Category: Social Justice

  • Western Culture: The Left, the Right and the Tug-of-war

    There is a Romanian phrase, used when someone abuses a certain issue, which can be paraphrased along the line of, “Easy with the Western Culture down the stairs.” If you rush too much, you may break whatever you are rushing with, is the meaning. I feel that recently this is the case with Western Culture in the Culture/Social Justice/Whatfuckingever wars that do not seem to go away.

    There are two facets to this. Well let’s not go to binary, like gender there are a million facets to this. One is that the CW/SJW thing is often little more than a massive distraction, a lot of noise to drown the signal, keep the participants busy while corrupt politicians keep doing corrupt politician shit. On the other hand, it cannot be fully ignored, because aspects of it are very dangerous. One of the main components of this was/is the late/great Western Culture. I will address this, sort of, kind of, with plenty of to be sure and wimpy language.

    So let’s get ready to a-rumble… in the ehm Red (Pinko sometimes) corner we have the Progressive Left. In the Other Red corner we have the various flavours of the alt right. In the middle we have the enlightened alt centrist; the self-described non regressive left; the modern right; the cosmotarians; and a few odds and ends. In the end, we have the battle of progressives versus literal Nazis.  And western culture is at the forefront, it is the gloves, if you will.

    Culture or a pile of rocks?

    To start with, let’s go to Wikipedia, because why not. “Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Occidental culture, the Western world, Western society, European civilization, or Judeo-Greco-Christian civilization, is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe.”

    So, as we can see, Western Culture is a very expansive category. It can mean many things to many people (for some The Sistine chapel, for others The Chive and the invention of the bikini), then and there, now and here. This is why I am rather wary of overusing it as some generic all-encompassing term in a debate. We must defend western culture is the rallying cry. Which one? Which parts of it? To what ends? These are questions I feel we need to keep in mind.

    Just as a side note, I find the construct Judeo-Greco-Christian rather silly, and one of the things that annoys me about some modern conservatives. For most western history this was not a thing, as Christians were highly divided until recently and Jews have a long history of not being on the best terms with the mighty western culture. There is no single unified Judeo-Greco-Christian tradition. Yes, various flavors of Christian and Jew contributed to the development of the ideas behind the West, and the culture obviously developed in the context of religion. But this is not enough for this construct.

    I might state that I am not religious and I see little worth to attaching so called western values to a religion or other in the present, especially since a number of the enlightenment people who developed these values, while most likely being religious themselves, did not approach philosophy from a religious angle. Judeo –Christian means in modern speak not Muslim and sometimes not secular, and it is an attempt to try to co-opt all sorts of people as a collective. It is, as we say in Romania, an ostrichcamel.

    Good church need not be huge. Mind the hellfire.

    Now, for a second side note, let’s get subjective, as the various warriors are wont to do. You may not have noticed, but I am a Romanian. As such, I am somewhat at the fringes of western culture. Romania was not traditionally part of it, or not fully, at least. Always scurrying along the edges, looking in. An eastern orthodox nation heavily influenced by Russian and the Ottoman Empire, the habits, mores, traditions are different. We were of course part of Christendom in the premodern era, and had elements of western and eastern culture. And many a times the leaders wanted more, Romania was always on a long slow path to being more of a part of the West. When joining the EU many said we joined Europe.

    With all that said, I can say I admire many a thing about western culture, and as a modern Romanian I consider myself part of it. But I do not like to look at it as a uniform thing. As a libertarian, I like liberty and individualism. As a human I like security, prosperity and everything that comes with that. And I like the parts of Western culture that promoted those things, many then, most if not all, other human cultures. I am also critical of elements of Western Culture that did the opposite.

    I do not like mindless worship of anything, including culture. And I do not like nostalgia about some long lost ideal past. There was never such a thing. All cultures need improvement and everything needs criticism. Humans, and their societies, are hardly perfect. And it looks to me like all these western culture warriors only use it as a rhetorical tool and little else.

    The free speech war is a good example in this regard. One should not think rightists want to preserve free speech when they did not in the past. Just like the true face of the left free speech movement was seen after they thought they could get speech they didn’t like banned. It is also good to notice that, while free speech was a value of Western Culture and vigorously defended by many in the past, it needed vigorous defence precisely as it was constantly under attack by elements of the same culture.

    One issue is that, as a libertarian, you often are accused of wanting to go back to sometime in the past because you want a reduction in taxes regulations and general involvement of the state in the economy. This is due to the fact that leftist arguing 101 is to scream racist at people, and they constantly try to equate thinking that the regulatory environment was better in the past, that the whole society was better, and that you want all aspects of that society including the racism and discrimination. This is false and should be countered, which why it is important to phrase arguments properly beyond the western culture thing.

    I often sample western culture myself.

    Me, I do not want to go back. I do not like the phrase going forward either to be honest. But, to take the standard analogy, going forward on the wrong road is not a good idea. I want to go down the road to more liberty. If this implies certain aspects to be more like they were in the past, it is not going back, it is going toward liberty. If I find things wrong in the past, but OK now, I want to keep them. If there was something wrong then and wrong now, I do not want to “move forward,” I want change towards liberty.  But I do not appreciate keeping things as they are just because that’s how they are. If they are wrong, they must be changed.

    Everyone thinks repealing laws they don’t like is progress, but repealing laws they do like is regressive. Which is natural, let’s not stop progress towards my goal. But switching targets is not regressive in itself, even if I don’t like the targets. The trick to improvement is to keep the parts that are good and change the ones that are not. Change for the sake of change is not always desirable. And not everything new is good.

    With all the previous caveats, I do believe that western culture is up there with the best that human achieved, lacking as it may be. I do not judge the past based on the future, and while there are things in 1800 I find wrong, it does not in any way invalidate western culture or the achievement of those people, mostly white men who sometimes owned slaves or maybe didn’t think women should have equal rights.

    Free markets and capitalism brought the biggest increase in human prosperity in history. Of course this does not mean that some industrialists did not treat their employees poorly, although governments did have something to do with constant meddling. But this does not take away the achievements of capitalism, nor does it mean that without the big government of today, conditions would have remained like in the 1800s. Society and ideas evolve, views and attitudes improve. And above all, economic and technological growth moves things in the right direction, despite what government or some of the worse industrialists would want. You do not need the benevolence of the capitalist to improve worker conditions; the market does that just fine if you let it be. But I do not glorify the 1800s.

    I believe that the best development of the West was individualism and individual negative rights. This led to liberty and values that lead to a successful life. Through the tumultuous past, I see ideals of liberty as a fine wire weaved through, moving things the right way. There probably is an English expression for this but I can’t figure it out.

    Be a good person. Educate yourself. Earn your keep, have stable relationships, raise you children right (should you have any), and be charitable to the less fortunate. Help your neighbours, family and friends – as long as they deserve it. Be fair, be just. Do not initiate violence.  Drink good scotch. Don’t dress like a clown. This is all a part of western culture that must be not only kept but enhanced. We don’t have enough of it. But it is not necessarily exclusive to western culture and it was not, sadly, an overwhelming component of it.

