Get Your Paws Off Of My Pecker! – Texas Law Makes A Point

I was absolutely SHOCKED when I first heard about this horrifying and horrendous bill out of Texas. I mean, come on! Its not MEN you are supposed to be penalizing for enjoying their god given sexual urges!

Texas Law Would Fine Men For Masturbating, Require Rectal Exam For Viagra

Within 10 minutes of this story going national, old men everywhere rushed to their pharmacy for a Viagra refill. As the gun nuts said on every single day during Obama’s last 8 years, “Get them while you still can!”.

Proposed new law in Texas would require men who want Viagra to be subject to a rectal exam and would punish male masturbation with a $100 fine.

House Bill 4260, called the “Man’s Right to Know Act,” was filed late last week by a Democratic Texas legislator Rep. Jessica Farrar.

The Statesman reports the details of the new legislation:

The bill calls “masturbatory emissions” an “act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life.”

The gloves are off, the women ain’t taking your shit anymore boys. Wish you hadn’t fucked around with their right to choose just to be a dink, yet?

The bill also contains provisions that would also put restrictions on vasectomies, Viagra prescriptions and colonoscopies, including:

  • The state must create an informational booklet called “A Man’s Right to Know” that contains information and illustrations on the benefits of and concerns about those three treatments. A man must review the booklet before going through with any of them.
  • A man must receive a rectal exam and an MRI of his rectum before any of the three treatments.
  • A man would not be able sue a doctor for refusing to provide those treatments or another procedure if the procedure violates the doctor’s “personal, moralistic, or religious beliefs.”
  • A doctor must obtain consent from the man before providing the treatment, and the man may give it only if he waits at least 24 hours after the doctor’s visit.
  • The state must establish a registry of nonprofit organizations and hospitals that provide abstinence counseling, a supervising physician for “masturbatory emissions,” and semen storage.

“Masturbatory emissions” must be stored for the wife for conception.

Masturbatory emissions. Sounds like the carbon footprint discussion of a mans porn consumption habits, at first glance.

The Statesman also notes that current state law “requires that doctors distribute to women considering an abortion the ‘A Woman’s Right to Know’ booklet, which contains illustrations of gestational periods and the risks and side effects of abortions. Women also must wait 24 hours after receiving the booklet and must undergo an ultrasound before the procedure. Abortion of a viable fetus can bring a penalty of at least five years in prison.”

The proposed legislation is an obvious attempt to satirize and draw attention to the unreasonable and dangerous policy proposals concerning women’s reproductive freedom coming from the Republican Party.

Commenting on her bill, Rep. Farrar told mysanantonio.com:

A lot of people find the bill funny. What’s not funny are the obstacles that Texas women face every day, that were placed there by legislatures making it very difficult for them to access healthcare.

Not funny indeed.

Though it remains to be seen how effective this will end up being (as a publicity stunt), A++ for effort and creativity. And keep up the excellent work for the citizens of your state. They need it.

“Prudential Failings in the Case of Brock Turner” – by The Alder Tree

Not long ago, I wrote a piece detailing some of the concerns I had with the whole Brock Turner debacle, as played out in the media and on social media. Though it was a piece I was fine with at the time of creation and publication, further evaluation has made me realize that I made some fundamental errors in judgement. So bad were the errors, that I actually unpublished (and initially deleted) the piece a couple nights ago.

But I have since republished the piece once more, because it has been thoroughly and cogently rebutted by a friend of mine. I will share his piece below, but first, I will explore some issues I discovered myself.

My first error in judgement lies in the following paragraph.

Assuming that this is the reaction of a an immature person that has not yet abandoned teenaged habits, one can assume that at some point down the road, there will be regrets. Be it 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now, this will likely be viewed in a very dark and shamed manor in his life. This is assuming empathy on Brock’s part, but it seems a fairly safe assessment. He doesn’t seem to give off any psychopathic (or otherwise odd) vibes.

The most important part lies in the part referencing psychopathy. In my comment about not picking up any psychopathic vibes from him.

Looking back now, I am not sure where my mind was at, because there are red flags all over the place. Not even just with Brock himself, but also within the reactions of the rest of his nuclear family.

In all honesty, I must have been placing the kid (and by extension, his family) in a mould at the time of writing, because I was oblivious to some fairly obvious signs. Most notably, how none of the reactions of any of the family members seem to even consider the damage done to the victim. If anything, such references are an afterthought to the bigger boon that is the new problems facing the family. A bit like former BP President Tony Hayward’s “I want my life back” comment during the gulf oil disaster early response.

The 2ed sign, was the pictures of Brock. Most notably, his eyes.

What you are about to read is not exactly scientifically evaluated (to my knowledge anyway), thus equating to little more than personal anecdote. But it seems that psychopathology can in some cases, be spotted in the eyes.
This takes me back over a year ago, to when a new kid started in my department at work. He was a nice guy, good kid, wouldn’t hurt a fly. But in the early stages, despite noticing positive qualities, there was just, something. I disregarded this feeling later (after talking to a close friend of his that felt I was being paranoid. Rightfully, it seems). But as it turns out, over a year later the guy told me that he was apparently a diagnosed psychopath. Not to a severe degree (obviously. We would know), but it was still present.

This admission served as almost a source of personal vindication. It seemed to prove that back in the beginning, I was picking up on something. Even if it was just a largely harmless trait. I fact, a useful one for moving ahead in the world.

The reason why I mentioned Brock Turners eyes, is because his photos sort of remind me of my friend from work. Not to mention, other psychopaths. It seems that even in neutral pictures (such as family photos, as opposed to mug shots and press photos), something is visible.

Of course, I have to be careful here. Confirmation bias made me revisit this piece in the first place, so I have to be careful not to fall into it again. But more importantly, without a psychological degree to back my assertions, they serve as nothing more than conjecture.

My 2ed problem is how I dealt with the issue of the whole situation itself. Essentially downplaying everything. Downplaying Brock’s crime because of his age. And downplaying his victims struggle by essentially saying that she will get over it. This will pass.

1.) There is no excuse for sexually assaulting an unconscious person. EVER. Age is not an acceptable variable to consider. As right and wrong should be apparent by early childhood, let alone the extreme end of ones teens.

2.) I should not merely cast aside the struggle of a sexual assault victim as but a very large bump in the road of their life, because sometimes, they may never get past it.
Some can put it behind them. But others may live with the burden for the rest of their lives. Permanently scarred and forced to live with PTSD, trust issues, depression or other complications.

To sum it up fairly simply, what the hell was I thinking . . .

With that, I will now share my friends the response to my previous entry in its entirety. Though I covered some of the problems outlined, I likley didn’t get to them all.

Prudential Failings in the Case of Brock Turner

By: The Alder Tree

Slightly more than a week ago, MBMan published his concerns about the media’s reaction to the sentencing of Brock Turner. Many of these concerns are valid. It is problematic that the corporate media ignites the embers of activist rage for the sake of their pocketbooks. It is also problematic that this rage is so intense, for its light is blinding and its heat searing. We are singed at both ends, too dumbfounded and exhausted to manifest any of the productive action that this activism aims to motivate.

However, other concerns wildly miss the mark. MBMan has two central concerns in his piece. He is first concerned that Turner has not been granted the luxury of a second chance to redeem his honour by the court of public opinion. He has been branded a rapist and no effort has been made to allow him the opportunity to make amends. His second concern is that the outrage at his lenient sentence is not entirely appropriate given the damage that has been done to his future success by the court of public opinion. That is, activism has wronged Turner in two ways. It has failed to judge him in a prudent and respectful manner, and it has failed in such a way that his judgement is (effectively) permanent.

These concerns are problematic for a number of reasons that range in scope from contingent to fundamental. The issue has tendrils in contentious issues about what we take the function of the law to be, how the law and the courts are evaluated as functioning agents, what our responsibility is as individuals in response to legal failings, and moral blame much more generally. I want to begin my response by focusing on much more precise, contingent errors in MBMan’s two concerns, then moving to examine the fundamental issues at play.

MBMan’s first concern is that Turner has not been granted the benefit of the doubt, that his judgement has been branded into his flesh too hastily. He suggests that we ought to have given him a second chance to prove himself to be either upstanding or vile before we brand him with his crime. We do this with most crimes, but for some reason, we have not done that with Turner’s crime. MBMan suspects that this may be a result of the same sort of oversensitivity that allows activists to brand those who singularly harm their spouse as abusive people, no better than serial abusers. This is not the case. Rather, we conceive of rape as a capital offence, or nearly so. It is not the sort of crime for which we grant second chances as a rule. In this way it is akin to murder, treason, and the like. Rape is such a vile and deliberate act, we think, that those convicted must truly be vile people. It is not like singular abuse, which may occur as a response to a fit of anger. Rape is much too temporally extended for this sort of explanation to excuse the crime.

