force, violence, and coercion… then there can’t be force, violence, and coercion.
Society is another example of people just doing stuff, but it’s one that happens organically and without conscious agreement; it’s just the product of people naturally having their own self-interests served by working together. It is of critical importance to remember that society is older than the state. Society created the state; the state did not create society. It is impossible that the state could have produced society, just as it’s impossible that religion could have produced morality. Just as religion is a product of humans doing stuff, so is the state, so is agriculture, so is the Internet*.
Society isn’t real, either, and can’t produce anything. Only people can. And people did. Without ever agreeing that we would work together, the overwhelming majority of humans get along relatively fine with one another and can have a functional society. The state isn’t really forcing me to work with my clients, or the people at the gas station, or the people at Subway, or the people at Facebook. I’m doing it because being an asshole isn’t in my best interests, and it’s obvious that, as a social animal, my best interest lie in working with other people.
The state did not produce morality, either. We do not think murder is wrong because the state told us so. We do not think stealing is wrong because the state told us so. We do not think rape is wrong because the state told us so. No, we individuals came up with this, and the state took the majority’s moral code and turned it into law. This is also how we ended up with anti-transgender, anti-homosexual, and drug laws. Once again, we find parallels to religion: religious people say that we get our morality from their holy book, but we know that isn’t true. The holy book is merely a reflection of their morality, just as the state’s laws are merely a reflection of our morality. And just as it’s hard to get religious people to change the morality they get from their holy book, so is it difficult to get the state to change its laws.
People do stuff all the time cooperatively without the state enforcing it. This is anarchism in action.
* I throw these last two in just to make it clear I’m not drawing another parallel between statism and religion, or asserting that all social products are bad.
Two people are dragging a large, heavy box by chains. One person wants to go northeast; the other wants to go northwest. They each agree to just do their own thing, to not impede the other, and to walk the direction they each have chosen. So the first person walks northeast, the second walks northwest, and the box is dragged northward.
That is the essence of liberty.
Did either person get to drag the box in the direction they wanted to go?
No, but each person was allowed to walk in the direction they wanted, and that is what matters. They do not have the right to drag the box the direction they wanted to go, because the box did not belong to one person alone.
That is a follow-up to my video about Gary Johnson:
More effectively summarizing the week in Anarcho-Capitalism discussions…
It began with a video from TylerPreston20, who refuted claims made by people who appeared to be anarcho-capitalists. It’s worth mentioning that these were not anarcho-capitalist arguments, and that they were arguments from anarcho-capitalists. They were also poor, misinformed “arguments,” and this is what inspired me to make my initial video reply. For the most part, I took no issue with what Tyler said, but I did want to clear the air on anarcho-capitalism. If we have people going around claiming to be anarcho-capitalists while saying that anarcho-capitalism influenced the foundation of the United States and that “governments are evil,” then it’s a problem for anarcho-capitalism.
Even now, I’m not particularly happy with my reply, and I’m still thankful that Tyler ignored the antagonistic and belligerent tone that I adopted, and instead focused on what I said. I did not intend to be hostile and onerous, and it was a critical lesson about being more careful with my tone. Then again, I also had not been awake long, so my voice was still scratchy and deep.
In a stunning display of intellectual honesty, Tyler recanted his initial video, admitted that I had a point, and released this:
I am still stunned to have encountered someone who display such intellectual integrity. That’s so fucking rare. While he has not subscribed to anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist ideology at this point, he has accepted the foundations of it. I understand this entirely. Taking the leap from “You have a point, and I guess you’re right…” to “There shouldn’t be a state, then” is a big one, very similar to the step from “agnosticism” to atheism. And even if he is not interested in taking that step or exploring that direction, I think it’s safe to say that he’s been pulled closer to libertarianism than classical liberalism, though that is entirely conjectural on my part.
In answering his question and responding to the criticisms my video reply received, I released a three-part series.
I also did two podcasts on the subject. The first is about how the state presents us with the problem of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” because the state reigns supreme. Who will protect us if the state tries to take us as slaves?