    The height of Western political though has been achieved

    And here lies the problem that makes me somewhat more favorable towards the pro west-cult people than The Others.  The right try to make of western culture something that it was not, and some sort of sacred cow. The progressive left, and even worse the postmodern left (yeah yeah I know the word postmodern gets thrown about a lot, but I believe it applies), the SJWs of the world are in fact a much bigger threat. They do want to tear down all elements of western culture. Which is stupid. It is more than stupid, it is insane. Tearing down everything means there is nothing worth keeping. This is utterly ridiculous, as they were quite obviously the most successful nations, even when it comes to the stuff leftist claim to care about such as tolerance, secularism etc.  And being collectivists, they want to tear down individualism. This can only lead to disaster.

    Why are these people so suicidal insane? It is hard to tell. Human nature one would suppose. They are so desperate to push their idiotic economic ideology, that they just don’t care what they destroy doing so. How someone may think this is a good idea is baffling. Fiat Socialism, pereat mundus, I suppose.   Red or dead. Communism or bust.

    The moderate left is timidly fighting back, and more and more.  This is not just the YouTube sphere of the so called non-regressive left, but more of the mainstream. There is of course the vestige of the non-prog left, which does admit some value to western culture. These people are, of course, literally Nazis.

  • MLW’s Guide to LGBTQWERTY

    By Mythical Libertarian Woman

    Lesbian: ladies who want to bang and/or be romantically involved with other ladies

    Gay: dudes who want to bang and/or be romantically involved with other dudes

    Bi: anyone who wants to bang and/or be romantically involved with either gender

    Pictured: A “Gay”

    AND HERE’S WHERE THINGS ALREADY START TO GET COMPLICATED

    There’s a controversy raging in the LGBTABCDEFG community about whether “bi” is a sufficiently woke term anymore, due to the ?Gender Is A Spectrum? crowd (see below). Technically speaking, “bi” means two, which means that being “bisexual” or “biromantic” (give me a sec, we’re getting there) is automatically cisnormative (you cis shitlords all know what cis means, right?). So:

    – Some people use “bi” to mean “I like everyone and I don’t care about their bits”

    – Some people take “bi” to LITERALLY mean “two” and they will use this in very interesting ways, such as “I am only attracted to cisgender women and demigirls, WHICH IS A REAL AND VALID GENDER (see below) and those are my two”

    – Some people really only like dudes and ladies and aren’t interested in made-up genders and they’re cisnormative scum

    Pan: Many who are of the first “bi” definition of “I like everyone and don’t care about their bits” have decided to abandon the term “bi” and are now using “pansexual” (or “panromantic” – we’re getting there, I swear). The pans and the bis get into angry flame wars on Tumblr for being the same thing as each other but not using each other’s preferred semantics. The pans have managed to convince the alphabet soup gods to add a P onto the acronym for them. Polyamorous people think it belongs to them. Further war ensues.

    Bisexual has a pretty pink-purple-blue flag, while pansexual has an ugly pink-yellow-blue flag! (YES, EVERY SINGLE THING ON THIS LIST HAS ITS OWN COLORS AND FLAG. It’s like the Panhellenic Council of identity politics.)

    Polysexual/polyromantic: This is not polyamorous. It’s actually yet another division of bisexuality. See, “bi” means “two” and “pan” means “all,” but what if you’re attracted to every gender except cis male scum? Then you are poly, which means “some but not all.”

    Multisexual: One more word for the same thing. This one is the umbrella ☂️™ term for all the orientations that are attracted to more than one gender. You know, bisexuality.

    Polyamorous: Wants to have more than one sexual or romantic partner. I guess this is an orientation? I don’t know if otherwise straight people who are polyamorous really want to be lumped in with the LGBTQQIAPPP2++ crowd, though.

    Asexual (called “ace” for short): Does not experience sexual attraction. This is really straightforward but the ace community is determined to make it about as mind-searingly complicated as the gender crowd. I’m not even sure I can define all these terms in a linear way the way I can for all the rest of them, so just try and stick with me here.

    Romantic vs. sexual attraction: Some asexuals are also aromantic*, which means they don’t want to have sex or date. This is also pretty straightforward. You know your spinster great-aunt who never had any beaux (and no female “roommates,” either) and didn’t seem to give a shit? She was probably aromantic asexual. I highly suspect St. Paul was, too, which is how he managed to be so “wtf is wrong with all you sluts, just be celibate like me” in his letters. There just didn’t use to be a word for it because in Biblical times people didn’t care about this crap.

    *Also, #NotAllAros are asexual. Some people are aromantic but not asexual. So I guess they want to have sex with people but not be in relationships? They get pissy with you if you say that makes them sound like dicks. #NotARobot

    Some asexual people experience romantic attraction without sexual attraction. This probably seems really weird but I think it’s actually not if you think about it? Picture how a lot of couples get when they’re older and don’t feel like banging anymore, except they’ve always been that way and neither partner cares. Their idea of a happy relationship is like snuggling on the couch and being June and Ward Cleaver or something. IMO, I don’t think asexual/non-asexual (called “allosexual” or just “allo” in the ace community) relationships can work unless the allo partner is not all that interested in sex to begin with. Or if they’re polyamorous maybe. Or I guess if the ace doesn’t mind having sex, even if they’re not into it.

    >Anyway, this is how we get all the -romantic suffixes on the orientations. Biromantic, panromantic, polyromantic, yadda yadda. That’s for ace people, since they aren’t sexual but they do have romantic feelings for people. Technically straight or gay is “heteroromantic” and “homoromantic” but most people just say straight or gay.

    With me so far? Because up to now the ace stuff mostly makes sense, but it’s about to get really ridiculous.

    Possibly because asexuality is the trendy new identity for those who don’t want to commit to changing their genders, there are several subcategories that fall under the Asexual Umbrella ☂️™.

    Demisexual: People who don’t experience sexual attraction unless they have an emotional bond with someone first. This seems to be Normal to me, but I’m told it’s Not, so it’s an identity now. (This is not the same thing as “demiboy”/”demigirl”/etc! For that, see below.)

    Demiromantic: Doesn’t experience romantic attraction unless there’s an emotional bond I guess? But like…that’s just…what happens when you date someone, I think. Like, when you first meet someone you don’t immediately go HELL YEAH ONE TRUE LOVE. Even Disney movies don’t do that anymore. BUT IT’S AN IDENTITY NOW OKAY ☂️™

    Gray-A/Grace: Okay this is the one that really gets me. It is:

    sometimes experiences sexual attraction

    but not always.

    There’s not even a specific set of parameters the way there is for demisexual. It’s literally an orientation for I AM NOT HUGH HEFNER. Don’t get an erection every time you see a girl walking down the street? Congrats, you’re gray-A, you can pick up your Marginalized Identity card at your local GSA office.

    Finally: THE A IN THE LGBTQIA+ ACRONYM IS FOR ASEXUAL*, NOT ALLY #GiveItBack

    *”And aromantic!” scream the aros**
    **”And agender!” scream the snowflakes who aren’t happy with the 47 other gender options intersectional feminism has provided them

    Moving on from sexual orientation to gender:

    Pictured: A “Transgender”

    Transgender: You all know what it is. The term is generally just used for MTF (male-to-female) and FTM (female-to-male), but some of the gender non-conformists want the T in addition to some extra alphabet soup letters because they heard whoever has the most letters wins the gold medal in the oppression Olympics.

    Transsexual: The term for people who have actually had gender reassignment surgery. I think this is kind of being phased out, though, and people are just using transgender regardless of surgery status.