This, however, is not the issue. MBMan’s first concern misses the mark twice. Activists are not outraged that Turner raped an unconscious woman. That sort of thing is unfortunately all too common and the court decided that Turner was guilty of committing a very deliberate criminal offence for which a second chance was not warranted. The outrage that MBMan is worried about is not, in fact, directed at Turner at all. It is directed at the court. It is a gross miscarriage of justice, according to activists, that Turner was sentenced to only six months in prison. He deserved much more for his vile crime. Others who committed similar crimes have received far harsher sentences. Why is Turner an exception simply because his future success may be harmed by a harsher sentence? What role does Turner’s race play? Did the media distort the efficacy of the court by representing Turner as an upstanding student athlete who merely made a mistake? To what degree can rape be a mistake? Did Turner’s lack of sobriety affect his ability to understand the nature of his crime? These are important questions that MBMan has left unaddressed. I will address them shortly, but I first must examine MBMan’s second concern.

On MBMan’s view, it seems, a harsher sentence was not necessary on the part of the law because it has been dealt to him by the court of public opinion. Turner has been memorialised on the internet as a vile rapist, and he will forever be known as such. He will forever find it difficult to find employment and to compete as an athlete. His life will be turned upside down, and the law had very little part to play in this. This, MBMan seems to suggest, is wrong insofar as it is not the role of the public to enforce the law. Turner has already been sentenced by a judge to six months in prison. As citizens, we ought to have some faith in our institutions in order that civic order be preserved. The court of public opinion is a much more chaotic and unjust place than the court of law, so we ought to be good citizens and allow the law to sort out its own errors. It is none of our business how Turner was sentenced. We will never interact with him, and we have no stake in the crime. There are legal pathways that can be followed to correct the failings of a court.

Again, the problem here is that MBMan has failed to recognise the source of public outrage here. Activists are outraged at the failings of the court to sentence Turner to a punishment appropriate to his crime. What is our responsibility as citizens when the law fails to hold someone to justice? According to activists, we have a responsibility to hold the perpetrator there ourselves. We have to dispense justice where the court fails. MBMan has offered no reason to dispute this responsibility, and perhaps there is no persuasive reason. Perhaps we ought to compensate for the failings of the law, even if the court of public opinion is much messier and more forgetful. But with this, we begin to get into some of the more fundamental problems with MBMan’s concerns. Let us then venture towards these.

Legal theorists have identified three distinct motivations according to which we might want to punish people. We may first want to deter crime, not only with respect to the individual who has committed a given crime but also others who may in the future consider committing the same crime. Second, we may want retribution, by which we balance out a wrong with another of equal measure. Third, we may want to rehabilitate a criminal. MBMan shows concern at one place that Turner will not be helped by his time spent in prison. He will be hardened and desperate, and he will gain future connections to the criminal underworld that may encourage him to pursue further criminal acts. But activists are not concerned with this. If rehabilitation was the goal of punishment, sentencing Turner to prison will not accomplish this.

Activists, rather, are much more concerned with retributive action and with deterring future rapes. This has been the centrepiece of the American penal system for several decades now, to greater or lesser effect. This is what Americans expect from their courts. They expect criminals to get their just desserts, and they are outraged when some are punished too harshly and when some are punished too softly. We may dispute that the law ought to be this way. Perhaps we should take a far more Nordic approach and rehabilitate our criminals. If that is the case, Americans should be persuaded, and the penal system must be radically reformed. MBMan has perhaps rightly not addressed this very significant and contentious issue in his comments, but perhaps he ought to have flagged his seeming disagreement with the expectations that American activists have for their courts. He did not.

For MBMan’s position to gain any traction against activists, however, he must engage with this contentious matter. Americans’ expectations of their penal system are founded upon a very particular moral view of how blame ought to operate. They will not budge until they are persuaded that it is truly moral to have let Turner off lightly. The law, they think, ought to map onto morality such that the law enforces what is truly right. Americans have long opposed arbitrary authority, and with regards to the penal system, the matter is no different. As such, if it was right to grant Turner a second chance, the law ought to have done so. On the whole, most Americans don’t believe that this was the case. Forgiveness is not the sort of thing they tend to care much about. They care about upholding justice such that the wicked are punished and the righteous rewarded. This is the source of activists’ fervour in this case.

The moral case that the activists propose is not unreflective, conservative poppycock either. It is a complicated holistic moral theory. It holds that individuals are evaluable according to the sorts of dispositions they manifest. If they are wicked, they are disposed to manifest bad qualities such as callousness, greed, violence, et cetera. If they are righteous, they are disposed to manifest good qualities such as honesty, integrity, respectfulness, et cetera. The key difference here between much more “European” moral theories is that the locus of blame becomes the agent and not the action. Rehabilitationist penal systems, such as that in Norway and elsewhere tend to exonerate the agent of his or her misdeed, often explaining away the bad action as a matter of the perpetrator’s social, mental, or physical disadvantage, which can be rectified with the appropriate education and care. The American moral theory differs quite substantially. It is the agent that bears the dispositions to act in certain ways. If he or she is disadvantaged, it is by and large his or her responsibility to overcome that disadvantage, and as such, one’s social, physical, or mental status may not serve to exonerate one of wrongdoing. One must therefore be blamed for possessing a given disposition to act in bad ways.

Turner’s moral failings from the perspective of the American moral theory are too numerous to mention. He clearly disrespected his victim; he raped her in a rather violent and callous manner; he acted imprudently and cowardly; he was intemperate, unjust, and unwise; Turner failed to take into consideration each of the cardinal virtues. That Turner was intoxicated at the time does not help his case. It only demonstrates that his vices lurked there beneath the surface of his otherwise pristine college athlete persona.

Turner was not the only moral failure, however. Here I concur with MBMan. The activists have reasonable grounds to object to Turner’s lax sentence, but they have acted imprudently here. They have not taken care that their activism yields a positive result. They are outraged, but their outrage is left raw and unprocessed. It serves merely to consume and not to construct. The judge in the case also acted imprudently. He failed to take seriously the vices that Turner manifested in committing his crime. He failed to take seriously the justice of Turner’s sentencing. He failed to take seriously public reaction. He failed to take seriously Turner’s privilege. He failed to take seriously the well being of Turner’s victim. Much the same goes for Turner’s father, who failed to show concern for anyone but his own son’s well being. All of these are failures of prudence. In this case, no one took much care. Each was absent minded in his own way and each is blameworthy for being so. But there is also another failure of prudence, a much more contentious one.

The victim is also blameworthy here. The victim is not blameworthy for her rape. She is not blameworthy for the outcome of the trial. She has done everything in that regard that she needed to do to see that justice was served. But that does not mean that she is not blameworthy for anything at all. She too acted imprudently. She decided for one reason or another to accompany her sister to the party and to consume an intoxicating substance. She revelled and she succumbed to the effects of her decisions. She was not asking to be raped. No one asks to be raped. But she put herself in the vulnerable position that allowed evil to be done to her. Had she not gone to the party, she would not have found herself wronged in this way. As such, she is blameworthy for permitting the act.

The standard challenge to this notion supposes that this is a hollow victory. If the victim had not been vulnerable, someone else would have been. In her own statement, the victim recognises this. She blamed herself at first for putting herself in a vulnerable position, but then she noted that Turner had spoken to her sister and as such, if it had not been her, it may have been her sister. If not her, it may have been someone else. A rapist will always manage to find a victim. There is always someone vulnerable enough to be raped.

Had everyone acted prudently, however, this is not the case. Had no one revelled, had no one become intoxicated, had no one passed out, Turner would have found no victim. He would remain the despicable person that he is, but he would have harmed no one. His violent lust would have remained unsated and all would have awoken the next day without having been violated. We cannot merely teach men not to rape. We must also teach women how not to be raped. We cannot be so naïve as to discount the possibility that others will invariably intend us harm despite what they have been taught. Even supposedly feminist men harass and rape women. They excuse themselves in various ways that preserve their commitment to feminism, but their hypocrisy is often nevertheless evident. If all men were so upright and respectful that they did not knowingly rape women, there would still be the insane and the akratic who would commit rape. It is not possible for rape to be prevented solely by educating men. Women too have to take prudence seriously. Women too have to know how to avoid being raped.

Thoughts On The Brock Turner Story

Like most anyone else that spends to much time on social media (or even a LITTLE time on social media, considering how this story has blown up), I heard about the Brock Turner debacle. It’s hard not to really, being as I scrolled on past no less than dozens of articles with his name and photo plastered up for all to see (and react!) to. Despite having kept a bit of an eye on the whole story by watching the headlines of the past few days, I never intended on delving into the details of it (let alone commenting). For a few reasons.

A.) I don’t really care (or more accurately, it’s not my business). In almost any other context, the only people involved would be those close to the situation. Not an angry mob of mostly single sided morons.

B.) I’ve seen these viral horror stories end up being exposed as a crock enough times to know not to jump on every bandwagon that floats in on the river of information. Indeed, not the case now. But it never hurts to be careful.

Though I like to be up to date, breaking stories I have learned to avoid (but for the most general details). I wait a day or so, however long it takes for things to settle and a clearer picture to emerge.

Same goes for stories of injustices. Give it a few days. You will either get confirmation and more details, or exposure. Either way, you’re better off.

C.) This whole situation is a horrible click bait money grab. Though the obvious bias of many of the pieces posted (particularly in the alternative \ progressive media) are written from various perspectives of activism, there is money being made.