Of course, no one will, because no one can. That’s what it means that the state is supreme. We rely entirely on the state’s benevolence. This person asked what I would do in an anarcho-capitalist society if he tried to take me as his slave, and the answer is obvious: I’d shoot him. He replied that he would have better guns. Great, so that raises the question: what does he plan to do when the state comes to take him as a slave?
That one deals with the absurdity that believing our current moral understanding is absolutely right, and that it’s therefore okay to legislate it and force everyone to abide it. I was asked what my thoughts were about someone sleeping with a 12 year old girl, if the girl consented, and that’s an asinine question. We could ask the very same question today, with a state. I’m not going to be drawn into such a discussion about what is and isn’t morally wrong, but I will point out that just because most of us would agree that it’s wrong to have sex with a 12 year old girl even if she consents, the reality is that we could ask the same question about any moral claim. We’d quickly find that what the person believes is that their moral values are the correct ones, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. They are fine pushing their moral values onto everyone else, but reject the idea that someone should push their own moral values onto them.
There is very little to say that I did not say in those videos, but I also want to call attention to a Transactional Analysis game that I was inadvertently caught in yesterday on Twitter. After I had been discussing anarcho-capitalism and the state with two or three other people, a new person entered the fray and raised an objection–one that I had already addressed. I handled the objection with a link to one of my answers on Quora that pointed out that: Yes, the state does, in fact, keep the poor poor, and that we do have a caste system. His objection was that people naturally form hierarchies, and the answer on Quora was the best way of addressing his remark: Twitter’s 160 character limit is poor to address the question of whether a hierarchy is even a real thing, or whether we are merely dealing with groups of people who self-segregate into groups, with only a perceived elevation to some of those groups.
He replied that he was not going to read what I wrote, and that instead he was just going to use the definition of the state. He went on to define “state” as “a large group of people,” basically, which is absurd in the highest degree. So the people at Disney World are a state? Monsanto and its employees are a state? Clearly, his criteria was flawed. He also added that I was wrong, and that we do not have a caste system here in the United States. I replied, “You’re wrong. See? I can arbitrarily assert things without evidence, too.”
Like most people, he had fallen into the trap of thinking “You’re wrong” constitutes an argument. That is a very different thing from saying “You haven’t convinced me.” Of course, he couldn’t be convinced, could he, if he wasn’t going to read my answers and articles? I fell into his game, however, and he retweeted something to the effect of “I just wanted to have a discussion with an Ancap. Why can’t they ever stick to the argument?”
Ridiculous in the extreme, as I was trying to make him stick to the argument by pointing out that he cannot just assert that I am wrong. He can say “You haven’t convinced me,” at which point it would probably fall to me to provide more evidence and reason, unless he was simply being stubborn–there is a fine line between skepticism and incredulity. I wouldn’t attempt to definitively say what that line is or where it’s located, but at that point I would have conceded that I hadn’t fully made my case. However, he did not say that he was unconvinced; he stated that I was wrong. This, of course, is an assertion–a claim–and requires evidence of its own.
Technically speaking, “I don’t believe you” and “I remain unconvinced” are also claims, but there is no reason to demand evidence that he doesn’t believe me. Such a demand would not merely cross but would leap the divide between justified skepticism and naked incredulity. If he says he is unconvinced, then there is no justification for me to assume that he is really convinced.
Anyway, I said, “If you wanted further evidence, then all you had to do was ask.” Naturally. If he wanted more evidence, then all he had to say was that he was not convinced. Someone who would say “You’re wrong” when what they actually mean is “I’m not convinced” is probably someone whose mind is closed, though, and I should have washed my hands of him when he retweeted that. Instead, I provided him with a link to my website and the article Berning the Economy to the Ground, at which point he immediately rejected it as “some stupid blog.” Well, no, actually–first of all, learn the difference between a blog and a website. Secondly, a website is only as valuable as the credentials of the person who writes it. Yet, in converse, a website is as valuable as the credentials of the person who writes it, and I have credentials to discuss economics and anarcho-capitalism. However, he was not interested in hearing them.