    Trans*: Someone on Tumblr started using this a while ago because the * made it inclusive of both transgender and transsexual. It was really popular for like a year and then the meme became that “trans*” was oppressive for reasons. (Supposedly whoever invented it was actually a secret Nazi spreading anti-trans propaganda or something. Or maybe a pedophile. I don’t remember.) Now if you use “trans*” you’re a shitlord, prepare to be roasted.

    Nonbinary: Someone who identifies as neither male nor female. Can use a variety of pronouns, from the relatively easy to parse “singular they” to the made-up but at least somewhat well-known “xe/xir” to a whole host of invented pronouns, such as those found here.

    Note that this is not a finite list! You can also make up your own brand new ones and expect everyone to use them (I know people who have!) under penalty of law. Go nuts!

    Genderqueer: Nonbinary

    Gender non-conforming: Nonbinary

    Enby: Nonbinary

    Agender: Nonbinary

    Two-Spirit: Nonbinary with a Native American flair (NOT TO BE USED BY WHITE PEOPLE YOU CULTURALLY APPROPRIATIVE SCUM ?)

    All these things are the same but they each get their own letter on the acronym! BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPORTANT AND VALID.

    Demigirl/demiboy/demiwoman/demiman: Not the same thing as demisexual or demiromantic. It’s someone who sometimes feels like their assigned gender and sometimes doesn’t. This is sort of the gray-A of gender.

    Bigender: One person. Two genders. At the same time. In practice, this can get a little Me, Myself & Irene. I think “genderfluid” might also fall under this, but sometimes people use “genderfluid” to mean “nonbinary” so your guess is as good as mine.

    Transracial and/or transspecies/otherkin: NOT A REAL THING, STOP THROWING THAT OUT THERE TO MAKE US LOOK BAD, WE WOULD NEVER

    Intersex: Previously known as hermaphrodite. They have a medical condition, I’m not sure what they’re doing here.

    +: Make sure to include the + at the end of the acronym to include any letters you might have missed! No matter how many letters you include, you will always have missed some. I’m sure I missed some on this glossary! People will still be mad at you for forgetting their letter, of course, and they will likely start a hashtag movement against you, but at least you’ll have the defense of having sort of included them with the +.

    Other terms of note:

    Queer: All of us ?️‍? Even the straight gray-As. It’s a beautiful term we reclaimed. YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT.

    TWOC: Trans Women of Color. The most holy of identities, trumps all other letter combinations.

    AFAB: Assigned female at birth (now sometimes called “CAFAB: coercively assigned female at birth” to reiterate what shitlords parents and doctors are for indicating biological sex on birth certificates).

    AMAB: Assigned male at birth; see above for CAMAB.

    MOGAI: Some people are saying we should use this as a catch-all instead of adding letters to the acronym. It stands for “Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments and Identities” (I think). But someone on Tumblr said it was invented by a shitlord (like the “trans*” person). Then someone else said no, that’s “MOGII.” Then the #discourse devolved into a flame war.

    Folx: Colloquial use of the word “folks” jumped 8000% after Obama entered office! But “ks” is such a heteronormative letter combination. “Folx” is so much more inclusive!

    Queer-platonic partnership/QPP: Sometimes people who say they’re aro-ace want to date each other but don’t want to call it dating because they’d have to give up one of their letters. So they date each other anyway but call it a “queer-platonic partnership.” Aces who use this term for a m/f relationship get sternly admonished by the Rainbow Police, and then there’s an epic flame war over whether straight aces should even be allowed to sit with us.

    Sometimes QPPs are called zucchinis. Make of that what you will.

    Pictured: A “Queer-Platonic Partnership”
  • UnCivil Cooks – Let Them Eat Cake

    I am legally obligated to inform you all that I, UnCivilServant, and a straight, white, cismale shitlord as part of a plea deal to avoid public ruination on the charge of transmisogyny. Turns out when your gay Nazi neighbors start talking about their daughter’s upcoming bar mitzvah, you should not ask if the surgeons were required to model a foreskin for later removal. How was I supposed to know there wasn’t going to be any surgery? Anyway, the other half of the plea deal requires furnishing the event with a cake. So that’s what we’ll be baking today.

    *sigh*

    Now, I don’t know kosher from vegan, so we’re not going to be all that fussy and if anyone notices, it’s their fault for not putting more specifics in the plea text. Since ‘cake’ is a very general term and I’m lazy, we’re going to go with a simple recipe, a basic sponge cake. A sponge cake is in the same family as the pound cake with one very basic difference. Sponge cakes are leavened with baking powder, while pound cakes are unleavened. Other than that it’s the same recipe. Well, it says it right there in the name, pound cakes have their major ingredients measure by weight, and as such so too do sponge cakes. So a kitchen scale is a must before we move on. I know a lot of people don’t bother to get one.

    Not really my fault there.

    So what do we need?

    • 1/2 pound eggs (usually 4)
    • 1/2 pound butter
    • 1/2 pound flour
    • 1/2 pound sugar
    • 4 teaspoons baking powder
    • 2 teaspoons vanilla extract

    Oh look, I’ve gone and measured them out for us.

    Ready, Get Set, Cook!

    That chocolate bar there? Well, that will be turned into a garnish later on. [REDACTED] is a great local chocolate shop. This is just a basic bar of dark chocolate, and we needn’t worry about it right now. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.

    So we need to start making the cake batter. I’ve already weighed out the sugar into the bowl for my stand mixer. That’s a clue – we start by whipping the butter and sugar together. I am using the whisk attachment for reasons that will become clear later on. After all, the hardest ingredient is the butter, and that should have softened up a bit by the time you’ve weighed everything out. After abusing the sugar and butter, you get something that photographs a lot like mashed potatoes.

    Not Potatoes

    It’s time to add our eggs. As typical, don’t get the shells in. This may be a grudge cake, but even I have standards. Be sure to scrape the sides often to make sure the butter and sugar mixture gets whisked into the eggs. Butter knife and plastic spatula both work for this – just make sure to stop the mixer before sticking anything that isn’t an ingredient into the bowl.

    Once fully integrated, we’ll end up with a uniformity our neighbors might not appreciate.

    Scrambled

    Return the bowl to the mixer and add small increments of flour, making sure it gets as fully mixed in as possible. Then add our vanilla and baking powder and keep mixing and scraping the sides until you get a uniform mass. Hopefully, you’ll have mixed in some air bubbles. Scoop this into an eight inch baking pan. With a half pound cake base, there will only be enough for one pan. If you’re generous enough to want to make a two layer cake, use a full pound base, double the baking powder and vanilla, and split the batter between two pans. Spread it out to cover the bottom of the pan. I ended up with something like so

    Sugar, Fat, Protein and Carbohydrates!

    Drop the cake into the oven and set a timer for thirty minutes.

    When the timer goes off, we have to conduct the dreaded ‘toothpick test’. I don’t know why people insist on using toothpicks. Not only are knives reusable, but the results are easier to see, and the damage done will not be visible on the finished product.

    Anyway, at the half hour mark, the top looked done, but our cake failed the toothpick test.

    Underdone

    As you can see, there is what looks like batter on the knife we stuck the cake with. So back into the oven it goes. Now it becomes a game of waiting a while, stabbing it again, and if it’s still battery, baking some more.

    Here’s what it looked like when the cake was finally done

    Done

    Don’t worry about those holes in the top of the cake. We’re going to frost it – with buttercream.