Maybe this is an unfair criticism. But I don’t like to see anyone profit off the backs of people in crisis. Be it slimmy tabloids viciously following celebrities, TV shows like intervention showcasing an individuals personal hell, YouTubers monetizing videos about recent tragic events, or the news media milking a horrible situation for every emotionally driven penny that they can get.

With that out of the way, I should outline my purpose for this piece. It is not really to showcase my position on the crime. I have already explained my position. And, it’s been done from every angle already anyway, thus unnecessary. My purpose for this piece is more to explore a problem with these situations that lasts long after the media hype is over.

That said, I will briefly cover the basics. So this does not come across as a defense of the indefensible.

I know what happened. The taking of the barely consciousness female companion out behind a dumpster, where the poor girl was attacked. Good for the bystanders that stepped in on her behalf.
I also know of his excuses and refusal to own up to his own actions. Hardly a surprising reaction (given how common passing the buck of responsibility is in society today), but still indefensible.
And then there is the letter from the father, in all its terrible detail’s. Product of a man in shock. Though the letter is still somewhat insensitive, it’s easier to digest from this perspective. It’s hard to be objective when the story hits so close to home. Let alone when every glorified Dr Phil of the progressive community is blaming your parenting skills for your son’s crime (in between “THIS IS WHAT RAPE CULTURE LOOKS LIKE!” articles).

Long story short, Brock Turner is an idiot, and at this point a terrible person. Displaying little remorse but for getting caught, one can not be blamed for such an assessment.
But he is also fairly young. Something that is not an excuse (one should have learned right and wrong LONG before setting foot in Stanford). But something to consider in the context of the future.

A lot of the chatter around this story is anger at the leniency of the sentence handed down for his crime. 6 months. Many argue that he should have gotten the full 3 years.
On one hand, I suppose that yes, you do the crime, you do the time. But on the other hand (to borrow from the Amazing Atheist ), the American legal system is hardly a rehabilitation process. Throw Brock in for any length of time, and best result, he keeps scapegoating. At worst. . . Who knows. Prison is a great place to make many connections with the criminal underworld. Which could become a tantalizing option (or an option of last resort) for a person that the world has forever labeled a piece of human trash.

Which brings me to the concerns that I felt compelled to explore with this piece.

Brock is fairly young. Though 18 is universally accepted as adulthood, most of us know that it takes a while longer for a truly mature state of mind to emerge. Considering this, it’s not really surprising to see Brock acting like a teenager caught with a joint. Because he essentially is one. Though one with a hell of a bigger crime in his name than smoking an unfairly illicit herb.

Lets look to the future.

Assuming that this is the reaction of a an immature person that has not yet abandoned teenaged habits, one can assume that at some point down the road, there will be regrets. Be it 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now, this will likely be viewed in a very dark and shamed manor in his life. This is assuming empathy on Brock’s part, but it seems a fairly safe assessment. He doesn’t seem to give off any psychopathic (or otherwise odd) vibes.

Assuming he eventually comes to his senses (hopefully PROPERLY apologizing to Emily, the name of the victim as reported), he will likely want to put it all behind him. Which is not unreasonable. People make mistakes, and assuming they do not repeat them, should have a 2ed chance.
But that may be difficult.
Due to both the typical treatment of such offender’s in our cultural context, and the longevity of information online.

As for the first point, there is a very counter productive (and somewhat dangerous) culture surrounding first time abusers of which should be explored. It is the notion that is “Once a wife beater, always a wife beater!”. I consider this to be both counterproductive to the goal of stemming domestic abuse, and possibly dangerous to future partners.

In almost any other context (short of unwarranted cold blooded murder), you are given a 2ed chance by not just the legal system, but the court of public opinion. Assuming you pay your monetary dues and serve your time to the satisfaction of the many, you get a relatively clean slate. Pull that shit again and people become less hospitable. But generally, you get one. Which is fair.
However, when it comes to domestic abuse, this rule of thumb tends to fly out the window. If you are a male and many things get to you, resulting in you hitting a female out of irrational anger (even if provoked!), your immediately blackmarked. Labeled as skum, along with habitual wife beaters. Genuine pieces of human garbage.

While I get the activistic anger that forwards this notion, it needs evaluation. If we’re talking about a person that is constantly praying on the weak, then by all means, trash talk away. But when it comes to a momentary lapse in judgement, lay off the scathing and everlasting labels of negativity.
For one thing, even if a person is repentant, it will be hard NOT to internalize such a status after awhile. Everybody thinks I’m no better than a worthless wife beater, so I must be!
Hence where the danger comes in to future partners. This is not to say that every male that hits a female out of irrational anger will end up internalizing misogyny, and turn into the worthless piece of trash everyone assumes him to be. But if such could be a possibility, is it not wise to take a 2ed look at such tactics?

Note: Yes, raping a barely conscious women behind a trash bin is VERY different from an irrational angry outburst. But the point is not to compare and contrast actions. It’s to hit home the need for 2ed chances.

As granted in most any other context

Next I will move on to the information portion. Which also ties in with the last part.

Though Brock Turner and his family never intended to do so, their family has now been dragged into the current day limelight, and afterwards into the depths of permanent internet history.
Like all bandwagons of social media (legitimate causes or false claims), this case will eventually fade back into oblivion and be replaced by something else. It’s just how things go in a world dominated by reactionary social media users that have tiny attention spans and a habit of NOT thinking before they post. I give it a week or so, a month max.

But even long after this has left the mainstream consciousness of the online masses, there will remain hundreds (thousands maybe!) of references to the past acts of Brock Turner. Even when interest goes away, the hundreds of articles, YouTube videos, social media posts and other assorted chatter will remain.
So, even if Brock comes to his senses down the road, much of this information will remain for decades (if not indefinitely). Which means that barring unforseen changes to how personal archived data is handled in the future, this crime will follow him for life. Anytime anyone (like an employer!) types that name into a search engine (an increasingly common practice!), up will come this stuff.

Which means that even if he is a changed person, it really does not matter. If most people look at the crimes in such an unforgiving manor as is typical, no amount of personal growth will change their view.
Which could lead to a potentially dangerous self fulfilling prophecy. One hopes not. But when backed into a corner, sometimes some reactions are inevitable.

After reading this, some of the more emotionally driven and vindictive readers may be thinking “WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HIS STRUGGLE! LOOK WHAT Emily IS GOING TO HAVE TO ENDURE!”.

Duly noted, believe me.

One can not under estimate the recovery process that awaits her at this point. All things considered, we may be talking a decade, maybe longer. But even so, I do not doubt that a day will come when she will have mostly returned to normal. She will reach a state in which this is just a horrible memory. Though scarred, like many survivors before her, life can be relatively normal.

Say what you want about Brock, but its hard to believe that he will EVER have this totally behind him. When one considers this aspect, I have to wonder if this is at least part of the reason for the supposedly lenient 6 month sentence. Brock not only had his short term life as he knows it destroyed, but likely also will have seen many or all of his long term aspirations destroyed. Not just athletically, but PERIOD. Full stop.

Just some food for thought.

Thoughts On Aron Ra’s Femenist Logical Fallacies

First off, being that I knew he held these views for a long time, it’s curious that this is becoming a big issue now. But since it’s out there, I will comment. A comment that will be a both a criticism and a defence.

Though I am unsure what spawned this to go viral recently, I first learned of the situation though a recent Thunderf00t video (and later a SkepTorr video)

ThunderF00t Video

SkepTorr Video

Both videos explore in a fair bit of depth, the fallacious arguments that Aron is accused (well, shown) to have used. Watch if you want. However, I will not go beyond the main issue with his argument (your a Feminist, or a Sexist).

Because:

A.) Its being beaten to death elsewhere already

B.) There are bigger fish to fry

Though it’s interesting that it took this long for the mainstream to realize these views of Aron’s, they do have a point. Its this kind of intolerant and separatist discourse that keeps many of the left’s social movements from being able to accomplish anything. If the sects do not get bogged down in idiotic and often counter productive rhetoric, they go after one another. Become intolerant bigots based on minor cosmetic label differences. Even though these people would likley find themselves allies if they evaluated stances (not just labels).

I have before, criticized Aron’s (and those that hold similar views to his) rigid views on feminism. As such, I will not do it again.
Instead, I will expand my criticism. Expand it well beyond Aron, to encompass a great many of the people making the accusations themselves. Because I know for a fact that many of these people are guilty of many of the very same errors, but just on a diffrent topic.

First off, let’s aknowledge what I call the surprise factor.

Everyone from SkepTorr, to dozens of commenters in both videos linked above, all surprised that a man that they view as such an otherwise logical and rational person, could become this tied up in fallacies.

First off, intellectual buzzwords do not impress or move me in any way.

Logical. Rational. Reasonable. Nuanced. Freethinker.

In my experiences in the last couple years, though many people love to drape themselves in these labels, many do not know what the hell they are talking about. In fact, when I see someone either using these words as a label or in an argument to describe themselves, I can be almost certain that they are just as clueless as their opposition. But for a few buzzwords that make them feel superior.
When it comes to freethinker (and really, the rest of the words), you do not have to announce them. It should be easy to see after a bit of conversation.
In fact, in my opinion, using them as a label seems contradictory. Indeed, this is not really in the definition of the word. But that seems a hypocritical stance, given why your likley reading this (just saying!).