Once more, I fell into his trap, and directed him to buy the book V2: The Voluntary Voice, which, of course, I was published in. He immediately refused, said he wasn’t buying trash, that he might pirate it, that he wasn’t going to give me any money, and that he didn’t buy stupid books. Well, what was he demanding, as far as evidence and credentials go? He rejected my free content–my videos, podcasts, and articles here–as saying there was no peer review and thus the content hadn’t been vetted. While he’s not strictly wrong, he’s also not right; the credentials of those items depend entirely on my credentials. However, he also rejected my credentials from peers. He waved away Quora, its community-driven content, and its inherently peer-reviewed nature, as being “another stupid blog,” showing that he didn’t even bother to look into the credentials that I was offering. The fact is that I’m recognized on Quora as an expert in the subjects of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. There is no education program in universties, no peer-reviewed journal of anarcho-capitalist ideas. Being published in the field and being approved by peers is seriously the best that a person can acquire in this subject. But the game was up the moment that he rejected the book.
It wouldn’t have mattered if Ludwig Von Mises rose from the dead and endorsed me. No credential that I cited would have mattered to him; he was not interested in a discussion. He was interested in using me to confirm his narrow-mindedness. He wanted me to keep throwing credentials at him that he could keep rejecting, so that he could then say, “See? No one knows what they’re talking about!” and use that to substantiate his own rejection of the ideas we were discussing.
We were locked in a Transactional Analysis game, where he threw out the hook that he wanted information and discussion from someone who was qualified to discuss it. He then went on to play “Why Don’t You, Yes But” in a way, but was more hostile in his mannerisms. Instead of asking for suggestions that he could shoot down one after the other, seeking validity of his position by having an anarcho-capitalist inadvertently acknowledge that no one could meet his “stringent” demands of credentials, he wanted credentials offered. And I, thinking he was sincere, offered him up credentials. If he’s looking for someone with a doctorate in anarchist theory, then he’s never going to be satisfied.
He didn’t want discussion. He’d already rejected anarcho-capitalism, and what he wanted was to back an anarcho-capitalist into a corner and force them to say that they couldn’t substantiate their argument in a way that would satisfy him, which would allow him to declare–both to the world and to himself–that his beliefs about anarcho-capitalism had been vindicated by an actual anarcho-capitalist. He did not want discussion. He wanted to justify his own closed-mindedness, and he wanted to manipulate me into doing that for him. It should have been obvious the moment that he retweeted me, but I’d been discussing things with people all day who were not simply playing games (though this isn’t to say that there was any chance I was going to sway them); it became inescapable when he rejected the book, even after I informed him that I get 0% from sales of V2: The Voluntary Voice.
Welcome, sir, to the Age of the Internet. I’ve talked before about how intellectuals go to the knowledge. In the past, this meant that intellectuals went to universities and colleges, because the universities and colleges were where the information was. This is no longer the case, though. The internet is where the information is these days. The true intellectuals of today are not wasting their time in colleges and universities; they are devouring as much of the Internet as they can, on an almost constant basis. Your mentality that intellectual rigor and knowledge can only come from someone who has been through a university program in a given field is laughably outdated. It is why we should not be worrying about higher education and how people are to pay for it.
Instead, we should be focused on finding ways to accredit people as experts outside of the intelligentsia apparatus, because the universities are no longer the exclusive holders of the information and knowledge. If you so desired, you could become an expert in Quantum Mechanics to rival Stephen Hawking without ever attending a college or university. I know this to be true, because I tested my self-education through the Internet against the education apparatus of college. I took Macroeconomics in college and never even purchased my textbook for the class. Instead, I relied solely on knowledge that I had gained via reading and the Internet, and I passed the class with an A. The education apparatus then went on to accredit me in the field of economics, and it was earned entirely through information I had gained outside of academia.