    Oh the screeching from the neighbors. Pound cakes are so often unfrosted. Oh well, that’s what they get for being nonspecific. We set the cake aside to cool and turn our attention to frosting.

    What do we need for a basic chocolate buttercream?

    • 4 cups powdered sugar
    • 2 sticks butter
    • 1/3 cup cocoa powder
    • 1-2 tablespoons milk

    Let’s wash up the bowl and whisk attachment we used on the cake. (I never invested in a second bowl for the mixer, silly me). And then dry them off. Cut up the sticks of butter into the bowl and measure out the sugar and cocoa powder. It will form an uninteresting heap of ingredients. see?

    It will taste better than it looks when we’re done.

    Alternate between slow runs with the mixer and scraping down both the sides of the bowl and the whisk. If you run it too fast, you get powdered sugar flying out of the bowl and it causes a mess. Once it won’t mix any further, start drizzling in a little milk. Until the frosting starts to clump up into a single mass, stay on the lower speeds for the same reason as before. After it gets clumpy, you can increase speed to whip it together. The key part here is to watch the consistency and to add as little liquid as possible to get the desired texture. Eventually you’ll end up with something resembling frosting.

    See?

    Now we need to wait for the cake to cool off. Ideally it should be at room temperature for the next steps. Why? Because our frosting is made from buttered sugar, and it will melt otherwise. Now, find the bread knife. You should have a bread knife from when we made sandwiches. Hold it parallel to the surface the cake is resting on and slice off the top. We’re not splitting it, we’re making a relatively flat surface. For instance, this:

    The closest we come to hat tips.

    This is not the surface we’re going to frost. Once we have the top level, we flip the whole darn cake over. There’s a reason for this. The part of the cake in contact with the surface of the pan will be tougher than the interior or top. This happens with all cakes to varying degrees. We’re using the fact to our advantage to make it easier to frost. These surfaces are less prone to tearing when you’re spreading frosting over them. Trying to plaster cake divots with buttercream is less fun than it sounds. So having it not rip is a good thing.

    Anyway, frosting a cake is an art – one I have not mastered. I can get it to the point where no one will comment on it at your typical get together. I don’t attend fancy cocktail parties, and if I did, I’d expect them to be catered by professionals. Anyway, after some effort, the cake looked like this

    You can’t even tell the cake is upside-down

    And so we come back to that bar of dark chocolate in the first picture. It was sitting in my cabinet for over a week, and was very much at room temperature. Room temperature being unfortunately close to eighty. In early October. Curse you unproven pseudo-scientific theories about anthropogenic climatological effects!

    Anyway, since it is soft, we can take a simple knife, say the one we tested the cake with, and start shaving curls off the side of the bar. Make sure you have a plate to catch them with, and be careful about the warmth of your hand melting the chocolate. Well, here’s what I mean…

    We’re not making a mess, we’re making ‘Art’!

    We take those little dark chocolate curls and shavings and distribute them haphazardly over the top of the cake. Dub it “art” and the neighbors will be forced to applaud it. It will bear some resemblance to this here.

    ART!

    I hope Xe likes it.

  • Lesbian parents: Do problems stem from their gender, or their politics?

     

    A 2016 study from the Catholic University of America has come back to the forefront thanks to an article on Milo’s blog called “Having lesbian parents makes you fat” (Milo’s #1 priority). The study followed 20 sets of same-sex parents (17 of them lesbian) over a span of thirteen years, from 1995 to 2008. You can read the study for yourself here, complete with a virtue-signaling disclaimer at the beginning. The gist of it is that the study found that having same-sex parents made children “2.25 times more likely to experience depression than is the general population,” as well as more than twice as likely to be obese and more than three times as likely to experience suicidal thoughts.

    In their disclaimer, one thing Hindawi notes is that the small sample size of the study may be skewing results. I would agree with that, but for perhaps a different reason than either the author of the study or the editors at Hindawi had in mind. I suspect, that with a sample size that small, the odds of political diversity in the sample are probably very slim—and I would like to suggest that that, more than the gender of the parents, may be a large part of the problem.

    The most recent photo-graphical evidence of a libertarian woman in the wild

    As background, I am bisexual and have dated men and women roughly equally (I’m currently dating a woman, though it’s been very short-term so far, only about two months). I generally prefer dating women, and would probably prefer to marry a woman, with one small caveat: lesbians are overwhelmingly fucking lunatics politically. Conservative and non-political lesbians do exist (no libertarians, though, since I’m the only libertarian woman), but like the fabled STEVE SMITH, they’re rare and require patience to spot.

    Lesbians, being both women and homosexual, fit this perfect double-whammy market for the left. It is known that if you’re one of those, your vote automatically belongs to the Democrats; so, obviously, if you’re both, you doubly belong to them. Thus, lesbian Democrats are doubly insane. The vast majority of them are screaming feminists. They’re angry often, possibly even most of the time. They’ve bought into victimhood culture and they milk it for all it’s worth.

    It’s easy to see how a climate like that could affect a child. But I feel this has less to do with the fact that the child has two women for parents and more to do with the fact that rabid progressivism (and postmodernism, third-wave feminism, identity politics and all the other bullshit theories that have been infecting the left for the last two decades) creates a toxic environment. These theories have been particularly strong in the LGBT community, where they became dominant much earlier than they did for the “mainstream” left (fitting the 1995-2008 timeline of the study). And you can see how the symptoms reported in the study could stem directly from those ideologies.

    Higher rates of obesity? Not surprising in “body positivity” culture.

    Higher rates of depression? Remember that this study was conducted primarily during the tenure of “Literally Hitler” the First. Imagine spending your formative years listening to your moms rant daily about how BOOOOOSH (or, perhaps, the real evil mastermind, CHENEYYYYYY) was going to bring about the apocalypse.

    Higher rates of suicidal thoughts? I have suicidal thoughts after spending too much time on Twitter, something I can turn off. I can only imagine the effect being steeped in that ideology 24/7—as a child—would have on my psyche. The study concluded in 2008, the year of Sarah Palin and Prop 8. Not sure if it ended before the Anointed One ascended the throne, but I could see how the preceding months of “THOSE DAMN KKKORPORATIONS ARE FUNDING CAMPAIGNS TO DESTROY OUR FAMILY” might impact someone.

    The “gold standard”

    The issue with a study like this is that they compare overall results with those of other studies that look merely at two-parent, one-man-one-woman households, without considering differences in the parents’ political beliefs. If a significantly more politically diverse sample was taken of the “standard” families (not even specifically conservative, but just politically neutral), I suspect the results look better just because the kids grew up without being mired in negativity. I would be interested to see the results of those studies broken down into leftist families vs. non-political or conservative families. I suspect that the results for the left would look closer to the results Father Sullins got, with the non-leftists bringing up their scores thanks to averaging.

    Maybe, statistically, the results would still show that one-man-one-woman households are the healthiest environments for kids. But that’s also the case compared to single parent households and blended families, and they make it work. And I believe that same-sex couples can as well. But it involves leaving politics (identity and otherwise) at the door, for the sake of your kid. After all, being a lunatic is not an intrinsic, inherent part of being a lesbian; it’s an individual choice.

    I can’t help but wonder what the difference would be in a household with two moms like that, rather than a household with Big Red as Mom 1 and Trigglypuff as Mom 2. A household like that of many opposite-sex couples, where politics doesn’t matter—family does.