But anyway, many have the hypothesis of an emotional connection blinding Aron’s ability to see this issue clearly. Entirly possible. Emotional reactions do tend to skew viewpoints, which is why I do my best to keep them at a distance in evaluating various things. Like anyone else, I fail at times. But though I agree that this is likley part of the problem, it’s not the whole picture.
The reason why its so easy for Aron (and others) to hold this illogical view on feminism, is because it is almost mirrored in how they view Atheism. Not just Aron, but damn near all of the movements public faces (known and unknown).

The usage of a dictionary definition to create a dicotamy that puts you either on one side or another.

I have made myself clear on this topic before, and thus, I will not again. And I will not try to argue or reason with people that hold this false dichotomy, because it’s pointless. You can not reason with those that view a minor intellectual advancement (dropping faith and religion) as a huge (and final) part of the learning process. But none the less, I have to say it. Aron may indeed be incorrect, but he is not the only one. Even if most can not (and likley will not) accept or aknowledge that.

Despite this, I am still a big fan of Aron Ra. Though many in the atheist community like to portray themselves as chasers of solutions, it’s in reality, a mostly self serving exercise. Whether your debating at any level, or monetizing simple arguments and commentary, you know who the main beneficiary is. There is a reason why I like to call Atheism a brand.

Though Aron and his crew do make a bit of cash in the process of their work, I also see him/them produce a lot of science education materials meant for personal consumption, and to assist teachers (particularly those in religously strangled school districts in southern states). For this reason, I regard Aron highly, despite our differences in opinion. I view him as a good example of what the community could be. Rather than becoming bogged down in intolerance, drama and self serving stupid bullshit, work towards solutions. Starting with secular unification.

My Response – “What Is Racism & Sexism? And The Slow Dehumanization Of Whites/Males”

A friend of mine recently wrote a note on facebook entitled “What Is Racism & Sexism? And The Slow Dehumanization Of White Males”. He has requested my feedback. Being the number of points were dealing with (and how serious my friend feels this issue to be), I figure that this format is better than a long back and fourth in a comment area. As such, I will borrow sections of the piece and respond to them (more or less) in chronological order. As almost always happens in my writings, I do wander at times. But it will always end up back on topic.

Lets begin.

DISCLAIMER: I always have, still do, and always will oppose all forms of racial, gender based, or orientation- supremacism, discrimination, segregationism, persecution, nationalism, pureism{like racial purism}, oppression, injustice, and bigotry. I’m not proud of the accident of birth of being born with caucasian flesh and a penis between my legs, and heterosexual. Nor am I ashmed of, feel guilty for, nor apologetic for, ashamed of or embarrased by it. And I reject racial, gender, orientation cultishness and herd mentalities and mob mentalities. I am an indivdualist- I respect THE INDIVIDUAL {regardless of race, gender, orientation, or creed, unless said indivdual or portions of said group earns my disrespect.
On ward and upward.

Racism and sexism are: the “othering” of others and dehumanizing of others on the basis of the superficial accidents of birth of skin color, gender, orrientation{as in homophobia or heterophobia}. It is also, IMO, ANY consideration of the these superfical accidents of birth as being any more significant than any other superficial indentifying markers{except for in the case of gender; the genders are BY NATURE different, but equally capable of the same moral and intellectual highs and lows, and should of course have equality under law, equal opportunity,etc; but this equality does not always mean equality of outcome}, Racial pride is racist{HOWEVER, the purpose of this letter to humanity here is to say that if non-whites of all races, and females, are allowed to have racial or gender pride, and gays -gay pride; without being accused of racism or sexism/racial or gender or orientation supremacism,etc. Then so should whites, males, heterosexuals have the same right}, racial/gender/orientation discrimination, supremacism, segregationism, oppression or repression, demonization, scapegoating, injustice, nationalism, and purism, all are inherently ‘racialist/genderist/etc”- making them all “racist/sexist/etc”, different manifestations, types, and degrees of such. But if this racial, gender, or orientation group is allowed to have collectivist ‘pride” for such accidents of birth, then so should whites, males, and heterosexuals. And right now, in teh west{and some other places via the influence of the regressive left particularly} whites{well at least white males; white females not as much so because they have a vagina rather than a penis, and for some reason this excludes them from these accusations of ‘privelage”}, males{in general}, and Chrstians, are all being “othered”, the proces of dehumanization. FYI: I am not a christian, I am a Deist{PanDeist} and Occultist, freethinking contrarian individualist. No I am not right wing{nor left wing, I oppose this false and misleading binary} but I do TECHNICALLY fall on the so-called “Libertarian Left”{I’m mostly Libertarian but agree with social democrat types about financial class injustice and it needing to be made more financially/econimically equitable}. Thais all said, I shall lay out my case for how and why whites/males and especially whites males are now being “othered” and in the process of being excessively demonized and dehumanized below.

I do not disagree with much (if anything) here. I have (fairly recently) come to view most (if not all) personal, political, and other labels as being barriers, and as such, not worth utilizing. I go further by not using ANY, if at all possible. I would rather have personal views and conclusions than to feel a need to fit them all into a bunch of boxes.

It all boils down to not taking pride in accidents of birth, or other personal labels that only segregate people further from unity. While its true that labels do bring people together, often this is only for the like minded. The bickering factions of the progressive left are a perfect example of this.

People are being re-educated to think racism and sexism neccaserly implies power and privelage. This is utter social engineering, orwellian re-education tripe mean to demonize the white race and males[and especially white MALES} and diminish them. Racism and sexism manifests in several different ways and types and in varrying degrees. Sometimes on global human history varied races and genders have mistreated each other{to blame only whites/males/white males and prertend that other races and genders have never been guilty or that whites and/or males have never been victims of this– look up “the barbary slave trade’- and get your heads out of your asses}, and can mainfest in power and privelage, but racism is simply to prejudge negatively{or even positively, positive racism is the focusing on positive stereotypes rather than negative ones}- rather than seeing indivduals AS :”INDIVIDUALS”. It’s collectivism and/or prejudice in racial form or gendered form.

First off, a bit of window dressing. When writing a piece meant to inspire concern in outsiders of your typical audience, it is best to cast as wide a net as possible. Be as laymen friendly as you can be without dumbing things down. And do not preside over your readers as though they are all idiots that fit a general mould (“get your heads out of your asses!”).

While this isn’t related to the topic of the paper, its worth mentioning since it can affect a persons feelings towards this paper. Though I can easily overlook this, some may not after being insulted whilst barely into a piece they likely are already in opposition to. Though this is indeed an irrational action (judging a book by its cover), its still best not to make this cop out an option. Force your argument into the light, as opposed to distracting from it out of assumed frustration.
But enough with the window dressing. On to the renovation.

First off, this whole re-education thing is a bit of a stretch. Same goes for the social engineering and Orwellian hypothesis.

Indeed, I have seen people on the left change the inherent definition of words like Racism, Sexism and Prejudice in order to better suit a prefabricated ideological narrative. And I agree that these new definitions often lead to even more double standards than there was previously. Even Jerry Seinfeld, king of the most inoffensive type of comedy that there is (besides Christian comedy anyway), has acknowledged this (primarily) social media driven stupidity.

But as much press as this has been getting of late, I don’t feel this to be an overt threat to society, much less social engineering or orwellianism. This is due to the relatively small community that embraces these views. You can likely find hundreds or thousands of vocal proponents of these views scattered throughout social media’s platforms, and these people do have a strong presence in progressive news outlets (and somewhat outside of the progressive media). But they are still a drop in the bucket.

When one lives in the world of social media (a world where the loudest actors get the biggest stage), its no wonder that these crazies and extremists get so much attention. Which only propagates further as the bar keeps dropping lower, as everyone tries to out do everyone else.
And so, given that the crazies get the clicks and micro targeting at the platform level, its unsurprising that this looks bigger than it really is.

The important point here being that modern algorithms that are in regular use today have started an interesting phenomenon that I figure few foresaw. That phenomenon being that, with technology of today, it is now possible to (in a sense) construct a persons reality.

These algorithms are not new really, nor are they really malicious (though one can question that of their overall purpose, targeting advertisements). Google has been using such algorithms for years in its services (using on screen keywords to better target ads). Social media has just shifted from serving ads (only), to also serving up tailored content. Some of which also serves as ads. The line grows more blurry by the day with some of this stuff.

This micro targeting may not cause a whole lot of issue for the average user with average interests, since it will mean lots of vines, memes, vampires, zombies, Big Bang Theory news (or otherwise a lot of what interests the individual). Indeed it may breed a stifling ignorance of current events and news, but that is a whole other can of worms.

For others however, this micro targeting can feed into an already paranoid (or vulnerable) state of mind. Lets say that a person is either a religious doomer of any flavor of theism, or a believer of some conspiracy theory or other. They already have the tendencies of of asking various questions and seeking out a specific type of material, which becomes the behavior in which the social media algorithms draw from. Based on these inputs, similar videos, links, news and other content is served up. This profile becomes more and more pronounced with further interaction. And sometimes (if mental tendencies and state of mind) a world view of anger, paranoia, or some other irrational reaction can can develop along side this maturing profile. A problem in people that could range in anything from persistent annoyance (to those around the person), right to dangerous pretence. Though traditional media sources have been primarily blamed for a number of recent tragedy’s (particularly involving extremists on the right), I have to wonder if this new angle was considered as well. It is not a cause, but it could very well act as a magnifier.