Places like Quora are at the forefront of the new world of endorsement and accreditation. Get with the times, man. The world has changed; the Internet has forever changed humanity. Adjust to its existence, and adjust to the fact that anyone out there can become an expert on any topic, and it won’t cost them a dime. Then learn about community-driven content, and realize how it works as a method of peer-review. Then factor in things like books being published, and you’ll have someone who has not only been peer-reviewed, but is actually at the forefront of the peer review.
Or keep waiting on someone to acquire a Ph.D. in anarcho-capitalism, continue demanding it and using its non-existence as justification for the closed-mindedness.
Predictably, I’ve been told that I’m annoying. This is from people who evidently expect that to bother me.
While it does to a degree, it doesn’t bother me for the reasons they expect it to.
The biggest criticism is that my voice is annoying. Hey, I totally agree. I’m also doing everything that a person can do on that front, so taking the time out of your day to tell me that I still have a long way to go does nothing but show your own ignorance, bigotry, and hostility toward transgender people. I’ll never understand why people think it’s easy to acquire a female voice.
That said, my voice is a lot less annoying than it could be. I don’t talk in falsetto, after all. If you really want to be annoyed by someone, find a transgender person who talks in a falsetto. That will annoy you.
Or maybe cut transgender people some slack as they work on things like this?
Nah, just keep on being a narrow-minded dipshit.
It was funny, though, to have the person say that I was too annoying for them to watch for 15 minutes, but that they would totally hear the discussion if it was in written form. Well… ask and you shall receive! I promptly provided a link here, to www.anarchistshemale.com, and never heard anything else from them. Of course, they didn’t really find me annoying. They didn’t want to hear the argument, and that gave them a convenient excuse. They might have found me annoying, but it’s not because I’m inherently annoying–it’s because they didn’t want to hear what I had to say, so they were predisposed to dislike me, which would justify their refusal to watch the video. It’s revealing that they never replied to the written content.
One year ago today, I connected all the dots and realized that I am transgender, an act I symbolized with the creation of my email address. It’s been a hell of a year. For the time being, please ignore this picture on the left; it’s just there to make it the default picture when this posts to Twitter, Facebook, etc.
That is pretty much how I looked prior to this realization, and prior to accepting that I am transgender.
This abominable pic is how I looked then. I know. This pic is awful. Everything about this picture is awful. It’s not just an ugly female; it is an ugly male.
And that is how I look today. Yes, it has been a hell of a year.
It’s also been a fantastic day. Truly. There is a feral kitten outside that finally allowed me to pet her. But even better than that, I happened to have a supporter share something on Twitter that I just happened to see–someone rebutted some anarcho-capitalist claims. Well, you know me… I’m the Anarchist Shemale. To my knowledge, no one has yet rebutted anarcho-capitalism. So I looked at the video, and fifteen seconds in, I knew I had to do a reply, not because Tyler Preston was wrong, but because the anarchists with whom he was discussing it… clearly had no idea what they were talking about. I set out to do a reply, not to dispute Tyler, but to clear the air on anarcho-capitalism.
In fact, I was tremendously impressed with Tyler’s intellect and, above all, his intellectual honesty.
That is his initial video.
There is my reply. It’s worth mentioning that I realized how belligerent I sounded only after I’d uploaded it, and found it better to simply offer the disclaimer than re-recording my arguments. I had no desire to sound hostile, and I did… I sounded far more hostile and belligerent than I really am. I’m only hostile toward people who make fallacious and ridiculous claims, and Tyler Preston certainly did not.
My Youtube Playlist of response videos is called “Responding to Ignorance.” You’ll notice that my reply to Tyler is not in that playlist. That’s because I was not responding to ignorance. Or, at least, if I was, then it was not Tyler’s ignorance but the ignorance of the people that he was also replying to. As such, I added it to the Anarcho-Capitalism playlist, because he’s certainly not ignorant.