  • Civil War II: A reflection on my hot take from May

    Image result for second civil war

    In May, I wrote an article about the unlikely chance of Antifa and the Alt-Right coming to blows and kicking off a civil war. The Antifa Brownshirts were agitating about impeachment at that time, but two months later, they’ve changed gears and gone after the skinheads. While that, in and of itself, isn’t of particular concern, there is a more disturbing trend emerging. Antifa feels free to organize against any “unwoke” social gathering and attempt to get some scalps. What used to be a Simon and Garfunkel concert is now a Dropkick Murphys mosh, and the cops are happy to just sit there and watch. Even if there was just a small escalation in arms between the commies and the nazis, it wouldn’t be noteworthy, except for the way that Antifa is being treated by the left and their media hack cronies.

    As I wrote in the May article:

    Although people joke about “alternative facts,” it’s not a joke. There are two prevailing agendas across the country: 1) Trump is LITERALLY HITLER and A RUSSIAN MOLE AT THE SAME TIME!!! 2) Trump is DADDY and GOD-KING OF KEKISTAN, VANQUISHER OF THE SJWs and CUCKS!!! The left has their educational and media empire churning out outrage by the gallon. The right has their independent media matching the outrage of the left.

    Antifa is smashing windows and folks like Based Stickman (who the fuck is Based Stickman and why is he called that??) are bashing Antifa heads in. People are primed to believe that the violence will do nothing but escalate.

    This dynamic is still there, and the excuse making for the violence injected by Antifa has come to a fever pitch. It wasn’t enough that Trump denounced all of the violent elements in a volatile situation. No, he specifically had to denounce the supposed “right wing” (read: non-Marxian) “hate group” (read: non-PC group). Now that he’s showing an ounce of backbone in standing up to the Prog-Fascist media, he’s LITERALLY HITLER yet again.

    Once again, we approach a crossroads. Will a critical mass of people buy the media’s angle? Will the escalating violence of Antifa be excused away as a righteous backlash against an evil President backed by a malignant social movement? Or, will people cut through the BS and hold both sides accountable for the increasing tension and violence? The first fatal blow has been struck, and it’s just a matter of time before more are landed. Will people give a collective shrug and go back to living their largely unaffected lives, or will they be galvanized to one side or the other by the unaccountable mayhem?

    I still think that a widespread conflict is quite unlikely, but let’s jump back through the portal and get comfy in the Derplight Zone once more. What factors are festering under the surface that could bubble up into a civil war?

    LITERALLY HITLER

    Antifa and their media and political organs are doubling down on the LITERALLY HITLER rhetoric, which is absolutely polarizing and dehumanizing. There’s a reason that people were extremely hesitant to analogize to Hitler in domestic politics for 50 years. The guy was so dangerous that we co-opted an entire nation’s resources for 4 years to end his reign, at immense cost in human and economic terms. When the left compares Trump to Hitler (even implicitly), they’re sending a message to the right, and especially the Alt-Right, that this isn’t just a domestic debate, but a fight to the death.

    The dangerous part is when the left leaves no room for dissent. People on both sides of the political aisle have always been susceptible to hyperbole and puffery, but when the left uses the power of boycott, violence, doxxing, and blacklisting on a regular basis, people who believe differently are given no outlet to vent off their pent up political energy. Much like gunpowder, their anger fizzles out when lit in the open, but when contained in a tidy little container, the results are explosive. The increased “all or nothing” attitude from the LITERALLY HITLER left is boxing the Alt-Right up in a tidy little container.

    “They’ve Gone Too Far This Time”

    I’ve seen a lot of people react this way to the way Antifa has been acting lately. It’s one thing to protest, boycott, shout down, or even make a hostile work or learning environment. It’s a completely different thing to act as a mob. People don’t like mobs, and average non-political folks are taking notice of the mob mentality that has taken hold in certain parts of the left. Antifa has chosen their targets very carefully so far, but one poorly chosen location for a riot could result in a violent response from otherwise unattached people. For most of the unattached, the distance between them in their cozy suburban or rural lifestyle and the violence in the urban liberal college setting is far enough that they don’t feel threatened. If Antifa were to overstep their bounds and perhaps threaten something more relatable to suburban folks (like schoolchildren), the backlash would be swift and violent.

    Widespread Acceptance of Increasing Violence

    I hate the phrase “the new normal,” but it is apt in this situation. Most people see the increasing violence, rail about it for 24 hours, and then forget about it. Like mentioned above, there’s a comfort in the fact that these goons seem to be contained on Image result for soccer momMarxist-sympathizing college campuses. However, you get less of what you penalize and more of what you celebrate. While the average Joe and Jane are ignoring the violent protests, the mainstream and leftist media are praising these goons for “punching Nazis.” We’re going to see more of this simply because there are hardly any consequences worth mentioning in comparison to the accolades bestowed upon these “woke” counter-protesters standing up to the evil Nazis. It’s getting to the point where people are resigned to the possibility of a second civil war.

    Shifting Reaction to SJWs

    The time is starting to come where perceptions of SJWs are shifting from a mix of fear and apathy to abject hatred. The problem is that most SJWs are emotionally stunted and unable to handle rejection. The resulting dynamic is a bunch of SJWs throwing temper tantrums, seeing that their Antifa friends (there is a significant crossover between the groups) are the golden children for breaking windows and harassing “Nazis.” On the other side is the Alt-Right, a reactionary group that makes its hay harassing SJWs and is stepping up its own reaction to these Antifa goons. As much as the Alt-Right dislikes Antifa, they HATE SJWs. They’re looking for an excuse to use Antifa’s tactics against the SJWs.

    Economic Downturn

    We’re about due for another recession, and people tend to be more amenable to violence when they don’t have a job. This one is fairly self-explanatory and well-documented throughout history.

    Floundering Media

    The traditional media is dying, and they’re trying everything they can to get people to consume their content. They’ve long since removed their mask and exposed their Marxist-sympathetic leanings, but they get consumers when there is conflict. These days they’ve gone from reporting on conflict to stoking it, and I don’t think there’s an end in sight. They’re going to do everything they can to start a race war, a communist revolution, and a national witch hunt all at the same time. The ratings will be amazing!

    Overall, I’m still pessimistic on the chances of widespread fighting. I think the worst we will possibly see is an LA riots type situation. However, as shown in Charlottesville, all it takes is one body for the self-righteous leftist media to climb on top and start agitating. Like a high-stakes game of “Press Your Luck,” both sides keep smacking the button, hoping to hit the political jackpot, ignorant of the lurking Whammy.

  • Sex? Gender? Bit of both? Neither?

    [GLIBS STAFF NOTE: Whirling vortex of angry moved to moderation – including this note.]

    There is a lot of talk about sex (there’s a song in there somewhere) and gender in the news recently. People are using them as basically the same, as completely different, or as “it’s complicated.” My point of view is that it is purposefully and needlessly made more complicated than it needs to be, that there is way too much talk of it, it is not that relevant in the grand scheme of things (it really really, really isn’t, no part of the so called culture war is), and, occasionally, I go the route of “oh my god let’s just drop it already.”

    Now this post may be a bit controversial, but hell what is the point of just agreeing with everything? So, of course, here come the disclaimers. This is not a scholarly work and it will not have any reference to studies or other articles. None of my stuff does. I just do op-ed.