Anyway, the problems of race and gender SJW nonsense do not come to this level, but ones overestimation of the problem is based around the same context. To know of the situation is to be involved with the opposition in some fashion or another, be it though active participation or viewing from the outside. This becomes a profile basis. Which will mean that anything relating to the subject (#Gamergate, feminism, whatever) will be fed to you as long as you show an interest in the material.
As such, one should be weary of using anecdotal digital trends to measure a movements size, and (more importantly) significance.

It is possible to have an objective viewpoint. But you have to take this stuff into consideration.

When it comes to Orwellianism and pseudo-femenism, typically the association lies in their attacks of (primarily) non-femenists by way of abuse of social media reporting systems. This problem has brought all kinds of people out of the woodwork in defence of free speech. It has also propelled people like Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulous (along with others perceived as fighters for free speech and expression in the increasingly regressive left wing world) to the top of alternative progressive circles. This being due to their choice in sticking with classic liberal values come hell or high water.

Actually, I should say that MOST that are popular in this alternative progressive world are classic left left leaners, but there are some notable exceptions. Steven Crowder is a quite vocal voice of the right that often brings attention left wing free speech betrayal. And Milo Yiannopoulos is quite libertarian in his leanings. Which makes it a bit ironic that he showed up at a Whitehouse press conference to bring up the issue of declining free speech in the realm of social media (seems a betrayal of ones lack of faith in the free markets ability to correct the problem without regulatory intervention).
In truth, this is but one of many problems with Milo’s core beliefs and views, which range right from silly, to flat out dangerous. His commentary on Atheists being quote thin skinned is still hilarious in its truth. But in truth, he is but one of the many ideological stars of social media that has grown popular only due to having a popular viewpoint in one area. This is not to say that we should be writing off all popular personalities of a position (Atheism, Feminism, etc) just due to their medium of distribution. One just has to filter it all though the context of the social media business model. Good ideas do not always get to the top, but well conveyed ideas do. There are likely educated personalities writing articles and making videos. However, its typically just average people with good charisma and communication skills, but a layman’s understanding of an issue. Which is not always a bad thing (even layman of epistemology can fight the ever present stranglehold of religious faith in the world today). Just as long as these people know where their knowledge ends, and their ideology begins.
For example, Atheists claiming that (pretty much) all irreligious people are Atheist. As though it is a fact of physics (the sun is hot, the universe is a vacuum, all irreligious people are Atheists).

There is a credible basis for concluding that there is no god (or at least not giving said deity any attention). But carrying their words definition (“a lack of belief in a deity or deities”, as is popular) into labeling everyone else as such, is dogma. Certainly so for inanimate objects, babies or anything else with no ability to draw its own conclusions. This is not rational. In fact, at this point, it has become about little more than promoting a brand.

Of course, Atheists do not see themselves as promoters of a brand. They see the ubiquitous utilization of the term (Atheism) as the path to a better (and less religious) world. They come to this conclusion due to their intolerance of all other secular viewpoints, but none the less, they think they are the only way. Its hilarious in a way.
If the secular community in general were Christianity, than Atheism is Catholicism, Mormonism or Protestantism. But one root of many off the same vine, but a root with many members that THINK they are the stem.
They base their superiority claims on no more knowledge than anyone else on the secular side, yet have the arrogance to look down upon all but their throng. Its an arrogance that is a boon to secular progression in the world, and a reason why religion may well keep winning many battles.
This is also why I sometimes call Atheism a religion. The community vehemently dispels this assertions at every turn, but the parallels are at times hard to miss.

As for free speech online (to get back on track), this is a complicated confluence of many factors.

Milo Yiannopoulos’s acknowledgment of the risks of feminist speech censorship (as ironic as they are coming from him) are not unjustified. It was only a few months ago that Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn were invited to the UN, telling of their trials at the hand of the open internet and nasty people with little regard for decency. While I do not doubt that the exchanges were happening, you have to consider all factors at play in the situation. For one, there is the obvious argument that comes from the anti-femenist side, which is that fame wrought harassment happens across the board (and really, always has). Many of these feminist critics (whom also have fairly significant reach, at least in their mediums) also claim to deal with similar harassment and threats (if not worse). Though they often cite examples, its not really necessary (I don’t doubt that anyone of prominence online does not at least get the occasional unwanted interaction).
Some make things more interesting by showing harassing and/or threatening messages from so called SJWs. And others really thicken the plot by showing how big names against harassment (like Anita and Zoe) are at times responsible for starting digital lynch mobs against their critics. Though do know that this is a 2 way street (people are idiots), I have seen for myself, Anita start a mob after her her critics at least twice. She may say its “calling attention to her harassers“, but in reality, it was an unprovoked mention. A mention which sent people their way .

Did the UN or Google hear of this? Doubt it.

To be completely clear, no one should be threatening anyone. Its childish, and its not helping to further any agenda. And in some cases (such as in cases of persecution for profit!), its actually making things worse by benefiting the persecuted. While some of the controversy surrounding surrounding the Internet’s pop culture critics may be illegitimate (possibly even based solely on misogynist principals), it is not all illegitimate.

When it comes to prominent feminists that are well known for showcasing their harassment to the world, few are more well known than Anita. Known to overtly travel in tow of security personnel and having cancelled a speaking event over a threat that may or may not have been credible (most sources, including law enforcement, claim not so much), few are more well known.
All of this supposedly unwanted attention did have one bright spot for Anita’s Feminist Frequency charity. The press coverage of her persecution resulted in a healthy amount of donations.

Though some question the usage of those funds, I will not here. What is more important is ensuring that its known that there can be a direct benefit of stories of personal harassment. People abusing crowd funding sites learned that a long time ago. But it though many seem to miss the connection, it applies here as well.

In the weeks following Anita and Zoe’s visit to both the UN and Google, I started to see a new term emerge from the feminist ranks. This term being Cyber Violence. It was previously Cyber bullying (a term that I thought was just fine!), but apparently it was far to egalitarian. Not to mention that as defined, it is not considered as being equal to physical violence (unlike its replacement).

There is a difference between often empty and dismissible threats, and physical violence. It could not be any more obvious. Its the difference between “Im gonna knock your fucking teeth out!”, and having your teeth knocked out. With the continued blurring lines of what is and is not violence, its no wonder that some women make LEGITIMATE claims that they they were sexually assaulted by a glance from a passerby. Promoting such thinking does not empower women, it infantilizes them.

By going to both the UN and Google, it is likely safe to assume that the goal was to attempt to have cyber bullying mandated officially at 2 different levels. The first being at the federal level in many nation’s, and the 2ed being at the source, or the platform level. How exactly this stuff would be decided is the big question (what makes it Orwellian for some).

I have never been a fan of governments mandating out cyber bullying (or just bullying) at any level. You often see it occur after a incidence of prolonged bullying does not end well (what better publicity can a politician get than to be seen making a difference after a tragedy?). But though these laws may look appealing as a deterrent, one should take into consideration 2 different factors. One being the mindset of the young and immature, and the maliciousness of some authorities that are not above abusing legal ambiguity.

When it comes to the first point (young and immature mindsets), I hesitate to have laws as a deterrent due to future implications. No matter what the law says about this issue or that, young people are not always conscious (or caring). Indeed, ignorance (or flat out defiance) of the law is no excuse. But since most of us have moments of realization in our mature years (“Why the hell did I do that?!”), this must be acknowledged as a factor before one starts using past mistakes of youth on permanent records that follow you for life.

Its a lesson that has already been demonstrated in the ambiguity of some child pornography distribution laws. They were written and passed for an important purpose, to help keep children safe from sexual predators. However, when written to vaguely, these laws can be abused by glorified moral crusaders just trying to make a point.

It is obvious when the sharing and distribution pf such imagery is malicious. Such encapsulates your sexual predators, and even those that leak indecent images of others without permission. But the line should be drawn here. At non-consent.

Though (in my opinion) it be best if no one shared indecent photos (especially teenagers!), its just what some teenagers do these days. If its a mutual exchange between consenting parties, there is no need to turn them into sex offenders. They are hormone driven teenagers, not sex crazed deviants.

I should have added a 3ed point to my 2 previous points. The 3ed being, anti-bullying laws make it to easy for the people that can really make a difference to just opt to utilizing them instead of attempting to find a problems source. Trying to wash their hands of the issue as quickly as possible.
I am talking about parents, teachers, principals. People at the local level, people that should have a fairly clear picture of their given surroundings.

I know . . . .Ha!