To my surprise, rather than just ignoring my tiny channel, Tyler not only watched the video, but liked it, and then did his own response to my response:
Although I’m sure to mention it in the video I’m doing later where I address Tyler’s last question about how many people would voluntarily pay taxes, I have to say: Tyler, I’m stunned and awed by your intellectual honesty. I can’t count the number of people who have heard my statements and then said, “Yeah, well, you’re still wrong.” To be met with someone who goes, “You know what? That’s actually a good point.” is refreshing in a way that I can’t even describe, and I’m a fiction writer.
I will edit this and post my own video later, but mine isn’t really a response video–it’s just answering a question about voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism.
Here is the first of my three replies–most of my replies deal with “less than intelligent” comments. I say “less than intelligent,” because they’re things I addressed in the initial video, but… that’s statism for you.
Not long after I posted a new podcast about this very subject, Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay conservative editor with Breitbart, was permanently banned from Twitter for hate speech. Milo is well-known as a “troll,” apparently, and I can’t weigh in on that, because I don’t pay any attention to him. He was also a Trump supporter, though I wonder if that’s changed now that Trump selected Pence as his VP, and now that the GOP has made a horrifically anti-LGBT party platform. They enshrined conversion therapy, for fuck’s sake. No one with any sense of human decency should be able to stand with them as they try to promote such an immoral thing. How any LGBT person can maintain any loyalty to the Republican Party after they write Pray the Gay Away into their fucking party platform is beyond me.
That podcast specifically addresses three prominent Youtubers who, like Milo, are heading straight toward bans on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. I spoke of how they need to choose their words more carefully, mind their Ps and Qs, and make damned sure that they don’t say anything that can possibly be construed as racist, and I’m not going to run over the same old ground. I am, however, going to focus more on why these three are receiving channel strikes, what they’re doing wrong, and why they will all be crushed by these social networks if they don’t drastically alter their methods.
The fact is that wearing a shirt that says “White Male” is racist and sexist.
They are doing this and similar things as a response to Black Pride, Female Pride, Gay Pride, and so on, and they are trying to call attention to the fact that racism exists against white straight men, because one isn’t allowed to have White Pride, Gay Pride, or Straight Pride. They are correct, and I have been talking about that for years. I found TNB not long ago, through comments on an atheism video, and didn’t even realize he had a channel until a few months ago. I’ve only ever seen one of Autopsy87’s videos, and that was when I was hoping to call in some backup on my Liberal Redneck video, and I’ve never seen one of Atheism is Unstoppable’s videos. It may be presumptuous, then, to say what they’re doing wrong, but… trust me, it isn’t. I do see them through Twitter, as TNB shares various things.
These are all great guys, and I’m not talking bad about them. But their methods are entirely incorrect.
You cannot defeat racism with racism. You cannot defeat sexism with sexism. You cannot defeat… sexual orientationism… with sexual orientationism…
Let’s take a moment and operate under the assumption that Black Lives Matter is racist. We can make this assumption because… it is racist. It takes a thing that exists independently of the adjective (lives) and carves out a subset from the whole, and then assigns a value to that subset (that they matter) when the distinguishing factor between that subset and the whole is race (black). That is quite obviously racist.
Furthermore, let’s take a moment and add another assumption to that. Let’s assume that it’s not acceptable to have White Pride, Straight Pride, or Male Pride. We can also make this assumption because it’s not acceptable.
This image on the left makes it indisputably clear that one is not allowed to have White Pride. If one attempts to take pride in being white, then one is called a racist, Neo-Nazi White Supremacist. Why? Having Black Pride doesn’t make someone a Black Supremacist, does it? Does Gay Pride mean that LGBT people hate or want to kill straight people? Of course not. Why, then, do we act as though Straight Pride means they hate gay people or want to kill them? These are obvious double standards, and what is the distinguishing factor between who gets one standard and who gets the other? Why, the distinguishing characteristic is race and sexual orientation. So quite obviously, that black people can have pride but white people can’t is racist; that LGBT people can have pride but straight people can’t is heterophobic*.