    I am not a biologist or a neurologist. I am not, thank your deity/empty meaningless void of choice, a social scientist. I am an engineer and, stereotypically, I hold most (not all) social science in disdain. I don’t see them as reliable enough to be fit for purpose, and most of it of little use, besides pushing political agendas. So this is not going to be in any way based on professional experience.

    Trigger warning: I am about to state my view of things and I do not care whether people agree with me or find me offensive. It may be long, rambling and incoherent. And I will try to include jokes as I go along, most likely bad ones. You have been warned. Also the spell check keeps trying to get an “u” out of behaviour, but I am keeping that “u” in, so there!

    Another thing that I am is an individualist. I believe that the individual is the basic unit of humanity. In my view, only individuals can act and be responsible for their actions, only individuals can have rights and, in the end, individuals suffer when the shit hits the fan. Groups cannot act; they can, at most, try to coordinate their action. I do not believe the group is higher than the individual and I believe a group needs to be seen as simply an aggregation of individuals.

    I understand that human brains create categories and, as you cannot know every single person in the world, everyone will resort to generalisation. But one should try to minimise it and drop it when one actually does know the person. Also, stop worrying so much about people you don’t know, and you will not need to categorise them. I really do not care a jot about the average wage of a man, a woman, and the difference thereof. I care mostly about my wage – to low if you ask me, and maybe those of people I know. That’s about it. While one can draw general average statistics over large populations, I find them meaningless, outside pushing politics.The general destroys the particular, as someone else said once. The average shoe won’t fit many. But this is a topic that can go for many pages, keepin’ it brief!

    Now after ample disclaimers and such, let’s get to it, dive in the deep end, as it were.

    What the ever-loving fuck is all this sex and gender stuff? And why should we care? (spoiler alert: in a better world, we shouldn’t. Unless we plan on having sex. Which sounds gross.)

    We have a bunch of words. Some of them are man and woman, “male” and “female.” Back in the day, words used to mean something. That was their point. An accurate description of these words I got from someone else was “bimodal population pattern based on anisogamy and the traits correlated with it.” Humans, like all other mammals (you and me baby are nothing but .. gah sorry about that), have a reproductive anatomy based on this bimodal pattern, with associated gamete, hormones, chromosomes, a degree physical dimorphism and some degree of behavioural dimorphism. This is good and all, and should be uncontroversial. Ah, should…

    Of course there are small numbers of people who do not fit clearly as male or female, this is quite true, but the number is small enough to not be that relevant for the vast majority of cases. Bimodal in not necessarily binary, and there are outliers.

    Now the complicated part kicks in. Gender, baby. Gender is more of a linguistic designation, which was used to describe some elements of identity and behavioural bimodality somewhat separated from the physical. This was, throughout a majority of human history and a majority of cultures, strongly correlated with sex. It still mostly is. In Romania, not being so far down the road of social science, most people still see the terms as almost interchangeable, although young urban progressives are working hard to change this.

    In the modern mind of the social justice crowd, gender has been completely separated from sex, which makes it much more flexible, not being bound by any biological limit. I would say good luck to em, use it whatever way you want. But keep in mind that being so flexible and undefined, in time there will be little to separate gender from a personality type, a mood, a fashion statement.

    This brings me to my main question: What is the goddamn point of even having it? Sex is a clear biological designation. It is needed as human sexuality is strongly linked to it. There can be medical reasons – different treatments, ailments, etc. based. Males will not get ovarian cancer.

    But what is the goddamn point of gender? They say gender, as different than sex, is a valid concept, but I just don’t see it, especially unless quite clearly defined and delimited. Unless it is to utterly confuse everything. If it has no biological boundaries, no conceptual boundaries, no nothing, then yes, you can identify with any of the 33,498,227,345,456 genders. But what is the use of it, at this point? If there were 2 or 3 or 7 genders with specific designations, I would see it. But if it is a vast, continuous spectrum, there’s no point to it. Each has his own personality. Leave it at that.

    Well, what about gender roles? What about them? Fuck gender roles as well. Do whatever the hell you want, just leave me be while doing it (unless you are an attractive female and what you want to do is me, in that case you can bother me about it).

    Sex is a biological descriptive category, which is now turned by progressive in an oppressive prescriptive category. Which leads them to the conclusion blank slaters get about everything: it is a social construct. One example is having gender supersede sex, as far as sexual desire and behaviour. Sexual attraction and behaviour is based on biological sex and anatomical features, whatever those may be. Now I am a bit of a shitlord. I believe in biological difference between men and women. I also believe sucking a penis is gay, even if it identifies as vagina. And I also strongly believe there is nothing wrong with that, if that sort of thing is your bag.

    That being said I am the epitome of live and let live. I don’t care. My only problem is that fewer and fewer people seem to take this approach. I let them live, but they won’t let me. This is annoying, especially since besides activist profiting for this, all this drama is not helping anyone.

    I have no problem with people switching sex, gender, what-goddamn-ever. Out of politeness, I am willing to treat them with respect. But there are more and more attempts to codify this into law, and with that I have a problem. I would not, were I a business owner, refuse to employ someone because they are transgender. But I do believe it is the right of some other business owner to do so, for whatever reason they may have.

    Now, although I have no problem with it, I do think that sex is a biological reality and you cannot truly change it. I think there is a mental problem with someone who thinks they are of a different sex. This is not, of course, any reason to disrespect or bully someone, just like you would not bully someone with autism.  I think it is awful issue to have. I cannot imagine how it feels, but it must be very bad to feel like you are in the wrong body. But that cannot change my view that reality is reality.

    There are brain morphology issues that may actually justify this belief, beyond a vague notion of mental illness. But I cannot see how mutilating one’s body in a significant and irreversible fashion is not the result of having a serious problem. Although I accept that this process may actually help the person, it may be a drastic treatment, but treatment nonetheless. Chemotherapy can also be debilitating. That being said, I am highly circumspect about it being applied to prepubescent children, who may be confused as much as anything else.

    But I do think bodily mutilations can be ehm… problematic in general. Speaking of mutilation, I also think most piercings in general are terribly unattractive. Tattoos I am split on, I have seen some sexy tattoos, but overall most are not. Also, if male, you should not get a tattoo unless you can deadlift twice your bodyweight, at least; nothing worse than tattoos on guys with no muscle. And those people who want to look like lizards and such are crazier than most. But this is all beside the point.

    So, in conclusion, you do you, have sex with whomever you want (as long as they want to, as well, obviously) and ignore all this gender crap, would be my advice. Also no piercings.

    Now… feel free to school me on what I got wrong in the comments. Give it to me, so to speak.

  • Offense, harm and free speech – a confederacy of wimps

    10″The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” – H. L. Mencken

    Let’s start with a couple of quick, short, non-scholarly definitions. What is free speech? I would say the right to express whatever you goddamn feel like. Wait a damn minute! “Obscene speech is not free speech!” (it like totally is), “hate speech is not free speech!” (I beg to differ) or “you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater!” (I tried it once, it seems I could).

    Great Balls of You Cant Say That

    Is hate speech really free speech? Mea culpa, as the ancient Dacians used to say. There is, in fact, no such thing as hate speech, as there is no possible objective definition of it. There is no such thing as obscene speech, intolerant speech, and offensive speech. All these things are in the ear of the behearer (yes, I know it’s not a word, it be jokes). There is, in fact, such a thing as fire.