I was in high school a little over a decade ago, and I remember how it was. Though there were good teachers and bad teachers, most were equally oblivious. And this was nothing compared to the bureaucrats at the division level. Its funny how many companies and organisations run with chronic inefficiency today due to needing to babysit all the branches with an all powerful over seeing watchdog. A watchdog that is often so out of touch with reality that it only creates havoc.
But either way, out of the loop or not, teachers are far more prepared to remedy internal bullying situations in school than police officers or the legal system. Both often only interested only in punishment, not in exploring what nuance permeates the situation (and thus, possibly more constructive ways of dealing with the situation). Laws that often go hand in hand with Zero Tolerance Policies. Policies that streamline in school discipline practices by allowing authorities to behave like machines and not put any thought into any situations. And policies that sometimes directly outsource some punishments right to the police. Policies that in the long run, will do little to prevent further insubordination. Though this would likely not matter to those promoting zero tolerance policies, since they are clearly only in the position for a cheque anyway.

While my school division (to my knowledge anyway) didn’t have a zero tolerance policy, I suspect they did try and wash their hands of cyber bullying back in my senior year. Back then cell phones were still few and most communication was done on computers.
They didn’t allow things like hotmail and MSN messenger on the system, but of course people got around the restrictions all the time, thus managing the network was a game of whack-a-mole. In my final year however, the school gave up on the whack-a-mole method and simply just enacted an extremely rigid firewall which blocked pretty much everything by default. It succeeded in restricting access to things like instant messaging, email and gaming sites. But it also made using the network to do simple online research for almost any topic useless, since practically every other link would be restricted. Sure, there was a feedback box where you could request a site be unblocked. But I never bothered, just settled for doing everything at home (why request a site I will only use once anyway?).
Though im sure the division had excuses at the ready, the best reason I can find for the mass restrictions was dealing with the growing cyber bullying problem by simply pushing it off of school property (and thus out of their jurisdiction). If you get it off of their internal infrastructure, they have no liability in the situation. Its not our problem because its not happening on school property.
How unfortunate (and amusing) that the mobile and smart phone revolution that occurred 5 years later would render such a move redundant.

But moving on, bullying (be it physical or digital) should not be automatically deflected entirely to law enforcement when its on a local level. Indeed, there will be times when it is necessary to bring in outside involvement. But it should never be a default reaction.

When it comes to online based bullying/harassment, that is another beast all together. Though a single forum may have 10 or 20 different people, they all could be scattered globally. Though the easiest way to keep trouble makers on a global scale at bay would be with international laws, again, this may not always be the best way. As in typical localized bullying, outside intervention may be necessary at times. But it should never be a default reaction.

In this case, I think that social media needs to step up its game.
First of all, more resources need to go into quelling legitimate harassment and bullying cases. The systems should be better engineered to stop abuse of these systems by malicious people (a 3 strikes reprimand system?) that bogs everything down. Either way, more humans need to be involved. To ensure the attention is focused where its needed, and to ensure innocent parties do not get swept off of sites unjustly.

Another recommendation I have would be starting to trace and reprimand all that make illegal threats and other lawful violations (death and sexual assault threats, etc). Though the majority of these do originate from disposable social media profiles, most people do not consider their origin IP address. Some will no doubt use proxy’s, cyber cafes, libraries and other locations with shared or public IP addresses. However, I would bet they are but a fraction of all the offenders.

To the rest utilizing privately assigned IP’s, come up with a scheme similar to that utilized by copywrite holders tracking illegal bittorrent downloaders. Social media companies (or an external organization) would internally track the source IP address of a given exchange and send a warning to the account holder of the IP address (though the ISP).

It could read something like:

At *date, time*, a device linked to IP address (shown here) sent the tweet “*blah blah* should be killed!”. This conduct is unlawful under international law. Further instances of this type will result in further investigation and possibly legal action.

Though an IP address is not necessarily an indicator of a messages sender, it should still do the job. If a person gets an email from their ISP or smartphone carrier outlining an illegal communication tracked back to them, you can be almost certain the offender will NOT do it again. If it works on most bit torrent pirates, it should work on would be harassers.
Of course, this may involve a huge amount of resource investment. But I doubt it would need to be ongoing. I suspect this rampant behavior is only normal now because people know they wont be called out. However, if ISP’s start sending emails to account owners, I suspect the behavior would decline quite rapidly.

You will never EVER stop cyber bullying or harassment completely. But you will put a huge dent in it. Which is what matters.
This system would not even really strip away the anonymity factor of todays internet. It would just help to curtail the people that abuse it.

Getting back to the problem of digital censorship posed by people like Milo Yiannopoulos, the most obvious solutions are either in socializing most platform of the internet, or funding/founding an alternative that is immune to the drawbacks of the typical online business model.
Such endeavors cost a lot of money (particularly those involving lots of bandwidth and storage space, like video streaming sties). So thus, people have to decide what THEIR freedom of speech is really worth.

This is how they’ve hood-winked western[and many other places and peoples] society into this white male guilt crap, and affectively demonized, dismissed, …dehumanized whites/males/white males, and into thinking this to be ok or a even good thing{reverse races or genders though..and it’s monsterize, not tolerated and certainly not encouraged}, this is a slow process of dehumanization of whites/males/white males..it is racist and sexist in nature, it is how racist and sexist regimes through human history have hoodwinked their masses into great racial and gender based crimes. Its happening right now in the west to whites/males/white males.

There is a fair bit of ground to cover here, starting with the first paragraph. Like my friend here, I am not a fan or promoter of so called white guilt. Or white male cyst gender guilt as is likely spoken in some circles.

There is no doubt that being of the Caucasian race has been beneficial in years past and present due to the domination of the white race throughout history. Indeed, this history is not always the cleanest (you don’t get to #1 by just being polite). But having said that, of all the problems either caused by or exasperated by the white race in the past (against indigenous cultures all over the world), most of those issues are now in that very context, PAST. Wrongs made by a past generation against a past generation. This is not to say that there are no residue left over from this past. Benefits and
privileges for some, and engrained cultural bias for others is a good example. But for the most part, current generations are not openly persecuting (or getting persecuted by!) the current generation. And most importantly, many are noe in MUCH better shape than they once were.
There is always room for improvement, as always. And one should be careful not to forget the lessons of history (Donald Trump obviously missed that lesson).

Basically, it is neither helpful nor fair to hold present generations accountable for the misdeeds of past generations.
Do not forget history. But do not let it become an unhealthy fixation, a crutch. Though there is blame to be had for having to needlessly cross unjust hurdles, there has to be a willingness to help yourself.

It would not be a proper exploration of this topic if I did not touch on reparations. So here goes.

I am not a fan of reparations, and never have been. I understand the purpose and the philosophy behind the concept. It can act as an equalizer in some cases. But this must be granted in a fair manor, or it will also become a privilege. Those whom are born with a fairly equal footing to the rest of the population should not apply.

Another reason why I don’t really agree on reparations surrounds the underlying message behind the expectation. Call it a guilt driving superiority complex. The feeling that is “Your people did this to my people, so it is your DUTY to make things right for my people again!”. Indeed it is an ugly and unhealthy attitude to take. But it would also seem to bestow that their race/creed/gender would have made different choices (if in the same position of power). To this view, I have to call bullshit.

Though there are many different races and cultures walking the earth (comprised of many differing individuals), there are some aspects which permeate everyone (the human condition?). In this case, the most important factor would be power. As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If you look at the whole of human history and switched around some roles (genders, races, creeds) of those in positions of power, O have doubts that the world would look much different. Well, aside from the differing groups within our various power structures.

Though many of these aspects within us all are easily covered up by the various values within all of our cultures, these values can be overwritten by external power dynamics.
As such, though we will never know what life would look like in an alternate reality, there are enough examples to go by today (various problematic police forces, the military, corporate culture). If alternate world has homosapiens that share out cerebral wiring scheme, this is probably the best your going to get.

So get off your high horse.

My friend also asserts that white males are being dehumanized (or more accurately, that society is being taught/reeducated to think that it is okay to dehumanize white males), O would not go that far. And not just on a comparative (what other races have suffered at the hands of the white race) basis either.
I do not disagree that there are elements within race (and gender) specific groups that do (ironically as it is) dehumanize (or promote the dehumanization) of white males (or males period, in a gender only context). But though these fringe dwelling regressive people do exist, they are few in number. And even if the social media megaphone emboldens them, they will not gain any meaningful traction (legislation). As out of touch and inept as I view most people to be in contemporary society, even I trust that this majority will call out a racist, sexist, segregating majority when they see it.

Don’t get me wrong, the legal system still needs work in some areas (such as in all areas of family remediation and in cases involving allegations of any crime involving a female). But its not as much dehumanization (in terms of the white race and the male gender) as it is needing to iron out a few more wrinkles.

It must be challenged and stopped! It’s inhuman! It’s raciasm and sexiosm and supremacism posing a s’antiracism/sexism” and as “tolerance” and “diversity”{unless you’re white and/or male…we, especially the poorer ones amongst us are the greatest victims of this shit right now..and it’s just getting worse}. It’s subversive and subtle but becoming increasingly overt and and obvious; this is how gencodies and holocausts and mass oppressions begin people…global human history proves it! Wake the fuck up!

First off, there will not be a dramatic reversal of power leading to some future Holocaust of all white people. No one has a crystal ball, but really . . .

If we want to talk about dangers to humanity, lets start with climate change. A new report out recently pegs the majority of sea level rise as happening within DECADES, not centuries. At this rate humans of any group need not worry about planning to eliminate any of their enemies. We set the whole process of the earth doing it for us all those years ago when we tapped the petroleum tit.