So now that we’ve a clearer understanding of the state of affairs in the United States, and we know that racism, sexism, and sexual orientationism** are acceptable in some cases, but whether they are acceptable for you itself depends on your race, sex, and orientation. We also know that it is not in any sense acceptable in society to be racist, sexist, and sexual orientationist (sigh) if you’re a straight white male.
So what do are they expecting to happen when they try to be racist, sexual, and sexual orientation as straight white men? Do they expect people in this environment to go, “Yeah, no, you’re right. If black people can have pride, white people should be allowed to have pride, too”? It’s way too late for that; that straight white male ship set sail two decades ago. They were too silent for too long for that to have any chance of working, for anyone to be reached with such ideas. That battle has been over for too long, and the consequences have been in place for too long; it is too late to start trying to curb them now. That’s done, and over.
Ignoring that reality, standing up, and proclaiming, “I’m a straight white male, and I am proud of that!” in the modern world will only get a person banned. We simply don’t live in a society where that’s acceptable, and “doing it anyway” isn’t going to make it acceptable. It will only see that you face consequences like being banned and having your channels deleted.
Nor can I say sincerely that “It would be great if you could stand up and say that you’re a proud straight white male,” because I don’t think that. As we’ve established, proclaiming that is sexual orientationist, sexist, and racist. It is sexual orientationist, racist, and sexist, just like someone standing up and saying “I am a proud black gay woman!” That someone is saying the latter, and thereby sectioning themselves off into various groups based on race, sexual orientation, and gender, does not justify a response that does the same.
At that point, you simply have two groups: one of “Proud White People” who proclaim that Proud Black People are racist, and one of “Proud Black People” who proclaim that Proud White People are racist. Since we’ve established that the former aren’t allowed to do this anyway, the latter will point this out, saying, “You’re not allowed to do that!”
The white people will respond, “Well, you’re doing it! We should be able to do it, too!”
To think that this is going to end well is, to be frank, delusional. It would ultimately end in a race war, and one that white people couldn’t possibly win, because there are too many white people who agree that black people should be allowed to have pride, but white people shouldn’t be allowed to. But it doesn’t matter who would win the race war anyway; we should not be trying to fight racism with racism.
Fighting fire with fire does not extinguish fire. It only sweeps the world in immolation.
Nor does racism end racism. It only extends it.
Yes, Black Lives Matter is racist. So is a t-shirt that says “White Male.” If you are arguing against BLM on the grounds that it is racist while wearing such a shirt, then you simply do not have any moral highground, and you are–I must use the appropriate word here–a hypocrite. I don’t like saying that because I respect these people and what they are trying to do in fighting against the regressive mindset that has glorified racism, sexism, and sexual orientationism for decades. However, as I said before: I will call it hypocrisy wherever I find it.
The reality is that Black Lives Matter isn’t the problem. Divisiveness is the problem. People being sectioned off into various groups, where this group can do this and that but the other group can’t, is the problem. Racism is merely one manifestation of that divisiveness problem. Sexism is another, and sexual orientationism is another. Black Lives Matter is, itself, merely one manifestation of the racist manifestation of the divisiveness that liberals have been encouraging and causing for decades.
In other words, Black Lives Matter is a symptom, but it is not the disease.
If you want to fight regressives, then you have to address the disease, not just its symptoms. Yes, the symptoms should be addressed as well, but we must not lose sight of the disease itself. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is racism… with racism. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is sexism… with sexism. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is sexual orientationism… with sexual orientationism.
If you want to fight regressives, then I would suspect that you want to hang around long enough to do so, right? Well, then it’s time to face reality. If you continue on as you are doing, then you will be removed from the battle as a racist, sexist, and/or sexual orientationist. How many people will you be able to reach, to spread your message, if your Youtube channels are deleted?
I must ask: How do you hope to solve the problem of people being separated into various groups based on irrelevant and inconsequential characteristics by separating people into various groups based on irrelevant and inconsequential characteristics?
* To borrow the left’s habit of taking every fucking thing and slapping -phobic at the end of it.
** I did this initially as a joke, but I don’t know how else to characterize it.