    To support speech which is free is specifically about the one you personally find offensive and disagreeable. It’s no great feat, no feat at all, to graciously allow speech you agree with. The whole goddamn point is to defend the “bad speech”. And I do not mean “a bit rude, but makes a good point”. I mean gratuitously stupid and offensive speech, the one that is nowhere near a good point, which is offensive just to be offensive, just to push boundaries, contradictory and half-baked, vile and inflammatory. This is the litmus test of free speech. Respecting speech when you just can’t even.

    Here is a good place to state that I am one of the good guys, an ally (Or is it axis? I get confused) and I do not agree with any speech anyone might find offensive, although I think they have the right to say it, and please buy me cocktails – nothing too sweet and girly, mind, an old fashioned works, or maybe a Sazerac. I had a decent cocktail once with rye whiskey, bitters and something called Sirop de Picon, but this is all besides the point.

    The main issue of free speech is not of theaters, but of government. Whether private individuals can set rules in their private sphere – I can kick you out of my home if I don’t like what you say – government should not attempt to ban speech in the public sphere. This is understood by some, not by others.

    But! There is often a but, and this one is sort of thicc. The fact you can avoid speech you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so. It is good to strive towards a society where the government respects freedom and expression by law and private parties respect it by custom. Yes, twitter/youtube/facebook can and often do police speech on their platforms, as is their right. But maybe, just maybe, it is a bad idea to do so. And while it is not directly a right infringement, they can be criticized for this.

    I Had the Right to Remain Silent…But I Didn’t Have the Ability”  – Ron White

    Private actors, people and companies, can deny a “platform” to speech they don’t like, but I believe people should have the default view of: let’s hear the asshole out. If you are confident in your opinion, you can listen to another one, no matter how shitty. One grows by being exposed to as many ideas as possible, as opposed to avoiding anything different, while screaming to lung capacity about how stupid or ignorant or hateful others are. I always found it quite amazing how certain some are of the superiority of their views, when they refuse to even attempt to understand others. It is like the view you developed in high school, probably the very first one you came across, was perfect and there is no need for further inquiry.

    Just shake it off, or something

    All that being said, it is every snowflake’s right to insulate xerself in whatever echo chamber xir chooses. I think it is stupid, but you do you and like whatever. Fine, but–ehm–how about speech that is violence and promotes actual harm? I feel threatened! That tweet is literally violence! Check mate, free speechers!

    I do not have much shit to give in general, but sometimes I worry about our society and the people in it. How, well… soft everyone is becoming, how delicate, how fragile, how lacking in introspection and self-awareness some people are. Like or loath Nassim Taleb, there is something to be said of antifragility. Or resilience.

    In the new intersectional reality, it has become a mark of social status to claim victimhood. Everyone wants as many oppression brownie points as possible. I do not understand this and do not think it is healthy. Time was, it was a matter of pride to overcome adversity. You had it real tough and you made, conquered every obstacle. Now it seems to be the opposite. This is not the way forward. Victim status was something to be avoided and conquered, not celebrated, because the individual gains most from overcoming adversity, not whining about it.

    The most annoying thing is that for a good number of these people there is no adversity. They try so hard to claim oppression – the very thing one should overcome – when none exists. But what are the optics of that? How does it help women, for example, when some feminist screams hysterically about everything? Makes ’em look real rational, doesn’t it? Claiming you can’t handle even mildly offensive speech. I get they are professional activists and this is their bread and butter – screaming hysterically and grievance mongering – and most likely they don’t give a shit beyond themselves, but do they think it is a good look?

    How weak are you, how pathetic, if I may be a little harsh, to claim online speech is literally violence and caused you real harm? And this is not about credible threats. It rarely is. How incapable of self-control are we if hearing an opinion – no matter how bad it may be – makes us feel threatened, fearing for our safety? Or causes a breakdown? Or mental illness, PTSD, whatever. Rotting in a trench and hearing bad things are basically the same.

    Look a bit at human history. I’ll wait. People have gone through some bad shit. War, famine, disease, genocides, gulags, torture and suffering we cannot fathom. And we get all up in arms about tweets? Seriously? Of course, each society has its problems and things to improve. I am not saying that because we have it better than 100 years ago, we should never complain or not try to improve things. Constant improvement is a goal. But just a wee bit of perspective here and there does not hurt. And you hurt no one as much as yourself by being a snowflake.

    Safety used to mean you are not in imminent danger of bodily harm. Now it somehow means not hearing what you don’t want to hear. How did society get to that point? How the hell can opinions trigger PTSD in people with no imaginable reason to have PTSD? And if they do have it, we need to see how in the modern world people are so mollycoddled as to get PTSD for no apparent reason.

    Now, I perfectly realize all this shit is massively over-represented over the interwebs and it is not a representation of general society. Yet. But it is growing and should be nipped in the bud. And sadly, it is growing more than usual in schools.

    Offense is purely subjective, and it is taken meaninglessly in most contexts. Being offended – and this goes for most people – is bullshit 99% of the damn time, and it leads to a lot of unnecessary drama. Just shake it off, as the philosophers say. And this comes from someone who is very far from the stereotypical tough guy.  Seriously. Some asshole said this and that? Fuck him, who cares?

  • Civil War II: A Trump Impeachment?

    Image result for russiaIt’s really amusing watching the MSM twist their panties in a wad trying to connect Trump to Russia. They’ve gotten the smallest amount of traction and the chants for Trump’s head have started. Besides the fact that the original Trump to Russia connection is based on innuendo and suggestion, the witch hunt has broadened out into a general search for any connection between Trump and the entire nation of Russia. Like a brain damaged chihuahua, the media chants “Russia! Russia! Russia!” hoping beyond hope that they will scare the GOP and Trump into submission. “We can finally control the renegade!” they think, as they piss away the last of their credibility.

    Although people joke about “alternative facts,” it’s not a joke. There are two prevailing agendas across the country: 1) Trump is LITERALLY HITLER and A RUSSIAN MOLE AT THE SAME TIME!!! 2) Trump is DADDY and GOD-KING OF KEKISTAN, VANQUISHER OF THE SJWs and CUCKS!!! The left has their educational and media empire churning out outrage by the gallon. The right has their independent media matching the outrage of the left.

    Antifa is smashing windows and folks like Based Stickman (who the fuck is Based Stickman and why is he called that??) are bashing Antifa heads in. People are primed to believe that the violence will do nothing but escalate.

    I tend to be quite skeptical of claims that the next civil war is about to start. Like the Rapture, many people have predicted a civil war, only to be laughably wrong.

    However, let’s travel through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of derp. A journey into a scandalous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Derplight Zone!

    TrumpalumpitydumpatrumpThis is Donald. Donald is a normal man, somewhat spoiled, somewhat outspoken. Donald has been a real estate mogul for the last few decades, accumulating a vast amount of wealth and notoriety. Recently, Donald was chosen to be the sacrificial lamb of the GOP to allow Hillary Clinton to ascend to her rightful place as Grand Master of the Lizard People The First Female President of the United States. However, something went wrong. Horribly wrong. Donald had an energy that transfixed the public, and nobody could explain it. Donald became President.