Hows THAT for swallowing the red pill!

First they came for the white male and I did not speak up because I was not a white male{or was infested with personal unearned guilt over being such}, then they came for me..and no was left to help me. Read My Further comments below in the comments section FURTHER THOUGHTS: White pride..or at least not being ashamed of being white does not ≠ equal “supremacism”, “segregationism”, “racial purism”, or “nationalism, nor are these other things mentioned here equatablw with white people or white racism. Alot of pseudo-antiracist/pseudo-antisexist regressives{white, black, native, or otherwise, male or female or hetero or gay or otherwise} say these days, it’s a dumb popular trend actually, say shit like “even white people are sick of other white peoples bullshit{and racism, and hypocrisy, and ignorance,etc}”, but you know what theres also a growing number of black and native and other people who are saying the same thing of their own races or cultures these days. Snd there are certainly alot of women that are sick of gender feminist bullshit.

I agree that as silly as white pride is, it is not inherently racist. If based around a superiority complex, then yes it changes things. But no, one is not racist for simply stating “I am proud to be white” (same goes for any race, gender, or other creed).

Idiot?

Likley.

Racist?

No.

And yeah, the “even white people are sick of white peoples shit” thing is idiotic. Like many other trends born out of thoughtless social media activism, this should go away and never resurface.

But only the scapegoating all white people and/or males thing gets any air time or attention[and is very encouraged by people of all races,etc}- and the white people and/or males that do this to their own are encouraged and supported in it, but when people of other races or females say they are sick of the bullshit and hypocrisy and excuses of or the racism[against whites and/or others} and sexism{against males}- they are ignored, dismissed, and the system acts as if they don’t exist[so so do the masses}- or they are accused of various epithets and being traitors to their race and/or gender for it and accused of being willing slaves to “white male racist patriarchy”.

This shit has GOT TO STOP! And be called out more often and more vehemently. It’s racist, sexist, and hypocritical to the core. Furthermore it also belittles blacks, natives, women, etc that are’nt with the race cult and gender cult agenda of the regresives amongst them, basically they’re heretics and black sheep withing their own race/gender/cult-ure and treated as such- yeah apparently black, native, women, etc peoples experiences and feelings and view sonly matter to the pseudo-antiracists/sexists and their “spokespeople for the cult-ure/race/gender”- ideaologues who pretend , arrogantly and presumptuously to speak for ALL members of their race, gender, cult-ure, etc. Obviously they don’t care about all people of their race and gender or cult-ure..otherwise they would not belittle and marginalize these voices that don’t fit with their ideological program who are of their race/gender/cult-ure. This also has to stop. It is often asked of white people how many friends,etc, they have of this or that other race. But I ask of people of other races..how many people you are close to do you have that are white or of this or that other race that isn’t your race? It’s just a fact of nature that birds of a feather tend to flock together. Mohammed Ali once was talking race in an interview, and he pointed this out. He pointed out that pigeons don’t tend to hang with many bluebirds, etc, and ya know wolves don’t tend to hang out with other species or even sub-species of their own umbrella species{canines{,etc,etc. This is true of human animals too. And that was his point and it was also his point that this is’nt neccaserily a sign of racism or prejudice. People of every other race tend to flock together with others of their own than others of another race{or if with people of another race..not others of all races}, whites are no different, but white humans SOLEY get accused of racism for this, even though the majority of all races and species and sub-species of this or that umbrella species do this. #Doublestandards #Antiwhiteracism ou can’t even make a video on yuotube or a page or group on the itnernet these days, or simply state that you’re not ashamed to be white or that you’r proud to be white[and specifiy that you are NOT a racial supremacist, segregationist, or nationalist; just pride or at least lack of collective racial personal guilt}- without it being removed from the net or media and without being monsterized for it. YET, actually racially supremacist white pride people are yet allowed to have their sites and net and media presence; this is to fool the masses into thinking that anyone and all white people who are proud or at least don’t feel personally ashamed/guilty of it…don’t exist, that all that exists are white supremacists/segregationist/nationalists and that therefore…white people can’t be proud or at least not feel guilty about it and not feel the need to personally apologize..because the only white pride/guiltless people there are are these supremacists and segregationists and nationalist ones.

It’s quite insidious, it is systematic subversion, systematic demonizing of white people…basically dehumanizing of it, by not allowing reasonable non-racist white pride or guiltess/unashamed/unapologetic white people to freely express their feelings and views, but allowing the actually racist supremacist types to..to some degree anyhow…and therefore implying that all white people are racist uinherently and all are guilty inherently, and that only those that debase themselves or allow themselves to be debased on the basis of their skin color are’nt overtly racist{but still are inherently}- but the rest…yeah they’re all, we’re all born racist, born sick..guilty of the crimes of SOME of our ancestors/fathers{even though our personal family lineage may never have been guilty of these crimes or wrongs, even if our entire white sub-culture did’nt; because fact is slavery of blacks in the U.S.A. and mistreatment of aboriginal peoples of N.America,etc, in the past, or Hitlers nazi holocaust, not all indigineously white countries and cultures have been guilty of ort supported these things..and many opposed these things; but somehow…they’re ALL, we’re ALL guilty scum, “born in sin” so to speak- but no one else is}

I see the point of those more extreme white pride types with supremacist or natioanlist or segregationist views have{calm down, I’m not agreeing with them on the supremacism, segregationism, or nationalism side of things} who talk of white genocide and “anti-racist” BECOMING code word for anti-white. The latter there is most CERTAINLY true and you can see it all around all the time..if you just open your stitched shut eyes, the former isn’t true…at least not YET. But if we alow this anti-white crap to continue unabated and encourage it and think it good..it will become the predominant view amongst the masses[and therefore those in power at that time as well]…and this can be, not neccaserily but such slow methodical demonizations, scape-goatings, and dehumanizations in human history acrossed global cultures…have led to if not genocide than at least eventual serious maltreatment. This CAN happen win this case..if trends continue. Anyways. Whites are humans too, this shit must stop! Right now the greatest victims of racism in the western world..and increasingly globallly..are white humans. Especialy white males. It has to stop! Do you think Hitler and Himler and the Nazis achievedf their racist extermination program over night? It took them DECADES of social engineering of the public/citizens to get there, this is happening right now in the west to white humans, especially white males{and really..males in general}. Stop it before it’s too late! Oh and yeah some white people and/or males have done terrible things, as have some people of every other race and gender. But people don’t harp on and scapegoat those other races or genders exclusively and look past the posieitive traits or aspects or positive achievement sof some of the others of those races and genders, so with whites/males/white males. Whites/males/white males and cultures have created and done some great things that are commendable. I mean the very enlightenment notions of pluralistic/multicultural, secularistic{respecting all religious or non-religious beleifs and giving their adherents the liberty to hold those beliefs or unbeliefs} liberal democracy was born from first the ancient greeks but in recent centuries by the enluightenment that came from where? Europe and N.America and their allies, white people and cultures, and pratically EVERYTHING has been created, discovered, and best put forth by males{of all races}- more than females{in some times and places this was, IN PART, due to “patriarchy” and so on, but not in the modern west for sure, but also because males as a gender just have a storonger innate natural propensity for this, does’nt mean females don’t, just means that males have for the greater part more willfully and willingly takin on the tasks and responsibilities for these things to come to be, these positive things that benefit ALL humanity} It’s not so much an overt conspiracy yet{it’s slowly getting there}, it’s more of a tacit silent consensus. I encourage you to re-read my note, especially now I added the disclaimer and extra stuff to the end of it. Before Hitler started the holocaust of the Jews, the were amongst the privelaged in Germany and Europe, they were not a oppressed class..at first. They were part of the society. It took decades of manufacturing consent in a social engineering experiment of belittling, dismissing, denigrating, demonizing them..before the full dehumanization was able to take full affect, it took years of programing the society to hate them. The same thing is happening right now to Whites{no so much white females, because they have a vagina..and are therefore considered by the SJW/gender feminist/regressivist establisment to mostly exempt and a protected class}, males{in general}, and especially white males, as well as Christians, and anyone right of center{even if they’re not crazy far right}- as well as of ‘Libertarians”{left or right or center ones}. It is a process, a slow process of demonizations, denigration, and dehumanization. Just like with the Jews{and some other groups} in Nazi Germany. Just as so many times in human global history. Oh and for those so inclined to use my words and facts shared to defend and make excuses for reactionary supremacism, nationalism, or purism, or segregationism as a response…don’t, you clearly don’t see the point. You’re looking for an excuse. I’m not of you, and have nothing to do with your stupidity. You’re free to expres your views on this if you wish, but so is everyone else, but know that I am not one of you and everyone else know that I’m not. Please do not use my words to support your bullshit. UNLESS, my words of reason inspire you due to their defending your/our race and/or gender,etc, but they also cause you to drop the supremacism, etc.

Since I have already covered much of this, I will not again. I will instead, focus on the final paragraph.

Yes, many of the tenants that make up our current day modern life in the developed world are products of white inventors. Indeed, we would not be where we are today without these inventions.

But in an alternate reality where (say) the Latina population were the most powerful race on earth with women as their dominant gender, we would be saying the same about Latina woman. Thus, making the point “Humanity would not be where it is today without white men!” is at best redundant, at worst racist.

As for the patriarchy, it is true that it does not currently exist as it once did. Women are not strictly confined to a life of child rearing, or helping out the war effort by working in the factories. But this does not mean that traces of it are still not present today.

Indeed, overt cases of misogyny are fewer today, and those that get caught in such practices get punished fairly harshly. Having said that however, there are still many areas where whites and males (particularly white males) have a clear advantage in getting some positions, when often ends of in a monopoly. This is not to say that every said disparity of diversity is this easily explained (everyone has preferred careers, many of which tend to deviate at least between the genders). Though there is choice involved in every case, other barriers also exist that must be acknowledged.

That said however, one has to manage their expectations a bit when it comes to diversity. Though having somewhere close to a 50/50 spit would be arguably ideal, it will not always be possible for every sector. And no matter what the case, positions should always be allocated to those best prepared for the position. If that person happens to fit neatly into a corporate diversity photograph on some company website, great. But if none of the more diverse candidates come come close to fitting the bill, than you hire based on experience.

Not to long ago I remember a CEO (or some other higher-up in some firm) created a firestorm online after publicly saying that he would not lower his standards just to make his workforce more divorce. Of course the inept and ideologically driven gender and racial SJW communities online lost their shit and forced this guy to own up to his bigotry. Even though im sure that there was no bigotry to what he said, just the plain old truth that always has been in the workforce. The best candidate for the position, gets the position. Were not lowering our standards = do not expect us to reduce our expectations just to bring in a more correct public image.
In a sense, fighting this understandable hiring practice is itself bigotry. In fact, expecting the companies to follow suit (or face the online backlash!) could be seen as extortion.

But, on to another.

My friend not only thinks that there is no longer a patriarchy of any kind, but also that it has reversed in recent years. Something that he calls the femtriachy.

Its a word that has sparked a bit of a debate between him and another friend of mine, being my other friend hates the terms mixing of words of 2 different origins (Greek and Latin, if memory serves). But regardless of whether you use femtriachy or matriarchy, its irrelevant anyway.

Though I am sure that many SJW’s would love to disagree, they are to few to change anything, and they are not going to accomplish anything anyway. Well, nothing but further division and paralysis of the left anyway.

MORE, P.S.: The clencher for me was wasthing “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” recently and they had a bit where theygathered a bunch of primary school children{white ones} into a room and tried to make them feel guilty for being born white and imply they were all privelaged[regardless of whether they were lower class/poor/under-privelaged, middle or upper class}. Fucking children sued as fucking racial political props, taught to feel guilty for an accident of birth{and the white male guilt crap was a heavy feature of the Daily Show even when Jon Stewart hosted it; and in fact this inoctrination of little children with this stuff has been promient in schools for decades now}, and a recent time magazine article suggesting all white people are born privelaged and BORN racist{guilty} with a cover featuring a white baby.

Let the false accusations of racism and misogyny for expressing these thoughts and facts begin.

I did not see the segment in question (not a regular viewer of the daily show, or any other late night news or comedy show for that matter), and I could not find a clip in order to gather the context that Noah was going for. But if it is as straight forward as is being presented here, then this segment was indeed stupid (among other things). To be portraying the white race as the only race that is (or that is capable of being) racist is, intellectually dishonest at best, racist at worst (you really think your race as a whole has superior thinking to that of the white race? Even though similar genetic makeup results in similar real world outcomes as can be demonstrated, you still think some races as superior?). To bring children into this guilting, I would call child abuse.

When it comes to the origins of racism, sexism and other biases of the human, its a discussion worth having. Though a large amount of these biases can be tracked back to environmental factors, is there a wired in component as well? Possibly a pre-existing factor that all other biases are built upon?

I have no idea. What I do know however, is that if we are making the accusation that anyone is born predisposed to prejudice, then we must extend this generalization to everyone. Though this may not jive well with certain ideological beliefs and stances, fact and reality rarely jives with such beliefs and stances anyway.

That last part may come across as being a bit arrogant on my part (being a layman on the origin and progression of human bias in the human life cycle), but it was said just because it is what I tend to find in these situations. Though fact or reality may say one thing, the ideologue tends to stick with what fits in the box, no matter how cogent the counter point. But most importantly, unlike the other side of the argument, I do not pretend to be correct just to have a basis from which to cast moral judgement on an unsuspecting (and often innocent) cohort.

Feminist Stupidity Strikes Again

I came across this
whilst watching The Exchange on the CBC News channel (of all places). The story involved a fellow named Michael Moritz (venture capitalist at
Sequoia Capital) whom said a very unfortunate thing in an interview with Bloomberg reporter Emily Chang.
Upon being asked about his firms hiring policies regarding recruitment of female investment partners, he replied (directly quoted):

“We look very hard. In fact, we just hired a young woman from Stanford who’s every bit as good as her peers. And if there are more like her, we’ll hire them. What we’re not prepared to do is to lower our standards.

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2015/12/04/quoted-511/

Needless to say the masses of Twitter and elsewhere on social media erupted in anger at the man. And rightfully really, to a degree.

For one thing, GET A CLUE.

The world is under a state of hyper feministic and political correct ideals. Though I understand the message, there was likely a better way to word it.

Now onto that point (time to bitch slap the social media stupids).

Though the message sounds bad, look at the context. The firm is looking for qualified women to join its ranks, but they are not prepared to lower their typical standards just to diversify in the name of appeasing the PC crowd. Otherwise known as, A RATIONAL HIRING POLICY!

When it comes to any job or opportunity, it should always go to the most qualified candidate, whatever the background.
It reminds me of applying for government jobs here (Canada). The application states (paraphrased) “are you a visible minority? All visible minorities are given priority”.

Why?!

Yes . . . but that does not mean I should get the job! If a cook position is a tossup between my metis ass and a brilliantly white male with a culinary degree, GIVE THE JOB TO THAT GUY!

While Michael Moritz may have shown his sheltered nature by way of this comment, its nothing more than an unthoughtful statement.

As for the accusations of misogynist attitudes in the firm . . . if you spend the vast majority of your time LOOKING for misogyny, your bound to find it.

“College Has ‘Safe Space’ from White People Where Whites Aren’t Allowed” (David Pakman Show)

Yesterday I was sent a blog entry written by a feminist from a friend of mine that is a feminist. Though it is a word that is weighed down with more baggage than a fully loaded A380, the person I received it from is far from the average radical social media moron. Though I was surprised that their higher education had them pick up feminism (as if its a disease), they make a good case.
Which is why I do not really jump onto ANY gender equality bandwagon. Both sides make good arguments. But both sides also have baggage. So I remain hands off.

In any case, the article sent last night annoyed me. In fact ill link it below.

http://driftingthrough.com/2015/11/20/the-thing-all-women-do-that-you-dont-know-about/

The post does make some good illustrations. It is not unreasonable to expect NOT be visually undressed by male customers while doing your job. It is not unreasonable to expect NOT to be harassed or called names after either turning down a relationship offer or not continuing a passive conversation. It is NOT unreasonable to expect managers/supervisors to NOT grab your ass or hold your earned payment hostage until after physical contact.
Indeed, I do not know what it is like to live the everyday women’s experience. The closest I can come is my high school dating disaster, and stupid Christians at work pulling the “Say a word for me!” routine whilst trying to work on the floor.
I do not disregard that women often put up with a lot of bullshit from men that in any other situation, would constitute harassment. And I don’t doubt that men can at times be thoughtless in actions and/or words. Males harassing women should be reported and hopefully dealt with (educated!) in a constructive manor. And there is no harm in attempting to educate other (non-harassing) men into being less thoughtless.

However, all this about feelings (you hurt my feelings!) . . . enough.

In high school and on into university and post secondary, there is a lot of space for this. Safe Spaces to protect this group or that from the harsh reality of, opposition and reality. Many making use of these safe spaces are ironically being sexist and/or racist. Not to mention the whole turning back the clock aspect (What do you think Rosa Parks and other civil rights pioneer’s would think of female only subway cars, or other minority safe spaces?).

In life, there are lines that one is completely reasonable for expecting others not to cross. And all involved should do far more to ensure that this does not happen.
More camera’s on public transit vehicle’s of all types (though one hears little about harassment on planes, do flight attendants and/or passenger’s get harassed more just due to the long duration of proximity to people?). More constructive laws to combat workplace harassment (based on education, not just punitive action. Punitive only laws are to easily abused. And yes, it DOES happen, so don’t even try and lie about that truth).

While prevention is important, it is also important to just, let some things slide.
The world can be a hostile place. Reality is not always fair or even rational. Though you may be able to shelter in your safe space for awhile, it will eventually be unavailable. And when that happens, reality will not be caring or compromising due to your mere feelings. I may be cynical from working in the customer service industry for a decade, but what I can say is, your depression, bad day, logic . . . is irrelevant. Learning to deescalate is a fact of life.

All of this evolved nonsense of the positive thinking movement is not helping anyone. Its akin to the many choosing to pretend climate change does not exist.

Go ahead, live your own alternate dream reality. But don’t think it will protect you from reality. Unless banning a term can also keep water from covering the majority of a landmass.

Florida.