    Okay, I can’t keep the Twilight Zone schtick up, but let’s continue to investigate why this latest push to impeach could lead to a civil war. There is one big reason why: Trump’s election was an unexpected boon to a class of people that have felt trod over by the political elites for decades. People most fiercely defend unexpected gains, especially when it is threatened by their enemy. The Alt-Right has ascended and has labeled Trump as their knight in shining armor, here to wipe out the scourge of establishment politics and social justice. The Fascist Left has also ascended, using Hitlerian tactics while decrying Trump as literally Hitler. While an escalation of rhetoric isn’t a sure sign of war, it is a prerequisite.

    The desperation seen on both sides is significantly more concerning. Antifa Nazis have normalized mob violence and intimidation as protest tactics, and Alt-Righters have responded in kind. This powder keg is gonna blow at some point, and we’re gonna get another Kent State. The question then becomes what happens in response to the deaths of 5 or 10 rioters (of either side). Everything in my mind and heart tells me that a crisis like that would boil up for a few weeks and slowly subside. However, what if it didn’t? What if it boiled up into a tempest?

    I think it’s unlikely but possible that this could happen. Either Antifa is gonna beat some people to death, or the Alt-Righters are going to start shooting when Antifa gets violent in the wrong town. This could escalate to people seeking out the melee to contribute, which could escalate to large-scale violence between groups of people. . . also known as a battle. From there, things could snowball into nationwide insurrection.

    Obviously, I find this quite improbable, but the increasing violence and radical rhetoric inspire some unlikely thoughts.

  • In Search of Equality

    Most people care a lot about equality. References to it abound in national mottoes and constitutions. But what do people really mean when they talk about equality?

    Surely they know people are unequal in countless ways already: strength, intelligence, looks, height, gender, age, and so on. It is impossible to equalize people in these areas, outside of science fiction. So the only way people can be equal in a meaningful way is if they are held to the same standard.

    But some people don’t like that. In particular, it bothers them a great deal that some are rich and others are poor. Others demand that people they perceive as inferior be treated differently.

    I once saw a very interesting video of an experiment with monkeys. There were two monkeys in separate cages but close enough to see each other. They had tokens in their cages, and the trainers had taught the monkeys to hand them the tokens in exchange for a cucumber slice. But then they started giving one monkey grapes instead of cucumbers. Monkeys like cucumbers, but they love grapes. The other monkey began throwing back the cucumber slices at the trainers when it was not getting “equal pay for equal work.”

    It appears that primates have a kind of instinct for fairness. People are similar, except that they become angry in response to things they merely *perceive* as unfair. Social justice has become the new catchphrase for this group, though they most shy away from explaining how it differs from regular justice.

    Imagine your boss calls you to his office and tells you you’ve been doing great work this year and so decides to give you a bonus of $5,000. You walk out of the office feeling amazing. A coworker notices and asks what you’re so happy about. You tell him about the bonus and he replies, “Oh, I got $10,000 and so did everyone else.” You would probably instantly become angry. But why? You’re still richer than you were before. Why would it upset you that others are doing better? Their greater success did not cause your lesser success. You’d probably be angry because you’d say to yourself you’re just as good as them and so deserve the same – even if this wasn’t true.

    The easiest way to be unhappy is to compare yourself to other people. This is why many religions teach that envy is a sin.

    Communist countries, too, tried to eliminate envy by making everyone equal. There was an inherent contradiction in this. If you put a group in charge of equalizing people, you have created a new form of inequality. There are many jokes about this from the USSR:

    In the US, the rich become powerful, but in the USSR, the powerful become rich.

    In capitalism, man exploits man, but in socialism, it’s the other way around.

    One joke I particularly like is the story of a bunch of triumphant Bolsheviks rejoicing in the streets after they hear of the revolution. They ask an old woman why she isn’t rejoicing, that soon there will be no more rich people. The old woman says “I thought the point of the revolution was that there would be no more *poor* people.”

    Although it often rubs us the wrong way when we see someone doing better than us, it’s important to resist the urge to bring them down. When people are free to be the best they can be, the result is better goods and services for everyone.

    Finally, it’s important to realize that money and power always find each other, no matter how hard we try to keep them apart. The only answer to this is for people to believe that there should be strict limits on the government’s power and that people should be free to live as they want. Aristotle said justice consists of“treating equals equally, and unequals unequally.” Anything else is unjust and stupid.

    Freedom does not guarantee happiness, but forced equality guarantees misery.

  • Transmogrification and Projection

    What was once a humorous but true observation has become a blatant tactic with the Left: everything they do is about projection.

    The 24-minute news cycle is currently obsessed with transsexual and transgender rights because the President rescinded an awful “Dear Colleague” letter that was fraught with more danger than just who uses what bathroom.  Naturally, of course, the Right, being stupid, latched immediately onto talking about who uses what bathroom, but I digress.

    The Left fell in love with the term and promptly used it obsessively, wrongly, and beat its usefulness into the turf.  The Left accuses anyone who dares questions the rationality or wisdom of a “victim’s” feelings of “gaslighting” that person. Gaslighting, however, is not about refuting or mocking the fee-fees of a humorless 19-year-old twat (gender neutral) on Twitter.   Gaslighting is actually a systematic form of abuse which causes the victim to question his own memory, his own recollection of facts, his own judgment and perception.  When I think of a campaign to systematically undermine known facts, rational thought processes, and good judgment, one political and cultural group stands out to me.

    Naturally, the Left is whinging about gaslighting (without using the term correctly) while actually gaslighting the American public about gender and sexuality.  If you are one of those crazy regressives who thinks there are two biological sexes, and those two sexes (male and female) happen to correspond neatly to “socialized” gender roles (men and women) that have evolved over thousands of years and generally hold true across cultures and civilizations, boy are you in for it.  The Left is willing to Madred you until you squeal, “There are 1,000 genders!” We have actually come to the point where it is considered bigoted and awful to repeat biological, historical, psychological, and sociological facts.

    I am sure, to no one’s surprise, my feelings on transgenderism and transsexuality will make me first against the wall when the First Internationale – United States Edition convenes its Comintern. I am a semi-educated layman on psychological disorders, and Gender Identity Disorder — I mean, Gender Dysphoria — fits fairly neatly into the class of problems called psychotic disorders.  I am not the only one to think so, and the evidence is pretty compelling.  For example, a study conducted in the Netherlands, a country notably “progressive” on this issue, found that GID/GD was the primary diagnosis in only 39% of psychologists’ patients.  For the other 61%, it turned out,  “cross-gender identification was comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.”  Another paper in The Journal of Psychiatric Research found that 71% of GID sufferers had or currently have an Axis I psychological disorder, and wrote, “Lifetime psychiatric comorbidity in GID patients is high, and this should be taken into account in the assessment and treatment planning of GID patients.” The paper rightly points out this may be a chicken-egg problem:  are GD sufferers’ additional psychiatric symptoms caused by the high stress of having GD, or does the comorbidity of Mood and Dissoaciative Disorders with GD prove GD is a kind of psychosis that “travels along” with mentally ill patients?  Given the aforementioned Dutch study, where only 39% of GD sufferers had it as a primary diagnosis, I know which side I’m taking.

    Science!

    It’s important to note GD remarkably mirrors Body Integrity Identity Disorder.  If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say it is rather convenient the DSM-V renamed Gender Identity Disorder at around the same time Body Integrity Identity Disorder was named as such, but fortunately for you, I’m off Alex Jones duty this week.

    All kidding aside, the parallels between GID/GD and BIID are obvious.  You suffer from a delusion, despite biological and social evidence, that your body is “wrong” somehow, and the only way to fix it is to radically alter it.